Talk:Ezra Levant/Archive 1

Not hagiographic enough

There's still too much negativity in this article. No one has made any effort to document Ezra Levant's dashing good looks, charming dimples and elvin qualities, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.167.12 (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Supporting the Reform Party of Canada even as a teenager"

So as a teenager, being able to support a grassroots right wing party put him into some weird vortex? I think this little statement needs to be culled. I'd do it myself, but I think we should 'discuss' this. Phobal (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

what kind of Conservative?

Cyberboomer was quite right, I think, to object to "He is considered to be right-wing by Canadian standards", which is not npov. But I wonder whether a reader wouldn't be well served to know early on that Ezra is on right-wing side. I've tried to capture this here. Tweak away.Bucketsofg 00:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

-right wing is a subjective term, however. a right winger to a German is going to be a lot different than to a Canadian. Phobal (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

cruise

I agree with Cyberboomer's doubts about whether Mercer's version of Ezra's cruise is appropriate for an encyclopedia. I've gone ahead and deleted it, though some might be able to make a case for keeping it. Bucketsofg 00:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be left in or at least refered to. His role as a Cruise director should be just as important to his wiki article as his role as a journalist. IMHO the fact that a national political satirist such as Rick Mercer lampoons it, adds to it's relevince.

I think that saying he is a 'cruise director' is a bit misleading. What he did was organize one cruise. 'Cruise director' implies that he does this for a living, which he doesn't. And he does, for better or worse, make his living as a journalist/publisher. Perhaps one sentence along the lines of 'When Levant and the Western Standard organized a cruise featuring conservative speakers, his efforts were satirized by Rick Mercer (with link)'?

support for Day

I re-inserted this sentence, which had been edited out: "During the leadership race for the new Canadian Alliance party, Levant supported Stockwell Day". His support for Day during this period is relevant and important, since it gives context for his appointment and subsequent support. (One could also add that he was best man at Logan Day's wedding and described himself as a 'Stockaholic' on public television.) Bucketsofg 15:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

levant left the party in may of 1999 to work at the national post. he did not participate in the leadership race of the summer of 2000 except in his capacity as a post editorialist. he did not join day until after the leadership and election were over, in 2001. the stockaholic comment came after he returned to the hill

harper asked levant to step aside and he refused and held a press conference to announce that refusal. after two days of public pummeling he sent out a press release to resign

Peterparker 02:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's good enough for me. Bucketsofg 04:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jewishness

Someone deleted the fact that Ezra is Jewish. Should this be included? It is relevant to several parts of his career: when Day was accused of tolerating anti-semitism in his pre-political career, Ezra invoked his own Jewishness (and closeness to the family) to defend him; the Danish cartoons, too.

[He is categorized under "Jewish Canadians" which is visible at the bottom of the page. Is that explicit enough?]

It's also clear enough in the first few lines of the article.Landroo (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Snackpack

There is a claim that Ezra was not part of the snack pack, and that including this info on the page, and the reference to him coining the phrase "stock-a-holic" is vandalism.

These are both documented facts, and as such, I am going to restore them to the page. Somena 23:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Western Standard Represeting or Claiming to Represent

The on-going reverts between "largely representing" and "claiming to represent" need to be discussed. It's not NPOV to claim that "The Western Standard represents Western Canada". People could give all sorts of reasons why this is not true. Especially when you consider that BC is also part of Western Canada, and the Western Standard is not your typical fare for urbanite Vancouver dwellers, or the huge swaths of NDP and Liberal strongholds. "claiming to represent" seems to me to be far more NPOV.

what a disingenuous discussion post by somena, who is clearly motivated by political ideology as opposed to improving the page on a npov

whether or not the stockaholic reference is material enough to be included in this page is one thing. but the manner in which it is described is laughably non-npov. "unfortunately", "infamous", "lost its luster", "delighted", etc. what a joke. that's not wiki style. that's blog b.s.

i am reverting all of this political vandalism, and keeping the one valid point: that the western standard merely "claims" to represent the west, as opposed to actually representing it. 198.53.240.143 06:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to return the "stock-a-holic" thing, (which was part of a featured interview that Levant did on Canada AM, a national Canadian TV news show). The "SnackPack" was also part of Ezra's past, which was written up by the Hill Times and other news sources in Canada.

The Rahim Jaffer Affair is mentioned on Matthew Johnston's entry, as well as on Rahim Jaffer's entry I believe, who were both part of the "Snack Pack" with Mr.Levant.

If you don't like "unfortunatley" "infamous" "lost it's luster" and "delighted" - then remove those parts of the entry, and keep the facts in place. PS wiki policy is to assume good faith. Since User 198.53.240.143 appears to have little experience with wiki then I would suggest he/she review that. 15:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

somena's vandalism

Somena is a political activist and blogger who serially makes political edits to otherwise NPOV entries. In this case, her comments are not only non-NPOV, but they are laughably inaccurate. There is no Wikipedia entry on Matthew Johnston, for example, so her reference to it is false. A quick inspection of the Western Standard masthead shows that Johnston is not "co-publisher", either. An inspection of CTV's Canada AM records shows that Levant never appeared on that program during the material time, let alone used the phrase Stockaholic there. This is made up out of whole cloth.

I think we can dispense with the charade of treating Somena's vandalism as a good faith effort to improve the page. Levant may be controversial, but that controversy should be dealt with in wikistyle, not in obvious drive-by smears. This is vandalism pure and simple, an un-wiki combination of ideology and false facts. I'm going to keep reverting this crap out of it until she tires and moves on to some other page.

-political activists do things that have meaning. don't insult activists by saying somena is one. Phobal (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Torporeal 20:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right, it must have been on CBC or CTV that Ezra coined the phrase "Stock-a-holic". My mistake. Apologies. I saw the interview in question, and it was in the morning, and assumed it was Canada AM since that's the news show I usually watch in the mornings.

Here's another cite about Ezra's common use of the phrase. http://www.rrj.ca/issue/2006/spring/620/ Is Ryerson making it up? What about the 20 or so other cites I could pull up, including one from Ezra's friend Warren Kinsella that discuss his use of the term "stock-a-holic"?

Next...Are you suggesting that Johnston is not involved as a publisher in the Western Standard? He is currently marked down as an advertising executive, however if you visit here...

http://www.grandinite.com/2005/08/05/scren-captures-from-western-standards-website/

Which carries a screen capture from the Western Standard's own website, you will note that the Western Standard was co-founded with Mr.Johnston, Ezra Levant and Stephen Johnston.

I note there is no dispute over the "snackpack" label, which I gave a cite for. I have now also provided cites for the other information provided, and I am sorry for not remembering which national TV show it was, that Mr.Levant went on, and declared himself to be a "Stock-a-holic." on.

As such, I am going to revert the page, and I am going to notify BucketsofG to ask him to monitor the edits to this page, and the accusations of vandalism by "Torporeal" Somena 19:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

save it for your blog, somena

how embarrassing for somena to be caught making up citations. sorry, your after-the-fact "apologies" show that you no longer are eligible for wikipedia's assumption of good faith. you are clearly out here to settle some political score, against ezra, matthew, or whoever.

that's fine for your blog. keep it off the wikipedia site.

72.136.194.107 22:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Said the Anon IP Wiki User with no history

Look, do you dispute any of the facts that are currently on the Ezra Levant entry, which include cites that back up those facts?

If so, which ones?

This blog entry is about Ezra Levant, his participation in politics and the media in Canada, which has been colourful to say least. You, or Ezra or the red-meat Snogging Bories may not like that certain facts about Ezra's colourful and well documented, ie reported on history paint him in a less than flattering light, but that's hardly anybody's fault, but Mr.Levant's himself. Stick to the rules of Wiki. If the facts are wrong, then point out where they are wrong. If the writing is NPOV then explain exactly how. If the cites are unreliable or questionable, then challenge them. That's the way it works. Somena 11:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Boring

How boring you are. Even your discussions are ad hominem attacks. Your false facts have been exposed above. Your attempt at relevance is laughable - Matthew Johnston and Rahim Jaffer are relevant to a bio on Ezra Levant? You think that wikipedia is a political blog. Save your bias for there. This entry has been well balanced between supporters and opponents of Levant who have gone back and forth in good faith, coming up with a well-balanced, NPOV factual summary. You are clearly not operating in good faith, and wish to upset that balance.

I'm going to keep an eye on this page and revert your crap - not in the name of Levant, but in the name of the factual balance that this site has achieved before you traipsed in here with your agenda.

Torporeal 00:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Wiki, the only contribs you have ever made to Wiki, is to Ezra Levant's entry. So, I find it a little hard to take your claim of neutrality with a big grain of salt.

Why don't you want refferences made to the "Stock-a-holic" thing? Which is something he is famous for? Why don't you want any mention of his involvement in the disgraced "snack-pack"? Why is his association with Matthew Johnston, who is/was touted to be one of the co-founders of the Western Standard,(on their own website no less) the Magazine that Levant publishes 'off topic' in your view.

By all means, keep asserting that these things are irrelevant, and biased and unfair to Mr.Levant to mention, but they ARE in fact part of his very public history. As embarrasing as they may be for him, and those who either follow him, or are friends with him.

Likewise with your claim that you are going to just keep reverting the page, I think perhaps it might be time to call in arbitratration via an administrator. BucketsofG has been involved in editing this entry, and might prove a suitable candidate. Somena 03:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Buckets of Grewal was on the anti-Levant side of the spectrum, like you are. He would be an inappropriate arbitrator, just as you would be. The difference between him and you, though, is that he has accepted the iterative process, and has engaged in a true back-and-forth, accepting compromise sometimes and prevailing sometimes. You, by contrast, are marked by false facts and pure bias. Go back to your blog and keep your politics out of here.

Torporeal 06:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

i'm with torporeal. somena is a troll who is on a political mission.

68.144.100.144 20:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

i'm with torporeal too. somena is the worst of wikipedia - someone who doesn't actually want to build the site for its own sake but wants to leave "her mark" which is always political

198.53.240.143 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Torporeal too. Somena is a vandal who tries to pretend she cares about NPOV, in order to stop people from rescinding her vandalism.

74.12.73.58 03:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

im with torporeal. somena is a troll

67.70.224.66 06:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

ditto, and i'm not anon! LAWL! Phobal (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

New info

I've added some information and sources. Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"common ground" with white supremacists

This addition to the article by User:Mista-X:

Levant has criticised the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, appearing on CBC radio. In return he has found common ground with Marc Lemire, and recieved praise from white supremacists and neo-nazis, such as Paul Fromm.

This is an intentional category error and does not reflect negatively on Ezra Levant. Such tactics are clearly wrong, and serve only to attempt to slander someone unfairly.Landroo (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

is a disgusting attempt to slander Levant by making a specious connection to white supremacists. Levant has not endorsed white supremacy or the people mentioned in this quote. The fact that they may both advocate some of the same policies is coincidental. Levant has no control over who endorses his political views and many more non-racists have endorsed his stance on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. This section needs to come out. --D. Monack | talk 05:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do I need to comment, when Levant does a fine job himself? --Mista-X (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Marc Lemire has compiled a chart of every section 13 decision. One of the line items in his chart is the ethnicity of the respondents -- 100% of them are white. When I first saw that chart, I was uncomfortable with that data, especially given the white supremacist overtones of Lemire's site. But with that caveat said, it is still a fact: not a single radical Muslim jihadi has had a section 13 trial; not a single radical Sikh secessionist; not a single Tamil Tiger supporter. There is no shortage of news on each of those groups, just to pick three. But none have been taken before the CHRC tribunal -- even though, unlike the poor shleps who have been, those three groups have actually gone beyond mere words into violent criminal acts."[1]

He even links to several neo-nazi ran websites, including richardwarman.com and Lemire's freedom site. --Mista-X (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Mista-X is factually correct when he suggests that on this issue there is common ground between Levant and the white supremacists he mentions, but I sort of understand the concern of D. Monack. Fact is though that Mr. Levant himself has brought up the case of Lemire and posters on the racist website Stormfront are supportive of Levant's CHRC position. I'm not sure that the comment regarding common ground links Mr. Levant ideologically to the likes of Lemire, but I can't find any fault with the comment as it stands either. Perhaps it would help to be better sourced? AnnieHall (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes were not NPOV. An import reference was removed, Levants own website blog entry. As well, stating that a "wide range of Canadians" support Levants criticism of the CHRC without any source to back this up is definately not NPOV and more of a flatter piece. As well, suggesting that proponents of the CHRC are the ones pointing out Levants common ground with neo-nazis needs to be sourced. --Mista-X (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read your opinions. Ezra has explicitly denied any allegiance with white supremacists. The new material still noted that such people have found common ground with him. You are clearly politically motived to leave readers with the impression that Ezra Levant is sympathetic to racists and neo-nazi's by insisting on LEAVING OUT Ezra Levant's own personal defense of this. I'll admit that I am not neutral on this topic, but you clearly are not, as you are only willing to show one side of that issue. The new text shows BOTH sides of that issue, by pointing out Ezra's own position on the matter. The information is sourced, from Ezra's own blog, and it is completely true if you do some searching that his so called "supporters" are also lunging anti-Semitic insults at him at the same time. I believe this information is not only relevant, but contextually necessary to this article. Your absolute unwillingness to allow for this context, as evidenced by your flagrant attempts to push one-side of this argument is ridiculous. No respectable encyclopedia or journalist for that matter, would say that someone has "common ground" with neo-Nazi's and then OMIT that persons own opinions specific to that "common ground" on the matter, as being immaterial to the reader. That's what op-ed columnists do. The NPOV corrections were sound. Facts without context are not NPOV, especially when you are indicating that someone has common ground with racists and neo-Nazi's, without taking the time to point out to the reader, that the person categorically denies any affiliation or sympathy with those views. I have also added 4 references to your complaints about the unsourced nature of the comments, including comments from the head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (and architect of the HRCs, by the way), Alan Borovoy, two prominent editorialists, and a note by the head of EGALE Canada, one of Canada's leading LGBT advocacy groups. Mike.brock (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You will also note, that I have sourced every single fact, including the press releases of support from all relevant organizations. You might ask yourself, why you find it necessary to point out that a worthless organization like Stormfront, is worthy of mentioning in this article, and not the support from PEN Canada, Egale Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of Journalists, Liberal Ministers of Parliament Keith Martin and Dan McTeague, etc. You are only interested in pointing out his "common ground" with racists, without putting it perspective, and not really giving any credit to the fact that he has a great deal of support. What did you do? Said there was not enough sourcing to prove he had support. Did you look? If you did, you intentionally omitted it, to help along your intentional bias. You were all too happy to hold words in support of Levant up to the highest standard, complaining of lack of sources, while using a few links to a racist online forum as enough to credit your position. You are hardly a neutral individual. You want to smear Levant. I on the other hand, even added MORE criticism of Levant, despite the fact I agree with him. You sought to REMOVE any mention of support, and PREVENT the adding of context to your little neo-nazi link. This makes you untenable in my opinion.Mike.brock (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

lol, first of all, I didn't omit anything. I reverted the contribution which white washed the facts. It's not my job to source material someone else wants to add, that's their job. As for me being POV, I really don't care about Levant. All I know is that he is some right-wing pundit and I never even heard of him until I saw that thread on stormfront. So add/remove what you want, but don't try to disassociate him from the likes of Fromm and Lemire, people he frequently mentions himself. --Mista-X (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove the source[2] of Levants common ground with white supremacists Marc Lemire, et al. Do not try to white wash the fact that it was not just white supremacists praising Levant, but Levant himself who lined up to their common cause. --Mista-X (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. You've proven your horrible background on this subject, by admitting you know little about Levant, and the fact you say he (and I quote) "frequently mentions" Paul Fromm. Where has Ezra Levant *frequntly* mentioned Paul Fromm? Please source this reference. Ezra levant's ONLY mention of Marc Lemire has been in regards to alleged corruption within the HRC, and material evidence that his case has revealed to suggest as much. This does not "associate" Ezra Levant with Marc Lemire in any meaningful way, that is more worthy of YOUR version of article, than mine. You are simply telling me not to minimize the connection? Why? Why is it important to you that you think there is a publically notable connection, that you think I am minimizing? I have not omitted the connection by the way. My version notes that Ezra Levant has received support from white supremacist groups, your version indicates that Ezra Levant has "common ground" with them. That's not neutral context. As I've said, Ezra has made eminently clear that he has no affiliation with Marc Lemire or any white supremacist group. It is not me trying to minimize anything. This is you trying to maximize and over-emphasize a connection, with the intention of leaving the reader with the impression that Ezra Levant may have racist leanings. This is unacceptable, and is not NPOV. My article makes clear that he has support from "racists", but does not attempt to associate (using your language) Ezra with them.

Moreover, I have added the following text to include your reference:

At the same time, Ezra Levant has taken an interest in the case of Marc Lemire, former leader of the white supremacist Heritage Front. Revelations from that case have brought to light potential evidence that members of the Human Rights Commission posted messages under false aliases to certain message boards, which were subsequently investigated by the commission. It has been alleged, that the comments amounted to evidence planting.

This reflects the context of the article to which you are insisting on sourcing. I'm not going to allow you to even slightly suggest that Ezra Levant is in any way sympathetic to a racist cause, because he simply doesn't believe that HRCs should have agency over free speech, because white supremacists happen to think the same thing. The interest in the Marc Lemire case has nothing to do with Ezra standing up for him, but rather bringing to light evidence that has surfaced in that case about the potential conduct of the HRC. If you are going to insist on mentioning this connect, I am going to insist on providing that context. I would go so far as to say, that it's borderline libelous to infer that Ezra is sympathetic to white supremacism. Pointing to potential evidence of corruption in HRC, in the case of a racist, does not make one a white supremacist. To portray that viewpoint is to slander someone. Further, I believe you are engaging in what Wikipedia calls "disruptive editing". I have provided fully-sourced facts, and balanced context, including both pro and against cases in the most neutral of tone. You are insisting that material facts to the issue at hand be excluded from the entry. This is unacceptable.

Mike.brock (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Buddy, give it a rest. I never said or suggested Levant is a white supremacist. You are delusional. I simply quoted Levant's own words from his own article. The rest of what you said is blah blah blah, because I already told you I take no issue with your other additions. I only take issue with the removal of sourced material. --Mista-X (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

lawsuit

I removed mention of the lawsuit introduced in this edit (which happens to have been added by a party to the suit). Per WP:BLP, it shouldn't be added back, without citations of an independent reliable source. I'm not opposed to inclusion of the facts, and expect that to be added back, but I just want it done with proper sourcing. --Rob (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

well check out: http://dustmybroom.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1732&Itemid=1

and http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/01/29/warren-kinsella-on-ezra-and-human-rights-panels.aspx and by all means go to the Calgary law Courts Court of Queen's Bench civil where the action is filed. This is all true and needs to be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlet (talk • contribs) 16:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Rob if you did a little research on the issue of Ezra suing Merle you would find it. It ius not in the media yet as it has not gone to trial, but you live in Calgary go to the Alberta Law Courts QEB and search it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlet (talk • contribs) 16:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is Wikipedia forbids editors from doing original research. Rather then behaving as reporters, we cover what secondary sources say (like newspapers) and provide citations to those sources. So, what city I live in, is entirely unimportant. Also, you should not be writing about things you only know about because you were involved in them (like being a party to a lawsuit). Incidentally, this prohibition against original research is why most of the negative claims in the Merle Terlesky article were removed. Even though an editor (Mista-X) claimed he "knew" they were true, they were removed, because they constituted original research. This policity is a good policy, even though we're sometimes slow to enforce it. --Rob (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We can't mention the lawsuit against Terlesky unless it's been referenced in a Reliable source ie a newspaper or mainstream publication, not a blog. Has this lawsuit been reported in the media at all? Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been covered (outside of a few bloggers). Nobody other than Terlesky cares, and since he's stopped editing, I'd say the matter is dropped. --Rob (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Research v. original research

Recognising that this is an old conversation, I comment merely to clarify an apparent point of confusion. Mass media are not the only acceptable Wikipedia sources. If a lawsuit has been registered, there is an official record of it. This record meets the Wiki verifiability requirement. To mention that such a lawsuit exists, if it is sourced in this way, is not OR, but a simple sourced statement of fact. (The confusion arises from the use of the word "research" above. In that case, "research" refers only to finding the citation, not to drawing conclusions beyond what the citation itself says. Hence the difference between "research" and "original research".) - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.182 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Support and criticism, undue weight

re this edit: I deleted this

Proponents of the [[Human Rights Commission]]s have also asserted their beliefs that the commissions have done well in promoting [[social justice]] in Canada, and that the efforts by both Levant and [[Mark Steyn]] to undermine them could have negative effects for all Canadians<ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080121.wcomment0122/CommentStory/National/ globeandmail.com: Attacking human rights commissions attacks us all<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>.

as it violated WP:DUE. It pitted

PEN Canada, the Canadian Association of Journalists, Egale Canada, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association

against completely nondescript

"Muneeza Sheikh, Khurrum Awan, and Daniel Simard and Naseem Mithoowani"(sic), "students and recent graduates of Osgoode Hall Law School at York University in Toronto." 1.

If reinserted, missing balance must be stated--I wouldn't know how to do that. Basically, if there's no reputable and significant criticism, none should be added. The weight of criticism would depend on the author's repute, not their argument or what WP editors feel about it's conclusiveness. Being student and being allowed to add an "web-exclusive comment" neither makes for academic repute nor public standing. --tickle me 03:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Whitewash

Pretty squeaky clean entry fro someone who's reviled and detested by a good portion of the Canadian population. Oh, well. It's just Wikipedia, not an acceptable source, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.241.249 (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard Warman (Lawsuits and Defamation)

Please do not include unsourced statements (such as any potential litigation with Warren Kinsella without a reference. With regard to Senator Ron Ghitter, this is already discussed in another section of the article (it does not need to be cited twice). In addition, the language used was not POV. I have corrected all of these issues for the time being. I would ask that any further revisions to this section include both proper citations, NPOV language, and do not duplicate other sections of the article. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

• I will again ask User:Truelawandfree not to insert unsourced information into the article on Ezra Levant, or to insert information which has already been dealt with in another section of the article, both of which violate Wikipedia polies on biographical information about living persons, for which the standard of proof required is very high. I will not revert this at the moment, since this would place me in violation of the WP:3RR, but I ask that it be removed as soon as possible.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Thank you. When I first provided the edits I provided all proper sources. These changes were deleted almost immediately without comments back - likely by another user. I will re-enter with proper source.

Re: Richard Warman Libel Case section - I suggest in the interest of full disclosure that a sentence be added to include the fact that Mr. Levant was sued by Warren Kinsella. See "How to lose a Defamation lawsuit" - February 26, 2009 on Mr. Levant's blog where you can see a complete copy of the statement of claim. In addition, consideration should be given to moving the selection under "Political Aid" where there is brief mention of another defamation lawsuit by Sen. Ron Ghitter against Mr. Levant to a consolidated section dealing with all of the libel claims. Presumably the section is to address lawsuits Mr. Levant is engaged in - and not about Richard Warman. I think a full copy of Mr. Levant's apology should be published - it was issued by Mr. Levant and is his own words. What do other users think???

Originally published on April 14, 2000 in the Calgary Herald, Calgary Sun and Edmonton Journal  

"Apology to Senator Ron Ghitter- In September of 1998, we unfairly and inaccurately described the character, statements, commitment and work of Senator Ghitter in a fundraising letter circulated to 31,000 Albertans in connection with the Alberta Senatorial Election. The letter was prepared by Ezra Levant and signed by Rob Anders on behalf of the Reform Party of Alberta.

The letter was insulting and demeaning of Senator Ghitter who has dedicated over 30 years of his life to public service both as an elected member of the Legislature of Alberta, a member of the Senate of Canada, a spokesman for minorities, and a volunteer in many capacities.

On September 25, 1998, Senator Ghitter requested that we retract our statements and donate $2,500.00 to the Alberta Cancer Society. We refused to do so, and instead made further inaccurate and demeaning public statements about Senator Ghitter through various media outlets. On October 21, 1998, Senator Ghitter commenced a defamation action against us.

Our attack on Senator Ghitter was unfounded and we now admit having defamed Senator Ghitter. We further acknowledge that some of our statements were based on facts that were false and on out of context interpretations.

We regret preparing and sending the letter and wish to apologize to Senator Ghitter and his family for our lack of civility and our inappropriate actions and comments.

Rob Anders Ezra Levant" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truelawandfree (talk • contribs) 23:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)