Talk:Rob Ford/Archive 1

Heavily biased
The entire article consists almost entirely of controversial comments or incidents Ford has been involved in. Hardly NPOV. For example, does Ford shouting at a hockey game have anything to do with his role as a city councillor? No, someone included it with the purpose of trying to paint him as a nutjob so the article would suit their viewpoint. In contrast, the article about Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, who has attracted his fair share of criticism, isn't a page long hate-fest like this is. This needs to be edited by someone with a neutral point of view. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ford happens to be a colourful person and that attracts alot of press. Some might say he revels in it. I should point out that all of these incidents are properly referenced. If you want to find some 'positive' things to say about him you are more than welcome to expand the article. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting that there are no articles on Rob Ford in Conservapedia, RationalWiki, or Uncyclopedia; and the one in Wikinfo hasn't been edited since February 2010.206.130.173.55 (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You know the picture is also very bias as it shows him with all these medals. Having this as the very first thing the person sees is incredibly orientated towards "Oh look at all those medals, he must be a very good politician." This just won't do. I see no problem in putting a plain photo instead. ThisguyYEAH (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually these "medals" are known as the Chain of Office. Most mayors in Canada, and other Commonwealth countries wear the Chain of Office. There is nothing the last bit "biased" about a photo of him wearing his mayoral collar. You can read up on it here: . --MTLskyline (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The article dwells overwhelmingly on negative characterizations of Ford and as such fails as a neutral, reliable, informative piece on Ford. Nothing is mentioned, for example, of his notable efforts to act as a fiscally responsible mayor. Such efforts as mayor include: cutting of city councilors' expense accounts; cancelling the Toronto car registration tax; moving to make Toronto Transit an essential service; the current detailed review of Toronto core services by KPMG; stimulating the sell off of TCHC's 'unrepairable' (est. $650m to repair) slum landlord rental stock for an anticipated $350m; and privatizing garbage removal in the western half of the city as both a cost savings as well as the beginning to an end of to city garbage strikes. The fact that Wikipedia has permitted this to happen is a poor reflection on the reliability of this Wiki as a neutral source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.169.22 (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Finished Additions
Anyone able to add yet another stellar comment made by Mr. Ford? He was reported in the Toronto Star ( http://www.thestar.com/News/article/189595 "City councillors on the budget" ) as saying:

"I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day."

As a bike rider in Toronto, with a daugher, wife, parents, friends, and so on, I'm not able (now, anyway) to add this in a responsible way. --Basho 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

- Thanks to 206.172.0.195 and Ground Zero for adding this, I've changed the title --Basho 13:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting this article
I can see why MaxForce is upset about this article - the tone is very one-sided even if it is accurate. What I think it needs is a balance between positive and negative comments. Is there anything positive to say about Ford? Atrian 02:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that someone finally agrees. CJCurrie is trying to keep this article the way it is, while having a different standard for Joe Pantalone.

I felt that my version was a compromise. The "Gino boy" incident was left in since it actually ended up with consequences, resulting in an investigation and a potential municipal challenge. The Moscoe f-word was also added, as Ford is not the only one on council prone to outbursts.

However, his quotes on homelessness or AIDs ending up came to nothing. Furthermore they are potentially misleading since they are taken out of context (they are missing the why in particular). MaxForce 04:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article certainly could use more positive facts, but there is no reason to remove well referenced negative ones. Expanding on the good things Ford has done is the best way to balance this article. - SimonP 12:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have additional insight into the homelessness/AIDS debate. If you can provide some context that would be helpful and improve the article . Atrian 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Butting in here, but I've noticed several Mayoral candidates over the years trying to present the homelessness issue roughly the same way Ford is doing ..if it were me I'd rather be in a safe institution(mental or jail) than out on the sidewalk in January..
 * as Ford said recently,I think, but as MaxForce says, the papers usually frame it as a mean-spirited platform position. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But this person is no more challenging than a Sarah Palin or a Michael Moore,imo, it's just that we're not used to this much flamboyancy in a Toronto politician; since Lastman anyway. I think this will be the most interesting and fun bio to help write up of them all. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What you see in this article is what you got. There ain't no more. Ford is one of those people whose mouth works faster than his brain. If you want to work on someone truly flamboyant, the article on Mel Lastman could use some help. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Extra links
These links are for additional news items on Rob Ford. They don't really belong in the External links section. Unless they are used as citations for new text they should be remain off the main article. Atrian 06:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "refugee-free" zone controversy
 * Sister of Toronto politician shot in face

Criticism/Controversy
Perhaps this page needs a 'criticisms' section to help properly create the boundary between 'negative' and 'positive' content. A176 19:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the current content amounts to 'criticism' of Ford. They are just documented incidents about him. The fact that Ford is loud-mouthed, obnoxious, and bigoted would be an example of a critical comment but, alas, I don't think I can find a citation for that. Atrian 20:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this Toronto Mayor David Miller is calling on Coun. Rob Ford to apologize on the council floor for warning that "Orientals," are "slowly taking over," remarks the mayor characterized on Thursday as bigoted and racist. Nfitz (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

EncyclopediaUpdaticus is correct about Ford attracting a lot of press aboiut a lot of things and A176 is on the right track too. I'm thinking maybe the controversial stuff could go in a subsection titled "controversial events". It might be better than being inside his "as a councillor" section. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with creating a controversy section is that you are now making a value judgment about what is and what isn't controversial. In the end it seems that all the negative points are put in the controversy section and all the positive points are left in the "as a councillor" section. I think there is justification to have only one section. Maybe some of the points could be merged into fewer paragraphs somehow. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with A176. To include all of these altercations in the City Hall Councillor section is misplaced, I think. Since this idea was brought up 2.5 years ago and left unaddressed, and now that he's running for mayor and this article is getting a lot more readers, I think I might get working on it right away. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Political Ideals
The section on Ford's political ideals is faulty. I don't know where the myth came from that a "neoconservative" is someone who "favours deep spending cuts," but (a) neoconservatism is primarily a foreign policy doctrine and (b) where neoconservatives do talk about domestic policy, they tend to have a lot more toleration for the welfare state than say, conservatives like Ford. The left ought to be more attached to neoconservatism for this reason, but unfortunately this is impossible in present political discourse where "neocon" is essentially equivalent to "communist" in the mid-twentieth century in both accuracy and nicety.
 * So if neoconservatism doesn't apply here, how would you characterize Ford's political mien? Atrian (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I live in Newmarket and I had never heard of this fellow until a few months ago, but from what I've read here about his activity as councillor and from many of the statements he has made, I would call him a free-market, small-government conservative. On the one hand he has reverence for capitalism and disdain for socialism (I read many of his remarks like this, but one example is that when talking to John Barber the other day he went out of his way to accuse him of being a "socialist" reporter). On the other hand, he is obviously set against government spending most of the time and has visions of "welfare bums" and "lazy homeless people" and stuff. His support for the fight in Afghanistan is not necessarily neoconservative (as if using or supporting the military entailed such a thing!). A lot of people of Ford's type (i.e., beer-drinkin' steak-eatin' SUV drivin' folk) tend to support military campaigns without really thinking about it.

While I'm at it, there is something else:

"While espousing conservative ideals, Ford's voting record has occasionally been progressive. [...] He also supported the inquiry into the MFP scandal."

Since when is looking into corruption against anyone's political leanings, liberal or conservative? This passage makes no sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.203.153 (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Positive Things
I must share Wannabe rockstar and MaxForce 's concerns. Although its been said that 'positive' things are welcome, I'm feeling some resistance to their insertion + 1 of my discussion page comments was deleted. So, I am hoping, now that there really is a lot more RS info available covering his job performance that more of that can be inserted. There still is a lopsided weight given to his non-job related behavior, at least I tghink so. Where are the other editors? Only EncyclopediaUpdaticus and I are doing much here and we may be starting to get on each other's nerves, just a bit:) Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal Life
This section needs attention. The domestic occurance is too dominating. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section
Much of the content does not seem to have a link to an existing RS. and since the content is somewhat inflammatory towards Ford, BLP policy,I think, warrants removal; at least until a working link to a RS is found. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You removed a number of items sourced to papers such as the Toronto Star and National Post. These are easy to verify through any newspaper archive. Why do you feel they are no longer valid? - SimonP (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you did find 2, from Now and CBC, I have been trying to find the 4-5 Toronto Star ones I removed but can't find them even in the archives. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think we can leave this content in without a verifiable source. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How are you searching those papers? Those articles will not be available on their web site, as they get removed after awhile. You need to search the past issues through something like ProQuest (which you can get through TPL). I just did a quick search for a couple of the stories, and they were easily found. - SimonP (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, sorry, EncyclopediaUpdaticus just gave me some helpful instructions also. Sorry. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why my edit about Ford endorsing Pastor Wendell Brereton was marked as vandalism and removed. I posted a verifiable link to the Globe and Mail. I've added a second reference to the National Post. I think it's relevant since it ties into comments he has made about gays in the past. You can easily do a few quick searchers for Rob Ford and Pastor Wendell Brereton and you'll find articles on the topic from reliable news sources; both national and local. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.241.204 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I could see, it was absolutely in bounds. "Guilt by association" means that Ford's opinions are being lumped in, by means of some kind of tenuously made connection, with those of someone completely unlike him.  That seems clearly not to be the case here.  It is Ford who seems to be going out of his way to identify himself with this pastor and his beliefs about same-sex marriage.  If a candidate actually says "Yes, I agree with Person P on Issue I", then pointing that out is not "guilt by association". Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could emphasise that Ford's opposition to gay marriage is not a legal opposition. He does say in this same article "to each his own" about gay marriage.  That implies that he is not interested in stopping gay marriages, he just appears to respect "traditional" marriage more.  That difference does matter, but he also was quite clear in this Globe and Mail article that he and the anti-gay-marriage pastor have the same opinions of gay marriage, and it's not unreasonable to assume people would want to know that as well. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Rob Ford on AIDS
While I'm unlikely to be voting for Rob Ford this election, and I tend to be sympathetic to GLBT rights; I'm uncomfortable about the pilloring of Rob Ford about his noted comment about AIDS and I wonder if the article might be a little less than objective about it, and some of the background that might have lead to the comment. First of all, unlike those with deomogogic views, he's not advocating things like expulsion or quarantine. Indeed, what he said is essentially true--that AIDS is one of the most preventable of diseases. I remember reading a Sky Gilbert column in eye (perhaps 10 years ago) when he defended gays not engaging in safe sex--something akin to "sex-at-least-good-sex-will-always-be-dangerous-so-who-cares-about-safe-sex-anyway." Sentiments like these might have influenced Ford to make the statement. In the internal link about AIDS, I wonder if there might be something more appropriate, and thus gave a cursory look in the AIDS category. So far, I've come up with Bareback (sex) (again, my exam was cursory), but such is incomplete.206.130.173.55 (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

July 2010 Toronto G-20 protests
Edits referring to this have been removed.206.130.173.55 (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I say they should remain. After all, such are indeed his views, they involve Toronto, they are significant, and they were recent.206.130.173.55 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What your adding (or asking to be left in the article) concerning the protestors in is an unsourced quote by Ford, which is a significant violation of BLP. To even have this considered to stay in the article it requires a reliable reference. At the minimal, Until one is provided it needs to be removed. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (Same guy, different IP) Fair enough, I'll likely be adding a source in a day or two (assuming others don't do it before me ;-)205.189.194.208 (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There, I did it.:-)205.189.194.208 (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wards not Ridings
While editing this article I noticed that the Ward Two link was the link for Etobicoke North which actually has Ward 1 and 2, as well as nothing about munincipal elections. Should we start creating articles for wards? They have one here Ward 2, St. Louis City. Note: I also asked this question in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Toronto205.189.194.208 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ford's complaints to Revenue Canada
This section reads like campaign copy. There is no reference that Ford had anything to do with Gary Webster's announcement. This paragraph implies that Ford was responsible for the end of the perk without any evidence that he was involved. By saying, "It took 10 years but, at the end of the day, councillors will have to pay to get on the bus like everyone else" Ford is given credit for ending the perk without any evidence that he was involved in the process, other than he has been generally outspoken against perks.

""Touchdown!” cheered Ford" is not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.90.150 (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Anon should read the material before deeleting it. The RS and the material deleted both state that Ford made complaints to Revenue Canada which is more than just being outspoken. This was a notable occurance which was reported in many RS and has been in the article for a long time. No compelling reason is being given by Anon for removing it, in my opinion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me what was in the Globe and Mail article you cite (a direct quote about how Ford was the "only" councillor consistently opposing this Metropass perk)? I can't access the article due to the Globe and Mail having set it to being a proprietary article (and my admittedly not being willing to pay to see the article).  My general impression is that the IP editor is right that this sounds like campaign material, but if you can substantiate that Ford was the "only" councillor to go on the warpath against this perk or otherwise had some substantial role in getting rid of the perk, I'd back the addition of the material. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Mr.grantevans2, the Toronto Star article simply asks Ford for a comment in regards to the decision by the Canada Revenue Agency, I'm not clear about how that is notable. The tone of the paragraph in the wikipedia article implies that Ford was responsible for the change. This is not NPOV. The Star article, or any other source I can find, does not state that the investigation by Canada Revenue Agency was instigated by Ford complaints, or that he had anything to do with the investigation at all. Essentially, the Star article states that, "the perks ended" and, "Ford was happy about it", but the wikipedia article written in a way that infers that Ford had something to do with it. The initial sentence of the City councillor section, "Ford has been a strong critic of the perks that are afforded to city politician" is enough to explain Ford's position on the issue. 70.26.90.150 (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontocouncil/article/803247--councillors-ordered-to-return-free-transit-passes


 * "“Touchdown!” cheered Etobicoke councillor and mayoral candidate Rob Ford, who has been fighting for years to scrap perks for councillors, including free Sony Centre passes.He said that, after failing to convince council to end freebies, he complained to the CRA years ago and was told last year that the agency was investigating.“It took 10 years but, at the end of the day, councillors will have to pay to get on the bus like everyone else,” Ford said."


 * Maybe the url changed. The criticsm section above talks about how we can retrieve archived for pay articles as well. THere are other articles about this too which credit Ford for pushing Rev. Canada to act on the matter over the years. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll trust you to report accurately here on the Talk Page. If you could just type for me the direct quote from the Globe and Mail that substantiates the text that Ford was the "only" councillor to have had these concerns about the Metropass perk, or that he was instrumental somehow in eliminating the perk.  In the absence of that information, I really can't agree that this should remain in the article.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The connection from Ford to the CRA is weak, and it's written in a very biased way, and it shouldn't be in the article. 70.26.90.150 (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Id like a direct quote as well from the globe. Other sources if they are reliable and clearly show that Ford was the only counciller, otherwise I agree with the sections removal as biased/ not a neutral point of view. Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI here is the helpful guidance I received when I deleted some content(negative towards Ford) in this article which was no longer easily accessible awhile back:

"Before you go off half-cocked deleting this or that just because you can't find them is no reason to delete properly referenced information. Just because something isn't online doesn't mean it isn't a good RS. Have you never bought a newspaper and read it? Archives of these exist that are not online.

Having said that, there is a way to view Toronto Star (and many other publications) for free. Here's how to do it. You'll need a library card to use this site (which is free).

1. Go to the Toronto Public Library website 2. Click on "Find articles in magazines, newspapers and more" 3. Click on "Magazines and Newspaper list" 4. Navigate to listing for Toronto Star (listed alphabetically) 5. There are three sources. "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" is the best one 6. The ProQuest archive has every article from May 23, 1985 to present 7. For the article you just deleted search "On this date: 10/20/2002" 8. Articles for each edition are listed alphabetically" Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ottawa's attempt to tax councillors' perks, expense budgets rejected by city Paperny, Anna Mehler The Globe and Mail 03-02-2010
 * Ok, since there are several Editors asking to see the Globe article, I dug it up using the technique shown above as kindly provided to me by EncyclopediaUpdaticus awhile back. Here it is:

The Canada Revenue Agency is trying to tax Toronto city councillors on benefits ranging from golf and zoo passes to underground parking spaces. And the city is fighting back.

On Feb. 18, each councillor received a letter from the city's pension, payroll and employment division with the results of a CRA employer compliance audit. Each letter included a figure (some in the thousands of dollars) for taxable benefits related to passes for the Toronto Zoo, Sony Centre, TTC and city garages. It also included councillors' expenses (each has a budget of $53,000 annually) as taxable benefits.

"The city does not agree with the interpretations set out in the proposal," the division's director, Celine Chiovitti, wrote in the letter, adding that the city believes councillors need all of these things to do their jobs and shouldn't have to pay taxes on them.

The city is challenging the CRA's findings through a submission to its audit division and a notice of objection. The city has until March 15 to respond, the letter said, asking councillors to submit information on their 2006 and 2007 expenses by that date.

The city has set up drop-in sessions for councillors to meet with the lawyers it has retained to deal with the dispute: David Spiro and Timothy Fitzsimmons of Fraser Milner Casgrain.

Councillor Joe Mihevc said he's puzzled by the designation. "It's appropriate that we pay our appropriate share of taxes ... I have no problem on that front," he said. "But when you look at the things they want to tax, it seems a bit ridiculous." He added that most councillors use their expenses budget to cover such costs as newsletters and community meetings, not personal items. "My sense is that the CRA gave us a cursory look and did not probe in detail as to how these quote-unquote 'benefits' are actually used by city councillors," he said.

But Councillor Rob Ford, who has long spoken out against councillors' "perks," said the CRA is right to crack down on free passes for councillors.

"All these perks, one right after the other. And I've tried to get rid of them at budget meetings and they just laugh at me," he said. "I think it's great that they're forcing us to show who's used [a pass], and how many times you've used it. And if you have used it, you have to pay taxes on it, 'cause it is an income."

Mr. Ford said he has filed numerous complaints with the CRA, and, "finally, somebody up there's listening."

Yesterday evening, CRA spokesman Philippe Brideau said he couldn't immediately confirm that the agency has conducted the audit and is asking for payment. He cited confidentiality provisions in the Income Tax Act.Ottawa's attempt to tax councillors' perks, expense budgets rejected by city

Byline: Paperny, Anna Mehler ISSN: 03190714 Publication Date: 03-02-2010 Page: A.11 Section: Toronto News Type: Newspaper Language: English

Copyright (c) 2010 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All rights reserved.


 * I think the section as written was not nearly as "promotional" as the content of the Rossi and Smitherman BLPs, but I will adjust the section to try to make it less "promotional". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there's no support there for him being the "only" councillor concerned with this, so that language wouldn't be supported in the article unless you have other sources on that. But there is evidence that he was instrumental in getting the perks issue dealt with, so you could reasonably say that.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I have changed it to exclude the "only councillor" reference. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
Please review this talk page and you will see there have been numerous Editors (E.G.: Wannabe rockstar,MaxForce,SimonP,Atrian) expressing concerns about this BLP being heavily biased against Ford. In addition,there is the news reports of negative edits to this BLP coming from a Toronto Star ISP []. On top of that, recently CJCurrie, an otherwise fine Editor, added a completely unncessary circumtuitous reference/connection to the very controversial Mike Harris in the lede paragraph. I do not think anyone here is intentionally trying to slant the article, but it is common for Editors, even me, to unintentionally allow their personal views to manifest themselves in their edits. THe result, in this BLP, is an article that must be completely rewritten with a view toward trimming the overwhelming amount of negative content gleaned from generally not notable minor things that Ford has done and said in his life. The 10 year old mug shot for minor and dropped charges might also be not notable enough for a blp. I don't see George Bush's mug shot for his drunk driving arrest in his blp, for example. The tag is going up. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, it is incumbent,I think, upon an Editor who places a tag to try to improve a BLP so that the tag can be removed. I am going to be trying to do that. Please AGF that that is my intention because, as I said, I think a whole lot of the negative stuff is too trite and old and not-notable to be in a BLP. Therefore, I will be making a lot of edits to try to bring this article up to Wikipedia NPOV standards. If anyone truly feels that I remove notable content or include non-notable content, feel free to revert. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I can now remove the tag now unless there are objections and if there is a consensus to go forward on the article while leaving in place the changes(I think improvements)? I don't really think the preacher thing is notable but for the sake of consensus I'll agree to leaving it in now that it has been put back.Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the removed content has been reinserted twice so I will leave the tag for now.Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In light of the thoughtful good faith discussion underway here concerning the disputed topics, I'm going to remove the NPOV tag. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Biographies of living persons Policy
I am re-reading it and suggest others might also read it. There seems to be a misconception among some Editors that if a RS reports an incident it is acceptable to include the incident. That is not true. Here are a few excerpts from our policy which I think are being breached by the contents I recently deleted which have since been reinserted. Most of the negative content of the article is not "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."

''*Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.


 * Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints


 * Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content.


 * Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.'' Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard
I have listed this article there [] as well as inserting a Request fior Comment appeal in the hope of getting fresh and objective senior Editors' opinions on the long time and seemingly consistent level of negative bias in this BLP. I had also listed for Peer Review but saw that was not the correct venue. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC
I've requested comment because, as detailed on the talk page, the article does not and has not for at least 21 months conformed to BLP policy. The Subject is a controversial politician currently running for Mayor of Toronto and as can be readily seen by talk page contents some Editors express quite openly negative views of the Subject and these views have been finding their way,perhaps unintentionally, into the article. There is also a well reported and admitted incident of edits to the article originating from an ISP owned by the Toronto Star, a paper which is being sued by the Subject and which other newspapers have recently criticized for printing vicious attacks against the Subject, some of which also are in the BLP as sources. Most of the negative content is,while well sourced, not "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" as required by Wikipedia BLP policy. I also hope for Editors to review the content within the article I have deleted over the past 24 hours, almost all of which has been re-inserted, and advise your opinion as to the relevance/suitablity of those contents. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that you are trying to cast aspersions on the Toronto Star as a legitimate source for this article because some anonymous editor edited this article from an IP address connected with the Toronto Star. I think that's a rather large leap in logic. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I addressed this point, as well as a few others, in response to Grant's post to the BLP noticeboard. I'll quote below what I said there:

"I live in Gatineau, QC - while that may not completely qualify me as someone disinterested in what's going on in Toronto, I might count as an outsider. I think Grant (I'm going to assume that is the name of Mr. Grantevans2) does have a point, and some of the edits are a little unreasonable. To be clear about what my perspective is here: anything that suggests that Ford is guilty of having broken the law where he has not been convicted of doing so should not be on the page."

"Mr. Ford is also a candidate who says some pretty bizarre things, and who has walked into quite a few controversies in the past few years. That does need to be represented in the article. Many of the things people have been adding about how Ford responds to certain issues (bicyclists, gay rights, the unemployed and homeless, etc.) absolutely need to remain on the page, because this is Ford-being-Ford. This is what the guy is like, 24-7."

"Probably what should be added to the page, though, are indications of why Ford is leading (thus far) in the polls. Obviously people are responding to something. If we're looking for balance, I would suggest adding content to the article that reflects the "positive" for Ford, rather than deleting the "negative" points, when they are well-sourced and substantive."

"Also, as far as the Toronto Star is concerned, I think it's a fine source, and Ford's charge of dirty tricks where the Star is concerned is based on the claim that a Toronto Star IP address was involved in edits to Wikipedia. The Toronto Star company owns numerous IP addresses not specifically connected with the Star itself, and there is no proof that staff at the Star had anything to do with the edits. If Mr. Ford is innocent until proven guilty and deserves to be treated as such, so is the Toronto Star. To my knowledge, its coverage of Ford has been responsible and fair."


 * Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is my latest entry on the noticeboard:
 * "Here is my train of logic on this:

I do not think many, if any, of the current Editors of the article have ever read WP:BLP or else they have a different understanding of the words than I do. I recognize the problem with not reaching a consensus but I really have been trying for many months to no avail. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)"
 * 1: The WP:BLP policy states "Ask yourself...whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." The words "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" caught my attention as I do not think that a lot of the negative content is relative at all to a disinterested article about the subject; e.g. him saying oriental people "work like dogs".
 * 2: I certainly think there is room for disagreement on the matter, which in my mind equates closely to room for doubt: that's where this part of the policy comes into play,I think."When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version."
 * 3: Then, after someone like me pares back the article, this part of the policy seems to apply: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies."
 * I find your attitude to your fellow editors high-minded and a little insulting. If you're going to quote Wikpedia policy I suggest you read Assume good faith. We're all here to help Wikipedia, at least that's my assumption. I am glad that this discussion has been started - it is what should have taken place before you decided to change the article based on your interpretation of WP:BLP. Let's hope that the outcome will result in a better, well-balanced article. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, apparently there is an exemption from the 3rr rule in regards to good faith paring of questionable BLP content; that is something I mention only because I was warned on my talk page earlier today about that rule even though I did not break it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether your reverts were good faith is a matter of debate. I can recognize an edit war happening, regardless of what you may call it. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Topic by Topic analysis/consensus
Perhaps we can improve the article by focusing on the disputed topics 1 at a time with particular focus on whether the content relating to that topic meets this BLP instruction: "WP:BLPpolicy states "Ask yourself...whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."

One

 * Rob Ford's domestic altercation with his wife "In 2008, Ford faced assault charges stemming from allegations made by Ford's wife, but the charges were withdrawn two months later.[4] The Crown attorney said "there was no reasonable prospect of conviction" because there were "credibility issues" with allegations by Ford's wife due to inconsistencies in her statements. Ford said that he was glad the ordeal was over and that he and his wife have sought marital counselling.[5] Outside court, Ford said, "I'm exonerated. I'm not guilty. I'm just glad this is over."


 * Should not be included. A charge is not a conviction.  Mr. Ford could live with the stigma of this despite the fact that he was never convicted of the crime. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for not including. It was a shameful episode but it just seems to be more like kicking a man while he is down. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you mean "support" that it shouldn't be included? I just want to be clear what you're arguing.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I clarified my opinion. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be included The story is frequently mentioned in articles about Ford.  However it is clear and should be that the charges were dropped and why.  TFD (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be included - This information is needed to provide background to the frequent mentions of this episode in the media. Nfitz (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Two

 * Rob Ford's 11 year old arrest in Miami with no conviction: "In 1999 Ford was arrested in Miami for driving under the influence (DUI) and marijuana possession charges.[33] According to the statement recorded by the arresting officer, Ford was acting nervous, had blood shot eyes and had "a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath". Ford threw his hands up in the air and told the police officer, "Go ahead, take me to jail."[34] Until he was questioned by reporters,[35] Ford said that the marijuana charge had "completely, totally slipped my mind" because the more serious issue during that arrest was the DUI charge.[36] Ford initially denied the DUI charge, claiming instead he was arrested because he "refused to give a breath sample."


 * Possible inclusion. Can we verify he was convicted of the DUI or marijuana charge?  If so, this should remain. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ford pleaded guilty for failure to provide a breath sample, and his impaired driving and marijuana charges were dropped.. TFD (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Was he convicted of failing to provide the breath sample? What was the punishment?  If he didn't comply with the law and was convicted for not doing so, it's fair game for the article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can see the source does say that he was convicted and did pay a fine and serve 50 hours of community service in Toronto. If that's the case, this is indeed fair game for the article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * “While the marijuana charge was dismissed, I entered a guilty plea for failing to provide a breath sample, received a fine and did some community service.” TFD (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Three

 * 11 year old mug shot re: Miami arrest


 * Possible inclusion. If he was convicted, this is fair game. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This came up at Bill Ayers: BLP issue: the policy states "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light."  TFD (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If he was guilty, it's not a false light. Could you clarify what you mean here?  Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the info at the link TFD provides above, and it seems to me that the majority of the arguments there are similar. BLP policy leans toward non-inclusion when there is uncertainty so until there is more demand and/or compellingarguments for inclusion I will take it out. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but if others want to put it back in, could you explain to me why I should stop them, beyond that kind of argument? If he was guilty of what he was arrested that day for doing, how is it a misrepresentation?  Wikipedia has a picture of Gary Hart with Donna Rice in Bimini - neither sailing on a boat with Donna Rice nor having sex with Donna Rice were illegal acts, but that picture was all over the media, and is no doubt included because of that.  Gary Hart continues to be a living person, so I presume BLP covers him as well.  How come that article gets to continue to associate him with a professional party girl more than twenty years after the incident, but it isn't appropriate to run a mug shot of Rob Ford taken for something that was actually against the law, that he admits that he did?  Zachary Klaas (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If others want it back in, then back in it goes. The Gary Hart photo does have a lot more importance because it generated such a media feeding frenzy back then (I can actually remember the photo in detail right now) that it might have been the single most damaging thing to his candidacy at that time. If Ford ends up losing and there is consensus the Miami arrest was a major cause of his losing, then the mugshot would be more notable, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A mugshot is rather prejudicial since while they are appropriate for stand-alone media stories about incidents, including a mugshot in a biography, as here, suggests criminality. When a mugshot has appeared in a politician's article, it is often for a politician who was convicted of multiple charges of corruption or something like that.  George W Bush's DUI gets a single sentence of text.  The mugshot is still accessible as readers are advised that imagery is available on the Commons.  If there are RS suggesting that the mugshot played a notable role in Ford's political career that would argue for inclusion.  One must also consider how much other "controversial" material there is.  If there are paragraphs and paragraphs of it then some of it is going to have to be pared back as per WP:UNDUE WEIGHT even if it is well sourced.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Four

 * 30 year old arrest for assault,which was dismissed, during a hockey match.


 * Should not be included. This was dismissed, he was not convicted of a crime. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that he was drunk and unruly at a public hockey game is notable and should be included. This was well documented in the press. The article doesn't need to mention that he was arrested. It could say that he was ejected from the arena. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. If it's about his reported behaviour at a hockey game, then it's acceptable for the article.  If it's about a dismissed criminal case, it's not. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be included Ford frequently mentions his work as a coach and there have been many accounts of disputes he has had. It is relevant.  TFD (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification: The Maple Leaf Game incident is in paragraph 3 of Criticism and Controversy; this 30 year old incident is at the end of paragraph 6 and it happened when he was 18 "When he was 18, Ford was charged with assault over an ice hockey fight. But that charge was dismissed, he said."[] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article as written also said that Ford initially lied about this, and that was in 2006, not thirty years ago. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Five

 * Not sure how to describe this other than a possible political "dirty trick" "On August 26, 2010, the Toronto Star reported that an E-mail enquiry from a prospective voter was answered through the mechanism of a computerised form letter, and when filling out the form letter, someone apparently forgot to replace a bolded entry field in the second paragraph of the letter reading "Insert vague response on policy".[41][42]"


 * Should be included. (Of course I'm going to say this, I put this one in.)  His campaign staff did verifiably do this, and the Ford camp has not denied it.  The slam on the Toronto Star not being "reputable" because of the IP/Wikipedia thing is not reasonable.  The IP in question was not accessible through the portal of the actual newspaper, it was accessible through a site owned by the Star, but which is not the Star. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Undecided Has this story had on-going coverage or was it a one-day wonder? TFD (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Macleans also reported the Toronto Star's story to a national audience. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Six

 * Ford's comments toward Mammoliti: "Ford and fellow councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, who occupies a neighbouring ward, have often scrapped with each other and these exchanges have made headlines in local newspapers.[18] Controversy erupted when several councillors reportedly heard Ford call Mammoliti "Gino boy" in the debate over the 2002 budget.[19] Mammoliti filed a complaint for the ethnic slur.[20] Mammoliti's son Michael filed his papers to run against Ford in the 2003 municipal election but withdrew at the last moment.[21] In March 2003, in a debate over the budget of the Toronto Zoo, Ford called Mammoliti, who chairs the zoo board, a "snake" and a "weasel" in council.[22][23]"


 * Should be included. Ford is verifiably less than decorous or politically correct in his public behaviour. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be included This story has received widespread coverage. TFD (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be included. Media repeats this story endlessly. Can't imagine why it wouldn't be mentioned here. Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Seven

 * Ford's apparent attempt to praise Oriental people: "Again sparking controversy in March 2008, during a debate at City Hall, Ford said "Those Oriental people work like dogs. They work their hearts out ... that's why they're successful in life. ... I'm telling you, Oriental people, they're slowly taking over, because there's no excuses for them. They're hard, hard workers." He drew criticism for those remarks from Mayor David Miller, budget chief Shelley Carroll and other councillors.[31][32]"


 * Should be included. Ford's comments about Asians, while arguably complimentary (it's good we have the full comment for full context of what he meant), reflect a pattern of thinking about racial categories which is relevant to understanding him as a public figure. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Eight

 * Ford's comment re: a Pastor :"Rob Ford garnered controversy again in August 2010 after endorsing Pastor Wendell Brereton who is running for city councillor in Ward 6. Pastor Brereton has suggested online that same-sex marriage could “dismantle” a “healthy democratic civilization.” Ford has said in regards to Pastor Brereton that “We’re together. We have the same thoughts,”. Ford also notes that “[he] support[s] traditional marriage. I always have,”.[39] [40]"


 * Should be included. This is pretty clearly relevant to understanding his position on a public issue - though we should be balancing this with quotes reflecting that Ford does not therefore advocate standing in the way of legal gay marriages.  The position he's expressed is that he personally does not respect gay marriage, only "traditional" marriage, but if gays want to marry he will not stand in their way. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This text could be modified as part of a broader subject in light of the fact that the Ford team is actively recruiting like minded candidates in all ridings of the city, in the hope that voters will look favourably on a Ford endorsement. Brereton could be used as an example of one such endorsement. However to make a connection between Brereton's and Ford's opinions on same-sex marriage and whether Ford's statement “We’re together. We have the same thoughts" means that Ford explicitly agrees with Brereton's thoughts on this particular point is a little dubious. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nine

 * Ford on grants for transgendered persons (June 14, 2005): "I don’t understand a transgender. Is it a guy dressed up like a girl or a girl dressed up like a guy? And we’re funding this for, I don’t know, what does it say here? We’re giving them $3,210?”--Brian Dell (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What's your source for this quote? If he said it, and the grant is public business of the city of Toronto which he was dealing with as a councillor, then put it in. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

General
Reminder: I know these topics have sources, I do not think they meet the BLP policy's bar for inclusion when it comes to being relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. I am also asking involved Editors to notice in WP:BLP this:"When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." and "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * They seem fine to me although when it comes to supporting the pastor, we should only include what Ford said when discussing the support, not comments he has made at other times. Also, we should ensure that all these facts are taken from news stories, not columns.  The use of a mugshot may be unacceptable, the discussion came up at the Bill Ayers article.  The Florida story could be shortened.  And of course nothing stops us from putting in positive stories, so long as they are notable, e.g., his record of not using his office budget.  I notice that columnists' opinions are not presented which is good.  TFD (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I divided this discussion thread into subsections to make it easier for editors to respond. TFD (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.5.54.175, 26 October 2010
Should not read "extremely obese" in the first sentence, this is offensive and incorrect

Factually, it is correct he recently weighed himself (it was televised) and the scale indicated that he weighed 330 pounds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milesgilbert (talk • contribs) 02:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

69.5.54.175 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That was a bit of leftover vandalism from the recent massive vandal attack - it, along with another slur, has now been removed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

He's not the current mayor, he's the mayor-elect. please correct!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.209.56 (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.243.120.215, 26 October 2010
Under Rob Ford's education, It states that he left Carlton university 2 credits short because he "Isn't that smart"  I believe that that was edited by an uneducated source.

99.243.120.215 (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed that 20 minutes ago - are you looking at an old version? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Has the spouse entry been vandalized? I expected "Renata" or someone like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.49.54 (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

wish to discuss editing paragraph due to inaccurate statistics and problematic citation source
Greetings, this is my first contribution to Wiki, be kind! I wish to discuss my desired WT:PROD of the Rob Ford entry. The entry "Ford was elected mayor with 380,201 votes (47%) over Smitherman's 287,393 (35.6%) and Pantalone with 94,840 (11.7%). The voter turnout was around 52% of registered voters, the highest in Toronto's post-amalgamation history. Ford's 11% margin of victory was the largest for any incoming mayor in post-amalgamation history, roughly double that of Mel Lastman in 1997 and David Miller in 2003.[23]", contains inaccurate statistics that are used to support misleading statements. Since the author cited her/his facts with a source - I desire to discuss the removal of the source (sic, ha ha) of the problem by removing the citation and replacing it with four others. The specifics: ''Ford's was declared mayor-elect with 47.1% or 383 501 votes out of a possible 813 984 cast votes. The second highest ranked candidate, George Smitherman, received 35.6% or 289 832 of the votes .'' The entry compares this mayoral election to other post-amalgamation elections. ''There have been four post amalgamation elections of which the 2010 election is one. In 2006, the incumbent mayor, David Miller won with 57% or 332 969 of the vote out of a possible 584 484 votes cast. Second to him was canidate Jane Pitfield who earned 32% or 188 932 of the vote. The 2003 election saw David Miller winning for the first time with 43% of the vote while second-ranked candidate John Tory earned 38% of the vote3. The 2000 mayoral election saw Mel Lastman, the North York incumbent mayor win with almost 80% of the total vote4.'' A simple arithmetic overview shows that in the four post-amalgamation mayoral elections there have been two majority elected (grammar?) mayor, neither of which has been Mayor Rob Ford. Mayor Miller won a majority with a margin of 11 points over the second ranked candidate in 2006. Mayor Mel Lastman won with a 71.5 point gap over second ranked candidate Tooker Goomberg. Mayor David Miller's inaugural victory in 2003 had him only 5 points over the next ranked candidate. Mayor Rob Ford won with less than 50.1% of the vote, or majority, with an 11 point gap between himself and second ranked candidate George Smitherman. This simple overview ought clearly show that Mayor Ford first, did not win with the highest margin of victory since post-amalgamation. In fact, Mayor Ford has the third highest margin of victory out of a possible four elections. That significantly affects the tone of the the statement and any natural conclusions that may be drawn from it. I went to the cited source used by the author and it also uses inaccurate statistics. Therefore the source itself perpetuates the inaccuracy. The second point pertains to fears that conclusions about Mayor Ford are being drawn based on inaccurate facts such as in this case. Unfortunately, I can not find the exact Wiki page I found that gives further example of this (please, after reading the description, if anyone can help me find these again, thank you). The page, and the others that stem from it, espouse three major themes about Mayor Ford: a) he won by a sweeping majority, b) thereby validating his key campaign promises, and hence c) his actions as mayor are valid. I propose five things: The quoted passage be removed and replaced with a short, fact-based, overview of Mayor Ford's victory and the three other post-amalgamation elections to give context. That this short summary have the four citations given above that are from the City of Toronto's own archive and thereby neutral and from the source.  The current citation is once removed from source and does not align with it. The short summary could be the text I wrote above (I have included the proposed bits in italics) with less dryness and a tad more élan. I also wish that my ideas are discussed and added to - I have never contributed to Wiki before and would greatly benefit from your input, ideas, corrections, direction, and all that you wish to share to help me improve this process of learning to edit or contribute to the wonderful world of wiki :) peace C-tea (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not an expert on rob ford and this page fully, but i always like facts and not interpolations drawn from them by other editors. The italized text seems ok, but i do ask, what does it really matter what the resulst of the elections in the past where he wasnt involved have to do with strengthening the article aside form synth to conjure a resulting statement (which by some appears like its misleading)? Just some additional thoughts. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleared Of Domesic Abuse Charges.
Why is there no mention that Ford was cleared of domestic abuse charges. The absence of this story might make one think the article is trying to hide something.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2008/05/21/rob-ford-cleared-of-domestic-abuse-charges.aspx

A link to the national Post story that tells the truth.173.52.11.253 (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)