Talk:Rob Ford/Archive 4

}}}}
 * Archive 0 = 0
 * Archive 1 = 1
 * Archive 2 = 2
 * Archive 3 = 3
 * Archive 4 = 4
 * Archive 5 = 5
 * Archive 6 = 6
 * Archive 7 = 7
 * Archive 8 = 8
 * Archive 9 = 9
 * Archive 10 = 10
 * Archive 11 = 11
 * Archive 12 = 12
 * Archive 13 = 13
 * Archive 14 = 14
 * Archive 15 = 15
 * Archive 16 = 16
 * Archive 17 = 17
 * Archive 18 = 18
 * Archive 19 = 19
 * Archive 20 = 20
 * Archive 21 = 21
 * Archive 22 = 22
 * Archive 23 = 23
 * Archive 24 = 24
 * Archive 25 = 25
 * Archive 26 = 26
 * Archive 27 = 27
 * Archive 28 = 28
 * Archive 29 = 29
 * Archive 30 = 30
 * Archive 31 = 31
 * Archive 32 = 32
 * Archive 33 = 33
 * Archive 34 = 34
 * Archive 35 = 35
 * Archive 36 = 36
 * Archive 37 = 37
 * Archive 38 = 38
 * Archive 39 = 39
 * Archive 40 = 40
 * Archive 41 = 41
 * Archive 42 = 42
 * Archive 43 = 43
 * Archive 44 = 44
 * Archive 45 = 45
 * Archive 46 = 46
 * Archive 47 = 47
 * Archive 48 = 48
 * Archive 49 = 49
 * Archive 50 = 50
 * Archive 51 = 51
 * Archive 52 = 52
 * Archive 53 = 53
 * Archive 54 = 54
 * Archive 55 = 55
 * Archive 56 = 56
 * Archive 57 = 57
 * Archive 58 = 58
 * Archive 59 = 59
 * Archive 60 = 60
 * Archive 61 = 61
 * Archive 62 = 62
 * Archive 63 = 63
 * Archive 64 = 64
 * Archive 65 = 65
 * Archive 66 = 66
 * Archive 67 = 67
 * Archive 68 = 68
 * Archive 69 = 69
 * Archive 70 = 70
 * Archive 71 = 71
 * Archive 72 = 72
 * Archive 73 = 73
 * Archive 74 = 74
 * Archive 75 = 75
 * Archive 76 = 76
 * Archive 77 = 77
 * Archive 78 = 78
 * Archive 79 = 79
 * Archive 80 = 80
 * Archive 81 = 81
 * Archive 82 = 82
 * Archive 83 = 83
 * Archive 84 = 84
 * Archive 85 = 85
 * Archive 86 = 86
 * Archive 87 = 87
 * Archive 88 = 88
 * Archive 89 = 89
 * Archive 90 = 90
 * Archive 91 = 91
 * Archive 92 = 92
 * Archive 93 = 93
 * Archive 94 = 94
 * Archive 95 = 95
 * Archive 96 = 96
 * Archive 97 = 97
 * Archive 98 = 98
 * Archive 99 = 99
 * Archive 100 = 100
 * Archive 101 = 101
 * Archive 102 = 102
 * Archive 103 = 103
 * Archive 104 = 104
 * Archive 105 = 105
 * Archive 106 = 106
 * Archive 107 = 107
 * Archive 108 = 108
 * Archive 109 = 109
 * Archive 110 = 110
 * Archive 111 = 111
 * Archive 112 = 112
 * Archive 113 = 113
 * Archive 114 = 114
 * Archive 115 = 115
 * Archive 116 = 116
 * Archive 117 = 117
 * Archive 118 = 118
 * Archive 119 = 119
 * Archive 120 = 120
 * Archive 121 = 121
 * Archive 122 = 122
 * Archive 123 = 123
 * Archive 124 = 124
 * Archive 125 = 125
 * Archive 126 = 126
 * Archive 127 = 127
 * Archive 128 = 128
 * Archive 129 = 129
 * Archive 130 = 130
 * Archive 131 = 131
 * Archive 132 = 132
 * Archive 133 = 133
 * Archive 134 = 134
 * Archive 135 = 135
 * Archive 136 = 136
 * Archive 137 = 137
 * Archive 138 = 138
 * Archive 139 = 139
 * Archive 140 = 140
 * Archive 141 = 141
 * Archive 142 = 142
 * Archive 143 = 143
 * Archive 144 = 144
 * Archive 145 = 145
 * Archive 146 = 146
 * Archive 147 = 147
 * Archive 148 = 148
 * Archive 149 = 149
 * Archive 150 = 150
 * Archive 151 = 151
 * Archive 152 = 152
 * Archive 153 = 153
 * Archive 154 = 154
 * Archive 155 = 155
 * Archive 156 = 156
 * Archive 157 = 157
 * Archive 158 = 158
 * Archive 159 = 159
 * Archive 160 = 160
 * Archive 161 = 161
 * Archive 162 = 162
 * Archive 163 = 163
 * Archive 164 = 164
 * Archive 165 = 165
 * Archive 166 = 166
 * Archive 167 = 167
 * Archive 168 = 168
 * Archive 169 = 169
 * Archive 170 = 170
 * Archive 171 = 171
 * Archive 172 = 172
 * Archive 173 = 173
 * Archive 174 = 174
 * Archive 175 = 175
 * Archive 176 = 176
 * Archive 177 = 177
 * Archive 178 = 178
 * Archive 179 = 179
 * Archive 180 = 180
 * Archive 181 = 181
 * Archive 182 = 182
 * Archive 183 = 183
 * Archive 184 = 184
 * Archive 185 = 185
 * Archive 186 = 186
 * Archive 187 = 187
 * Archive 188 = 188
 * Archive 189 = 189
 * Archive 190 = 190
 * Archive 191 = 191
 * Archive 192 = 192
 * Archive 193 = 193
 * Archive 194 = 194
 * Archive 195 = 195
 * Archive 196 = 196
 * Archive 197 = 197
 * Archive 198 = 198
 * Archive 199 = 199
 * Archive 200 = 200
 * Archive 201 = 201
 * Archive 202 = 202
 * Archive 203 = 203
 * Archive 204 = 204
 * Archive 205 = 205
 * Archive 206 = 206
 * Archive 207 = 207
 * Archive 208 = 208
 * Archive 209 = 209
 * Archive 210 = 210
 * Archive 211 = 211
 * Archive 212 = 212
 * Archive 213 = 213
 * Archive 214 = 214
 * Archive 215 = 215
 * Archive 216 = 216
 * Archive 217 = 217
 * Archive 218 = 218
 * Archive 219 = 219
 * Archive 220 = 220
 * Archive 221 = 221
 * Archive 222 = 222
 * Archive 223 = 223
 * Archive 224 = 224
 * Archive 225 = 225
 * Archive 226 = 226
 * Archive 227 = 227
 * Archive 228 = 228
 * Archive 229 = 229
 * Archive 230 = 230
 * Archive 231 = 231
 * Archive 232 = 232
 * Archive 233 = 233
 * Archive 234 = 234
 * Archive 235 = 235
 * Archive 236 = 236
 * Archive 237 = 237
 * Archive 238 = 238
 * Archive 239 = 239
 * Archive 240 = 240
 * Archive 241 = 241
 * Archive 242 = 242
 * Archive 243 = 243
 * Archive 244 = 244
 * Archive 245 = 245
 * Archive 246 = 246
 * Archive 247 = 247
 * Archive 248 = 248
 * Archive 249 = 249
 * Archive 250 = 250
 * Archive 251 = 251
 * Archive 252 = 252
 * Archive 253 = 253
 * Archive 254 = 254
 * Archive 255 = 255
 * Archive 256 = 256
 * Archive 257 = 257
 * Archive 258 = 258
 * Archive 259 = 259
 * Archive 260 = 260
 * Archive 261 = 261
 * Archive 262 = 262
 * Archive 263 = 263
 * Archive 264 = 264
 * Archive 265 = 265
 * Archive 266 = 266
 * Archive 267 = 267
 * Archive 268 = 268
 * Archive 269 = 269
 * Archive 270 = 270
 * Archive 271 = 271
 * Archive 272 = 272
 * Archive 273 = 273
 * Archive 274 = 274
 * Archive 275 = 275
 * Archive 276 = 276
 * Archive 277 = 277
 * Archive 278 = 278
 * Archive 279 = 279
 * Archive 280 = 280
 * Archive 281 = 281
 * Archive 282 = 282
 * Archive 283 = 283
 * Archive 284 = 284
 * Archive 285 = 285
 * Archive 286 = 286
 * Archive 287 = 287
 * Archive 288 = 288
 * Archive 289 = 289
 * Archive 290 = 290
 * Archive 291 = 291
 * Archive 292 = 292
 * Archive 293 = 293
 * Archive 294 = 294
 * Archive 295 = 295
 * Archive 296 = 296
 * Archive 297 = 297
 * Archive 298 = 298
 * Archive 299 = 299
 * Archive 300 = 300
 * default    = Error: Invalid page name(s)

Semiprotection
Various editors have been keen to add a most interesting nugget to the article. This is sourced to the Toronto Star, which sounds dubious about its veracity (a video "appears to show" such and such). Let's wait until reputable news sources are rather more certain of its worth until we consider allowing its addition to the article (even as an "allegation"). After all, there's no hurry: Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. In order to cut short a resource-wasting edit war, I've s-protected the article.

Sleepily, I did so for an indefinite period. That was not deliberate: any admin who wishes to end the s-protection is free to do so without consulting me. The article will not be on my watchlist; if further edits seem to require full protection, then again an admin is free to do this without consulting me. -- Hoary (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Hoary. The 2 sources; Gawker and Toronto Star even conflict on what the video reveals:
 * Gawker witness claimed it was Pierre Trudeau called a faggot by someone "off camera"
 * 
 * Toronto Star witnesses say it was Justin Trudeau who was called a fag by Ford himself
 * May122013 (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Gawker has clarified this in an update (mid-article). The speaker only said "Trudeau". Gawker didn't understand immediately that "Trudeau" likely meant the currently topical Justin and not the more internationally known Pierre.  24.212.129.21 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You realize that the crack cocaine video is being widely reported? I think it might be more appropriate to put a tag on the page that there are current events going on, rather than disallow adding anything. Alaney2k (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder, is there room for the article to briefly mention the story in a way that doesn't violate WP:BLP? Is it a problem to just say that 3 journalists (1 Gawker, 2 TorStar) have reported seeing the video, and that Ford denies the allegations? It would obviously be wrong to assert in Wikipedia's voice that anything on the alleged video is true, or even that the video exists, frankly, but it seems to me that a brief neutral mention that the story exists might be appropriate. Although, bottom line, I agree with Hoary - there is no hurry, and edit warring is always pointless, so I'm not trying to make a strong case for its inclusion, I'm just genuinely wondering if there is any appropriate way to mention this kind of thing while respecting BLP guidelines. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP in my opinion precludes including this at this time. "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid:". As others have said, there is no rush, either the video will soon become available or it will not; that will be the time to include it in this BLP I think. May122013 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The controversy, now making international headlines, in itself is very notable. Even if it turns out he's not smoking crack (doubtful), it's still a notable and increasingly major event in this person's biography.  We're putting denial blinders on ourselves here by withholding mention.  Not only will this likely require its own section, but I believe it will eventually have its own article. --Oakshade (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On the BBC now I'd say that's a reliable source... 141.0.46.202 (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As to conflicts between Gawker and Toronto Star's reportage of the content, if you were watching a video in the back of a shady car, and only had three times to watch, how accurate do you think your notes would be? (see Inattentional blindness) --  Zanimum (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, which is why the entire episode is so sketchy at this point in time, its based upon watching a video in the back seat of a car and in Gawker's case, I think it may have been only 1 time. May122013 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The only difference in description is in the comment about Justin Trudeau. Hardly a conflict. Alaney2k (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree because A: The other difference was who the Trudeau comment was attributed to, so there are 2 differences ( the Trudeau and the speaker) plus B: the video clip they saw was only 90 seconds long; you would think a couple of reporters if they were paying attention would not have 2 differences in recall of the content of such a short time span. The entire incident and the reporting there of seems sketchy to me; at least at this point in time, 5 days after Gawker first reported it. May122013 (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Does this at least qualify as "media relations", given his comments about the Star in reaction to the acquisitions? Especially considering they weren't the ones who broke the story internationally, only the ones breaking it locally. --  Zanimum (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ford and the Star do have a long running feud complete with lawsuits and access denial but since Gawker appears to have published the story first, it would seem like shoehorning to get it into the article under media relations at this time, I think. May122013 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * BLP policy: This is not a gossip rag or tabloid: "Contentious material about living persons ....that is ......poorly sourced should be removed immediately." I think that putting any reference or story about this non-available video is making Wikipedia a participate in a smear campaign and our BLP policy is clear in tone and content that this is something that does not qualify for inclision in a BLP at this time. May122013 (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not poorly sourced, though, when the Toronto Star is reporting the story. If necessary, we could broaden the scope and pull in the CBC's reporting of the allegations. If we need to tread carefully with anything in the article, it's to err on the site of using weasel words, such as "a video appearing to show" instead of "a video showing". —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that much of the MSM is nothing but a smear campaign. Has anyone been listening to Anna Marie Tremonti on CBC Radio?HochMeister (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the wording is completely open to discussion. Leaving this incident out is more or less just denial that this allegation has been raised. Remember that Ford himself has been arrested for DUI and marijuana possession, that he was drunk and disorderly at a Maple Leafs' game, at the two functions in March. It's an important allegation given his past behaviour. It's also important given that he is the mayor. I live in Toronto. I don't believe it reflects well on Toronto or Ford. But if we stick to what is reported, then we are doing what is expected of Wikipedia. I've written a lot of this article - I've put in lots of content on the budgets, transit policy, etc. I don't believe that we are out of line. Ford and his behaviour is widely known. Believe me, there is lots of salacious stuff that is not in this article. Before this, I removed the trivial complaint about the magnets on the cars. I try to keep it on the mark, which is providing a fair and as best possible neutral article about this person. I have been editing here for six years and have learned a lot about Wikipedia and doing a good job.


 * I fully agree that this story should be in the Wikipedia article, even if the tone is very conservative (for example "Unsubstantiated reports of filmed crack cocaine usage made international news, to which Rob Ford has responded with...") the true purpose of the BLP policy is to protect rumours from turning into presumed facts. Right now we have the opposite, The Daily Show covers it and people presume it is true, come to Wikipedia and become confused as to why it is not here. They do not get a chance to read what Mayor Ford has said about it. -- Zachaysan (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, it is the Fords' typical behaviour to launch smears about opponents or persons who make allegations, not the other way around. That the Star and Ford do not get along is not news. There are several columnists who disagree with Ford openly, but I have not seen any smears. You could argue that because they report on things outside of City Hall, that they are going beyond what was reported in the past. In the 1950s, drunken-ness of public officials was not reported. But that's not the case today. Alaney2k (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I see under the RFC section above another editor said this, some time ago; "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." I agree with that and think that simple assessment might equally apply with this non-available 90 second video clip reportedly seen in the back seat of a car. May122013 (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard
I have placed this matter on the BLP noticeboard. It concerns me greatly that many Editors here have inserted their personal opinions about the past behaviour of the subject of this BLP and refer to their or others' opinions as reasoning for how to deal with the content of this BLP. I could be wrong about this but I feel it is clearly contrary to the spirit and letter of our BLP policies to include any reference to this salacious news item at this early stage, especially since the alleged evidence ( video ) is not available to any reliable source yet. May122013 (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Restore neutral coverage of crack cocaine video now...
On May 20th, in this edit a contributor removed a large section of the article that had been devoted to coverage of reports that drug dealers were trying to sell a video of Ford smoking crack and making vulgar comments.

I don't see a place where that contributor has explained their excision, other than in their edit summary, that says: "Substance abuse allegations: removiing contentious material pending consensus".

I don't see a place where a specific discussion over the neutrality and appropriateness of this excised comment was initiated.

Since the long passage was removed:
 * 1) The reporting by Gawker and Toronto Star journalist has been picked up, and commented upon, by newspapers and television news around the world;
 * 2) The School Board has dismissed Ford from coaching the Don Bosco High School Football Team.  Commentators are attributing his firing to the controversy over the crack video;
 * 3) Jon Stewart devoted over six minutes to the crack video and crack in Toronto;
 * 4) Jimmy Kimmel featured a skit, re-enacting the crack video;
 * 5) Leno also joked about Ford;

Without a specific discussion as to the specific arguments why neutral coverage of the initial reporting of the Gawker/TorStar investigation how can we know whether a consensus has been reached?

I don't know whether the discussion should take place here, or on BLPN. But I think there must be a specific discussion where we can agree a conclusion was reached. Geo Swan (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Jokes about allegations are no more substantial than allegations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Was the excised material neutrally written?
Was the excised material neutrally written? -- it seems to me that it was both neutrally written and properly referenced, and there were no grounds to excise it based on WP:NPOV or WP:RS/WP:VER. I call on anyone who disagrees to explain themselves here. Geo Swan (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the excised material relevant?
Is the excised material relevant?

As I expained on WP:BLPN, it seems to me that those arguing coverage of the Gawker/TorStar reporting on the video is based on treating Ford as a "private person", when he is a very "public figure". Geo Swan (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I posted this elsewhere, but this should be posted here instead, so I'll repeat it: It's completely ridiculous that this story is being ignored. Obviously this is a major story in the biography of Ford--no matter how it pans out. Maybe the allegations will prove to be false... in which case a simple "The Allegations of drug abuse turned out to be false" would obviously suffice. People all over the world are clicking on this page, having never heard of Ford before the allegations went public, and can't find anything about it???? The question isn't whether or not Ford did or didn't smoke crack. It's that media has reported that he HAS. Wikipedia should simply reference the fact that the allegations are out there--it doesn;t have to assume they're right or wrong. Anything less is just wrong.--184.145.28.226 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * and we can wait until it pans out. We are not a breaking news service. We owe the facts, not the first. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And this fact is already out: there is an alleged video the purports to show Rob Ford smoking crack. It's no longer breaking news (the story's been out for a week!), and its certainly not an obscure story. It's part of his bio.  Some acknowledgement of that simple fact is to be expected, especially by wikipedia users who are not closely following the twists and turns in the story.--184.145.28.226 (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, lots of people are talking about the very flimsy allegations. we dont need to present chatter about the allegations just because they are.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * After six days, the primary reason that this isn't "flimsy" is because Rob Ford doesn't seem to be able to say outright "The video is a fake. That isn't me". That he's gone essentially to ground and clammed-up sends the message that regardless of how low a contempt the individuals who recorded things may be held in, it seems they aren't lying. You seem to want to send this particular event to the memory hole when in fact it is an ongoing issue that has the wherewithal to be defining. Natty10000 | Natter  01:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Absolutely not true." you cannot really get much more of an outright denial than that. You could try asking him if he has stopped beating his wife or maybe you could tell him, "I dont believe your denial because you didnt swear on a stack of 13 bibles, there were only 12, and you didnt spit on your finger before you pinky swear, and you didnt travel back to Europe to swear on the grave of your grandmother." But you have made up your mind and wouldnt believe him even if he had done those. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Include The drug allegations were the top-100 hits on my Google search. Written very carefully, very neutrally, and being quite careful because, yes, these allegations have criminal implications. ...That said, the sheer volume on irrelevant gossip + undue weight in this article could stun a team of oxen in its tracks. A call-by-call replay of badly-gone-wrong comedy ambush? No. The subject manages the largest city in Canada - that work should be the most significant in this article. For a comparable article, I would recommend Marion Barry as a controversial, significant mayor. It's B-class, the highest-rated fair comp I could find. EBY (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Toronto Community Housing
Over the past year or so I have been working on this article, editors have complained about the large amount of negative reporting. I don't believe the article is slanted, although there is a fair amount of controversial activities reported. I simply have had not much success on finding sources for several items that do reflect well on him. (Say what you will about that!) His supporters have claimed that Ford has helped out persons in Toronto Community Housing but I've not been able to find any cites. (Although, it might be a lead-in to the firing of the TCH directors, which, again, might be taken as a negative report by his supporters.) It might be due to the private nature, but I'd like to include it if it is true. Frankly, despite all his bluster, as a councillor, he did seem to help out his constituents' individual problems. Does anyone have any sources? Alaney2k (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was not a 'minor edit'. Oops. Alaney2k (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Rob Ford Just Gave a Press Conference; It was on CNN
 Those who wish to include everything about this possible hoax or political dirty trick may wish to include the Subject's first detailed response. He said “I do not use crack cocaine....As for a video, I cannot comment on a video that I have not seen, or does not exist.” and said that it is "business as usual in Toronto" and that he wanted to thank the enormous numbers of people who have emailed their support of him. May122013 (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, if you don't clip it out, it belongs in there, certainly. Need a cite with the text, just waiting for that. Alaney2k (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * May122013 (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * May122013, given your post I think you quite clearly betrayed a bias and shouldn't be editing the Wiki entry on Rob Ford. Insomuch as the only two possibilities you cite are "possible hoax or political dirty trick", that demonstrates your bias against the Gawker and Star reports which are just as likely (if not more so). Natty10000 | Natter  20:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion thread at BLPN here. TFD (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's already a lengthy discussion at BLPN, here. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The earlier posting did not present the disputed edit or the sources used, and was written in a tendentious manner, making it appear that editors were reporting information from a tape which may not even exist, rather than reporting what reliable sources throughout the world have been reporting on an on-going basis. TFD (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are now engaging in forumshopping at this point -- adding a thread at BLP/N when there was already one, and adding a new thread at AN as well, and adding a thread on an admin's talk page is clearly a desire to override WP:BLPCRIME through posting at enough places that you hope someone will override that admin's decision. The rules are clear - the material may not be re-added until and unless a clear consensus here finds it to be properly added - that is why WP:BLP exists.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a section called 'allegations of substance abuse'. They are allegations Ford has denied. By this logic all of those should go too. So if Mr Ford says something is not true, then we delete it, even with massive and in this case, world wide press coverage. Seems to me to be a little over the top. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And Rob Ford has lied trying to duck controversy before ie DUI, arena confrontation, etc. It's rather too early in the game to be excising things based on an equivocated denial of the principal. Natty10000 | Natter  12:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Chief of staff
Should mention that Ford has fired his chief of staff, Mark Towhey, for repeatedly asking him to go into rehabilitation therapy. TFD (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Except there is now a differing story emerging, that it had to do with how Ford handled his dismissal as football coach of Don Bosco. Various reporters are citing sources saying that either Towhey dissuaded Ford from holding a party at his home for the players, or supposedly from going to the school to remove the equipment he donated. (Here is one example.) I think on that Towhey story inserting a reason for the firing needs to wait until better info emerges. Although I would think that the firing at the height of this crisis is ill-timed and noteworthy on its own. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt though that Towhey asked him to go into rehabilitation therapy. TFD (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Today's Globe says that "four former dealers who spoke with The Globe described Mr. Price as a participant in Doug Ford’s hash business in the 1980s." Ford hired him "director of logistics and operations".  TFD (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And so the political season begins in earnest -- the problems with anonymous sources cited by one newspaper are significant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify why the use of anonymous sources is a significant problem? I had thought the concern was verifiability of published resources. The Globe & Mail is a published source of information, and not a blog, webpage or disreputable source. 208.38.59.161 (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Doug Ford, Jr.
As a sidenote - admins that are watching this page may want to head over to the article for Ford's brother Doug. With the Globe & Mail story today that claims that Doug sold drugs in the 80s, that article will start getting some activity, and indeed already has the first insertion of this... Echoedmyron (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a statement from the Globe's editor. TFD (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep -- they printed an "investigative report" based on anonymous sources -- a report which has not been widely reported as "fact" and is another blatant use of Wikipedia for political silly season purposes.  Wikipedia is not a tabloid - and the assertion that the Ford family is the world's worst drug dealers is a "tabloid" sort of assertion.  If and when a police investigation turns up something, then all the political stuff can go into the BLPs. Until then, there is a reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the claims, and so WP:BLP is clear.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait...we're calling the Globe & Mail a tabloid, now? Until the police have dealt with it, investigative journalism is not a thing anymore? 208.38.59.161 (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This story has now been picked up by the Daily Mail, which among other things says that the Globe reported another brother was 'charged in a drug-related kidnapping' and his sister 'has ties to the KKK and involved drug related violence.' TFD (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is inexcusably bad--how is it even possible that there is no mention of the crack scandal?
I'm amazed at the fact that the editors of this article have refused to even acknowledge the crack scandal surrounding the mayor. One should be objective enough to simply acknowledge that the controversy exists. No need to take sides or agree with the accusers or the mayor. Just a simple mention of the biggest crisis facing the mayor -- which he himself has acknowledged in the mayoral press conference (Friday, May 24th, 2013), where he specifically responded to the allegations. Frankly, it seems pretty clear that this article has been hijiacked by his supporters, and the story should have a "neutrality disputed" tag. --184.145.28.226 (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It will be returned to the article on Monday or Tuesday. Alaney2k (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough I would be willing to consider mention of this scandal on the basis that the whole article was rewritten in an encyclopedic manner. WP is not a newspaper or a soapbox, it is intended to be an encyclopedia. At the moment it reads like a tabloid and has far too much text devoted to detail and negative aspects of the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Martin, if it strikes you as being like a "tabloid" that might be because the subject has been generating notable issues that would not appear out of place in one. However, the fact of the matter is that they're still notable and (at this stage at least) not worthy of their own separate article. That may change but the simple reality is that they're appropriate in the entry at the moment. Natty10000 | Natter  14:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what the subject has been doing, we are still writing and encyclopedia not a tabloid newspaper. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I was just told to "drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse" trying to cut back on coverage of a scandal about Robert Clark Young's Wikipedia edits, as broken by one reporter in three articles in Salon. I was already to BLPN about it and that seems to be the consensus for coverage, at least in that article.  Is there any possibility we could try to have a slightly less inconsistent standard here, and agree that when cbc.ca prints news articles about a major politician, we can cover what they are about?  I am not suggesting to give Gawker/The Star full credibility about video we can't see, just cover the story. Wnt (talk)

"Reads like a tabloid"
I agree with Martin Hogbin's description directly above, and this is something more important than the current and latest "controversy" regarding this subject. I just had a look at Bill Clinton 's BLP.
 * A: There is no section on controversies
 * B: The Lewinsky scandal that led to impeachment has been hived off into its own article
 * C: The entire section on "sexual misconduct" is titled "allegations" of sexual misconduct and includes 6 different women, and is smaller than the section some editors wish to put back in this BLP on this non-verifiable video.

I have refrained from being verbose about this current issue regarding the video while others who are in favour of its inclusion have individually put 10 times as many words on this talk page than I have, but now I need to get a bit verbose to try and explain as best I can why I think this BLP needs a complete rewrite, as Martin Hogbin suggests before content about this video is included. I do not think any editor here is biased for or against Ford, maybe there are 1 or 2 but I have not looked for that and am not aware of that. However, this BLP has at least since 2010 attracted lots of premature and overblown negative content, I do not know why. Not only that, there definitely has been very exceptional attention by reliable sources to this subject's negative aspects to the point it has extended to his family. For example, above you'll see a section on Doug Ford's alleged connection to hashish back in the 80s when he was a teenager. This report by the Globe and Mail is perhaps the most ambitious investigative report I have ever seen them do on any topic. They interviewed 10 different people to dig up this story. I was in Toronto in the 1980s. Why do you think, if the story is true, that the hash business they refer to was able to persist for 7 years out in the wide-open in the same location? Because nobody cared about marijuana and hashish use. To illustrate, about 15 years ago Canada came very close to legalizing marijuana for the entire country. The story would not have been news then, and yet we are supposed to believe it is news now? This is another example of how targeted Ford is and largely because he has been an easy target. Can you imagine what kind of cell phone videos could have been made under Bill Clinton's desk in the oval office? (according to published incidents in the Starr report) ? And what about the RS reports about George W. Bush smoking coke at Camp David with his brother Neil (from Neils' wife's divorce papers). I don't even have to look to know that's not in W.'s BLP.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by May122013 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 26 May 2013
 * In 1998 Canada almost legalized marijuana? Really.  Funny I don't remember that, and, the 1980s were not 15 years ago.  As for the Globe article of yesterday, you might want to look at the statement by the editor which is linked up the thread a bit.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The Conflict of Interest section
How many of us even know what it is about? Please read it. . It's about Ford using his office stationary to raise $3,150 to help finance a high school football team.That's It ! And he was exonerated in the end.

Look at the size of that section of his BLP.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by May122013 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 May 2013


 * It was a significant matter. He was convicted and ordered removed from office by a superior court judge, although acquitted on appeal.  The issue before the court was not alleged misuse of office stationery but speaking and voting about it in council.  TFD (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While I agree it needs to be covered, does it need eight paragraphs of text? It could be summarized much more succinctly. (though not anytime soon, if the article remains full-protected.)  The Interior  (Talk) 15:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree. One of the problems with articles about people in the news is that sections are updated as more information becomes available, making them read like narratives.  It would be better to re-write based on the most recent source, so that it just contained the main points.  TFD (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree this article is far too news based. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * An article can be too NEWS BASED? Isn't that the point...? Would you rather it be original research? CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Because you were able to read the paragraphs on the trial, you are now well-informed enough to make a criticism of the section. Is that not what we are supposed to provide? Wikipedia is not paper, we can spare the pixels. Trimming without any purpose but to cut out one side of the issue is simply censorship. I dislike removing content simply because you agree or disagree with the subject. On the news side, the man is the current mayor, there are no books written about the man. We use reliable sources, that's the Wiki policy. Alaney2k (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actual consensus is required for addition of contentious material
This is by policy WP:BLP. Let's see if there is an affirmative consensus that the addition of amterial containing an allegation of a crime is present here. I would note that "denying a crime" is insufficient as grounds for then saying "now we can add the allegations" just like if a politician says "I did not kill George Gnarph" we can not add "Bill Grapgh alleged he say a video of the politician killing Goerge Gnarph." At such time as asctual evidence is available, then we can add charges -- Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor a tabloid, and the WP:DEADLINE is clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This denial being covered by major new agencies throughout the world is not enough? I realize we are not a newspaper, indeed I started watching this page once the Gawker story came out, to be sure stuff was not added.  But, now we have a case where everyone and their brother know about this and it is being covered by RSs.  I think it deserves a mention.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Include. It would seem to me, that whether or not the allegations can be substantiated, that the controversy that resulted, leading to the mayor of North America's 4th largest city having to hold a press conference to explicitly deny that he uses crack cocaine needs to be mentioned. And to include that, coverage of the allegations is required. Said coverage may certainly stress that the claims have not been substantiated. Echoedmyron (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The biased editing/reverting of this article is getting out of hand and is degrading into low Chauvin-type farce. To excise in its entirety any mention of the video would be to render the entry as a whole worthless by virtue of cherry-picking which facts are comforting to supporters of the subject. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but the point of any encyclopedic source (Wiki or what-have-you) is to provide warts-and-all coverage of a given topic not just what its adherents would have recalled. Perhaps the video will turn out to be worthless (if it actually sees the light of day, that is). The point now is less the video than the response by Rob Ford(or lack thereof) to it. Pretending it didn't happen just isn't going to cut it.
 * I agree with Echoedmyron that the mention stays in with qualifier Natty10000 | Natter  14:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While some of those who have argued for exclusion have claimed those who have included coverage of the crack-smoking allegations: hate Ford; have been pushing an anti-Ford agenda; and, most importantly, are significantly out of line with key policiies -- but the record simply doesn't support this. I think Alaney2k, in particular, should be commended for covering this controversial material in a manner that measures up the best standard of the project. I urge those arguing for disclusion to (1) make a greater effort to avoid using straw arguments; (2) make a greater effort to re-read the wikidocuments they cite, because when I have re-read them I found they didn't say what the discluders claimed  they said. In particular, no one here has tried to claim that Ford's presence in the recording has been confirmed. Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Per BLPCRIME this cannot be added to this article, also read WP:BLPGOSSIP. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain what in blpcrime or blpgossip applies to this article - I can find nothing in them. TFD (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've full protected the page for two days. Considering the contentiousness of the BLP info, it shouldn't be included unless there is a consensus to include it here.  I have no opinion on the merits of this case.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 14:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is being used to justify removal of this content. However, the policy is quite clear about what to do in situations invloving allegations against public figures: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." From my reading, the BLP policy clearly allows mentions of allegations if they are sourced to reliable parties, as they are here. The Interior  (Talk) 14:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And the requirement for re-adding contentious claims is not dependent on your argument that the person is notable -- EVERY person with a BLP is "notable" - but that does not mean that contentious claims do not need consensus. We do seem to have quite a bit of "negative material" in this BLP, this claim of a crime still runs afoul of WP:BLP.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In favour of retaining mention. Seconding The Interior 's point. Qualified, neutral-stance mention of the incident belongs in the entry. Otherwise, the entry as a whole risks being nothing more than a PR item for the subject. That the subject of the entry has created a number of negative notable situations is not an excuse to eliminate them until/unless there are a comparable number of positive notable entries.  Natty10000 | Natter  14:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Collect, all I'm saying is that consensus should be grounded on policy, and in this case, the policy doesn't support the removal of these allegations. As for the state of the bio in general, it's not great - I've been watching it for a couple years now, and have been reverting the worst of the Ford-bashing. But, I think this has been raised above, Mr. Ford generates a remarkable amount of negative press. He's not a air-brushed, P.R.-managed politician, he shoots from the hip. That's part of his allure, but he also pays for it in the press. What we really should be thinking about is if the theoretical authoritative biography of this man, when all is said and done, would include this incident. I think the answer is yes. The Interior  (Talk) 14:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously not Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Martin, could you kindly explain your rationale at all? It might help others understand your reasoning Natty10000 | Natter  15:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Should be mentioned as describe by our policy on the matter. I think the negative content in this article is over the top - However I do think this incident should be mentioned. No need for much - just mentioned in a few sentences while at the same time trimming and incorporation of other negative material into the main body of the article. We are at the point were he is being asked to step down by other city counselors - thus having an affect on real world issues at city hall.  Moxy (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Should Not be added to the article per WP:BLPCRIME, WP:DEADLINE, and WP:BLPGOSSIP. May122013 (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither of the BLP portions you link support removal when multiple, reliable sources are present. Deadline is not policy, but an essay, and regardless is quite nuanced about including current event coverage. BLP asks us to be conservative in our coverage of these types of things, but not that we avoid any mention. Moxy's approach above would be closer to the policy's recommendations. The Interior  (Talk) 15:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Collect, in initiating this section, you implied that WP:BLP included the phrase "affirmative consensus". It doesn't.  I am mystified as to what you really meant to say.  I urge you to re-read WP:BLP, and if you still think the material doesn't belong, then I urge you to try again -- but this time please be properly specific on the particular passage(s) you think are relevant.  Please do not simply make up claims of what you want the policy to say.   Geo Swan (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the multiple BLP and BLP/N discussions thereon -- it is up to the person seeking to add the questioned material to gain consensus for such addition. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that the consensus of editors is to include it. TFD (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Should mentioned as per WP:BLP standards. WP:BLP is to protect private individuals from inaccurate content that could be harmful to the individual, not to simply shield individuals from cited content that may look unflattering to them.  The allegation is not inaccurate.  The allegation has been heavily reported worldwide and arguably the most reported event in this person's life.  It is nonsense to be completely blind to this in a biography about this person.  As long as the content is properly cited by reliable sources it is permitted per WP:BLP.--Oakshade (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Should be mentioned, material that was excised should be restored. To borrow much of what I said in the BLPN thread on this issue this morning, removing all of the information on this issue in the article, when it was carefully written and sourced, is ludicrous. This is a major (likely the most major) issue in Ford's mayoralty. It has been thoroughly covered in national and international media, led to a warning letter from Ford's own cabinet, warranted comments from the leader of the federal Liberal party, led to the firing of Ford's chief of staff, led indirectly to Ford's firing as football coach, and so on. The article as it was written before all of the material was excised earlier today was neutrally stating the information as it has been reported in reliable press sources. It presented a balanced view, with Ford's denial included word-for-word. It should be restored to the article. Starswept (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Starswept
 * Include Has received ongoing coverage in mainstream media throughout the world, the only time Ford has received this sort of attention.  TFD (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Include with careful wording with attention to what is established and what is alleged, and it will be BLP-compliant, in my view, per WP:WELLKNOWN. The story is well beyond the rumour of a minor crime (and I think the case for WP:BLPCRIME here has been seriously overstated anyway, as Geo Swan notes below). We are currently not serving our readers well by seemingly ignoring this story that has received coverage on a larger scale than anything previously about this mayor. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * include I have been editing this article for over a year now. I have done hours and hours of research on Ford. I have been working to try to present a balanced article on him. If you examine the record of editing on this article, you will see a pattern where ford is reported for doing or saying something controversial and the 'drive-by edits start to happen, negatively and positively. Obviously, we should approach this subject with care and deliberate carefully. I think that mentions should be included here. I believe that to do so is encyclopedic. It will and is a part of the public record for Ford. I have not seen any good intentions on the part of those editors who want it censored. I have been adding non-controversial and notable material about Ford. I worked on moving the controversies into the proper sections. Fighting over reversions is pointless. I propose that we allow a properly minimal amount of content mentioning the allegations, and put full protection on for a week. I believe that it belongs under wp:wellknown, but we are wasting time fighting. It will be difficult to agree on a suitable wording, but the content is important and forever will be part of the public record. And I would challenge those who simply want to censor, to do some research and proper editing on this article and not simply drive-by. Alaney2k (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you assert the current article meets NPOV?  I suggest that the current article contains enough POV to choke a horse - and your comment that It will be returned to the article on Monday or Tuesday.  is an indication of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What does WP:BLPCRIME really say, really mean?
WP:BLPCRIME is short enough I am going to include the whole thing. I've numbered the sentences for convenience:


 * {| border="1"


 * 1) ''A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law.
 * 2) ''For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6]
 * 3) ''If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.
 * }
 * }

The press has been careful to say it has not been confirmed Ford is in the recording -- and so have we -- so we are in compliance.

The second sentence states that "people who are relatively unknown" get their privacy protected, but, as been pointed out several times already, Rob Ford is an instance of WP:WELLKNOWN. It says: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative..." The extensive commentary the allegations of the recording triggered mean that the allegations is "noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented".

With regard to the third sentence, I don't believe anyone has tried to be pithy...

So, to those who keep claiming BLPCRIME applies, please engage in this discussion in a serious manner. Please show the respect those who argue for inclusion readlly deserve, and read their arguments. Please be specific as to which passages you think apply. Please explain why you think they apply. Geo Swan (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Include as this story is highly notable. If this allegation is proved false I am sure the high level of reporting on the event will mean that the story will have a paragraph in this article. If this allegation is proved true I am sure it will and should be noted in this article. There is no way there is any BLP violation here, there are a massive number of respectable sources, the allegations are written in wikipedia voice as such and not as facts, the purpose of including the information is to disseminate knowledge that many are currently seeking here not to attack the subject, BLPcrime does not apply, and if you think this is a BLP violation than I'd love to know what you think of William Roache's article or of the thousands of other biography pages which report notable and verifiable allegations. Sepsis II (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * User TFD has written above that this is "the only time Ford has received this sort of attention" Would that be an accurate statement? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In terms of international coverage, I'd say yes. His election victory in the mayoral race in 2010 would be the only competition, and I don't believe that was covered to any degree outside of Canada.  The Interior  (Talk) 22:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You can check through google news searches for Australia, New York Times, or other non-Canadian sources. Obviously because of his position, he receives a lot of coverage in Canadian media.  TFD (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So he was then relatively unknown other than locally, hence BLPCRIME 2 applies. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't twist his words. Ford was already well-known internationally. Alaney2k (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean this in jest, DS. No mayor of Toronto could be "unknown other than locally"; it's one of the most powerful offices in the country.  The Interior  (Talk) 11:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Having smoked crack doesn't make one a criminal so there is no BLPcrime here. All that is going on here is that numerous reliable sources are reporting that he is alleged to have smoked crack. This newstory is notable and should be included here. BLP issues would arise if we stated that Rob is a crack smoker, but we have never done this we have always stayed away from any BLP violations by stating the allegations as such. So far it seems we have a solid consensus that there is no BLP violation in including the material. Sepsis II (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Possession of cocaine is a crime in Canada - thus it is absolutely a claim of a crime. I think you should read what is already in the BLP and note that the crime is implicit in secveral sentences in the politically inspired section which might not actually meet the definition of WP:NPOV in any case.  The specific allegation of the un-verifiable video is, moreover, a direct accusation of a crime.  There is, moreover, a reasonable belief that some editors may be involved in Toronto politics, which is rather an indirect COI at best.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no allegation that he possesses cocaine, only that he smokes crack which is not a crime. If the video was of him purchasing, selling, or manufacturing crack, or that he possesses crack right now, then there is evidence of a crime. But enough about the legal aspects of drugs as that is all irrelevant to the subject at hand. There is no BLP violation here, perhaps if you can read the policy WP:WELLKNOWN to realize it is appropriate to report notable verifable allegation as allegations, which is what had been done. Oh and WP:Deadline is just a few people's opinion, one I and likely many others disagree with as to have censored out all the information during the time when most readers are seeking that information makes wikipedia look useless. Sepsis II (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Collect, by your reasoning, no Wikipedia article could mention any allegations against people until they were ultimately convicted or died. Hence Nixon's article should not have mentioned Watergate during his lifetime.  Maybe that would be a good policy, why don't you suggest it?  In the meantime, since it is not policy, your comments are irrelevant.  TFD (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said no such thing, and you damn well know it, I assume your snark above is simply posturing for no apparent reason. Tell me when you actually wish to discuss anything in a collegial manner.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

comment Ford was relatively unknown internationally before this news item.. May122013 (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Mayor of one of North America's largest cities = Extremely well known. Nonsense reason to restrict this content in this biography.--Oakshade (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I must say, this comment looks like a resort to splitting hairs in attempt to not have mention of this highly cited content. With this kind of desperation, might you have a conflict of interest with this biography?--Oakshade (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What does WP:GOSSIP really say, really mean?
WP:GOSSIP is short enough I am going to include the whole thing. I've numbered the sentences for convenience:


 * {| border="1"


 * 1) ''Avoid repeating gossip.
 * 2) ''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.
 * 3) '' Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.
 * 4) ''Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.
 * }
 * }

Since the story is being (1) repeated widely; (2) has triggered extensive new and interesting commentary -- like Slate magazine's comparison of Ford with Diamond Joe Quimby.

With regard to the second sentence -- I suggest the key phrase is "...is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." As I wrote on BLPN, Ford has never triggered more controversy than over this video.

With regard to the second sentence -- I suggest no one has used weasel words. While the drug dealers are anonymous, the Gawker/TorStar reporters are not anonymous. They are the ones who count, so we are not using anonymous sources.

Clearly feedback loops also doesn't apply. Geo Swan (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Include For all of the above, and because stating that there is a controversy over the existence of a video, true or not, is not false, is not slanderous, is simply stating known facts as reported from other sources. passes the verifiability test, not sure why there would be any reason not to include it. Previous arguments against BLP don't seem to fit quite right. 208.38.59.161 (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Actual consensus
After the two-day protection, actual consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of including this material as per WP:BLP policy with some very detailed analysis of what WP:BLP and its sub-policies like WP:BLPCRIME and WP:GOSSIP are. Three of the four of those who'd prefer no mention have simply labeled WP:BLP and other guidelines without any reasoning as to what exactly in those policies and guidelines restrict this cited content. Consensus has spoken. --Oakshade (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite needed immediately
The broader issue is that we simply can not allow this BLP to be as overweight as its subject. He's just a guy who is in politics who has far exceeded what anyone ever thought he could do. He won the mayoralty with about a 15% margin, I think. He seems to work exceptionally hard for his constituents, he seems to be brutally honest and transparent in expressing his true opinions, he worked his ass off for that football team for underprivileged young men, he always,always shows up at his job, and he has had about the same level of personal tragedy in his life as the Kennedys. So if the BLP is going to be this bloated, then all of that positive stuff should find its way into the article too....its all been reported.

But, I think the BLP should be rewritten, and trimmed in half, right now, by someone who has not edited the article; ideally an administrator. May122013 (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And this requires a section of its very own instead of your opinion added to the already-existing "Actual consensus is required for addition of contentious material" section.....why? 13:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natty10000 (talk • contribs)


 * Because this section applies to the content of the entire BLP, not just the past week and a half of edits on 1 topic. May122013 (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is what the City Hall bureau chief of the Toronto Sun wrote under "Mayor Rob Ford's unforgettable legacy" in today's edition: "Ford has spent the last week entangled in that crack cocaine scandal - the biggest one to date to threaten his mayoralty but another in a long line of scandals that are more personal than political. And that plague of personal scandals will likely be what Ford’s legacy will be once his time in office is done...."
 * Even if we include the positive things, they need to balanced too. Councillors have complained about his constitueny work because as mayor he is supposed to look after the city, not just the constitutents in his former electoral district.  They also say that his work as a volunteer coach during office hours neglected his work and he should not have assigned paid city employees to assist him - and of course he was fired from both coaching positions.  I do not know what personal tragedies you mean.
 * TFD (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the BLP should be rewritten and trimmed as soon as possible; ideally by an administrator. May122013 (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, you said that already. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Admins are supposed to administer, they're not super-writers. I'm afraid you'll have to propose the good version yourself. Wnt (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I will do it if the other editors wish me to; I just thought it would be better for someone who has not been involved in editing disagreements in this article to give it a go. I'm also sure there are some administrators who can write well ( I never said superbly) May122013 (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your bias is already demonstrated. Natty10000 | Natter  03:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know why Wnt suggested I do it, I didn't think that would fly. I don't think I'm biased but I sure find Ford's honesty and up-front ness refreshing for a politician; can you imagine any other mayor saying "What I compare bike lanes to is swimming with the sharks. Sooner or later you're going to get bitten.."? That would be left in if I did it, for sure. May122013 (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not May that is biased but the article. I came in response to the RfC, I have no knowledge or interest in the subject but it is quite obvious that this article is being used as a soapbox to promote negative opinions of the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To reiterate what I said above, I'd like to see some consistency between how we treat this article and how we treat Robert Clark Young, which I just talked about at BLPN and was told to leave alone. If the negative material in the lead of that article, based on one guy in Salon, is how we do things, then we shouldn't have any trouble quoting CBC to let people know what this person is in the news for.  The deleted text I saw could have been better written - basically, you could start with the most respectable sources and describe the story the way they describe it, rather than beginning the story with what Gawker and The Star said - but Wikipedia's role shouldn't be to keep well-known things hidden.  (N.B. I know nothing about this guy and only read the disputed part, so I can't comment on overall article balance) Wnt (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Toronto Star is one of the most respected newspapers in Canada. I agree though that when reporting investigative journalism we should use a secondary source for it.  That way we are sure that we are only choosing what the rest of the media found to be significant.  I would not use Gawker as a source.  TFD (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Having just read through the article again is not just the volume of negative material but the total volume of insignificant detail. It looks as though a pro vs anti Fort fight is being played out on the pages.  I would be happy to try to reduce this, without favouring and 'side' if that is of interest to editors here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Read what the Toronto Sun's City Hall bureau chief said about him, "Ford has spent the last week entangled in that crack cocaine scandal - the biggest one to date to threaten his mayoralty but another in a long line of scandals that are more personal than political. And that plague of personal scandals will likely be what Ford’s legacy will be once his time in office is done...."  That is from the main newspaper that backed him for mayor. No political figures are backing him either, except his brother. TFD (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Martin Hogbin repeats, in this section, that he "came [to this article] in response to the RfC." I left this request on User talk:Martin Hogbin on May 24th.  I think if a WP:RfC had been initiated about this article whoever initiated it had an obligation to inform those participating here, of that discussion.  Given that whoever started that other discussion failed to do so I think it fell to Hogbin himself to tell us of this other discussion.  Not only hasn't he done so, here he is repeating, on May 27th, that he is not biased, and only came here in response to "the RfC".  Where is that RfC Martin?
 * On May 22nd Martin Hogbin left a brief comment here that said: "*Reduce content There is far to much detail on controversies and policies."
 * Seventeen hours later Martin Hogbin initiated a section on WP:Village pump, entitled "Attack articles" -- without informing those participating here that he was characterizing this article as an "attack article", and that he had characterized those of us who thought the crack allegations merited coverage as individuals who had "decide[d] to abandon all WP principles of weight and encyclopedic quality and add as much negative material to the article as possible." Martin Hogbin did not inform the rest of us here that he had initiated that discussion on WP:VP.
 * It seems to me that Martin Hogbin, RedPenOfDoom and User:May122013, still haven't offered the specificity the rest of us are entitled to.
 * I am not suggesting that Martin Hogbin, RedPenOfDoom and May122013 are acting out of bad faith.
 * I am suggesting that the pattern of edits of these three contributors is indistinguishable from TROLLing. They have repeatedly claimed wikidocuments said something other than what they actually said; They have been unwilling or unable to respond to civil questions with the specificity their correspondents are entitled to expect.


 * I am going to urge Martin Hogbin, RedPenOfDoom and May122013 to take some time to really understand the arguments and counter-arguments already made by those who disagreed with them, and spend a significant effort to address those arguments, specifically, and in a manner that cites what our policies and other wikidocuments actually say, before leaving more comments here. The rest of us should really try our best to understand their points.  The rest of us deserve to have them try to understand our points.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I, for one, would accept,support and appreciate Martin Hogbin's offer to do a rewrite. ( see 2 edits above ) May122013 (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Geo, please do not attack other editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Rather than use our value judgements for what should and shouldn't be covered in the article, it's probably best to look at what major news outlet's editorial boards have deemed the major points in his career. Here's CBC's "Rob Ford Timeline" - a good indication of at least the CBC's opinion on what is notable during Ford's mayoral term: Rob Ford Timeline  The Interior  (Talk) 23:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Geo, I also came here via WP:RfC. I followed the process. I offered my opinion. It aligns with the others. Therefore, I am somewhat flabbergasted that you did not include me in the conspiracy. Please correct this! .... Sorry, joke was begging to be made. All right, on a serious note - I'm going to suggest that it's possible we all simply had similar reactions when reading this article as it stands because this article is egregious. It's not about IF this article should be blown away and re-built, it's about HOW. (May, that wasn't me volunteering~!) That's where consensus seems to be, and it's a productive step to discuss during this period of hard protection. EBY (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)