Talk:Doug Ford

Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report

Should this article include mention of the 2013 Globe and Mail investigative report which alleged that Doug Ford sold hashish in Etobicoke in the 1980s? (example) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include - the report attracted international attention when it was released, as it was in the midst of Doug's brother Rob's crack smoking video scandal. I'm not sure it should be placed in the "early life" section, seeing how the report was released while he was a Toronto city councillor. The allegations in the report continue to play a role in recent news coverage about Mr. Ford's campaign for Ontario PC leader. As reliable sources continue to make it an element of their coverage nearly five years later, it's clear that the report is viewed by those sources as a significant event in Ford's political career, and it's therefore warranted by NPOV to include a brief, neutral summary of that event in Ford's bio. It would be whitewashing not to include it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Expanding: the text being discussed is largely based on this edit added to the article on 27 May 2014. It has been discussed in some detail three times not including this discussion nor the one directly above: here in 2013, here again earlier this year, and a companion discussion at BLPN. None of those discussions ended in an authoritative consensus, neither to include nor remove the section. I prefer inclusion, obviously, but I'll honestly be happy just to see a decision made, instead of the ongoing back-and-forth. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include - Globe and Mail is Canada's leading quality newspaper and conducted an extensive investigation. The newspaper is a very credible and has repeated the claim regularly and recently as have other media. Ford threatened to sue for defamation but never has and the deadline for him to file a lawsuit expired years ago. Excluding this material would be a whitewash. Nixon Now (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Include - The Globe and Mail is definitely a reputable newspaper in Canada, and I have no doubts about the integrity of their investigation. The information is clearly relevant, and the exclusion of it would be just plain irresponsible. Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - If it wasn't newsworthy before he became Ontario PC leader, then I don't see why it should be newsworthy now. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It certainly was newsworthy before he became leader - the Globe and Mail ran a very lengthy report in 2013, long before Ford ran for leader and it only started to be removed from this article around the time he declared his candidacy in January. Nixon Now (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

For reference, here is a revision from November 2017 here is a revision from May 2014 with the content. It's important to note that the wording has since been changed (for the better). The fact that there was a article about substantive investigation done by one of the most reputable Canadian newspapers that was published long before Doug's PC leadership bid illustrates that it is newsworthy. Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I simply don't see a reason for having such info in the article. If it's so necessary to show it? then create a separate article for it. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - even an admin assumed there were drug charges when asked to protect this; that says it all because

there were no drug charges

This Globe report was done back when there was a big commotion about Subject's brother, Rob Ford, and Subject was coatracked into commotion by the Globe

It pertains to alleged 30 40 year old high school behaviour

The Subject is in a huge general election that only has 2 months to go and this content is highly prejudicial

This content is, imo, extremely offensive to the spirit of Blp policies. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug Ford is 54 years old. 30 years age he was well into his twenties and an adult, not a high schooler. Nixon Now (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Its not constructive to cherry pick the more minor points in a person's opinion to challenge, and even if so, that's ancient history and 30 years is a helluva long time ago. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Nixon Now The article says"His tenure as a dealer, many of the sources say, lasted about seven years until 1986, the year he turned 22". Maybe you could reconsider putting this into his Blp since it relates to high school years. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a minor point, you were suggesting Ford was a minor at the time when he wasn't, he was a mature adult. Also, the age of the allegations is irrelevant and not a reason to exclude. Also, 22 years old certainly does not "relate" to high school years, it's almost an entire cohort removed. He may have started young but he continued well into adulthood. You're beating a dead horse with this argument.Nixon Now (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I also think that MPS1992's 2 comments at the admin noticeboard are worth considering. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Admin User:EdJohnston's comments are interesting (as you claim above he was misled into thinking drug charges were laid): "The information comes from a reliable source, and it doesn't appear to be a BLP violation to include it. So it comes down to editorial judgment as to whether it is important enough to include. When something comes from a WP:RS it becomes harder to refute."

Also User:NeilN's comment to you: "I have more concerns with your seeming desire to hide this information just because the subject is now running for office. I looked at the article history and the info was added almost four years ago. Many editors have worked on the article since then and the content doesn't suddenly become a BLP vio just because the subject may have a higher profile now. As Ed says, it's a matter for editorial judgment."

(Comments copied from User_talk:EdJohnston#Doug_Ford_Jr._No_drug_charges)

Nixon Now (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Ed's comments, I was referring to this on your talk page about "drug charges" (of which there are none re: this Subject afaik)...its an honest mistake Ed made and I am concerned other readers will make the same mistake with this content. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

COMMENT why did you guys get the Blp protected just after opening a Rfc and putting the contentious material back in? Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude Seeing that Ford was never convicted, or even charged, and that there is no clear consensus to include this info it should be omitted. Also, the alleged anonymous source comes from the left-wing Globe and Mail (a paper which endorsed both Smitherman and Tory against the Ford brothers) is very suspicious. I also find it unfair that NixonNow is accusing anyone who opposes this info of engaging in disruptive behaviour. It's worth noting that the IP editors who have opposed NixonNow come from Mississauga, Ottawa, and Toronto, and that these edits were made less than an hour apart. 199.7.156.134 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

In fact, the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives under Tim Hudak in the last provincial election[1] and the federal Conservatives under Stephen Harper in the last federal election. [2]. The Globe and Mail is simply not a "left wing" newspaper. Nixon Now (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail is most definitely not a "left wing newspaper" as claimed. Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"left-wing Globe and Mail" marks this IP as an obvious troll. The !vote should be discarded. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include Include per above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Include. The Globe and Mail is Canada's newspaper of record, and the report was also covered by numerous other reliable sources. As long as the allegations are phrased so that it sticks to what has been reported, and includes Mr. Ford's denial, then it is okay to include it as long as we avoid the pitfalls that WP:BLP warns us about. That being said, I'm not a fan of how its currently worded. For example, the actual claim is that Doug Ford was a top level dealer who sold to street dealers, while the current wording leaves that detail ambiguous. The current phrasing also tries to imply Doug Ford's guilt by association with his brother, which might be a step too far. On the other hand, the phrasing implies that anonymous sources are ipso facto back and mentions an Ontario Press Council hearing, but doesn't mention that the hearing vindicated the Globe and Mail.[3] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Include, with especial care to keep it clear that he has not been charged and denies the accusation, but that it has been (and continues to be) widely reported. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Sigh... We aren't a tabloid journal, and saying Ford dealt cannabis in the 1980s based a single disputed article basically seems WP:UNDUE. On the other hand, the Globe is a reputable newspaper and should be taken seriously. If we do include this claim, we should be careful to balance the assertions of the Globe with the explicit denial of Ford. AdA&D ★ 00:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

We aren't a tabloid and neither is the Globe and Mail. That's the point. If a leading credible newspaper covers this story extensively it's not for us to censor or cover up.Nixon Now (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - For being WP:UNDUE. Also because they were allegations and he was never charged. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  Meatsgains: can you elaborate on why you think WP:UNDUE applies, given the brevity of the proposed text and the extensiveness of the coverage ? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Meatsgains as it takes up over 90% of the "early life" section. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

And less than 10% of the article overall. We don't determine undue weight based on a section. Nixon Now (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Why does everyone who says Exclude get a pushback? Isn't an Rfc for getting the opinions of others rather than challenging those opinions?Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow: Meatsgain gave a rationale without given support for that rationale, thus making it impossible to evaulate their !vote. Could you please let Meatsgain speak for themself? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include in some capacity. Especially considering the topics relevance to the Ford political dynasty. - Carlbergman (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Include This article is about Doug Ford's life, his whole life, and not just the good parts. If it happened for good or for worse, it is relevant for inclusion. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude, he wasn't charged, convicted, or photographed in action, it is an alleged activity (although in my opinion an honorable activity). And he apparently denies it. So it's a rumor. Wikipedia shouldn't add rumors into BLP pages, even if they are sourced (the National Enquirer contains lots of rumors but we don't use it as a source, but if the rumor is upgraded to a paper of record we do? A rumor is a rumor). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  Randy Kryn: I hope you're not comparing The Globe and Mail to the Enquirer—it was founded by two Fathers of Confederation, one of whom was Canada's first Prime Minister, and has about as solid a reputation as any newspaper in Canada. Nor is it a "rumour"—the G&M printed the article as a result of an investigation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  He denied it, there were never any charges from legal authorities. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's use of such things as BLP violations, so will leave it to more policy-knowledgeable people to figure out. I know how journalism works these days, and the story is often built backwards from an accepted assumption, and often they get it so wrong that you can see Russia from your porch (or anybody's porch). He may not have sued because it would have kept the story alive which, from his perspective if he's being honest, was an inaccurate story. And even if it's accurate, it's hashish, which will now be sold openly in Canada so any investigative journalist will be able to walk in a shop-around-the-corner and purchase. In any case, as I mention, I'm not up-to-the-minute savvy on BLP policy, the closer will have to determine if policy covers such matters. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Canada's upcoming marijuana legalization only applies to fresh and dried marijuana and cannabis oil. Hash and concentrates are still going to be illegal. Which is not to say that they're not sold openly already anyway. (ref: http://www.slaw.ca/2017/04/18/canadas-cannabis-act-a-high-level-overview/) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, I didn't know that. Seems silly not to go the whole route on these products. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot about this legislation that's silly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include For the record, as Ford is a Canadian, it would be a "rumour" not an American "rumor", and it's neither, it's supported by a reliable source not a tabloid or broadsheet. We discuss what RSes discuss and there are few more reliable sources in Canada. That they have not had to print a retraction or have been sued for the piece is enough to conclude there is veracity to the story and it is not a rumour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Include A report by a respected national newspaper is part of the public record, and, as long as we summarize it fairly, complies with BLP. If the Globe has not seen fit to issue corrections or remove the report in the more than four years since it was published, we have to assume they stand by the reporting. The Interior (Talk) 15:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment I just noticed this part of the inserted content which I think should be removed ASAP: "though his brother, Randy, was also involved in the drug trade and was once charged in relation to a drug-related kidnapping." as guilt by association and "also involved in the drug trade" can be read as if it was heroin or crack that Doug is alleged to have been "also" involved in....extremely misleading terminology, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Limited include - Distrust election-cycle news hype but ... put it down in later life since that's where it surfaced, and approval is only to language of RFC or similar saying that it was a story which alleged it happened in the 80s based on anonymous sources, and no charges ever occurred. By Google the mention of the papers reporting seems prominent enough to be WP:DUE a mention and as a WP:PUBLICFIGURE he is not sheltered by WP:BLPCRIME. But WP:BLP lead still directs "must be written conservatively" and not a tabloid; and WP:PUBLICFIGURE says to avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts so just describe the story occurred without use of sensationalist words like "drug dealer". If the OPC is mentioned, give it a cite like this one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - See this HuffPo article on a CBC Radio interview with Ford earlier this week:

"Near the end of the interview, the CBC host asked Ford why he hadn't followed up on his threat to sue The Globe and Mail over a 2013 story that alleged he sold hashish for several years in the 1980s.

Ford questioned why Bresnahan wanted to "hash up" an old story about his high-school days that was "absolutely false," and said he thought a lawsuit was a waste of time.

She countered by saying it was an issue of trust, noting that Ford initially denied that his late brother, former Toronto mayor Rob Ford, had used illegal drugs."

so not only the Globe but also other mainstream credible media such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Canada's public broadcaster) and HuffPo are still covering this issue. Nixon Now (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Nixon Now, if you're going to quote from an article which we are not presently allowed to use in the Blp, I think you should have also included Subject's response to the reporter's question which is:

Ford said he didn't know at the time that Rob had done drugs.

"I appreciate you bringing his name up, because he was one of the best civil servants there ever was," he said.

I also think its a worthwhile article but we can not even reference now because of the protection so it is ridiculous for any of us to cherry pick content out of new articles and insert that on the discussion page. The growing consensus here is that any mention of the 40 year old alleged events is very awkward to include in a Blp, and since you copied and pasted some content on Ed Johnston's talk page, I assume that's ok since no one corrected you for it, I'm copying and pasting MPS1992's 2comments from the Blp noticeboard which I think are the most relevant and cerebral comments thus far:

"based on interviews with anonymous sources and noting that the newspaper could find no record of drug-related criminal charges against Ford" .... uh... MPS1992 (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The usual test for "accusations of criminal activity that lack both charges and convictions", is the question of whether the alleged incident was significant in the specific named person's future career, one way or another. MPS1992 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment: "The growing consensus here is that any mention of the 40 year old alleged events is very awkward to include in a Blp" - looking at this discussion there are 11 votes to include and 5 to exclude so by more than a 2:1 margin the consensus is actually moving in the opposite direction of where you claim it's going and the CBC interview and HuffPo article demonstrate why, Ford's alleged background as a drug dealer is relevant. As for why I did not quote the entire article, the parts you cite above have nothing to do with the drug dealing allegations and are irrelevant to this discussion. Nixon Now (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

More importantly, Nixon Now, we all have to make sure we do not go down the road that lots of us went down with Rob Ford, getting all obsessed and pissy about the Blp. I wasn't going to mention it but Bearcat's reference above, in a different section, to the, now dead brother of this Subject as "crackhead mayor" should absolutely be stricken, I am very disappointed that Bearcat would say that here on thad dead man's brother's pages and we simply must treat this Subject with respect and as his own person, imo, especially the great editors like Nixon Now and Bearcat who should be carrying the NPOV and Blp conservative (no pun intended:) policies very high for the benefit for the newer editors. I am not perfect either..we can all do a much better job here, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right, IMO, that a descriptor like "crackhead mayor" qualifies as something requiring a reference inline as "contentious material ... about living persons", so here's one. Use at will.

The subject's brother having died is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, but just to comment: we owe Rob Ford no more respect in death than reliable sources gave him during his life. BLP instructs us to describe individuals as they are described by reliable sources. We can no more describe them as flowery posthumous eulogized versions of themselves than we can describe them solely as drug-addicted politically-ineffective monsters. But that being said, we must allow some leeway, within reasonable limits, for material of this nature to be discussed, so we can find a truthful version in the middle and not just shout at each other from opposite ends of a long, dark hallway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"Crackhead" is neither NPOV nor encyclopaedic language, no matter how many RSes use it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Not for use in the encyclopedia, no. I don't think anyone would argue that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include. Subject to significant real-world coverage in reliable sources. PS: A seven-year career as a dealer isn't some minor youthful transgression, a momentary lapse of judgement. It's a focused career decision to engage in long-term, deliberate criminal enterprise. Many of us don't work regular jobs for anywhere near that long.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment:SMcCandlish and others, I get your point, but how do you feel about these 2 points made at the admin noticeboard....

based on interviews with anonymous sources and noting that the newspaper could find no record of drug-related criminal charges against Ford" .... uh... MPS1992 (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC) The usual test for "accusations of criminal activity that lack both charges and convictions", is the question of whether the alleged incident was significant in the specific named person's future career, one way or another. MPS1992 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)</ref>

if MPS1992's point are valid, which I think they are, (how)/are they not mutually exclusive with your point, and if they are, why would your point hold sway? I mean, your point would dominate had Subject been charged, arrested, convicted, but that is not the case here, should not there be an extreme deference be given to MPS1992's points ?? "Innocent til proven guilty", or at least arrested, or at least charged" and all of that? Especially when considering the spirit of Blp policies?Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first point isn't really a point, it's just a quote from the article's prose. I think MPS1992 had meant to make a point about the use of anonymous sources, but we're not using anonymous sources, we're sourcing to a frequently-repeated report in one of Canada's most respected news outlets, which they have not retracted, defended at an industry tribunal, and continue to assert is valid. On the second point I think we're discussing whether or not significance has been established; I argued above why I think it has. As for "innocent until proven guilty" Wikipedia is not a court of law, and we're not saying "Doug Ford definitely dealt drugs in the 80s". We're reflecting what the sources actually say: that a report led to an allegation, and nothing more than that. That's all we should say, anyway, we might have to work on the wording.

The "spirit" of BLP policy is to get things right, by following the sources, balancing various points of view, and removing things when they're not relevant or not properly sourced. It's not to protect individuals from any negative information about themselves. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes; hiding the fact of a public controversy isn't a fair and balanced treatment of the sources. It's not WP's job to say that the accusations are true, but it is not our job either to say that they were not made in a major publication and the subject of considerable scandal for Ford. That is itself "significant in the specific named person's future career, one way or another". I'm not a student of this subject's history and public commentary on it; it may well be that later sources have completely exonerated him. Our job here is "teach the controversy" not "hide controversy to make the subject happy". This would be completely different if some piece-o'-crap publication like the Weekly World News had done something crazy and implausible, like claimed Ford was a living-dead zombie alien with psychic powers. [Yes, they actually do things like that [4].]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - Allegations and/or rumors of criminal behavior from the 80s for which he was never arrested, charged or convicted, and he apparently denies, should not be included in a BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Include - Basis for requests for exclusion seem to be political, rather than encyclopedic. Activist (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include. I'm a little shocked at how many Exclude !votes there are. I don't understand the basis for them. Fine, so he wasn't arrested; since when is that a prerequisite for inclusion? Only for non-public figures. Obviously Ford is a public figure, and by running for elected office he subjected himself to scrutiny about his past. This material is sourced to several very reputable outlets. WP:UNDUE concerns are totally out the window as the issue has received plenty of RS coverage. Of course we must include Ford's denials, but that's a separate issue. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude Anonymous claims which the source does not even claim to be fact are rumors. Worthy of the Daily Mail but found in the electorally involved Globe as well. Not even close - and per WP:BLP contentious claims require a strong positive consensus for inclusion. Collect (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Collect: (above, and also in regards to your comments to @StvnW:) You are mistaken, the Globe and Mail does clearly assert that these claims are facts. There was a complaint to the Ontario Press Council about this. The council ruled in the Globe and Mail's favour. I think the statement made to the hearing by John Stackhouse, Editor-in-Chief of The Globe and Mail, is instructive. Note that editor's use of the word "facts", not "allegations"[5]

Starting in late 2011, our reporting began to explore that family background, and the more people we spoke with, the more it became apparent that the drug trade had been a part of the lives of Doug Ford and his siblings, and that they were known for that amongst their peer group in central Etobicoke. Given the serious public concern about drug trafficking in Toronto, and given Doug Ford’s own statements against the drug trade, we felt this information was irrefutably in the public interest.

The facts were established, through multiple interviews with multiple, independent sources, all of them anonymous.

[...] 2. Were adequate efforts made to verify the allegations?

This story was 18 months in the making, in large part because the reporters (on the advice of editors, and in some cases, legal counsel) were sent back multiple times to corroborate details and further authenticate information provided in previous interviews. More than 100 people were approached. Many refused comment. Many referred to second-hand information about the Fords’ role in the illegal drug trade. Our reporters searched only for people with direct knowledge – those who had purchased hashish from Doug Ford, supplied him with hashish or witnessed him possessing large amounts of the drug. Eventually, the reporters located and interviewed 10 people who said they had such knowledge.

Mr. Chairman, it may be worth reiterating at this point that the focal point of our investigation was never the recreational use of drugs or some fleeting misjudgment of youth, as has been suggested by the participants, perhaps as a way of diverting critical public attention; this was about a serious and sustained commercial activity, something most of us associate with criminals.

Some of our sources were interviewed more than five times and the reporters went back to them repeatedly to run new names and anecdotes by them, in order to test the credibility of these sources. Some of our sources met with senior editors and, on three occasions, with legal counsel for The Globe. Each person who was quoted anonymously said they were afraid to attach their name to the story, citing the influence of the Ford family or problems they may face in revealing their own involvement in the drug trade. One person sought legal advice and was advised that there is no statute of limitations for drug trafficking offences in Canada. Another source who wanted to go on the record sought the approval of his immediate family, who convinced him not to consent to his name being published. One concern that came up with several sources was how the disclosure of their identity might affect their ability to travel to the United States.

After repeated, unsuccessful efforts over many months to convince sources to agree to the use of their names, we faced a dilemma: we could publish the story citing only anonymous sources, knowing the facts of the story are both true and in the public interest, or we could not publish at all. The latter option would have been journalistically and socially irresponsible.

Accepting this, we set extraordinary standards for the extent, documentation and validation of each interview. In addition to these direct sources, the reporters worked for months to seek all available public information, including court documents, related to the cases cited in the story. Additionally, as many of the events documented in the story occurred before the advancement of the Internet, they spent months examining microfiched newspapers, yearbooks and old phone directories for further contacts and information."

Nixon Now (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Court records? None What is clear is that anonymous people said Ford was a dealer on a felonious crime. No court cases existed to be checked by the Globe. A big clue is that there is no statute of limitations for drug trafficking offences in Canada. Therefore the Globe specifically avoided saying anything more than the weird wording of "the drug trade had been a part of the lives of Doug Ford and his siblings" which one may note does not make the statement that Ford was a major drug dealer. Yet we are willing to make Wikipedia into Rumorpedia when the Globe and Mail is the only original source for the charges, that it was editorially opposed to Ford's family, that it worded the article to avoid any legal claim of defamation, and that it specifically said the sources are anonymous. No other source was involved in the "investigation", and the result is on the level of the Daily Mail at best. The fact that the Atlantic carefully used a question mark in its title indicates that it was unwilling to make any claim of fact, by the way. That is why question marks exist. Ford may be Satan Incarnate, but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia to state as fact. Collect (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Collect, aren't there PRIMARY sources, that we don't rely on, and also the work of professional reporters and journalists, vetted by professional journalists, that we do rely on? Isn't the Globe and Mail one of the most prestigious and well respected newspapers in Canada? So, when the sources journalists and reporters, at a respected publication, include court records, and interviews with individuals who knew a BLP, surely their reporting should not be dismissed in the same way we dismiss raw primary sources. In this particular case, don't we have respected journalist and reporters, who specialized in Toronto's drug scene, and Toronto's political scene? So, their reporting on Doug Ford, isn't it a secondary source, where respected authoritative sources used, and interpreted their sources, using their experience as journalists, and their experience covering those fields?

  One never used to see arguments like the one you made here, claiming that the restrictions we place on relying on primary sources, should also apply to the secondary sources that used primary sources someone doesn't like.

  No offense, but I believe your argument here constitutes a serious lapse from policy. You and I, and every other contributor, are not WP:Reliable sources. We are supposed to rely on the judgement of reliable sources. I'd been here less than two years, when I realized I was working on topics where my personal opinion was at odds with what RS were saying. I thought policy was clear. When RS differ from what we personally believe our choices are either to (1) walk away, and let other contributors do all the work on those topics; or (2) summarize, quote, paraphrase what the RS say, even though we personally disagree with it.

  You wrote that the Globe and Mail's reporting carefully did not explicitly say Doug Ford was a former drug dealer? That is an excellent point. But your conclusion? Way off. You are correct we should not state, in the wikipedia's voice, that Doug Ford is a former drug dealer. We should not even state that the Globe and Mail stated he was a drug dealer. But, reporting that the Globe and Mail conducted research into his past? I suggest that is completely compliant with policy. Wikipedia coverage of the Globe and Mail reporting that doesn't go any farther than the Globe and Mail's reporting? Why isn't that completely compliant with policy?

  No offense, but it seems to me that you are placing your judgement ahead of that of the Globe and Mail's editors. You, I, other wikipedia contributors, are not reliable sources. Just as adding our own unreferenced opinions, unreferenced interpretations, would be a lapse from WP:No original research, it seems to me that attempts to excise opinions and interpretations that are neutrally written, and properly reference good reliable sources, isn't that also a lapse from NOR? Geo Swan (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Collect: to your comment in the subsequent RfC ("Read WP:BLPCRIME more carefully - it is not intended to allow auto-inclusion of innuendo and allegations of felonies.") I fully concur, however, again, WP:BLPCRIME is very clear about the fact that it does not apply here. BLP policy guidance on this is provided by WP:PUBLICFIGURE. ―StvnW ^talk 19:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

We can report crimes. The standard for rumours is different. "George Gnarph was rumoured to be the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth" is beyond the pale, for example. In the case at hand, we have a single newspaper (the sole real source) which politically opposed the person and his entire family, publishing an "investigation" which carefully avoids any identification of any accusers, avoids making an explicit claim of a specific crime, and couched in language that avoids a defamation suit by a mere centimeter, and which then is promoted as fact in Rumourpedia. Collect (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment Collect points out something "couched in language that avoids a defamation suit by a mere centimeter" which I think is quite profound; i.e. the classic use of weasel words by the Globe in describing their so-called "fact", i.e, "the drug trade had been a part of the lives of Doug Ford and his siblings". Classic because the phrase fits so perfectly with our Weasel word article's definition (which also ironically equates "weasel word" with "anonymous authority"..ironic because this whole thing is based on anonymous sources): "A weasel word, or anonymous authority, is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when instead only a vague or ambiguous claim has actually been communicated." In fact, the weasel words are so effective that Nixon Now misreads them in his comments above, just like I and likely most everybody else did. Actually, the only "facts", which the Globe refers to, are never identified by the Globe other than the fact that when any one person in a family ever buys or sells (thus the word "trade") a marijuana joint or any other drug, that "fact" becomes "a part of the lives" of the siblings. This phrase comes very close to "I never had sex with that woman". Thanks Collect, I have been quite smug in thinking our Canadian media were much less misleading than American media, and you have opened my eyes with your observation of the literal meaning of "the drug trade had been a part of the lives of Doug Ford and his siblings" being boldly pronounced as if it means something definite and important. Hopefully, this Rfc can incorporate your observation going forward and stop the insanity of pretending this type of anonymously sourced crap deserves to be in anybody's Blp. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• TY. My family was rife with journalists, including newspaper owners, editorial writers, and even a cousin at the NYT. Spotting such stuff is what genuine journalists used to be taught to do. Collect (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• The article cannot state (or even imply) that it is a fact, but given how widely and persistently the G&M article has been reported, we can't just leave it out, either. It comes down to wording—and to not drawing WP:UNDUE attention to it, such as by belabouring it or highlighting it in the Table of Contents. And a consequence of leaving it out entirely would be that we'd have to be constantly vigilant for drive-by editors adding it in—inevitably without any sort of balance. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• @Collect: "The Globe and Mail, a Toronto newspaper, has reported that he sold hashish for several years during the 1980s, but Mr. Ford has denied that report." ("Brother of Rob Ford Elected to Lead Conservatives in Ontario", New York Times, March 11, 2018, - article includes hyperlink to Globe and Mail article) Nixon Now (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that libel and defamation laws are far harsher and more plaintiff-friendly in Canada than in the United States. In Canada, defamation law does not make the distinction that US law makes between public and non-public figures, the same rules apply for both, and while in the US it must be proven that the defendant knew the impugned statements were untrue, no such requirement exists in Canada. Accordingly, Canadian media is far more reticent to publish controversial allegations about individuals - and yet the Ford drug dealing allegations were publishable and no lawsuit ensued. Nixon Now (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Eventually, the reporters located and interviewed 10 people who said they had such knowledge. is the statement of "fact" from the article. And Canada defamation law is not friendly to plaintiffs when defendants only need to point out that they made claims of "fact" which are fact, and the defamation is so carefully worded as not to be an explicit claim of felonious behaviour. Read my posts above before leaping off a cliff in your claims, please. the more it became apparent that the drug trade had been a part of the lives of Doug Ford and his siblings is the claim the Editor made. Note how nicely it is parsed. Collect (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• (Indentation and attribution got screwed up, somehow, I made a good faith attempt to correct it, so I could place my comment in the right place...)
• Collect wrote: "My family was rife with journalists, including newspaper owners, editorial writers, and even a cousin at the NYT. Spotting such stuff is what genuine journalists used to be taught to do.".

  I can't tell you how disturbing I find this comment. You realize that, even if your relatives who worked at the New York Times were interested in working on this article, they, like you, and I, and every other wikipedia contributor, would not be reliable sources? A journalist, or editor, puts their professional reputation on the line, when they sit at their desk at the New York Times, or the Globe and Mail. Even reporters without a byline, or editors, who also don't have a byline, are putting their professional reputation on the line. If they submit an article based on bad research, or that turns out to have contained laughable conclusions, their bosses know who was responsible, their colleagues know. They have a strong incentive to measure up to generally accepted professional journalistic standards.

  But when a professional journalist goes home, pops a beer, and signs on to the wikipedia, they are no longer a journalist. Wikipedia ids are semi-anonymous. If your cousin was contributing here, right beside you, the semi-anonymous nature of their ID means they are not putting their professional reputation on the line. If your NYT cousin were participating here, all the restrictions that apply to you and I and every other wikipedia contributor would apply to them. In particular, the restriction that we keep our personal opinions and interpretations to ourselves, and rely instead on the opinions and interpretations of journalists who are putting their professional reputation on the line, would apply just as fully to your NYT cousin as it applies to you or I.

  If I understand you, it is your relatives who worked for RS -- not you personally, so, no offense you have even less justification to claim we should rely on your journalistic judgement, than we would on your NYT cousin. Geo Swan (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Nice that you completely missed my point. My point is that we should not allow the Daily Mail type of "investigation" to be used as claims of fact when the wording of the actual article does not make the claim . Headlines and sub-heads are not what the journalists write. Yes - the Daily Mail writers are journalists. Your real point? My point is that we have to use what the reporter wrote, not what the headline writer wrote. Now might you kindly stick to the point I made instead of venturing off brazenly at ninety degrees? Or do you think "headlines" are part of any newspaper article, and as reliable as the rest? Including when major papers talk about impossibilities? Columbia Journalism Review "Amphibious pitcher makes debut", "Study shows frequent sex increases pregnancy chances". The New Yorker [6] "First, misinformation appears to cause more damage when it’s subtle than when it’s blatant. We see through the latter and correct for it as we go. The former is much more insidious and persistent. It is also, unfortunately, much more likely to be the result of sloppiness or inconsideration rather than a deliberate effort to lead readers astray. " Headlines are a serious concern within the journalism community, and the purpose of headlines is exactly the same as for "clickbait" headlines. To sell. Is this sufficiently clear? Collect (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Nocturnalnow, you link to the wikipedia article on Weasel words.

  WP:Weasel words, on the other hand, redirects to a short subsection of WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch entitled Unsupported attributions. The guideline aims to give wikipedia contributors advice on how to make sure their own wording doesn't use weasel words to make, you guessed it, "unsupported atributions".

  Since this discussion is about whether or not to use properly attributed reporting from the Globe and Mail, your link to the wikipedia article is just not appropriate.

  Can you find a section of WP:RS, WP:VER, or some other policy or guideline that is relevant to what you regard as the Globe's use of weasel words? If so, great.

  You do realize that we have lots of policies, guidelines, and essays that tell us how to draft neutrally written articles that rely on RS that do not aim to achieve the wikipedia's strict standard of neutrality? Geo Swan (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Geo Swan, I noticed yesterday TFD's thoughts some 5 years ago on this same matter, so, and please pardon my ignorance in this regard, is the Globe investigative piece the primary source and the Atlantic question mark piece the secondary source? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• No, a WP:PRIMARY source is something like a diary, an experimental write-up, a police report. It is something that is the work of one person, or one party; something that is unreviewed.

  An example of a WP:SECONDARY source might be when an experienced historian uses old documents, like the diary I mentioned above, other documents like shipping manifests, deeds, parish marraige records, to write a coherent account of a historical event. If that experienced historian wrote an article based solely on that diary I'd argue it was still a SECONDARY source, because they wer bringing were bringing their experience to bear, to provide context and perspective.

  Another example might be if a scientist, or journalist, read a bunch of PRIMARY documents, stitched them into a coherent whole.

  Using those definitions, the Globe reporting would definitely be a SECONDARY source.

  You asked for my opinion of TFD's comments, from five years ago? TFD noted that the Globe's reporting had been widely reported on by other newspapers. Sometimes a newspaper will publish the results of a piece of solid investigative reporting, and other newspapers will not pick it up. Newspapers are rivals. Another newspaper's story has to be significant for other newspapers to report on it. If TFD argued that our article should note how the Globe's reporting was itself widely reported on, they were correct. If TFD were asserting our article should only summarize, paraphrase or quote those elements of the Globe's reporting that were republished in another newspaper, I'd say they were wildly incorrect.

  Why ask about a comment from TFD, from five years ago? Why TFD in particular? Note, they also described FORD, (and the entire Toronto City Council,) as measuring up WP:POLITICIAN, which he clearly does not, since POLITICIAN explicitly says it only applies to PROVINCIAL or FEDERAL office-holders. TFD's understanding of our policies, back then, seems iffy. Geo Swan (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Geo Swan, very much, for those clarifications. I think I "get it" all now. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you can claim that the G&M is carefully couching its language when it prominently writes "This investigative report reveals that: Doug Ford, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s brother, sold hashish for several years in the 1980s." at the top of the piece. It's pretty clear that they are asserting that the claims are true. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Do we have any critique of the article yet? Real odd this did not get picked up at large?--Moxy (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting but ultimately WP:SYNTH discussion of Wikipedians' non-expert opinions of the legal weight and/or validity of Ontario Press Council tribunals

[The following comment and associated replies originally appeared outside the RfC and have been moved to where they occurred within the timeline of its discussion.] ―StvnW talk 18:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Comment: Ontario Press Council "ruling" The Ontario Press Council (OPC) found that the G&M did not violate the Press Council's rules. They did not rule that Doug Ford Jr. committed felonies. [7] In fact the OPC specifically does not examine legal issues or make evidentiary findings at all. In short the OPC made zero findings of "fact" at all in this matter. Clear? That is how the OPC "ruled." Collect (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Nobody here is claiming that the OPC evaluated the veracity of the Globe's claims. Is your concern with how the wording of the article might be interpreted by readers otherwise? ―StvnW talk 19:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC) One editor, in fact, has made a point of the OPC ruling on the G&M article. This note was made in response to the claim made by that editor. What is left is the G&M did not actually state that Ford committed the felony of drug-dealing, which means the desire to make the claim in Wikipedia's voice is weak. Collect (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC) If you mean where Nixon Now states: the Globe and Mail does clearly assert that these claims are facts and The council ruled in the Globe and Mail's favour, both of these are true, but I don't read the latter as being a validation of the statements in the former. In any case, I think we agree both on the substance of the OPC ruling and that the claim should not be made in WP's voice (which it currently is not). ―StvnW talk 20:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC) The OPC found that the Globe and Mail's investigative practices used in this piece, including the use of anonymous sources (which you and several others agonize over on this talk page), were fair and ethical practices. From page six of the decision: "In this case, the lengthy, extensive efforts made by the Globe satisfied the Council that the information was reasonably reliable and the reporters were sufficiently diligent in their efforts to verify their conclusions." ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC) The OPC states clearly that it examined no evidence at all. Did you miss that part? Collect (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I'm looking at it right now and don't see it. Could you give a quote & page number, please? Not that it ultimately matters. Wikipedia is not claiming that he sold hashish (although Nixon Now seems bent on trying to give that impression to the readers). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC) I don't mean to be pedantic, but felonies no longer exist under Canadian law. TFD (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC) I don't think we've ever had felonies. The Criminal Code of Canada only has summary offences, indictable offences, and hybrid offences. Nixon Now (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Before the Criminal Code was enacted in 1892. See S. 535 of the original code which eliminates the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors.[8] TFD (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Interesting. I did not know that. Nixon Now (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Self defeating text on page 5 of OPC statement This Supreme Court text from page 5, below, which the OPC appears to have relied upon, seems to me to be specific to "institutions", not individuals or families. I'm thinking the OPC got it wrong by conflating the public need to hold public or "some private" institutions accountable with an imaginary equal public need to hold public individuals or families accountable to the same extent: "The right to use anonymous sources is set out by the Supreme Court in Globe v Groupe Polygone [2010] SCR 41and National Post v The Queen [2010] SCR 16. The reasons why it can be in the public interest to allow journalists to use anonymous sources is best described by Justice Binnie: “The public also has an interest in being informed about matters of public importance that may only seethe light of day through the cooperation of sources who will not speak except on condition of confidentiality. The role of investigative journalism has expanded over the years to help fill what has been described as a democratic deficit in the transparency and accountability of our public institutions. There is a demonstrated need, as well, to shine the light of public scrutiny on the dark corners of some private institutions”. I'd say that the mere fact that the Supreme Court went to the trouble of specifying "institutions" as being important enough to warrant anonymous sourcing dictates, or at least infers, that individuals do not meet that high bar of importance (to warrant anonymous sourcing). Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC) You're grasping at straws. The SCC case was about whether it's in the public interest for journalists to be compelled to reveal their sources when bring cross-examined in court. The OPC is not citing the SCC cases for that reason but simply to argue in what situations anon sources are credible. Whether or not the investigation is of an individual or institution is irrelevant as far as credibility is concerned even if it makes a difference as far as being shielded from exposing the sources during cross-examination. Nixon Now (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "in what situations anon sources are credible"? exactly, so the OPC referencing a SCC cited situation where anons were ok for institutions was in error as it is irrelevant for giving an "ok" for anons re: individuals, it seems to me. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC) I disagree, but even if, for the sake of argument, we say you're correct you're engaging in WP:Original Research and therefore your line of argument is irrelevant unless you can find a published source that says the same thing specifically about the Ontario Press Council ruling. Do you have any source that explicitly states the Ontario Press Council made the error you described? If not, then it's original research and there's no point in continuing this line of discussion further. Nixon Now (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC) I thought about that, but I figure critical thinking/analysis, aka OR, on talk pages is ok, especially when addressing text used to support inclusion of anonymous sources within a Blp. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC) You're not a lawyer and you have no idea how to interpret or apply legal decisions. We might as well be arguing theology. Nixon Now (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC) At the time Rob Ford was a member of Toronto City Council, which was a public institution having executive and legislative and power over the City of Toronto. He also was an ally and adviser to the mayor. TFD (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include (1) the Globe and Mail devoted considerable effort to their research; (2) the Globe and Mail is a highly respected newspaper; (3) Doug Ford, as a public figure, is not entitled to the courtesy discretion we apply to people who become the subject of news coverage against their well; (4) invalid arguments have been made above that the Globe and Mail's reporting is tainted by relying on PRIMARY sources. Every SECONDARY source relies on PRIMARY sources. Wikipedia policy is to rely on the judgement of reliable sources, and the Globe and Mail is a reliable source. WP:Verify says we should suppress any personal doubts we have over what RS report, because our goal is verifiability, not truth. Geo Swan (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the Globe and Mail investigative article itself a primary source, as TFD indicated five years ago? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No, news reports are not primary sources. The only way it would be is if it was either written by Ford or one of the witnesses. But even if you want to think it is a primary source there are plenty of news reports that reference the Globe article, including one in the New York Times, which you would have to agree are secondary sources. Nixon Now (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nixon Now. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It is similar to a primary source in that it reports the author's interpretation of evidence, the interpretation is considered opinion rather than fact (unless subsequently proved) and its weight depends on whether or not other sources report it. Even in news reports, opinions are primary sources. The claims made in the Globe series should be treated differently from say a news report saying that Ford became the PC leader. TFD (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include The Globe and Mail is probably the most respected newspaper in Canada. Certainly it would be undue to include investigative reporting that had been ignored by other mainstream sources. But this story received extensive coverage in all major media and the Press Council found it to be fair. NOTGOSSIP is wholly inapplicable: it says that we should not include information we heard "through the grapevine." In other words, we must not include information that we received through unpublished sources. Articles should not draw attention to information not covered elsewhere nor conceal information that may be embarrassing to the subject. Incidentally, we had similar discussions about Ford's brother, Rob Ford. TFD (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing - It's been a month. Can this RFC be closed now? Should a formal request for close be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure or can we agree there is a consensus? I would say it's to include. Nixon Now (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Hashish dealing subsection and heading

Should the subheading "Allegations of hashish dealing in the 1980s" be retained or should the relevant passages not have a subheading? Nixon Now (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Include The subheading is neutrally worded and the subject matter merits a subheading and without a subheading the material is effectively buried in the section on Ford's municipal career. Nixon Now (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion as per WP:NOTGOSSIP....in fact the article seems to have this problem through out. This is not the place for scandalous news Headliners when no charges have been filed.--Moxy (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

See the earlier RFC above, it's not gossip, it's the result of an investigation by a highly reputable news outlet and has been reported widely in other media. The current RFC is not about whether the material should be included but simply about whether a subheader is appropriate. Nixon Now (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Dame did not see that.... disappointing to see how many people got it wrong. Just because there's a news report or documentary about something doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion. In my view then its own section is clearly undo weight considering the gossip nature of it-Moxy (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Strong oppose as contradicting the RfC, being WP:UNDUE, being obvious POV pushing, and being far too short a section to warrant a subsection and place in the Table of Contents (!!!). The paragraph itself probably goes into too much detail as it is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The previous RFC didn't discuss headings or subheadings. That's what the current one is for. Nixon Now (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The previous RfC made it clear that no undue weight was to be placed on the hashish issue. After trying to shove it into "Early life" (where you had it making up almost the entire section), you've now put it in the table of contents. This is clear POV pushing and has to stop. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "shove it in early life". That's where it had been for years before it mysteriously disappeared around the time Ford announced his candidacy earlier this year. I simply reverted the attempt to cover up the drug dealing allegations. Nixon Now (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That undue weight should not be placed on this (or any) issue is simply WP policy, not the result of the RfC. The latter dealt with the material's inclusion, while leaving questions about how to represent it entirely unaddressed. StvnW ^talk 18:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude heading but include the content. There are too many short sections which goes against MOS:LAYOUT. Roll a bunch of them together and deal with them that way instead. No previous RfC that has been closed on any topic related to this subject, at least not that I can see so there's no use appealing to an RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude heading per above reasons. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Sidebar @Nocturnalnow: Please consider undoing your recent edit that short circuits this discussion. This RfC is not yet 48 hours old and will probably elicit more responses before it can be determined that consensus has been reached. StvnW ^talk 12:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@StvnW: ok; I just saw your request and undid that recent edit of mine. Thanks, Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude Also note that this "stuff" goes far past WP:UNDUE, hits WP:BLPCRIME squarely in the jaw, and Wikipedia should never be used to say "if you don't sue, it must be true" . One should be cognizant of the election issue about his brother, and the editorial position of the newspaper making these criminal allegation. That a newspaper cites anonymous sources for a claim of felonious activity does not make those charges proper in any BLP. Collect (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You might wish to append your comments about inclusion of the material to the previous RfC so that they can be considered. This RfC is only about whether to use a subsection heading. (Note though, that WP:BLPCRIME is very clear about being not applicable to public figures.) StvnW ^talk 14:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The Atlantic is not usable as a source for this as "fact" and the Globe does not state that this is a "fact" , only that anonymous people make a claim. Read WP:BLPCRIME more carefully - it is not intended to allow auto-inclusion of innuendo and allegations of felonies. And the fact that the person does not sue for defamation does not mean nor imply that the anonymous accusation is true. Collect (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll reply to this up at the previous RfC. Let's keep this one to the topic of the heading. StvnW ^talk 18:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think the heading should be removed for the time being, given the unanimous-1 opposed consensus thus far. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

and also since the RFC was initiated soon after the heading was injected without consensus. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, since Nixon Now has editwarred to keep this heading against consensus, it should be removed immediately. Perhaps it's time to take Nixon Now to WP:ANI and have him TBANned from the article for POV-pushing and editwarring? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

And will the two of you be banned for edit warring against consensus re inclusion of the response to anti-Semitic comments or in NocturnalNow's case edit warring over inclusion of the hashish allegations? Will you be banned for your consistent violations of WP:Civility? As you've been blocked a total of six times for personal attacks and don't seem to have improved your behaviour or your temperment I don't like your chances. Nixon Now (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been blocked "six times for personal attacks"—I haven't even been blocked six times, and the last two were overturned. Meanwhile, the consensus is unanimous against your POV-pushing subtitle header, but you still won't allow it to be removed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Correction, blocked five times for personal attacks I think "overturned" is an exaggeration looking at the admin comments. Lifted or shortened to "time served", yes, but not a ruling that the block was an error. Nixon Now (talk) 08:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Overturned, and the others were for editwarring—as you've demonstrated you've read the blocking admins' comments, you've now demonstrated that you've lied. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"(Unblocked) Per agreement to return to dialogue instead of confrontation" and "reducing to time served per unblock request; see talkpage"[9] is quite different from those blocks being "overturned" User:Curly Turkey. You are self-servingly confusing parole with acquittal on appeal. Nixon Now (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to bang my head against the wall with your distortions of the truth. You obviously will stop at nothing to get your way with this article, with the constant editwarring and aspersions. You won't even accept a unanimous judgment against your POV-pushing subsection header, which is what we have here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - AFAIK, Ford hasn't been found guilty of these accusations. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include the section per the RfC above, since this unsurprisingly became a rehash of that discussion. As previously established, the Globe & Mail report and its allegations were and continue to be a significant event in the subject's political life, as indicated by coverage of the paper's report in multiple reliable sources, and the subject is not a low-profile individual for whom the protections offered by WP:BLPCRIME do not apply. As for the bewildering suggestion that the G&M report did not state an allegation as fact, the report literally opens with this text: "This investigative report reveals that: Doug Ford, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s brother, sold hashish for several years in the 1980s." It does not qualify that statement in any way, and then goes on to repeat the allegation as a fact several more times with different wording. Wikipedia is not stating as a fact that the subject participated in this activity, only that the paper made the allegation. The prose needs work, and a discussion of whether or not to bookend it with a subheader is premature, IMO. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  Ivanvector: "discussion of whether or not to bookend it with a subheader is premature"—it would be if there weren't a subsection header there right now, prominently displayed in the Table of Contents. If discussion of a subheader is indeed premature, then surely it should be removed until the discussion is no longer premature (given this is a WP:BLP and all)? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  Well then I'll be explicit: yes, it is a significant event and should be in the TOC, if it can be neutrally worded, as it helps readers navigate to a significant content section. Because of where the section is placed in the article we unfortunately have to describe it in this awkward way, otherwise it would read as though he was accused of dealing drugs while he was a city councillor. How else should we do it? Would you suggest removing the header so that the drug dealing allegations appear below the "conflict with police" subheading? That's nonsensical. Should this just all be part of a new "Toronto city council" subheader combining all of the sections above "aspirations"? I guess that's not awful, but I still don't really agree with the decision to place this content in his political career section at all: combining it this way again makes it look like he was accused of dealing drugs from City Hall. If I had my way (consider this a proposal) the allegations would be moved back to early life, without a subheader, and that entire section expanded so as to minimize the allegations' weight in an NPOV fashion. But in the last year the only significant early life edits that have happened have been to remove info that was placed there that was actually about Rob. I'm going to go work on that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  The consensus is that "Early life" would violate NPOV by asserting the allegations were fact, so I hope you're not suggesting that's what you mean by "going to go work on that". All of this would be so easy if "Municipal politics" weren't divided up into subsections in the first place. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  • That's not the consensus, that's just your personal view. If the information is NPOV it is irrelevant to NPOV if it's put in the early life or councillor section but since it's info related to his early life logic dictates that that is where it should go. Nixon Now (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude unnessescary. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)(Summoned by bot)
• Exclude it's own section, unnecessary and given undue WEIGHT for an unsubstantiated/unproven alleged offence over 30 years ago. Text itself could probably be pruned further, since all we have is an allegation and a denial, (what's the 'he didn't sue' for?). It belongs in 'early life' or similar since he would have been circa 20 at the time of the alleged offence. (Summoned by bot)Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  Pincrete—Big problem with putting it in "Early life": it implies it actually happened, which per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV we're not allowed to do (he denies it and hasn't been charged). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why mentioning a later allegation implies 'truth', that's a question of phrasing, however, as I said 'or similar'. It doesn't deserve its own section and could be put into the chronological (date of allegation, not 'offence') sequence as whenever the accusation arose in his public life. Pincrete (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete—It's awfully straightforward: if Ford is telling the truth and it didn't happen, then it couldn't have happened in "Early life"—the events (if untrue) wouldn't have existed until The Globe and Mail published them in 2013. As long as Ford continues to deny it and charges haven't been laid, placing it in "Early life" would violate WP:NPOV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Still don't follow, we have other events in early life of other biogs, which are disputed - but I'm not going to labour the point. It is equally valid to say that the important date is when the allegation arose, not the 'offence' itself, either way it's not worthy of a section on its own. Pincrete (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a conceit that CT invented. Nixon Now (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you cut out the horseshit right now, Nixon Now? Swarm has already formally warned you for this sort of thing, (and which you continue to defend) and you just keep POV-pushing regardless. We all know why you want it (a) in the "Early life" section and (b) highlighted in the Table of Contents. You are not commenting in good faith, just as you have not been editing in good faith. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

CT, has User:Nocturnalnow been POV pushing? Clearly yes, yet, you admit below that he came up with the objection to Early Life (an objection you then championed). Your objection to POV pushing is highly selective. Nixon Now (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record, Nocturnalnow objected to the placement in "Early life" before I did. "conceit that CT invented" is a typical gibberish Nixon Now smear—notice how he smears me in some places as "pro-Ford" and "anti-Ford" in others ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a creative but baseless embellishment. In fact, I have never said you were "anti-Ford", I simply pointed out that by leaving the charge of antisemitism but removing the details of what the allegation was based on, the effect would be that people would assume it was worse than it was. I never said that was your intent. In fact, I'm quite sure it wasn't but that in your zeal to remove things you weren't considering that the effect might be the opposite of what you intended. Nixon Now (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you or Nocturnalnow originated it, you have been the main proponent of the argument that placing the allegation in early life was NPOV but that it wasn't elsewhere. In fact, since Nocturnalnow says it is NPOV anywhere, you are the originator of the here not there claim which is utter nonsense and bafflegab. Including the allegations is not NPOV, that has been established by consensus. Outside of being in the lede, which section it's placed in is secondary Nixon Now (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Try as you might, you haven't convinced anyone of this gibberish yet, and the last time you forced me to bring you to ANI, you received a last-chance warning for your POV-pushing editing. Your push to have it in "Early life" is more of the same, so if you're itching for that promised TBAN, go ahead and move it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Another fact free embellishment. By my count, two three other editors agree with me, Pincrete and Ivan (and now also StvnW, below). Now, if you want to seriously claim that making an argument on a talk page is "POV editing", it's a laughable claim but be my guest but you still haven't said whether you agree that Nocturnalnow's actual edits to the article itself are POV pushing or why you have failed to object to them. Nixon Now (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just pointing out again for the record that I've also endorsed inserting a pared-down version of this in the early life section, if we can find more details to balance the section out, which we should do anyway because it's awfully thin. The events are alleged to have occurred in his early life, though the allegations were published much later. The placement of the text is not a POV issue, it's simply a matter of whether it makes logical sense to include a neutral description at the time the events supposedly occurred, or at the time when the allegation was made. I prefer the former, but I can see it making sense either way, and both ways can be done in a way which does not unfairly distort POV. As Pincrete put it, it's a matter of phrasing; placing the content chronologically at the time that it is alleged to have occurred does not automatically imply that the events definitely actually occurred. As for the subheader, ultimately it depends on where the content ends up. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete: "we have other events in early life of other biogs, which are disputed"—could you provide a parallel example? I'm not aware of one. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

With the exception of the lede, where the passage appears within the article is not a POV issue. Putting it in Early life does not, in itself, imply that it is fact, and so on this point is not a violation of WP:BLP. ―StvnW ^talk 17:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

StvnW, Ivanvector—no, this is clear-cut. If the allegations were false (say, Ford sued, or whatever), under no circumstances would "Early life" be an appropriate place to put them—the events would belong strictly to 2013 and after. All we have to work with right now are the 2013 allegations and the media attention it attracted at that time. We also have to take into account the editing history of the one editor who most vocally wants it there.

But are there any reasonable objections to placing it where the allegations occurred? I have not seen one. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If the allegations were false they wouldn't belong in the article at all. Also, no, my editing history is completely irrelevant as is the two-month old edit you keep shopping around. The inclusion and placement of the information should be based on policy and the merits of the arguments, not on axes you have to grind against me or any other editors. Your argument is a classic ad hominem fallacy, attempting to refute an argument based on the person making it rather than the argument's merits. (ad hominem: "an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments."[10])Nixon Now (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"If the allegations were false they wouldn't belong in the article at all."—so we now have your POV on record: that the allegations are true and that's why they're in the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Logic is not your strong point. The allegations have not been proven false. If they were proven false they wouldn't belong in the article. That is not the same as saying the allegations are true. Set aside your obsession with me and focus on the article instead. Nixon Now (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Your argument follows no form of logic. Even if proven false, they were so persistently in the news that they'd have to be mentioned in the article, just as the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories are. "Logic is not your strong point" is an ad hominem, by the way. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You're evading my point which is that A vs B is not the same as A vs not-A. To say something has not been proven false is not-A as opposed to saying B - something is true. You confused not-A with B and you've responded to having that pointed out with deflection. Nixon Now (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

CT, I agree 100% with your logic on this; even though there may be no prohibitions of an "early life" placement, that would not pass a common sense test, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

And if the allegations were proven true then they would absolutely belong in Early life and nowhere else. These are both only hypothetical scenarios, however. I reject the premise that placement in Early life alone implies truth. A stronger argument might be to say that, because if true they do belong in Early life, and because if false they belong in Politics, therefore, absent proof, the presumption of innocence dictates they should be included in the latter. If you were to make this argument, you might convince me. (Perhaps that's what you are inferring?) Ultimately more important than placement is that it is precise, neutral, and not unduly weighted. ―StvnW ^talk 00:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

StvnW: That's exactly right—if proven, they belong chronologically where they happened; until proven, they didn't "happen" until 2013—we presume neither innocence nor guilt. As you can see from this recent comment, Nixon Now wants this information in "Early life" because he insists they are true (blantant POV-pushing, which is why he also did this). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

No, in my proposition above, proven ⇒ early life, disproven ⇒ 2013. Until proven and until disproven are undefined. ―StvnW ^talk 01:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

StvnW: Until proven or disproven, they remain allegations. The allegations are an event in Ford's life, and they occurred in 2013, regardless of whether they are ever proven or disproven. For example, if ever proven, the article would most likely report the actual drug dealing in "Early life" and then the allegations again in "Municipal politics", as the publication of the allegations was a separate, notable event in Ford's life. If disproven, the publication of the allegations would still be a notable event in Ford's life and would remain in the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record this is CT's second ad hominem in less than an hour. Nixon Now (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Pointing out your blatant POV-pushing? Why not take it to ANI, then? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I think an RFC on your chronic incivility may be more appropriate or given your past incivility blocks, which have failed to improve your behaviour, Arbcom may need to get involved. Nixon Now (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

So stop blustering and take it to ArbCom already. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe and it may change. The policies that apply to this RfC are those of MOS:LAYOUT and WP:UNDUE. Both of these are to be interpreted within a context that is dynamic, changing as the article evolves. I'm not going to take a hard position on this because I don't have enough experience with MOS:LAYOUT, but I will comment that it's fairly easy to show that sections of this length are not without precedent.

A similar section in Kathleen Wynne contains six single-paragraph subsections, five of which are shorter than the section in question here. Barack Obama is an FA-status BLP with a dozen single-paragraph sections, nine of which are shorter in length than the section that is the subject of this RfC and half of which are fewer than 100 words. See in particular § Cybersecurity and Internet policy, § Africa, § Committees, and § Hiroshima speech. Perhaps the Wynne example can be dismissed by way of WP:OTHERCONTENT, but the Obama FA less so.

Reasoning put forth here involving WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:RS, "conclusions" on the subject of headings made by the previous RfC (there were none) should be discounted as none of those are applicable to the question at hand. ―StvnW ^talk 16:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Until April 24th? Must the subheading stay in place until then?

Even though this RFC has an 8–2 consensus against a subheading? I think its crazy to keep the subheading in place for another 2 weeks. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, disputed edits in an WP:BLP should be removed until there is a consensus to include them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Nocturnalnow and Curly Turkey: The RfC should not be closed early, and the issue absolutely isn't "settled" until it is closed, and we should continue to bear WP:CCC in mind. That being said, there has been a strong consensus to remove the subheading for two weeks now, and given the BLP considerations, it would be more reasonable to preliminarily remove it than to let it remain in contradiction of a strong consensus, just for the sake of process. Swarm ♠ 20:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: if there's an evident strong consensus for a result, and the discussion has degenerated into a handful of editors sniping at each other, why should the discussion remain open? Not that I'm saying that's definitely the case here, but there's certainly a consensus emerging regarding the question that was actually asked, and no new editors have joined the discussion in several days. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Hmm, well, if all parties agree that consensus has been reached, then there's nothing stopping the RfC from ending early. Swarm ♠ 15:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitic comment by brother

Curly Turkey inserted the following commented out comment/request. "What alleged antisemitic comments? This comes utterly out of nowhere." According to the Toronto Star "Rob Ford was recorded using the word ‘k- -e’ to describe Jews while apparently intoxicated in March. Doug Ford first attempted to avoid the issue, then listed various Jewish people in his life."[11] I inserted this information into the article, as requested by Curly Turkey, however Nocturnal Now reverted the insertion and reinserted the original comment and request - ie he readded a request for Rob Ford's antisemitic comment to be added after removing the antisemitic comment! Nixon Now (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Total bull...the whole episode was nothing important enough for this Subject's BLP, and everybody can see that, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree it probably shouldn't be there in the first place—but if it is, it needs clarification. The comment jumps out of absolutely nowhere—like a desparate attempt to smear the Fords. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is, Doug Ford was asked about an antisemitic comment Rob Ford made (on tape) and he gave a bizarre, tone deaf response. I didn't add the original reference to the article. Turkey asked what the comment was and the context and I found a better reference that answered his question. Nixon Now (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to read WP:WEIGHT. Even if this bit isn't WP:UNDUE (which it almost certainly is), it was presented abruptly and context-free—utterly baffling to the reader. You're pushing a very anti-Ford agenda here, Nixon Now, with your highlighting of the hashish thing and now pushing to include this totally undue antisemitism thing (which is overlong either way—why such a long quote? Why a quote at all?). We get it—you don't like ford (neither do many of the rest of us), but Wikipedia is not the place for your POV-pushing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not pushing anything. Please stop trying to personalise things. I did not add the reference to anti-Semitism, it was already in the article. I simply added the clarification in response to your inline request. Nixon Now (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

After accusing me of "attempting to bury" the hashish bit, you're demanding others to "stop trying to personalise things"? Let's see you retract your comments first. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so this is a tit for tat thing then, I understand. You asked what Rob Ford's antisemitic comment was. I'm sorry you didn't like the answer but don't shoot the messenger. Nixon Now (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Nixon Now: The only "tit for tat" is you spazzing out over opposition to your butchering of the "Municipal politics" section. Why do you refuse to retract your "attempting to bury" comment? If you're acting in good faith and all, it should be a trivial thing to do. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I said it appears to be buried because that is the effect. Whether or not that is your intention is irrelevant. I'm not speaking of your motives, simply of the outcome. I was mistaken in assuming you had previously opposed inclusion of the drug material in the article and I apologise for that. Regardless, you asked ""What alleged antisemitic comments?" and I found a source and provided the answer and for that I've been accused of all sorts of things. Nixon Now (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Nixon Now has restore the "antisemitic" text. This is a BLP, Nixon Now, and you have not demonstrated how this information meets BLP standards. Please revert to show your good faith until you can find a consensus to keep. The "hashish" material was kept out until a consensus was reached to include it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP: "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" (shortcut:WP:WELLKNOWN) There are now four sources cited to demonstrate that this incident meets the above criteria. I can add several more sources if you wish.Nixon Now (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:HATRACK. We do not include simply everything that we can find a source for. This text comes out of absolutely nowhere. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, you are mistaken. The hashish allegations were in the article from the very beginning of the RFC until now. Nixon Now (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I took it out again. It is obviously WP:HATRACK and UNDUE. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The question being posed is, essentially, do you agree with your brother's racist comments? Which to me is a perfectly fair thing to ask a candidate for office, and the answer is important as that person will be expected to represent all of their constituents, including the Jewish ones. Doug's response of, essentially, I'm not a racist because I go to Jewish people for some services, seems very out-of-touch today. So let me throw my hat in the ring as agreeing the content should remain, though it might stand to be pared back slightly. tubedogg (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

So let's toss WP:HATRACK and turn this whole article into an unreadably long list of rambling Doug Ford quotes. The man is extensively covered in big-name media—it will not be hard to find a mountain of quotes to skew the article any way you choose. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I said earlier it could possibly stand to be pared down. I'm not suggesting an incoherent list of Ford quotes. I'm suggesting we keep a bit about specific, especially controversial remarks that touch on a very hot-button issue in politics. To me, that makes it (per WP:BLP) "noteworthy, relevant," and as we've established, well documented. tubedogg (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This seems like guilt by association to me. If Rob Ford said something stupid when he was drunk or on drugs, that belongs in the Rob Ford page, not the Doug Ford page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.231.184 (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Struck comments of banned user

We can debate whether it is undue but it is certainly not guilt by association. This is about comments made by Doug Ford himself for which he drew criticism from John Tory and audience members at a public debate. The incident was reported in the media independent of the Rob Ford video. ―StvnW ^talk 16:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether Rob Ford said something stupid. It's the response of his brother when asked about it. Listing the Jewish people he knows seems a rather dumb way to respond. That said, he eventually got around to saying that his family has "the utmost respect for the Jewish community," so he did redeem himself somewhat. It's like if you asked him, "Your brother used to take drugs. Do you plan to take drugs while in office?" and his response was, "I know plenty of people who don't use drugs." That's great, but it doesn't in any way answer the question. The question being posed is, essentially, do you agree with your brother's racist comments? Which to me is a perfectly fair thing to ask a candidate for office. tubedogg (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Right. Keep – This brief passage covers a part of his campaign that got a lot of news coverage; no reason to omit. Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

What has Ford uttered that hasn't had a lot of news coverage? He's a very public figure. Again, please see WP:HATRACK. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug Ford's response attracted attention in secondary sources because it reinforced stereotypes of Jews as lawyers. Whatever he meant by it, it was not a clever thing to say. Some politicians - Hugo Chavez, Donald Trump, and Tony Abbot for example - were well-known for controversial statements. TFD (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It should definitely not go in without consensus. If anyone feels so strongly that it should go in soon, then please take it to the Blp noticeboard. I think it is a biased smear on its face, UNDUE, and WP:HATRACK. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we need to take this to the Blp Noticeboard, some of the newer editors here do not seem to realize this content was dramatically embellished a few days ago by the same editor who has also been pushing exaggerating the hashish reference, without anything close to consensus on either. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

How could it possibly be a smear to quote the man's own words, in context? See smear campaign: "Smear tactics differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question ... Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies." The article reports what was asked, the context for the question, and his answer, and is focused on a clear issue that is very relevant in politics - racism. At least some significant portion of the population would consider whether Doug agrees with his brother's racist comments to be extremely relevant to whether they would support him for political office. I can see differences of opinion on whether it should be in the article at all, but unless you are stating that he didn't say what he is quoted as saying, or the proposed text has somehow taken it out of context, painting this as a smear is absurd. tubedogg (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You make a good point about some of the content but this part I think is a smear: "His comments resulted in boos and laughter from the audience. Ford's campaign got the attention of Last Week Tonight's John Oliver who closed an episode begging Torontonians to vote for Doug Ford for the world's amusement.". But leaving aside the "smear" terminology. do you think the part I just put in italics belongs in the Blp? Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The John Oliver sentence belongs, though not necessarily as a direct followup to the antisemitism issue. It shows that he was more widely mocked than just within Toronto media, or even just within Ontario or Canada. I think the initial sentence should be contextualized more by stating that the comments were made at a debate hosted by a Jewish group, therefore letting the reader draw their own conclusions on whether the crowd would be more likely to boo someone mishandling a response to his brother's use of a Jewish slur. See my response to Curly Turkey below with suggested rewording. tubedogg (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those two things is a smear. You do not "smear" someone by saying the audience laughed or booed at their comments or that a satirist made fun of them. Nixon Now (talk)

Tubedogg: first, you need to carefully read both WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. Then, you need to demonstrate how:

• out of the vast amount of information reported on Ford, this comment carries sufficient WP:WEIGHT to warrant mention. Having a source is necessary, but not sufficient basis on which to include any information in the article.
• the wording and presentation is balanced and WP:NPOV ("but it's his own words!" doesn't cut it, so cut that out already).
• the placement of the text is appropriate and properly contextualized.

There are quite a few editors here who dislike Ford and want his article to paint him in a bad light, whether by omission, or by inclusion of certain "facts", especially presented in a particular light. This is an encyclopaedia, and WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NPOV are official policy. If that doesn't satisfy you, then there are plenty other outlets on the internet for you to push your POV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, my POV is that this specific information belongs in the article because of its noteworthiness within the context of policy. I don't care specifically about Doug Ford one way or the other. I'm not Canadian, and I have zero interest in whether he succeeds or fails in whatever it is that he's running for or just ran for. I can't speak for NixonNow but I, personally, am not pushing any POV about the subject of the article.

• The fact that a comedian in another country with a nationally-televised program, who has more than enough political fodder in his own country to work with, felt it was worth a mention in a short segment about Ford only emphasizes the weight of these particular comments. Ford's opponent, John Tory, also released a statement specifically condemning Doug's comments. Ford was still clarifying his comments over the next few days. It wasn't a quote that was buried in an article somewhere, or mentioned offhandedly to fill space. It was in the headline in stories about the debate, which a debate is, in itself, a noteworthy event during a campaign.
• The wording and presentation is mostly NPOV. ("It's his own words" was a specific response to the statement that reporting a person's own words in context is somehow a smear, so cut out trying to do your own job of taking things out of context.) I would rewrite it as this:

During a mayoral debate held by the United Jewish Appeal Federation of Greater Toronto and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, Doug Ford's opponent Ari Goldkind responded to a question about Jewish safety by mentioning Rob Ford's use of an antisemitic slur while intoxicated. Doug initially said he wasn't going to address it directly, stating: "You know something? My doctor — my Jewish doctor, my Jewish dentist, my Jewish lawyer — hold on, my Jewish accountant." Amidst booing and laughter, he continued, "Our family has the utmost respect for the Jewish community". The following day, during a radio appearance, he commented, "I said in the public numerous times his [Rob Ford] comments were unacceptable and inexcusable." (source for the last quote)

• The placement of the text is within the section discussing his 2014 mayoral candicacy, which is when the comments were made. The changes above contextualize it within the campaign.

Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, this "incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented," and therefore "it belongs in the article". tubedogg (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Tubedogg: You really didn't answer my first point at all, did you? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that NixonNow is pushing an anti-Ford POV. He keeps trying to remove Jagmeet Singh's response to Ford during the Blind Date (because it is positive), and replace it by John Oliver's opinion (because it is negative). Jagmeet Singh actually met Ford and spent a day with him. John Oliver never even met Ford. Surely the federal leader of the NDP is more noteworthy to a Canadian political WP page than some American talk show host. Sadly, NixonNow only wants to pile on the negative, and gut out the positive regardless of encyclopedic value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.231.184 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Struck comments of banned user

See the discussion elsewhere on this talk page re the John Oliver piece and why it is notable. As for Blind Date, I'm sorry but not only is it banal and trivial and the show low-rated but the passage you wish to add is full of peacock language. Nixon Now (talk)

• In the way that it was originally added, I agree that the coverage of the "Jewish" incident is out of place, it's really about Rob, and it's highlighting one negative incident in a summary discussion. However, we are still maintaining a discussion of Ford's disputed claim to Jewish heritage in the personal life section, which as I recall came directly out of this. We could somehow connect the two incidents in the article, but I don't have a suggestion at the moment.

As for Last Week Tonight, coverage of a Canadian city councillor by American A-list comedians seems noteworthy, particularly if regional public TV's Political Blind Date is. It all needs to be balanced, though, and we need more details on Doug's mayoral campaign in general before we start itemizing these things, so at the moment I'm in favour of exclusion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The Comedian had a very infinitesimal amount of his show devoted to Ford whereas the Canadian show was focused on Ford (and Singh), so that's why I think the Oliver nastiness should be excluded and the Political Blind Date show, which had no bias, is worthwhile. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Added at BLP noticeboard

ok, so I've added this issue to the Blp noticeboard. I also clarified the topic heading to make it clear the topic is about Subject's brother's singular comment (while intoxicated, according to the source). Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

the comments at the noticeboard are worth reading, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Timeline/placement

I wasn't really following these events when they happened, I had tuned out the Fords by this point in the 2014 election, so I had to go back to check some of my assumptions that I stated above. In a debate put on by two Jewish organizations, darkhorse candidate Ari Goldkind brought up comments made by Doug's brother Rob during a drunken bender in March of that year, which the Star had published from a recorded phone call in May. Doug leapt to his brother's defense at the debate with some tone-deaf comments of his own. Several outlets covered the incident on Oct. 5, 2014 ([12], [13], [14]). On Oct. 6 Doug defended his own comments by explaining that his wife, Karla, is Jewish ([15], [16]). On Oct. 7, the Star published a report casting doubt on that claim, in which Bernie Farber (at the time CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress) called the claim "disingenuous". Over about the next week there was a trickle of coverage; Karla supposedly did two television interviews elaborating on the details which was summarized by Huffington Post on Oct. 16. After that it seems to have basically never been brought up again by any mainstream news sources. The Star mentioned it a bit in passing in coverage of Doug's book release in Sept. 2016 ([17]) but that's really it. This is the sort of flash-in-the-pan sensational news cycle stuff that we should not include.

Doug's claim made it into the article here on Oct. 28 ([18]), and the Star's refutation was added on Nov. 4 ([19]). A year later it had been edited to state factually that the claim was a lie, and I removed most of it. It's been basically stable since then. But should it be in there at all? I don't think it's really harmful, but is the subject's partner's great-grandmother maybe practicing Judaism really relevant to this article when it's had basically no impact on the subject's life, outside this one not-really-notable controversy? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

My understanding was that Ford's wife's family was actually Russian Orthodox 100 years ago and Ford and/or his wife confused Russian Orthodoxy with Jewish Orthodoxy. Ignorant, but not antisemitic. Nixon Now (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ivan...nothing notable, per Huff Post, his wife said; "I don’t practice Judaism. I never have," she said. "And as far as I know maybe my great-grandmother she did. But it was always kept hush hush. We feared persecution." So, maybe its just much ado about nothing. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wise Tag lawsuit

I wonder if anyone with better research skills is able to find a reliable source to fill in this gap. Ford purchased Wise Tag in New Jersey in 2008 and (sources say) fired most of its staff, including Kevin Wise, the son of Wise Tag's founder. Wise sued Ford for alleged unpaid obligations from the sale in 2012 (lawsuit, source); this source says the suit was due to go to trial on November 10, 2014. Then there is no more information that I can find, which I assume is likely to be the case if there was an out-of-court settlement or it was just too mundane to report. I did however find Kevin Wise's obituary: he died in 2016 (source) so it can be presumed the suit is not still outstanding. Maybe none of this is useful to mention in the article if there's no reliable source coverage. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Pushing this section down the page, since someone else asked about it. I still haven't been able to find anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Is the Toronto Sun a credible source?

I see another edit using the tabloid Toronto Sun as its source, [20] and not just the Sun but one of its opinion columnist. Is the Toronto Sun an acceptable source under WP:V? The article, which is IMHO more opinion than news, has passages such as "Needless to say Ford Nation not only came to the steel city but took it by storm too" and generally reads like a press release from the Ford campaign. Nixon Now (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Joe Warmington, "the journalist Rob Ford still likes talking to", a.k.a. "{Rob} Ford's personal Oprah", should not be used as a sole source about the Fords, but the Sun itself isn't automatically suspect. We should couch this with coverage from a neutral source, if we can, or omit if Warmington is the only one offering this point of view. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The Toronto Sun is a reliable source and Joe Warmington's article is news rather than opinion. But note the article does not support the text. It does not say he is finding support in Hamilton, but that he is looking for it. TFD (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with your assessment. Warmington's favourable view of the Fords has been noted by other reporting agencies (CBC, for example) and by the Fords themselves (see the Toronto Life link I posted above). Although, that "unique relationship" (Doug's words) has gone both ways at times. Warmington's bias is clearly bleeding through the text of this "news" report, using grandiose euphemisms like describing the hall as "packed to the rafters" and suggesting the "wheels are coming off the usual rides". I'm not saying it's unusable, only that we should be careful, just like we would be careful using sources known for a negative bias. There's a pretty good article in the Hamilton News (part of the Metro group), and Global did cover it within a larger article - these two both omit the attention Warmington gives to the crowd's reaction and instead describe things Ford said at the rally, fact-checking and contrasting against other parties' platforms, whereas Warmington is basically cheerleading. I'm also generally wary of including every one of Ford's campaign events, per WP:NOTNEWS, but this was his first after being elected leader so it's probably noteworthy that way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The article itself has more "positive press" to it (see next topic) than I even put in. Just the photo shows standing room only, and that has nothing to do with any media. Also, I did not see any point of view expressed, but then I wasn't looking for any as I myself never read the Sun nor hardly ever even heard of Warmington...I'm a Financial Post and CBC guy. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The venue's website indicates it holds 1,000 people, while we have two sources estimating the size of the crowd at 500. Doubtful that the room was "standing room only" if it was only at half capacity. The photos in the Sun article are from Ford's own Twitter account, btw. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And we, of course, don't know how many of those people were actually from Hamilton and how many made the 30 minute drive from Toronto. I used to volunteer for a political party decades ago and it was quite normal for a "rally" to be enhanced with large number of party members driving or being driven in from a different city in order to make a "local" event look more impressive. Nixon Now (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you two really suggesting that the photos in the article are doctored and that when the article says the room was "packed" that the Sun is part of your conspiracy theories? Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

But thanks Ivanvector, for finding the additional sources. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying all political parties stack rallies with party members brought in from within a vicinity of a few hundred km so a one off rally with an attendence of 500 doesn't mean anything in particular. Nixon Now (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a simple matter to count the number of people in the photo (333) and see that even if we're generous about the ones not visible we'd barely get to 400. So fine, inflate the number by 25% and say 500; standard practice. Phrases like "standing room only" and "packed to the rafters", however, are quite clearly promotional and are an indication that the Sun article should be somewhat discounted. The other two sources are considerably more neutral. ―StvnW ^talk 21:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Warmington's support of the Fords does not mean he is a liar any more than other reporters skepticism of them means they are liars. Did Doug Ford campaign in Hamilton? Were there 500 people in the room? Did he quote Ford's supporters accurately? And reliable sources are allowed to include opinon and it is our responsibility to distguish between facts and opinions in articles. TFD (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting Warmington is lying about the size of the crowd, only that he has a noted bias which suggests a propensity for exaggerating small details in a favourable light. In this case, his numerical report of the crowd size is backed up by the Hamilton Spectator's claim. Warmington's claim that the room was "packed to the rafters" is not, and I think "standing room only" is Nocturnalnow's own description. The photos are from the campaign itself and should not be trusted at all: it's very likely there was a campaign staffer off-camera encouraging supporters to fill seats from the front first and it's very likely the photographer chose an angle maximizing the size of the crowd while minimizing the physical size of the room. It's what they get paid to do. Election campaigns are promo machines, they have no interest in neutrality whatsoever. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct about "standing room only" being my rephrasing of "packed to the rafters", and those descriptions are no longer in the article, and the 2 other universally acceptable sources are where all the content comes from now. So, hopefully we've worked through the topic of Toronto Sun/Warmngton and disgarded any influence of that article on this Blp.Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"Has this guy ever had good press?"

Responding to Moxy's edit summary here. This article is throwing a lot of attention after coverage of generally negative aspects of Ford's career. Unfortunately that kind of reflects the real-world situation: "backbench" city councillors don't generally make the news unless they're controversial. We should try to add some coverage of positive aspects, but personally, having been a resident of Toronto during Ford's council term, I don't know of anything he did that wasn't overshadowed by his brother's involvement, or that was actually spearheaded by someone in a more senior position on City Council (like private garbage collection west of Yonge Street, see a few sections above), or that was Council's response to something Ford tried to meddle with (like the Port Lands ferris wheel). Any ideas? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: or anyone can see from the topic directly above how much resistance there is to so-called "good press" about this Subject getting into or staying in the BLP. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The point is is it notable? A rally of 500 people? Not really, that happens all the time. A politician saying this election is about the people, not the politicians? Is that really interesting or notable? It's the sort of platitude every politician of every political stripe says every election. I predict we'll also here someone say that this is the most important election in a generation - because that's what people say about every election. Doesn't make it noteworthy. Nixon Now (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Finding good press on the guy is hard—Ford's a populist with mainly grassroot support, which doesn't lead to much in the way of WP:RSes.

Meanwhile, finding widespread coverage of the most trivial, unencyclopaedic things is far too easy—look at the coverage of his "cuts to the CBC" quote. A better balance will probably be found keeping out the unencyclopaedic negative than by loading up the article with the trivially positive, although that's obviously going to take a lot of work—so many people want to see all the dirt on Ford in this article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The main problem is the article is largely base on news articles (the worst type source we allow). I understand that is where most info is located....but we should screen theses stories a lot more.--Moxy (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There are a few books on the Ford family (focussing on Rob but Doug also features in them) which could be used as source material. Mayor Rob Ford: Uncontrollable: How I Tried to Help the World's Most Notorious Mayor by Mark Towhey and Johanna Schneller; Crazy Town: The Rob Ford Story by Robyn Doolittle; The Only Average Guy: Inside the Uncommon World of Rob Ford by John Filion; Ford Nation: Why hundreds of thousands of Torontonians supported their conservative crack-smoking mayor by Arthur Weinreb. Nixon Now (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Will look over these see if any are academic in nature. Got to be a way the article is not a platform for local media.--Moxy (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're looking for something substantial and "academic in nature", you'll probably have to wait until his career is over—but there's also Google Scholar. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Moxy: I actually found a few good sources there right away—nothing "positive" per se, but actual journal articles summing up the 2014 mayoral election. I've replaced some of the newspaper sources with them and rewritten some of the material in a better summary style. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks CT. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hamilton rally

Is the stuff on the Hamilton rally really encyclopaedic? It smacks of WP:RECENTISM (and WP:UNDUE) to me. Ford's obviously going to have quite a few rallies in the upcoming couple of months. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

True, but just as pointed out initially by Moxy and discussed in the topic above, the Subject gets such little "good press" the BLP needs some for balance. First objection, by NN was that the Sun was not a good enough source and that the rally should only be included with other sources. Then Ivan provided 2 more neutral sources so I went to the trouble of writing it up with those 2 sources, so it now feels like having to jump through a series of hoops or like I'm wasting my time trying to improve the article. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Trying to "balance" something negative with something "positive" but lightweight isn't particularly effective. It does little more than add filler. Nixon Now (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

NN, if you don't think the Hamilton rally is worthy, why did you at first criticize a source? Do you just want editors wasting their time? I spent a lot of time working up content from the other 2 sources Ivan provided. Do you get my point? Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That is a serious issue, but nonetheless I don't think the rally is encyclopaedic. Like I said elsewhere, finding positive coverage in WP:RSes that's also encyclopaedic is going to be a challenge, but a better strategy to achieve balance would be to keep the article from getting filled with negative minutia. We don't need to quote every nimrod comment the man has made—WP aims at WP:Summary style. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

ok, I understand, but I still think overall its good well sourced content for the Ontario General Election section of the Blp. We can certainly remove quotes ("nimrod comments") as far as I am concerned. Which comments would you like to see removed and I'll remove them myself...I'm assuming that won't count as a revert by me. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean to make you feel that you're spinning your wheels on the article, and if I've given the impression that I'm only objecting to things because you've suggested them, I apologize. For what it's worth much of the improvement and expansion of the article over the last two months has been as a result of things you've added, even if they've been edited subsequently. Sometimes that's how articles on controversial topics go, but that's by design: controversial topics sometimes generate a lot of discussion, and when there are many viewpoints, the resulting articles are more stable. This one is well on its way, I think, notwithstanding some open disputes.

My opinion on the Hamilton rally is mixed: it was Ford's first rally as PC leader, and it was paired with a somewhat significant policy announcement (giving Hamilton a blank $1B cheque previously intended for a specific project) which we discuss elsewhere. I'm in favour of having more content at this point, although in the long run I think this rally and other specific campaign events will fade into background noise of the campaign and eventually be irrelevant to the article. Given that it's early in the campaign, would it make sense to simply remove the "political positions" subheader and make this part of one continuous section on the ongoing campaign, until there's enough content that it needs to be broken up? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Ivan, I was addressing NixonNow before, but that's ancient history now, imo. I think the "political positions" subheader is useful for readers, so we should keep that, imo, and I'm going to remove what I think CT is referring to with "nimrod comment" from Subject. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I meant that in general—he's made lots of comments, and many people would like him to speak in his own words in the article, to give the false impression of being more "neutral" (especially by framing or refraining from framing them in particular ways). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

CT, I finally figured what you mean, I think. That an editor may want to make a positive or negative impression on an objective reader, and by using the Subject's own words within the content the reader assumes that the overall content gives a correct impression of reality? Is that it? If so, I'll have to think about that for awhile, but it does, off the top, seem possible. Do you think that's happening with this BLP? or am I totally wrong in my interpretation of what you are saying? Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I definitely do—particularly with the way the "Jewish" comments were presented. They were definitely not plonked there in that way simply to be informative. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The Hamilton Spectator says there were 350 people at the rally, not 500.[21] Another reason we should take reports about rally turnouts - and Toronto Sun coverage - with a grain of salt.Nixon Now (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops, the source I cited was Hamilton News, not the Hamilton Spectator, and it also says 500. [22]. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

criticism for alleged bigotry, such as misogyny and anti-Semitism

@Curly Turkey:, with respect, I can not access the source and I have not heard of the misogyny before nor that Doug(as opposed to Rob) has been accused of anti-Semitism. Could you please paste the section of your source which relates to these 3 accusations? Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think either that it is a relevant source. It's about strategic voting for John Tory to stop Rob Ford. TFD (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

TFD: I don't understand this comment. Tory ran against Doug—Rob was busy dying. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that Rob replaced Doug in the election. Rob was actually a candidate until his illness caused him to drop out. TFD (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

By removing the details of Ford's remarks about Jews, CT has created text that leaves the impression that the comments were worse than they were. The comments about Jews were not "bigoted" as CT's wording asserts, but ignorant, which is not the same thing. Nixon Now (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add the URLs to the sources (I've added them to the article now). From "Voting 'Ford' or Against: Understanding Strategic Voting in the 2014 Toronto Municipal Election":

"Rob's older brother Doug Ford stepped in to represent the Ford family brand in the mayoral race. Doug's career has also been controversial, and he faced stiff criticism during the campaign for public comments laced with bigotry, including charges of misogyny and anti-Semitism (Dale, 2014; Dale and Pagliaro, 2014). He also faced his own allegations of conflict of interest and narcotics dealing in his youth (Doolittle and McArthur, 2014)."

From "Voters Who Abstain: Explaining Abstention and Ballot Roll-Off in the 2014 Toronto Municipal Election" (which I haven't added to the article yet):

"Doug was previously a municipal councillor, and was himself controversial and polarizing. He faced stiff criticism during the campaign for public comments laced with bigotry, including charges of misogyny and anti-Semitism, as well as allegations of conflict of interest and narcotics dealing in his youth (Dale 2014; Dale and Pagliaro 2014; Doolittle and McArthur 2014)." (p. 19)

Both Social Science Quarterly and Urban Affairs Review are peer-reviewed journals, which Wikipedia generally prefers over newspaper reporting; both were also written 3–4 years after the fact, after the dust had settled. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Both sources also have extensive bibliographies that might be useful hunting through. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying the details here, CT. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The folliwing sentence needs to be removed immediately: "Comments Ford made during the campaign received criticism for alleged bigotry, such as misogyny and antisemitism, and critics accused him of conflict of interest and of drug dealing in the past." Its only source does accuse 'ROB FORD' of misogyny, conflicts of interest, drunkenness, anti-semetism, etc. However, this source does 'NOT' accuse 'DOUG FORD' of these things. Regardless, this accusation is the opinion of the university student who wrote this thesis dissertation, and should not be presented as fact IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.24 (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I've already quoted the sources above, which make it clear the subject is Doug, not Rob. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tags

@Nixon Now: put 2 NPOV tags up. So, in that regard, I encourage NixonNow or anyone to add more content to balance the content as you feel benefits the BLP. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not only that. The language you are adding borders on peacock language ie the descriptions are not neutral. Phrases like "media frenzy" (which I changed to "media criticism") are unencylopedic and written to convey a specific spin, in that case to dismiss media commentary on Ford's decision not to have a media bus and the source you used was a Sun Media opinion piece rather than a neutral news item when there were many non-opinion pieces to choose from. The two sections sound like they were written by the PC campaign rather than by a neutral writer. It's not other editors' task to make your writing neutral, you should be writing neutrally to begin with. Nixon Now (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes you point out that my words or summary are not reflected in the article. With this article "frenzy" was the tone and words of the article.

• I'll try harder, but in the meantime, why don't you, or anyone, anyone, go fixit ? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

If I had time I would but I think it's a better idea for the editor who wrote the material to have another go first. Try avoiding using the Toronto Sun/Canoe as a source. There are plenty of others media that covered the exact same things you added but using more objective language. Try not to write from a partisan point of view ("media frenzy") but from a Neutral Point of View. It's not your role to write as if you're a PC partisan and leave it to others to clean it up. Nixon Now (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Rather than aggregating material from whatever newspaper articles we can find, we should be finding articles that summarize events and put them in perspective. It makes for better balance and a better reading experience. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I am comfortable with that approach, however, as you've said, its hard to find articles that talk about this Subject in a summary way that is neutral or positive, otoh, there are lots of articles that generalize negative labels and events about him. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It might be better to wait until after the election campaign is finished and then write what happened rather than do a play by play as it happens. For one thing that would make it easier to avoid adding trivialities and unnecessary detail and also might mitigate the temptaion to write with the purpose of trying to influence voters or the election. Nixon Now (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Nixon Now could you slow down on news quote spam......ongoing talks all over about this. --Moxy (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Nocturnal now told me above, in bold, to "go fix it" and so I've attempted to balance and NPOV the section myself. I am quite fine with, as I suggest above, eliminating the section and not writing one until after the election in order to avoid recentism and other issues with a play by play, day by day, approach. Nixon Now (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The polling stats in particular have no place being there—are we going to give a week-by-week (or day-by-day) update? Those stats make sense in a chart or something on the election page, not in the Ford article. Obviously eliminating the section entirely won't fly, but we should be choosy with what is included, and focus on summary-style articles rather than "breaking news" ones. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with removing the polling stats if its ok with NixonNow. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to trim the section. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

So, I took out the polling and 2 non events; him not attending a debate and his campaign not having a media bus. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nixon Now:, Please reinsert whatever you wish, I am just trying to help rectify the issues discussed above. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It's too soon to know whether passing on the Black community debate or cancelling the bus will be substantive points in the campaign or just ephemera that no one remembers or cares about in two months which is why it's better to write these things in retrospect rather than as it happens. As for polling, an initial baseline might be helpful but again, probably better to wait until after the campaign. If Ford starts strong but ends up losing then it is of interest. Less so if the polls remain constant. What isn't needed is reportage of each poll. Nixon Now (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Like Curly Turkey said, it's highly unusual to include polling results in politicians' bios. They're normally included in articles on particular elections, or sometimes in separate articles entirely (c.f. Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018). The only results normally included in the individuals' bios are the actual vote results, like we already have here for Ford's Toronto campaigns and obviously there is no info available yet on the future Ontario election. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. If a frontrunner ends up losing or someone has a come from behind victory it is worth noting though, but not necessarily with actual polling data. Nixon Now (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That. See Michael Ignatieff#Leadership or Kim Campbell#Election defeat for good examples, or Bob Rae#Election victory for an example in the other direction which also includes some discussion of poll results. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

John Oliver Obscenity source

The John Oliver source quotes John Oliver thus: “Sure, his brother was fun, but at a certain point we felt bad laughing at him, whereas Doug Ford doesn’t have a drug problem. He’s just an a*****e— a non-chemically-assisted a*****e. So please, Toronto, I beg you — Let us laugh at your a*****e for another four years.” The actual linked monologue uses worse language, and I quote "Siblings like to jack off each other..beat off each other.....make each other come". Isn't the inclusion of this source a violation of BLP policy and UNDUE ? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of it wouldn't be a violation of UNDUE. That would depend on how much space was given to it and whether or not it was in the lede (and also whether it was a minority theory being given undue emphasis versus a widely accepted hegemonic theory - eg an article on vaccination that that gives a lot of space to anti-vaxx arguments, which is really what UNDUE is meant to address). Please look at WP:UNDUE and if you think there's a violation then quote the relevant part of WP:UNDUE to support your point. Reading it, I don't see how UNDUE is at all relevant here. As for BLP, the quote you mention is not actually included in our article. Also, the fact that the John Oliver piece is still being referred to several years later, for instance in this 2018 National Post article[23] which was written four years after the John Oliver commentary aired, is evidence against either UNDUE or BLP being violated. Nixon Now (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)....Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." So, I think only a tiny minority, perhaps of Oliver and a few of his audience , wanted Ford to be elected "for the world's amusement". So, yes, any mention at all of some obscene comedy skit is UNDUE. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Views that are held by a tiny minority" refers to theories such as conspiracy theories or other minority or fringe theories. Oliver is not propounding a theory, minority or otherwise. His comments are not in regard to some sort of historic or scientific debate, it's a comedy monologue that's been widely quoted. You're misapplying UNDUE. But even if you weren't, UNDUE, doesn't say they minority or fringe views shouldn't be mentioned at all, which is what you're arguing, but that they shouldn't be given a disproportionate amount of space. In your quote above you omitted the line "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject" (italics added) and the Oliver monologue has been mentioned in a number of reliable sources, including the CityNews article you reference and the National Post article, published four years later, which I reference above. We don't have paragraphs and paragraphs on the Oliver monologue, it's just a brief mention, so there too UNDUE does not apply. Nixon Now (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• The way it's included in the article isn't a BLP issue; it may be a WP:WEIGHT issue, depending on how well represented it is in RSes overall—preferring summary-style reports, books, and journal articles over day-to-day news reporting. According to Google Books, none of the Ford books published since the Oliver piece appeared (The Only Average Guy, Mayor Rob Ford: Uncontrollable, Rob Ford: A Case Study in Emotional Abuse, Lynched: The Media War Against Rob Ford) have so much as mentioned Oliver. We should question why any material that can't find room in a several-hundred-page book (a couple of these are close to 400 pages) should be included in a summary-style article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Because the books are biographies of Rob Ford, not Doug. Nixon Now (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

How does that contradict what I wrote? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The absence of a mention of John Oliver's comments about Doug Ford in books about Rob Ford is obviously irrelevant, regardless of how many pages the book has. Nixon Now (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You're ignoring virtually every word in my comment. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You have failed to respond to any points I've made. Your comments don't make any sense but I have addressed them. You mistakenly refer to them as "the Ford books" when they are actually "the Rob Ford books" and they are not bios of Doug therefore the fact that they don't mention the John Oliver monologue on Doug means nothing. While Doug is mentioned in them and there is sourceable information that can be cited (which is why I brought them up in the first place a few days ago and have pleased you've followed my suggestion and consulted them) their focus is Rob, not Doug. I'm sure, for instance, they mention references made to Rob by various American late night shows. That they don't mention when Doug is the primary focus of a monologue is of no consequence and irrelevent to this discussion. I've now addressed this several times here in much more detail than should have been necessary and have nothing further to add or repeat so if you're going to try again I will leave it to others to respond to or ignore your comment. Nixon Now (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, so I'll repeat my primary point, which you pretend I never made: "it may be a WP:WEIGHT issue, depending on how well represented it is in RSes overall—preferring summary-style reports, books, and journal articles over day-to-day news reporting". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

And then you elaborated by talking about biographies of Rob Ford not mentioning things about Doug as an argument for not mentioning those things in this article, an argument that may make sense if this was an article on Rob Ford, not Doug. I refuted your point and you ignored my refutation. The reality in regards to Canadian politicians, particularly at the provincial and municipal level, is you generally won't have books or even journal about them (at least not about current politicians). Rob Ford is an exception because the crack scandal made him internationally notorious. By your argument, therefore, we shouldn't have articles on these figures at all, or articles that are little more than stubs, since they are generally only mentioned in news reports while they are politically active. That's simply not practical or realistic. Nixon Now (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

So ... I'll repeat my point (please stop trying to bury it): "it may be a WP:WEIGHT issue, depending on how well represented it is in RSes overall—preferring summary-style reports, books, and journal articles over day-to-day news reporting". The rest of your comment is irrelevant—I'm not going to fight strawmen. Building articles by accretion of whatever we can find in day-to-day newspieces makes for shitty, unencyclopaedic articles. We already have plenty of sources of the type I describe, such as this and the journal articles I added to the article. Focus on those sorts of sources and we'll have a better, more balanced article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if you can't respond to my argument you might as well just repeat yourself. Nixon Now (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

And again you ignore virtually every word I wrote—best strategy to achieve a filibuster to maintain whatever text you want to keep in the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Our readers do not want to be exposed to this perverted, sicko incest humour, and don't find it funny, or interesting or encyclopedic. This kind of content does not belong in Wikipedia, and everybody knows it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED aside, the Oliver piece contains no "perverted, sicko incest humour"—just lots of swearing, none of which is quoted in the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

C.T., listen to the comments when the brothers are on the see saw and right after. Real creepy incest word play jokes. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen it a bunch of times (I watch Oliver regularly). It's not quoted in the article, and isn't why the piece picked up media notice. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

ok, maybe I'm wrong about this. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Opposition to autistic children's house

User: Nocturnalnow made this edit in regards to a much noted incident where Ford opposed the placement of an autistic children. His attempt to change the term "autistic children" to "challenged youth" is a shameless attempt at obfuscation and misdirection. "Challenged youth" is usually a euphemism for youth suffering from addiction or problems with the law. Nixon Now (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Nixon Now, from the source you cited, #30; "The centre recently purchased and renovated the house at 22 Jeffcoat Dr. where four challenged youth, some with autism, have lived for the past two months." The way the source content reads to me is that they are all "challenged" and not all autistic, so it's more accurate, if you wish to apply a term to the group that challenged is more accurate. The most encyclopedic definition of the youth is the one given by the director of the group, which I had quoted. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You've also increased your original content dramatically from:

Ford opposed proposed housing for autistic children in his ward, claiming they had "ruined the community".

to

Ford opposed an existing house for autistic children in his ward, saying at a public meeting that the home had "ruined the community".[30][31] When the father of an autistic child filed a complaint about Ford's comments he replied that he could "go to hell" and accused him of being part of a "jihad".[32] Then-mayoral candidate John Tory said of Ford's conduct: “Councillor Doug Ford's comments about the father of an autistic boy are disgraceful and totally unacceptable for an elected official".[32] Four years later, when asked about the comments, Ford said his critics were "lying" by claiming he'd made the comments despite the fact that he'd defended the comments in 2014.

The present content on this subject is factually wrong (according to your sourcing) and way unbalanced against the Subject, while highlighting what 1 person said against Ford and nothing about what all the "angry" and "anxious" residents at the meeting said about all the commotion, including many police calls, related to the housing. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You took out the specific and factual "autistic children" and replaced it with the vague and meaningless "challenged youth". Why? Having removed any context what does "challenged youth" mean? Nixon Now (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Obviously because it's what the source explicitly said. The term may be unhelpful to readers as it stands, but it is counterfactual if replaced simply with "autistic children". Another wording is required.

The expanded content is also obviously a violation of WP:WEIGHT. It needs to be trimmed and rewritten to conform to WP:INTEGRITY. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"Challenged youth" alone is meaningless obfuscation and to cherry pick that phrase in isolation and claim it's all the source says is misleading and misdirection. The first source explicitly says "developmentally delayed youth with mental health issues" in its lede and other sources simply say "autism". As for the additional info it's sourced and Ford's current comments are relevant. Nixon Now (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

THE SOURCE YOU CITE CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU WROTE! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Swarm: we have a violation of WP:INTEGRITY here, but we can't revert it per WP:1RR because Nixon Now has already reverted Nocturnalnow's rewrite. This can't seriously be allowed to stay in the article—can you please do something about it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

By cherry picking "challenged youth" and leaving out autism and developmental delays you are misrepresenting the source. Also, your original revision [24] said "autistic children" so you had no problem with that phrase and did not think it was contradictory before. Nixon Now (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)