Biography C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Canada: Toronto / Politics C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Conservatism C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please list the subject's religion, as is listed on other encyclopedia articles abou this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.88.63 (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the talk page for his brother's article, we would need a reliable. If neither the councillor nor the media ever mention it, then there is no need to include it. TFD (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the page is semi-protected, we should have a place to discuss whatever we can do. Is Ford WP:WELLKNOWN enough to warrant a mention of the Globe and Mail report on Ford's dealing of hashish in the 1980s? Alaney2k (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He meets WP:POLITICIAN as I would imagine do all Toronto councillors. However I think it is better to source the information to an article about the investigative journalism article, rather than to the article itself, so that we avoid problems of weight and reliance on primary sources. Those articles mention that Ford denies the story, which should be included. Also of importance is that the Progressive Conservative Party now deny that he will be a candidate in the next provincial election. TFD (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @FordDixon: this article of a living person currently has only one sentence about his campaign for Mayor. Inserting two sentences about controversy over said campaign, which clearly cannot be linked to the subject directly, is WP:Weight issue. As such, I am removing your recent edit. If you chose to write a broader section on the campaign and then include a line or two on his direct participation in the controversy - be my guest! ...and, by the way, it is a custom on wikipedia to explain reverts of others' edits.--Truther2012 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: please see above...--Truther2012 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I was just cleaning up, although it did seem to be undue weight. Figured someone else would revert if they disagreed. Ivanvector (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source given inline for Ford's birthplace is his father's obituary, and does not actually give his place of birth. Before I stick a {{fv}} tag on it, do we have a source that says he was born at Humber? Ivanvector (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it important which hospital he was born in? If you don't think the source is reliable enough - we should remove it altogether...--Truther2012 (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that the source isn't reliable - there is no source for this. I am off to remove it. Ivanvector (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayoral candidate Doug Ford's cozy domestic side, "A loveable lab waits on the mat in the front hall shaking with excitement. Hard to believe Buddy is 15. “All he wants is to be petted the whole time,” says Doug in mock exasperation." Does NPOV kinda necessitate this?199.7.156.136 (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could not access the diff that Ivan made..it shows 14:00, 30 January 2018‎ Ivanvector ...but with a line through it. Anyway, I remember when this article came out during all of the Rob Ford mayoral period and the local papers printed a lot of stuff like the one about this Subject which they would not have normally printed, imo. This is just too old and, UNDUE etc., imo, especially with a big campaign underway for the Subject now. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't access the diff because it contained a copyright violation and was expunged, but that wasn't related to this. We don't remove referenced information from BLPs just because it's negative or because the subject alleges a conspiracy of defamation. The allegation claimed by the Globe and Mail is well-documented and covered in detail by many independent publications, only a few of which are used as references in the article. As for anonymous sources, anonymous does not mean unverified or "fake", and the Ontario Press Council ruled in its review of these reports that the use of anonymous sources was justified ([1]). My opinion is that the whole incident (the report) is significant to Ford's background, and is presented sufficiently neutrally in the current revision. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I do not know if the Subject has said he's being defamed, I'm just saying that during the time this was published there was, imo, a lot of sensationalizing about the Subject's family and I think this was a part of that. Don't you think its too old and, especially since there was no related criminal charges, that it's inclusion is not really in line with our more conservative Blp guidelines? Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleging a conspiracy of defamation" is my neutral version of Ford and his brother complaining for years before and after this incident that Toronto media (the Star and the Globe and Mail in particular) were executing a coordinated smear campaign against them and threatening to sue for various things, although as I recall they never actually did. And no, I don't think it's too old to include: it's information, and Wikipedia does not need to be cleaned up so it can be a vehicle for Mr. Ford's many political campaigns. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and can see you remember the commotion as well as I do, but I don't think we should construct a current Blp with content bias because somebody alleged some conspiracy. Such allegations, accepting that there were some, should be ignored. I also don't know that this subject threatened to sue anyone nor would I agree that such a threat should effect the Blp. Also, this Blp is not much of a campaign vehicle...its certainly not flattering in any way that I see. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're having some editwarring over this now—and now it's placed front-and-centre in the "Early life" section, dominating the section. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's quite ridiculous that there are insinuations of drug dealing on a BLP without any proof of criminal charges. 104.247.233.166 (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC) (sock of banned editor)[reply]

There are no insinuations of drug dealing. There is a sourced NPOV description of a report published by two of Canada's largest newspapers, along with an explanation (also sourced) that there were no criminal charges. This is the proper way to deal with this information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, I don't think this info belongs in the article. AstronautPants (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC) (sock of banned editor)[reply]

For those of you interested in discussing this with respect to the biographies of living persons policy, I have opened a discussion at the BLP noticeboard. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At what point did Ford sue the Globe and Mail for defamation? Nixon Now (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't some blog rumour or something from a tabloid. No reason not to include. Nixon Now (talk)`

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)[reply]

The editor who requested protection has been edit warring and his claim of vandalism is baloney as you can see by the fact that no editor has been even warned of vandalism. This is a Subject who just a few days ago joined a major party leadership race governing a population of 16 million and there are likely to be many citizens who will be attracted to read and maybe some to edit the BLP....it is not nice for the newly attracted to editing be discouraged based upon no evidence at all of vandalism....especially when the request was made by an engaged editor. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could let us know what in the article is currently inaccurate or inadequately covered. MPS1992 (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content is not a reason for protection as far as I'm aware. But this is a major political event just getting underway so I think there will be many new editors wanting to add new content within the next month. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

look at what I found (and removed) over on an associated and important article [2]. We can't be allowing this type of stuff, at least I don't think so. Maybe we need to refer to the BLP noticeboard? What do the rest of you think? Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's no good, thanks for removing it. We can't publish unproven allegations as though they're proven facts like that; @Nixon Now: I think you restored the offending edit accidentally, but please be careful not to do it again. It is not present in the article as of when I checked just now.

Have a look at the BLPN link I added a few threads above, that is the noticeboard to ask uninvolved editors to review a BLP dispute. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks vey much, Ivan. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His middle name is Robert - full name Douglas Robert Ford Kscourt (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's unlikely, his brother's name was Robert. However the sources given for Doug's middle name in this article are either unreliable or don't actually verify it, and both his father's and his brother's middle names were Bruce, so it's pretty unlikely that Doug Jr's middle name was also Bruce. Any better sources out there? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit, what about the vague statements made at a stop along the campaign trail is noteworthy enough to warrant their inclusion in a biography?

I also am of the opinion that interim polling data doesn't belong here either. If the consensus is otherwise, then to avoid the appearance of cherry-picking I would suggest mention be made of the other two polls—referred to in the same source—which are somewhat less favourable. StvnW ^talk 05:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nocturnalnow, a separate section for the 2018 campaign is indeed warranted, and should summarize his platform, but at the moment there is nearly as much written about a one-day campaign stop in Sudbury as there is about his entire four-year term in office as a councillor, and more than his previous two campaigns combined. Can this be pared down to the salient points? StvnW ^talk 16:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, I see what you are saying...about the poll too; the other polls seemed more vague with words like "marginal", but I'll pare it down as you suggest. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attn @Nocturnalnow:. There is a large segment of the 2018 leadership section that is borderline promotional and feels like it came right from his campaign.

In a jammed full hall in Sudbury, Ford told the people, "I love Sudbury", and that he would be sure Northern Ontarians' issues are addressed at Queen's Park. "I love the people here. They're down to earth, they're real people, they're grassroots people. And they've been ignored," Ford emphasized. Ford said that he and local candidate Troy Crowder would team up to fight for Sudburians. Ford's message was that he relates to the front-line, working-class people whereas the other candidates don't and he drew a stark comparison between the other PC candidates and himself, calling his opponents "Insiders", "political elites", and "Liberal lite". "I'm proud that I'm a social conservative. And I stand up for the little guy." Ford said, summing up his theme.^[1] Ford brought up a hospital experience with his brother, Rob Ford as an example of how 'broken" Ontario's health care system is. He said the former Toronto mayor fell while he was guiding him to a chair, Ford said, and only two nursing staff were available on the floor, so he had to rush down 11 floors to find a pair of security guards to help. As for the Northern Ontario Ring of Fire, the candidate said he's ready to take action. Ford also wants to reintroduce the Ontario Northland train routes that the Liberals scrapped, citing the need to get to the best hospitals in southern Ontario. ^[2] He also told people in Huntsville that the province's health-care system is broken and that the province should be able to sustain small and medium sized hospitals like those in Muskoka.^[3]

The whole thing could probably be replaced with something along the lines of...

While campaigning in Sudbury, Ford promised to represent the interests of Northern Ontario if elected PC leader. He called his opponents "insiders", "political elites", and "Liberal lite" who did not represent the interests of the "down to earth... real people" like he could. Ford pledged several northern-focused policy initiatives including moving forward with resource development in the Northern Ontario Ring of Fire and reinstating the Ontario Northland Railway's Northlander train service.^[4]

On issues of health care, Ford brought up the hospital experience of his late brother Rob Ford as an example of how "broken" Ontario's health care system is. He stated that the province should support transportation to allow Northern Ontarians to travel quickly and easily to the south to receive medical care and increasing provincial support for Ontario's small and medium-sized hospitals such as those in Muskoka.^[5][6]

It would get the same information, Ford's policy proposals and the fact he is campaigning in the north, with none of the promotional tone. 70.49.159.250 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this proposed change would be a significant improvement. The current wording is far too promotional in tone, and the proposed revision conveys the same information in a much more neutral way.--Trystan (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I'll replace the wording with 70.49.159.250's improvement. Thanks. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oops, I'll ask admin to do it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

request made. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:41, 11 March 2018‎ Nixon Now (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (546 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Nixon Now moved page Doug Ford to Doug Ford (disambiguation) over redirect: disambig) (undo | thank)

What's the purpose of this discussion section? It's just a written copy of an 'edit summary' of a page move. GoodDay (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was added here by In ictu oculi. We should ask them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting @In ictu oculi:, concerning this item. GoodDay (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the purpose of you asking GoodDay? Isn't it obvious. It relates to the RM below and was seen and moved back 20:07, 11 March 2018‎ Timrollpickering (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (572 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Timrollpickering moved page Doug Ford (disambiguation) to Doug Ford: revert undiscussed move, let the RM discussion run its course) (undo | thank) In ictu oculi (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following your reasoning. But, anyways. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a major national newspaper ran a lengthy investigative report on Ford's history as a drug dealer and that this has been repeated in other major media it's a complete whitewash not to mention that in this article. Ford had the opportunity to sue for defamation and did not, despite having the funds to do this. By all means include that he denies the charge but don't pretend the charge has never been made. Nixon Now (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I support including this (the current revision is mostly using my text) but just pointing out that no criminal charges were ever made, according to the report. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not only has Ford not been convicted of any drug-related offenses, but he has never even been charged (Nixon seems to believe Ford has been charged). The problem with suggesting that someone is a drug dealer, is that some readers might believe it. Unless there is any proof to these very outdated Wikipedia:Recentism allegations, this violates BLP. The fact that so many years have gone by, and that there is still no evidence to back up these allegations is very telling. 2607:F2C0:94DD:F900:69BF:3310:D0B:E2FB (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, I never said he was charged, I said he never sued for defamation despite saying he would. Nixon Now (talk)`

For the record, The Globe and Mail has continued to assert that Ford was a drug dealer—this article is only a month old: "Among the things we already know about Mr. Ford: He was, as revealed by this newspaper, a drug dealer in the 1980s. ..." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MPS1992 made these 2 comments at the noticeboard the last time this came up and I think this never charged, much less arrested or convicted, drug dealer smear has no place in a Blp.Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that other sources are also continuing to report on it, and it's obviously affecting how people perceive his campaign. Neglecting to include this (in a NPOV way) will lead to a biased, uncomprehensive article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, I see what you mean; that is a lot, but I still say that MPS1992 points still apply. We must go back to the Blp noticeboard I think since the Subject's profile has gone up so much since yesterday and he is immediately in an even bigger campaign race.Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the widespread mainstream coverage of these allegations, ignoring them would make it look like we're covering up. Nixon Now (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon Now, could you please put this on the Blp noticeboard? I think we definitely need some input from there given the Subject's much increased public profile. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be offline for a week so perhaps someone else could do this? Nixon Now (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There's been some mention of this incident in the article for nearly four years, except every once in a while some editor with an overly conservative read on the BLP policy comes by and removes it because it's "outdated" (the report's age is irrelevant) or that he wasn't charged so we're forbidden from mentioning it (we're not). This is the fifth discussion about removing the report in those four years: I've already brought this up at BLPN twice ([3] [4]) and it's also been discussed on this page, here in 2013 and here earlier this year. None of those discussions supported removing that content or even really attracted significant comment from anyone not already involved in editing the article, though they have attracted sockpuppets. I doubt that making a third post at BLPN is going to change any of that. The only thing that has changed here is that Ford is now a candidate for a higher political office than he's held before and that reliable sources are continuing to mention the now four-year-old report and some are reporting its allegations as facts, which obviously we should not, but this strongly indicates that the report is a significant event in Ford's political life. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

In fact, the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives under Tim Hudak in the last provincial election[5] and the federal Conservatives under Stephen Harper in the last federal election. [6]. The Globe and Mail is simply not a "left wing" newspaper. Nixon Now (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

• Include Include per above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.[7] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Include in some capacity. Especially considering the topics relevance to the Ford political dynasty. - Carlbergman (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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 [8].]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

Please remove "Carleton University" as the alma mater of Doug Ford — he did not attend Carleton, according to the university's administration. I work in the communications dept. at Carleton. Thank you. Danielrube (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done as there is no source given and I couldn't find one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead, I see lots of sources for his brother attending Carleton. There seem to have been a few instances of Rob's info being put into this article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

per topic above, please replace existing related content with "While campaigning in Sudbury, Ford promised to represent the interests of Northern Ontario if elected PC leader. He called his opponents "insiders", "political elites", and "Liberal lite" who did not represent the interests of the "down to earth... real people" like he could. Ford pledged several northern-focused policy initiatives including moving forward with resource development in the Northern Ontario Ring of Fire and reinstating the Ontario Northland Railway's Northlander train service.

Ford brought up a hospital experience with his brother, Rob Ford as an example of how 'broken" Ontario's health care system is. He said the former Toronto mayor fell while he was guiding him to a chair, Ford said, and only two nursing staff were available on the floor, so he had to rush down 11 floors to find a pair of security guards to help. He stated that the province should support transportation to allow Northern Ontarians to travel quickly and easily to the south to receive medical care and increasing provincial support for Ontario's small and medium-sized hospitals such as those in Muskoka." Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that meant to be "Liberal lite" and not "Liberal elites"? Also, I think the first instance of "Northern Ontario" should be "northern Ontario" (no caps on northern, it's a description of a region and not a proper name). I would also prefer not to use a direct quote for "down to earth ... real people" as it's meaningless political pandering; we could just say "residents of northern Ontario" or something similar. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He uses the term "Liberal lite" (as in "light") twice, implying they're not "real conservatives". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see the term "liberal lite" actually existsas per Natl Post headline. It also seems like the "n" is capitalized usually in Northern Ontario. "Residents of Northern Ontario" is fine but now that I see the new version leaves out the description of how he had trouble getting help when his brother fell in the hospital, I missed that change before and I think that description is very important to make the point of what he calls broken health care so that should not be taken out I'd say on second thought. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, here's what I'd suggest:

Ford promised to represent the interests of Northern Ontario in Queen's Park. He called his opponents "insiders" and "political elites", who did not represent the interests of the Residents of Northern Ontario like he could. Ford pledged several northern-focused policy initiatives including moving forward with resource development in the Northern Ontario Ring of Fire and reinstating the Ontario Northland Railway's Northlander train service.

Ford brought up a hospital experience with his brother, Rob Ford as an example of how 'broken" Ontario's health care system is. He said the former Toronto mayor fell while he was guiding him to a chair, Ford said, and only two nursing staff were available on the floor, so he had to rush down 11 floors to find a pair of security guards to help. He stated that the province should support transportation to allow Northern Ontarians to travel quickly and easily to the south to receive medical care and increasing provincial support for Ontario's small and medium-sized hospitals such as those in Muskoka. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph is fine. Capitalizing Northern in Northern Ontario seems odd to me but I can't argue with the sources, however "Residents" should not be capitalized. I added the ref from the section above, my {{reflist-talk}} tag is not in the right place.

The second paragraph is not good. There's some redundant and ambiguous phrasing as to who is doing what, and verb tense disagreements in the last sentence. I suggest basically what the IP suggested in the "promotional content" section above:

I still don't really like the second paragraph, I find it odd to use an example of Rob's experience in a hospital in Toronto when complaining about inefficiencies in the north. But populists gonna populism, I guess. The sources say what they say. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point, but I think 1 picture is more communicative sometimes than a lot of words and I find the personal story about the experience with his brother to create a picture of what happened that day and also to communicate very well how passionate Subject may feel about this particular issue. I know its a bit on the "literary" side, but I still think, with its good source, worth inclusion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have phrased that better. I find it odd that Doug used that anecdote to illustrate the example he was going for, but that is in fact what he did (per the source). Encyclopedically, I have no problem with it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nocturnalnow: we didn't quite finish this. Did you have any more comments on the latest suggestion, or can I request it be added in? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if its this, from above,:

then that's cool with me. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, seems to be consensus then. In the request below I've changed 11 to eleven per MOS:NUMBER, I assume that's uncontroversial. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the "2018 Progressive Conservative leadership campaign" section, please replace the two paragraphs starting with "In a jammed full hall in Sudbury..." and "Ford brought up a hospital experience ..." with the following text:

Ford promised to represent the interests of Northern Ontario in Queen's Park. He called his opponents "insiders" and "political elites", who did not represent the interests of the residents of Northern Ontario like he could. Ford pledged several northern-focused policy initiatives including moving forward with resource development in the Northern Ontario Ring of Fire and reinstating the Ontario Northland Railway's Northlander train service.^[1]

Ford called the Ontario health care system "broken" while relating the hospital experience of his brother, former Toronto mayor Rob Ford. He explained that Rob fell while being guided to a chair, and as the hospital was understaffed Doug had to rush down eleven floors to find security guards to help. He stated that the province should support transportation to allow Northern Ontarians to travel quickly and easily to the south to receive medical care and should increase provincial support for Ontario's small and medium-sized hospitals.^[1][2]

Please also note that the original Sudbury paragraph may be a copyright violation from the Sudbury Star source; please revdelete if necessary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, Please have the protection lifted if you can. There's not going to be any edit warring, and lots of fresh content is coming out about the Subject. Also, in the Rfc an Anon disputes the sockpuppet allegations so maybe we could try no protection? What do you say? Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nocturnalnow: you could take it up with the protecting admin, CambridgeBayWeather, or make a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. I'm WP:INVOLVED on this page, I can't do anything directly. Personally I feel that since protection is finally drawing in comments from more neutral observers that the article is going to improve from all the resulting discussion, we're likely going to finally resolve some longstanding disagreements, and editors can still propose changes like in the sections above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I agree with Ivanvector here, the full-protection is leading to a lot of constructive discussion that would likely not otherwise happen. Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I agree that there is additional constructive discussion taking place. Thanks for your opinions. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rfc re: alleged hashish dealing is showing about 90% of editors who vote for inclusion wanting a cautious and balanced content; and then there are those who feel the entire topic should be avoided.

With the foregoing in mind, I request that ASAP this part of the content be removed as it is not even directly related to the Subject: "though his brother, Randy, was also involved in the drug trade and was once charged in relation to a drug-related kidnapping." Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that addition seems to be coat-racking the criminal past of Mr. Ford's non-notable, low-profile brother as though it demonstrates the subject's connection to criminal activity. If we were to list here all of the people connected to the Ford family with a documented connection to criminal drug trade, it would be a very long article and it would cease to be about Mr. Ford. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been removed yet, can someone cut through the "view source" barrier and move that very extreme BLP violation. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn, please advise, what is the "view source" barrier? Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see its the protection level. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as requested. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Paul. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For future requests, if you add the {{edit protected}} template underneath your section header, the page will be added to the list admins check for edit requests and someone should get to it pretty quickly. I didn't notice before it hadn't been added yet; I added a completed one just as an example. You should make sure that you have consensus for an edit before adding the template. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Ivan, I did not know about that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to adding in the Early life section: "saying later that he decided it would be "a waste of time" at the end of the last sentence "Ford said he planned to sue the newspaper for libel, but did not do so.[10]...therefore reading:"Ford said he planned to sue the newspaper for libel, but did not do so, saying later that he decided it would be "a waste of time". new content from the new article mentioned in the Rfc. Any objections to putting in Subject's explanation as to why he did not sue? Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to these separately, sorry for breaking up your comment. I'm fine with it, but I suggest that it's long enough afterwards that we should give a date. Ford said he planned to sue the newspaper for libel, but did not do so.(source) In a 2018 interview he explained that he decided it would be a "waste of time".(source) Does that work? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, giving the date is better, Ivan, that's fine with me. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hold this one, pending the RfC results. If the RfC concludes that the material should not be added then this will be redundant. If it favours inclusion then we might end up with a different consensus version. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, under "political positions" please add:

On March 13th, Ford told the Globe and Mail he wants to implement a more populist agenda if elected. Ford said he is open to greater privatization of marijuana and alcohol sales in Ontario as well as scrapping the relatively new "foreign-buyers tax" on real estate. Ford confirmed he is is replacing the party platform adopted under former leader Patrick Brown with a "simple..five point" plan focusing on health, education, creating jobs, getting rid of the province’s cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions and reducing hydro rates.

A couple things. The source doesn't say more populist, I would omit that word. Globe and Mail should be in italics per MOS:ITALIC. Also this is picky and someone can correct me if I've got it wrong, but I believe there should be a comma at "... carbon emissions, and reducing hydro ...". And some terms can be wikilinked depending on where there are other links in the file, but that might be best to work out later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of your suggestions, I think the comma after emissions is optional, which goes toward including it...just in case. So, yes, these improvements are great. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, just noticing now that this doesn't fit neatly under any of the subheadings already in the "political positions" section. Should it be broken up between the sections, or is this more of an intro? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'd say it'd be good as an intro. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, I was thinking about trying to do the edit request myself but, I dunno, what do you think? Do we have a consensus on it being put in as an intro under "Political Positions"? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nocturnalnow: sure, give it a go, you can see an example in my request a couple sections above. Be as specific as you can be about the change you're requesting, admins are lazy and don't like to do extra work to figure out what you want ;) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Political positions" section, please insert the following introduction text above the "Abortion" subsection:

On March 13th, Ford told the Globe and Mail he wants to implement a populist agenda if elected. Ford said he is open to greater privatization of marijuana and alcohol sales in Ontario as well as scrapping the relatively new "foreign-buyers tax" on real estate. Ford confirmed he is is replacing the party platform adopted under former leader Patrick Brown with a "simple..five point" plan focusing on health, education, creating jobs, getting rid of the province’s cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions, and reducing hydro rates.^[1][2][3]

Done. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A blocked anon moved it from early life to political career and I think it seems to fit better there, once I looked at it. ? Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the alleged activity was in his youth. Looks like the anon was attempting to bury the paragraph. Nixon Now (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me to put it at the top of the business career section. We don't have a lot of info in the article about Ford's early life but could probably expand it, but as it is that allegation is dominating the section. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as you observed, the IP is a sockpuppet of banned user Soulspinr and their opinions aren't important. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it dominates the early life section and any sort of highlighting of this content is contrary to what the RFC consensus is, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was discussion in the RFC about what phrasing to use, not whether or not a header is merited. Given the amount of attention the allegations have received it's hard to see how a neutrally worded header isn't justified, particularly in light of attempts by anons who have failed to remove the material to, instead, bury the information in a lengthy section. Nixon Now (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the RFC clearly calls for no header or any other type of emphasis. Maybe I'm wrong, I'd like to know what others say. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A word search shows no mention whatsoever of headers or headings. Nixon Now (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's notable because of when it came up in his political career, besides not having been proven in a court of law (regardless of whether any of us believes it). Placing it it "Early life" violates WP:NPOV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only way the subject would be Douglas Ford Jr. is if he had the exact same name as his father ie Douglas Bruce Ford Sr. The variance in middle names is precisely while the 43rd President of the United States is not George Bush Jr and why people who informally call him that are mistaken. If Jr is legally and properly part of Ford's name then I think it can be assumed he has the same middle name as his father. Nixon Now (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything could be more original research than assuming what the subject's middle name is without any reliable source. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, if the father is Douglas Bruce Ford and the son is Douglas Robert Ford then "Sr" and "Jr" don't apply. Do we have a source that the subject's name has a "Junior" on it, legally? Nixon Now (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes there is.[9] Nixon Now (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience (and occasional dabbling in genealogical research) fathers and sons are called "senior" and "junior" in common practice when they have the same first and last names, but they rarely have the same middle names. Yes, I realize I'm countering your anecdote with an anecdote of my own. Anyway, it seems we've both arrived at the same conclusion by different sources, so good work team. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This at least 3 times that Nixon Now has attempted to get this terminology into the Blp. Once actually calling him a "drug dealer" with Ivanvector assuming it was a mistake, thus "@Nixon Now: I think you restored the offending edit accidentally, but please be careful not to do it again." Now he seems wanting to edit war again about this. What can be done? I realize he is otherwise a fine editor. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected it to "hashish" but it absolutely does not deserve a header. I only did not undo the edit in order to avoid conflict. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2018

Hashish isn't a drug? Nixon Now (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I believe the Globe was alleging that Ford not only sold drugs but that he supplied a network of dealers in his employ ie he was a drug trafficker rather than a drug dealer so perhaps that is the phrase that should be used? If the term "drug" is too plebeian perhaps "alleged narcotics trafficker" would be preferable? If that's too edgy, what about "dope peddler"? Nixon Now (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe and Mail article specifically uses the phrases "drug dealer" and "drug dealing" - the article is titled The Ford family’s history with drug dealing and states: "But some of the sources said that, in the affluent pocket of Etobicoke where the Fords grew up, he was someone who sold not only to users and street-level dealers, but to dealers one rung higher than those on the street". Frankly, NN is splitting hairs by insisting "drug dealing" is somehow beyond the pale as a phrase as it's been used widely by credible media in relation to Ford. Nixon Now (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Please get consensus before using a header or the "drug dealer" terminology relating to tabloid type allegations re: 32-39 year old behaviour. The really interesting thing here is whether a normally reliable source like the Globe and Mail should be seen as a RS with a story that would be more typical for the Natl. Enquirer, however, the RFC consensus is our boss, imo, and that is it can be included with extreme care and emphasis on the "alleged" aspect. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe and Mail is about as far from a tabloid as you can get, and repeating the term "tabloid" ad nauseum will not change that. Sorry but the term "drug-dealing" is fairly straightforward. Nixon Now (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC consensus was related to inclusion of specific wording and no header. Let's agree to disagree and see what others have to say before changing the content the RFC is about. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A word search shows no mention whatsoever of headers or headings. Nixon Now (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC made it clear that the information included was to be brief and NPOV. Placing it prominently in his early life under a special header violates the consensus of the RfC. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Placing it in the city councillor section may mislead casual readers into thinking Ford sold drugs as a city councillor. The allegations regard his youth and/or early business career and so belong there. Also, it is a notable issue so merits a topical header. Nixon Now (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon Now, you're beating a dead horse now; Curly Turkey's move to the councillor section was a perfect edit because it was that time period when the report was published and also when looking at the BLP the report visually fits in new location much better. Nobody is going to be mislead into thinking he sold drugs as councillor...lol on that one:). Anyways, I think the Blp might now qualify for a featured article, if that's possible for a Blp...it really looks and reads great, imo, even with the Globe accusations included. Certainly seems NPOV to me. I'm actually surprised it turned out this well....great teamwork I'd say, led by Ivanvector (no flattery intended, just observation). Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None taken. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Nobody is going to be mislead into thinking he sold drugs as councillor...lol on that one" Um, have you ever heard of Rob Ford who not only used drugs extensively while in office but once offered to get oxycontin for a constutuent? Nixon Now (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just mean that I do not think Readers are going to be misled into thinking that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing section headers and plonking a paragraph you want to get rid of in the middle of a wall of text does look like burying. Nixon Now (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The text is hard to read with it being chopped up into all these short paragraphs with their own headings—often only one short paragraph. Plus it now jumps back and forth in chronology. I say we should revert all this. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topical subsections make an article easier to navigate than the huge block of text that was there before so let's not revert. Nixon Now (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topical subjects do not in and of themselves make an article easier to navigate, and the sections were not long to begin with. Subject headings such as "Conflict with police chief" and "Integrity Commissioner ruling against Ford" are ridiculous—the latter is not even two lines long on my screen! This has made a botch of the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Nixon Now (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, but you haven't refuted what I've said. Wikipedia discourages short sections like this. They make for terrible reading, and bring WP:UNDUE attention to what's in them. You've distorted the article with the way you presented the hash dealing, as well. This needs to stop. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP policy is to break up long articles with headings and subheadings in order to ease navigation. If you can suggest better subheadings and organization go ahead but I don't think reverting to a long block of text, as you suggest, is acceptable. Nixon Now (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Nixon Now on this one; as I alluded to in my last edit, I think it looks just great right now. Having said that, I am not well versed in language, article construction norms. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the subsections as well, they're fairly balanced (in that they reflect real-world POV) and there aren't an excessive number of them. However we should add more content to the sections so that they're not just basically one-liners. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we even looking at the same article? Under "Municipal politics" we have 7 subsections for a total of 10 paragraphs. Show me an FA that does something this ridiculous. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, but I see a F.A. candidate has a "reign" section with a lot of subsections; but maybe I'm missing something, or maybe its just beauty in the eye of the beholder. All I know is I like the way it looks and reads, but it could use more content. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an FA, is it? Regardless, it's not even remotely comparable—the ratio of paragraphs-to-sections is higher, and the paragraphs themselves are far longer. There's 14kb of text divided into 8 sections in the "Reign" section of Ramses IV compared to 5kb of text divided into 7 sections in the "Municipal politics" section of Ford's article (about 1750B vs 800B per section—or about 2.2 times)!

This isn't about "beauty"—it's about readability. The way it is arranged now chops up the reading experience and throws events out of chronological order, drawing far too much attention to particular aspects of his biography. And I'm not alone in thinking so. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're beating a dead horse here. Nixon Now (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey, I see what you're saying, I will to defer to you and others who are more knowledgeable and experienced about this matter than I am. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is a consensus here for subsections I don't understand why Curly "JFC" Turkey unilaterally removed them. Nixon Now (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus—Nocturnalnow retracted their support and another user removed them, so you now have only one support—and besides, you're stonewalling rather than discussing. I've raised real issues with the sectioning, and your response has been "Nuh-uh". Demonstrate a concrete issue solved by (a) subdividing the section into these absurdly short sections; and (b) messing with the chronology.

I see you've reverted again. You are now editwarring, despite holding the minority opinion, and can't even justify what you're editwarring over. The first step should be for you to show your good faith and revert what you've done, then try to find a consensus for these absurd edits (which you currently don't have). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon Now: I now see what you're up to—you've also added an "Allegations of hashish dealing in the 1980s" section to the article, against the consensus of the RfC, so that it's now highlighted even in the Table of Contents. Ivanvector, I know you're in favour of the subsectioning, but as the "hashish" subsection is clearly against the consensus, and I don't want to be accused of editwarring, could you please do the honours of removing this? He also undid a ream of copyedits I made to the article, so we now have curlyquotes and other formatting issues, redundancies, and all kinds of other problems I'd removed reintroduced into the article. The article is no longer WP:MOS-compliant, and I'm not going to re-fix it if Nixon Now is simply going to revert everything I do. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't undo your edits, I kept the changes you made to the ordering of the article and wrote appropriate subheaders. As you moved (buried?) the hashish section I added a header so it wouldn't be part of the previous subsection. I also added a quote to the integrity commissioner section and clarified that the Ontario Press Council ruled in the newspaper's favour and also tried to clarify/respond to your antisemitism note. Nixon Now (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Buried"!!! Now we know where you're coming from, and why you're bent on giving the hashish bit its own section! You're editing in contradiction of the outcome of the RfC and the #Referencing Subject as a "drug dealer" or "dealing drugs" section above, Nixon Now, and if are going to persist, I will take this to WP:ANI. You're comments make it clear you're pushing a POV at ths point. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but plonking a passage you'd like to remove, but can't, in the middle of a wall of text does appear to be an attempt to bury it. And no, there is no consensus against a neutrally worded subheading. The RFC does not address headers but the issue of whether the material should be in the article at all and the consensus is that it should. Nixon Now (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon Now: "a passage you'd like to remove"—what the fuck is this?! I voted include in the fucking RfC!!! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."[10] 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)[reply]