Talk:Rob Ford/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Rich playboy

Please explain how indicating that the family had a swimming pool,etc. makes him a playboy? What's wrong with noting he has pic of Harris? Or his leaving football at Carleton? There is no content in there that is offensive. Alaney2k (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that was vandalism, as it's not in the article anymore. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Length of controversy section

The controversy section is currently a massive wall of text, and it's pretty unreadable. Alaney2k didn't like me splitting it up into subheadings, but there needs to be something done to improve readability. I agree with his notion that we might collapse some of the subheadings, but even if we did that, the section would still be unruly. I'm not sure if splitting the section into a separate article is warranted so we are left with either organizing it better, or trimming it. I'm in favour of better organization, if someone is looking up an encyclopedia article on Rob Ford, this is probably the information they are looking for. Check out Kwame Kilpatrick for another controversial mayor with a large section of his page dedicated to his many PR nightmares. In the case of Ford, these are sadly the most notable features of his administration, so lets organize them in a more readable format. Pjjmd (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree on the style. It is not good style to add a sub-heading for every paragraph. A heading is to introduce a section. Putting a heading on every paragraph is more of a technical report style. Compared to Kirkpatrick, Ford's section is not a 'wall'. People can read that much. I think the feelings on Ford are mixed. Yes, people want to read about the controversies, but a lot want to read about his politics and budgets, cost-cutting, etc. They've made that point that it is a page full of complaints about Ford. So we need to proceed carefully. I think we could have a whole article, but people may object. We could sub-divide into sections on controversial quotes, anti-cycling and driving incidents to try to categorize. There seems to be more brewing about drinking, so we could have a controversial incidents sub-section. Alaney2k (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

: I agree on breaking things down into subdivisions, since the 'other controversy' section isn't ideal anyway, we might be able to remove it. Is there a good place to work on an article other than the live version? I agree it's a bit of a contentious issue, i'd like to make some changes and have a user like Alaney2k take a look at them before I edit the live page again. Is my userpage the best spot for that?Pjjmd (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hat's off to Alaney2k for his or her work in moving paragraphs from the controversies section to other sections of the article. Geo Swan (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. This has to be an editor's nightmare in that regard  Natty10000 | Natter  21:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 May 2013

The link to note 133: Cook, John (May 17,2013). "(Update) We Are Raising $200,000 to Buy and Publish the Rob Ford Crack Tape". Gawker. is broken, it should be: http://gawker.com/we-are-raising-200-000-to-buy-and-publish-the-rob-ford-508230073 76.68.49.190 (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Already done - by User:AuburnPilot with this edit. Thanks for pointing it out. Begoon ^talk 09:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

References = Further Reading and Notes = References?

The references section lists:

• McDonald, Marci (2012). "The Incredible Shrinking Mayor". Toronto Life (May 2012): pp. 40–54.
• The Unknown Torontonian (2011). The little book of Rob Ford. Toronto, ON: House of Anansi Press Inc. ISBN 978-1-77089-007-7.

Are these references directly used in the article, or are they really "Further reading". If so, we can change Notes to References. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed on "crack video"

Mention of the alleged "crack video" does not meet wikipedia's policies (biography of living persons.. or something or other) as there is no proof such a video exists. No one outside of a gossip columnist, and reporters from a newspaper with a clear vendetta against the mayor have even SEEN this video, allegedly shot by drug dealers.

If these unsubstantiated allegations are sufficient for inclusion into a Wikipedia article, I very strongly question the usefulness of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.149.43 (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This article covers the allegations, it covers the response to the allegations, and covers the media coverage. It does not pass judgement. If you can cite a specific part of this section that is causing an issue, please state so.

Regardless of the Toronto Star and their goal (if anything more than covering the news) the currently unsubstantiated allegations are being covered internationally. Most of Ford's incidents only receive local or minimal national coverage. This situation's coverage is widespread. Besides the outlets cited there, The New York Times, Bloomberg, BBC News, USA Today, and Forbes all have. Even small American outlets like the Evansville Courier & Press. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no first hand account of the act. There are only the allegations, second hand, via Gawker and the Toronto Star. The other sources you mention only reference the Star and Gawker - THIRD HAND information. The fact is, the allegations are unsubstantiated. Do unsubstantiated allegations merit inclusion in a wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.149.43 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors did not initiate the discussion or the events or the allegations. What is included here is that someone is shopping a video of Ford. It has apparently also been offered to cfrb. It does not take undue prominence in the article, but it is reported. I have asked an editor/admin to review it for violations of policy. It's a difficult spot to stand on. It should be included due to its wide reporting. Readers expect to have it mentioned. Even newspapers sympathetic to Ford are reporting the allegations. We should do about the same, and be neutral. That Ford has been reported in the recent past has having been intoxicated can only be reported in context, no more no less. But several reports mean also that it is not one unsubstantiated incident, but either a series of events that have actually occurred or a series of personal attacks on Ford. Either seems extraordinary. Alaney2k (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"Do unsubstantiated allegations merit inclusion in a wikipedia article?" - If the allegations and the ensuing response to the allegations are reported at an international level, yes. Whether these allegations are proven true or false in the future, this little episode has gained enough notability in my mind to gain inclusion in this article. Sepsis II (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 24.212.149.43 and since the matter is in dispute here on the talk page, I think Editors who keep re-including the information on the main page are not adhering to basic BLP policy. May122013 (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm with the "keep" side. As long as we say people claim to have seen Ford smoking crack in a video (not "Ford was caught smoking crack on camera" or anything), and then illustrate the repercussions and rebuttals, I think we're OK. The notable thing isn't the act of smoking crack, or even the allegations, but the scandal which followed. We know that exists, and whether the allegations are true is largely irrelevant by this point (except to the extent that we shouldn't say they are or aren't true). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's completely ridiculous that this story is being ignored. Obviously this is a major story in the biography of Ford--no matter how it pans out. Maybe the allegations will prove to be false... in which case a simple "The Allegations of drug abuse turned out to be false" would obviously suffice. People all over the world are clicking on this page, having never heard of Ford before the allegations went public, and can't find anything about it???? The question isn't whether or not Ford did or didn't smoke crack. It's that media has reported that he HAS. Wikipedia should simply reference the fact that the allegations are out there--it doesn;t have to assume they're right or wrong. Anything less is just wrong. --76.70.0.19 (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP uh no. we are not breaking news and we are not a tabloid. We walk on the conservative side when dealing with living people. As of last night, all there was was 2 pairs of journalists saying they had seen a video made by junkies who were trying to sell it for a lot of money of a man who looked like he was doing something that might be illegal who in their opinion looked like it might have been RF. That is way too flimsy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Red Pen of Doom says " As of last night, all there was was 2 pairs of journalists saying they had seen a video made by junkies who were trying to sell it for a lot of money of a man who looked like he was doing something that might be illegal who in their opinion looked like it might have been RF.".... Duh? WHY NOT JUST SAY THAT? Your statement is exactly right--and it should be included in the story, because no matter how this pans out, the story is part of Ford's biography. It's not unlike the Whitewater scandal in the case of Bill Clinton. A bunch of unsubstantiated claims that ultimately amounted to nothing, and yet not only is it part of Clinton's biography, the Whitewater controversy has its OWN wiki page! The crack story doesn't need its own wiki page, but it's obviously more than some obscure rumor on some blog somewhere. The controversy is part of Rob Ford's biography no matter how it pans out.184.145.28.226 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)--184.145.28.226 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

again, we are not a breaking news service - we can and per WP:BLP should wait until it pans out. We are not a WP:CRYSTALball. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

again, this isn't breaking news. Can you stop with that line already? That line might have made sense a week ago. No one is asking you to break a news story. Nobody is under the illusion that wikipedia is a news source. And if we need wait until things "pan out", then when exactly does this story deserve a mention in wikipedia? Suppose it takes months? Years? How about this: why not mention what we DO know already, which is this: two media organizations have reported that a video is being shopped around that purports to show Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine. NOBODY would dispute that simple fact--not even Ford himself is disputing those simple facts. It's a reasonable compromise... not sure why you're insisting on ignoring the story, other than bias on your part. --184.145.28.226 (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Rfc: Undue weight?

Despite how people see Mr Ford in the City of Toronto or Canada as a whole this article is over the top - giving disproportionate space to controversies and speculations. What is the best way to approach this problem? - trim the section? summarizes better? any suggestions? Moxy (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

For several years now, I think we have been discussing what to do about the section. About a year ago, I added more information about his political career, because the article was literally 80% devoted to controversies. But, I think it is in Ford's nature to be controversial. So, how do you trim? Really, there is so much more that is not in the article! There is even more about his family not in this article like his sister's drug abuse and the murder of of his sister's ex-boyfriend. You have to draw the line somewhere - but I would define him myself as controversial, not "painted that way". He might not be notable otherwise. I definitely add stuff to the article then try to subtract. That's my nature of writing. If you feel you can summarize it better, I welcome it. But, in the end, I think Ford will forever be known for his controversial and publicity-hungry behaviour. He definitely is a party boy too. He has character flaws and he and his brother admit it. He has shown genuine concern about many things in Toronto - such as the housing corp, but he seems to always using insults and smears in his political battles. I don't recall in recent memory a mayor of Toronto that has so many negative things said and done towards him - the lawsuits, the naked picture, etc. He is very polarizing. Alaney2k (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We have to balance the tone - not only do we have a huge section on speculation just added and a huge section on controversies the whole article is littered with a ...."Ford did this action, HOWEVER everyone thinks hes a moron for doing so" type tone. I am more then willing to help but I think after reading the sections above we need to get outsiders that dont know him as a political entity to comment on the tone of the article before we fix this. To me it looks like we have to apposing sides dividing the article up. Moxy (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It's hard to imagine what an outside who knows Ford as something other than a "political entity" would look like. Rob Ford is only famous as a political entity, and only Torontonians would like know him as anything other than a controversial mayor. Indeed, as an American, I only learned about Rob Ford when visiting Toronto and hearing about him repeatedly in conversation in the context of one or more of his controversial statements or actions (the TTC bus used for ferrying his football players was a big one at the time). Furthermore, Typing "Rob Ford" into google, for example, brings up hordes of links about the scandals, gaffes, and controversies surrounding him, and very little about his actual political platforms or accomplishments (I just did this now, and noticed with amusement that the "Crackstarter" page comes up right after this one). I have to agree with Alaney2k here; Rob Ford is just a controversial figure. siafu (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is what I am looking for - to see what people think of the weight. Thank you for your comments.Moxy (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"Rob Ford is only famous as a political entity"? 100 million dollars per year in sales for his company according to the Toronto Star [1] and that isn't even mentioned. It's obvious that the controversies are way over-weighted; at least I think so. May122013 (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

$100 million a year in sales for a company is not actually super significant; there are thousands of businessmen and women who can make such a claim who never manage to grace the headlines. The Toronto Star is in fact only reporting that number because Mr. Ford is famous as a politician. siafu (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in fact May's cite is an article about a potential conflict of interest. Alaney2k (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And the $100 million figure -is- mentioned in the personal life section. Alaney2k (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Here's an outside view: I'm not a Canadian and have never heard of this guy before, so my opinion shouldn't carry much weight, but for what it's worth I think the amount of text given to controversies in this article is more than we should aim for in biographies of politicians, even controversial ones. (That said, it's also hardly unusual for Wikipedia - there are plenty of biographies of American, British, Australian etc. politicians that are just as unbalanced.) The five paragraphs given over to the current cocaine story seems particularly excessive; it might be a good idea to go back and take another look at that section once the story has died down (unless, of course, it results in his resignation or something like that). Robofish (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree withRobofish and I would like to once again remove the cocaine allegations until hopefully more senior editors will respond to the BLP Noticeboard request for attention here. It is my view that many editors here have allowed their own opinion about the mayor to influence the content of the BLP and this is nothing new whatsoever as can be seen by reviewing the entire talk page. May122013 (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May, this is futile. The mayor will just put his foot in his mouth again tomorrow, and the next day and the next day. Content on the substance abuse allegations will be returned to the article, not because editors disagree with you, but because it is notable. Why don't you work on the content to improve it, instead of working to suppress it? Alaney2k (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Reduce content There is far to much detail on controversies and policies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Rather than removing the crack cocaine allegations again, I have put the NPOV tag on the article until we can come to a consensus that conforms to BLP policies. May122013 (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus does not equal unanimity, May. Since the content section is out right now, as it is being discussed on the BLP noticeboard, will you remove the npov tag? Or are you objecting to any other section? If so, please provide some reasoning. Alaney2k (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

ok, will do. May122013 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that the content section is back in, the NPOV tag will be too. May122013 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Systemic Bias Tag

An apparently uninvolved editor placed a systemic bias tag on the BLP with an edit summary saying: "bias is systemic due to traditional "reliable sources" being heavily tilted against Ford for a number of reasons; this article needs a special amount of care". The tag was removed quickly for non-discussion. I did not know such a tag existed and I am putting it back as I think it applies perfectly as can be seen by the many comments on this talk page about the Subject's treatment by the media and his ongoing feud and legal actions with the Toronto Star particularly. If more discussion is needed to justify the continued use of this tag then lets have it here. Imo , I did not know such a tag existed but since it does, this BLP needs it for all the reasons identified in the preceding sections of this talk page. May122013 (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Allegations that the entire mainstream media are in a conspiracy against Ford is not a valid claim of systemic bias. Such a claim is in fact antithetical to basic content polices and guidelines such as WP:UNDUE and WP:RS - we weight things the way the mainstream sources cover the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TheRedPenOfDoom. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TheRedPen as well. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TRPoD here. We can't treat the "whole media is against Ford" thing as absolute truth just because Ford says its true. Dawn Bard (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

While I am late to the party I too agree. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TheRedPenOfDoom. The "media" is not a block that acts en masse. The views of various media outlets are as varied as the markets that will support them.  Natty10000 | Natter  16:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just removed the tag, as I don't see "systemic bias" in the article. The article has reasonable balance between supportive and critical opinions of Mr. Ford. I would suggest that the sections on the Conflict of Interest case and other Controversies should be trimmed down. PKT(alk) 14:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Many editors have suggested that the controversies section be "trimmed down"but they don't do it themselves; hence it never does get trimmed down; at least not very much. Perhaps an editor who has not been expressing any opinions about these matters could do the trimming? May122013 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

People who are not familiar with -all- of the controversies/scandals, etc. of Mr. Ford are typically the ones who say trim it down. And respectfully, I think PKT may be that way. But also it's persons who think the article is merely a smear article. I've tried working the opposite way, trying to add more about his actual career to provide balance, but then month after month Ford does something else. The Little Book of Rob Ford is a book entirely composed of his smears on various groups! The day before the crack scandal, there was an item about putting magnets on cars, while skipping out on a council meeting. I removed it for triviality. Prior to that, someone wanted to put in info about his apparently deadly body mass index value - I commented it out. I think the conflict of interest section could be summarized, for certain, but it will be extremely difficult to trim the other controversies section with this subject person and still provide what people wish to know. There was a tag on the article to bring the article up to date, and that was when the March allegations of drunken-ness were being made. There is no mention of his interview where he criticized the football players he coaches as losers who will never amount to anything, and his coaching of the football team - which he has placed at a level of priority over attending council meetings. There is no mention of his hiring people in his mayor's office that work on the football program. It's all fairly murky, and Ford works to keep details out of the media's hands, just so they have some plausible deniability. That's the way his team works. They have a policy of ignoring reporters of the Toronto Star - the largest paper in Toronto. And now, since March, there has been this haze over Ford of substance abuse and public drunken-ness. It's not all in this article - for example, he's been ejected at least once from a bar for rowdyness attributed to intoxication. Alaney2k (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

if "what people wish to know" is the scandals, they can google their favorite tabloid. we are presenting an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not an appropriate response and you know it. We should not suppress information at Wiki subjectively. The material is contentious, but it is completely pertinent to the subject of the article. Alaney2k (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a completely appropriate response. If you want to write for scandalpedia, you will need to go elsewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You're over-stepping your brief, TRPoD. There's every indication that this scandal (however it plays out) will likely be looked back upon as a defining episode (and perhaps the penultimate one) in the political career of Rob Ford and likely by association, Doug Ford. That being the case, the scandals and their details are noteworthy and belong in this wiki entry (though with scrutiny to maintain the requisite neutral stance).  Natty10000 | Natter  21:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Once your WP:CRYSTALBALL has been authenticated, I will have no problems utilizing its predictions. Until then, we go based on what is present now, what is present now is not something that meets WP:BLP standards. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"We go based on what is present now". Is this the royal "we"? Sorry but your interpretation of WP:BLP seems self-serving and leaning towards bias.  Natty10000 | Natter  22:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

the best way to handle it is to incorporate them into the general history of the person. when reading the biography as a whole its generally pretty easy to tell if a particular "controversy" is of any actual importance and impact compared with everything else in the story, or if its just a fart in the windstorm and has nothing but the fact that it was a slow news cycle. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That is contradictory to leaving it out. Alaney2k (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a HUGE difference between documented things that did happen and have been covered, and allegations of something based on the opinions of 4 people based on a film made by junkies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying "A film made by junkies". Shouldn't that be alleged junkies? At any rate, the allegation has happened, and that ought to be reported. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Echoedmyron, someone used this exact same phrase at BLPN as well. From the initial Gawker/TorStar reporting the photographer was the drug dealer, or an associate of theirs. Some, but not all, drug dealers are also addicts. People addicted to cocaine are not "junkies". The term "junkie" refers exclusively to those with an addiction opiates -- not cocaine. Geo Swan (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I would much rather we had the various controversies put into the general article, rather than a separate section. Controversy sections are, to me, sloppy writing. They also tend to end up as laundry lists of everything anyone considers a controversy. Then people want to balance them with other things, and we get bloated articles. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I do like having controversy mixed into the main article.

As per "slow news cycle" -- hah! We've got Tim Bosco/Dellen Millard, a very contentious downtown casino vote, a Senate controversy, so many other big news headlines, the Star wouldn't create a story (ever, but particularly) during all of this. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

And that isn't even taking into consideration the worldwide news media and talk show attention that this incident has garnered (and presumably will continue to garner until someone comes clean.  Natty10000 | Natter  21:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP you need to stop making accusations of criminal activity. Talk pages are covered as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, consensus does not mean unanimity. Your opinion is just one opinion. Stop acting like it's worth more. I would say a majority do wish a mention, than have it excised completely. It is notable by any measure. Alaney2k (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP does not say "a majority can over-ride this policy". We can wait until we have an actual answer before we include content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that BLP means to censor Wikipedia. That's what you are advocating. We work by WP:CON, including interpretations of BLP. We have a specific rule here to cover this very situation: WP:WELLKNOWN. What is your reason to over-ride that? Alaney2k (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a majority of editors here over the past week or so are/have been in favor of including the crack allegations news at this time. So, I don;t think that the "consensus does not mean unanimity" argument really applies. May122013 (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Vastly too much negative content.

This article contains more negative and critical content than Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler. It should give a balanced view of the subject. It is not necessary or desirable to put every negative piece of information (usually from the media) in great detail into the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting "giving a balanced view" requires artificially making sure there is as much content that shows a subject in a positive light as there is content that you think shows the subject in a negative light?

If this is what you are suggesting:

1. From your reading of RS that cover Mr Ford, do you think there is some positive aspect of his career in public life, his career in business, or his personal life, that has not received a fair amount of coverage? Okay, what are the missing positive aspects?
2. Are you suggesting we cast out neutrally written, properly referenced coverage of Mr Ford, if we can't find more positive aspects of his life to cover?

With regard to your comparison of our coverage of Mr Ford and Mr Hitler, leaving aside the moral dimension, once he rose to the position of leadership he aimed for, Mr Hitler started to accomplish his goals. Mr Hitler set out to conquer most of Europe, and he did conquer France, Poland, Czeckoslovakia, Greece, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Austria, and significant parts of North Africa and the Soviet Union. He turned Finland, Romania (and Bulgaria(?)) and arguably Italy into nominally sovereign vassal states. If this is what you regard as the positive aspects of our coverage of Mr Hitler, and you think Mr Ford's article lacks coverage of where he reached his goals, has it occurred to you that Mr Ford largely failed to achieve his goals?

No one is arguing we put every negative piece of information into the article. If you think you can identify information in the article that is not particularly relevant, or is not sufficiently well documented, it would be helpful for you to name the specific coverage you regard as problematic.

Yesterday I searched the archives of various noticeboards, to see where coverage of Mr Ford had been raised. Back in September 2010 someone argued that coverage of Mr Ford's very public description of "orientals" [sic] as a group who "work like dogs" [sic] was unnecessary, excessive, and that it should be removed. I think that commentators in RS are returning to this controversial comment, in 2013, shows coverage of that comment was appropriate, and, that our coverage of that comment should be expanded.

So please, if you take your concern to the next step, and actually identify passages you think are unnecessary, please make a serious effort to explain why you think they are unnecessary. Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I characterize the initial complaint as a 'drive-by'. Too often editors make a comment without any actual interest in improving the article. In the past year, I actually have added more of Ford's political career, although he is much more well known for his controversies. It is his style and I believe sincerely that he himself would not object to being characterized that way. Most of the "negative and critical comment" is simply the mention of his controversial comments. Frankly, I think a lot of persons agree with that content and have no objection. I think if we took out the controversies, it would be reduced to some discussion of his being a conservative and against tax increases and that would be nowhere near a comprehensive article on the man. Alaney2k (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to an RfC.

There is vastly too much detail on controversies. Have a look at the two articles that I mentioned above. Two of the worst people in history but both have a lesser proportion of the article on negative aspects than this one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

In Hitler's case, there are articles on the Holocaust, World War II, etc. This is just one article. Some of the difficulty is that it is current and there are not yet books written on the subject. Meaning, you have to provide some context instead of just making a citation where you can use an author's summation. I'll ask you too to make specific suggestions. Would you agree that it would be acceptable to have a list of his quotes? That might reduce the prose count, but I wonder what section that would go in. I might add that there is more to Ford not in the article, such as his opposition to arts grants and opposition to gay and lesbians that is not in the article? Besides, Wikipedia is not paper. Alaney2k (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to argue here any longer. There seems to be a trend on WP to use it as a soapbox which needs addressing more generally. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This is what happens here, I don't know why, some very good and objective editors just plain throw in the towel from exhaustion...its a loss to the quality of the BLP. May122013 (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?

I added a couple of sentences to the paragraph about Ford's infamous comment about how "orientals ... work like dogs". User:Red Pen of Doom excised it 12 minutes later, claiming "per BLPN and talk". In fact, exciser actually had made no attempt to explain this excision, on BLPN, or the talk page. So I specifically asked for an explanation, on their talk page. Since they still didn't bother to explain I restored the passage.

Before I was able to leave this explanation exciser excised this passage a 2nd time -- this time with the inadequated edit summary "already covered".

That reliable sources tied the Gawker/TorStar reports of the crack video to Ford's comments that "orientals ... work like dogs" is NOT already covered, which I think makes excisers's edit summary highly misleading.

Rather than reverting this unexplained excision myself, a second time, I am going to leave the undo link here, and request someone who agrees with me that their unexplained excision has no policy basis to revert it.

I have explained elsewhere how making controversial edits, where the sole explanation for the edit is in the edit summary is a terrible trigger to edit warring. There is a grave temptation for the reverted party to do their own revert, so they could reply with their own edit summary. The result? Instant edit-war.

Not only are edit-wars to be avoided, but this deeply troubling edit tactic is a grave dis-service to later readers -- who should be able to count on finding the discussion of complicated issues with the article, on the talk page. Even if the later reader figures out that the real discussion is embedded in the edit summary, they will have to step through the diffs, one at a time, to really follow the discussion. Following a discussion where one has to pay attention to the edit summaries; and the actual diffs; and the talk page; imposes a heavy and unnecessary cognitive burden on respondents. I urge exciser, and everyone else, to never rely solely on edit summaries to explain complicated or controversial edits. Geo Swan (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to discuss things on the talk page , how about starting with a discussion of why this article has so much negative content on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Because that's what a neutral reporting on the subject dictates? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Since most of the coverage of the subject is negative, the article would be as well. In particular, most if not all international coverage is negative. And Ford's comments on orientals were made in City Council and recorded. TFD (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• As per the comments above and here, I will revert this instance of basically RedPen's unexplained excisions. Geo Swan (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Too much bumpf to scroll through before the TOC?

Does anyone else agree this talk page has too many screenfuls of bumpf to scroll through, prior to the table of contents?

I added an explicit __TOC__ prior to the templates that instantiate the bumpf. Geo Swan (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Could remove mention of the trial to remove him from office from the lead. Since he won his appeal, it is no longer as important. TFD (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that, 4 deuces, will do. May122013 (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• By bumpf I was referring to the half dozen administrative templates that instantiated to several screens full of information I think we all had to skip over to get to the actual discussions.

{{talk header|noarchive=|search=|arpol=no|wp=no|disclaimer=no|bottom=no|force=true}} {{BLP noticeboard}} {{Canadian English}} {{WPBS|blp=yes|activepol=yes|1=}} {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=C|listas=Ford, Rob|politician-work-group=yes}} {{WikiProject Canada|Toronto=yes|toronto-importance=mid|class=C|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Politics|class=C}} {{Old peer review|archive=1}}

• I wasn't suggesting any actual topics for discussion should be removed, and I would prefer the automatic archiving be relied upo to put stale discussions in the archive. Geo Swan (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead needs to make some mention of his controversies

The lead is biased in Ford's favor by not mentioning any of his scandals or whatever you want to call them. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Just say that he is controversial. There are just too many incidents to put them in the lead. TFD (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Until this and other issues shake out, it's a bit early to be saying just how accurate the lead is  Natty10000 | Natter  23:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What about adding a simple "Ford has been faced with many controversies throughout his term in office"? -- Zanimum (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)