Talk:Rob Ford/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Sub-section: Project Brazen 2

Considering Ford has moved from "Allegations of Substance Abuse" to being involved with a full-fledged police investigation, should we begin a new subsection titled "Project Brazen 2" or "2013 Police Investigation" starting historically at October 31st? CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

  • We have to remember that this is an encyclopedic-type article, not one with too many details on specific events. Alaney2k (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm well aware of that. However, considering the amount of information in the substance abuse section, this new bombshell, the police investigation is HUGE. The news is on fire with it, that and a 500 page report that is half redacted, but for now I don't see any harm in keeping it in the allegations section. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Update: After consideration, I believe the current section with the name change is appropriate. I have been adding important, short details to the section, and more lengthy descriptions have been kept in the timeline article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we should separate the substance abuse allegations and the video scandal. I do not think it should be called Brazen II because that is only part of it and not what it is generally called. While related to substance abuse, the video scandal is much wider. TFD (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It is not just a video scandal because Ford is also embroiled in substance abuse issues with Alcohol as well. I agree, it should stay as the current title. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
We can stop calling it allegations. He admitted as much yesterday. I would only note that we have to make consideration for undue weight and speculation when it comes to the video. I suggest you make it as a section of the substance abuse section and edit the amount of detail you think is appropriate. I basically agree that it is wider, but it's ongoing, and covered in the separate article. Alaney2k (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the relevant information on the origin of the video and Rob's quote on the video from his talk show should stand (also that he initially denied it), and when/if details of the video are made public and/or if it is released to the public, we will replace said 'speculation' with the actuality of the situation. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The media are starting to call it the "Rob Ford scandal". But I do not think Brazen II is the correct name, because that was police investigation that began after the video was released, and was not made public until recently. TFD (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional substance abuse incident

The Toronto Star reported that Mayor Ford was asked to leave Toronto's Garrison Ball on February 23rd 2013 due to his apparent impaired demeanor, stumbling and slurring his speech. High ranking government and military officials attended the gala event to celebrate Canada's armed forces. Members of both the mayors executive committee and the gala's organizing committee confirmed that he was indeed asked to leave the event.

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/03/26/rob_ford_intoxicated_toronto_mayor_asked_to_leave_military_ball.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.142.29.18 (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Misquote

Ford is currently misquoted in the lead section. As it says in the cited source, what he said was "probably in one of my drunken stupors". --69.156.38.175 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it – as quoted in The Globe and Mail source: "probably in one of my drunken stupors". Thanks. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. (Same guy, different IP.) --98.158.139.69 (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hoax?

Enough of the speculations, etc. Now he's admitted he BOUGHT illegal drugs. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24933947 --112.210.37.182 (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


Gawker's update today says this: "First order of business: The last time we established contact with the people who are in possession of the video was this past Sunday, and we have not been able to reach them since."

Also, have a look at the graphic they use for this "story"[1]. Is this really a reliable source? Not in my book. Since they have now raised $160,000 I am wondering why the video vendor has become incommunicado; also, I always wondered why they set the goal so high; the news reports only said that $100,000 was being asked. I suggest we hedge our bets on this aspect of the BLP by not mentioning it at all at least until after Monday when the crowdsourcing campaign is over. May122013 (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Losing contact with the video holder does not transform the reporters having viewed the video as having never happened. The Gawker graphic used for entertainment purposes has nothing to do with the editing of this article. Gawker has become a very respected news source over the years with countless notable stories coming from their websites. --Oakshade (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
We should not use Gawker as a source in this article (it is used in support of the statement that they first reported the story.) However the story is mostly supported by news media, which are rs, and we are not claiming the video is genuine. If and when a final determination is made, then we can report it. Also, WP:BLP does not apply. We are merely reporting what has appeared in the press. TFD (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that a previous central discussion conclded Gawker should not generally be seen as a reliable source? If this is what you are suggesting please provide a link here to the discussion or discussions you think established this.
  • Even if, for the sake of argument, there was a central discussion that concluded that Gawker wasn't generally a reliable source, I suggest that Gawker would still be a reliable source for the original reporting from the Gawker reporters. That is, something like: "On May 14, 2013, reporters from Gawker reported that they were shown a recording that appeared to show Rob Ford smoking crack.<ref name=Gawker2013-05-14/>" Geo Swan (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Toronto Police Services has gone on record that they are "monitoring" this controversy. I suggest that, instead of it being an indication that this is a hoax, Gawker not being able to reach the drug dealer with the video could mean the video owner is concerned that extra police monitoring puts him at greater risk of arrest. A sensible precaution would have been to throw out the cell phone that reporters had phoned them on, because, if the police got its number they could get a warrant, and use that phone to arrest them. If the police had the cooperation of the cell phone provider, even turning the phone on would allow the cell phone provider to locate the cell area the phone was in. Geo Swan (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
As this is a Canadian jurisdiction it would be a benefit to contributors to review defamation as it pertains to a criminal activity, with emphasis on media participation/authorship. Review CCC section 297 and forward. When there exists casting call online ads for a Rob Ford look alike at least twice in 2012 that I am aware of, the TPS should really be investigating this fact that the MSM has with effort prevented its reporting and attempts at suppressing this information on their respective comment sections.HochMeister (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Who is MSM? Alaney2k (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Everyone who makes a buck off media provision who isn't in lockstep with the righteous underdog. You know, the Star, the Globe, the CBC, CTV, Global, Sun News Network, Toronto Sun, etc.. You get the picture. :)  Natty10000 | Natter  19:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
And the acronym? Alaney2k (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
If I had to guess, "Main Stream Media". The suggestion being ... oh, I have no idea what the suggestion here is. But that's what I suspect is meant by "MSM". Echoedmyron (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
MSM=Main Stream Media, a shortcut/epithet most often used by conspiracy theorists.  Natty10000 | Natter  20:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sellers of video "vanish" : Globe and Mail

Looking exactly like a hoax now. Canada's premier reliable source, the globe and mail's headline today :"Gawker’s ‘Crackstarter’ campaign hits bump: Sellers of alleged Ford video vanish" [2] If anyone reinserts this garbage, please be sure to include this aspect. May122013 (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. Just because you think it is a hoax doesn't make it one. That is you own POV coming into play. And the Globe article does not itself say that it is a hoax. The allegations should stand, as reported allegations; when the mayor makes a meaningful reply to the allegations, add that in. For crying out loud, the Toronto Sun is reporting that chief of staff Mark Towhey was fired for urging Ford to seek help: [3]. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
We are following BLP by including the item. WP:WELLKNOWN. May, don't keep reverting or you will be reported and asked to be blocked. Alaney2k (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Seconding Echoedmyron's "hoax" point. You might have a leg to stand on had reporters from Gawker and the Star not seen the video. But unfortunately, the elephant in the 'hoax' room is that they have. The other point is that the story has moved on from the video to Rob Ford's responses (or lack thereof) over the last week, responses which combined with the sudden lack of accessibility even to Ford-friendly media outlets and yesterday's peremptory firing of his Chief of Staff speak more of a wounded-and-cornered animal than of an innocent man wronged. Natty10000 | Natter  14:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
May122013, you're actually breaking WP:BLP and WP:NOR by making such a claim with zero sources making such a stipulation. That Globe and Mail piece is simply reporting the content of the Gawker one that states the video holders are currently incommunicado. That doesn't make the video that the reporters viewed a hoax and is only your original research speculation. --Oakshade (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I see that May has been warned about his disruptive editing and has even taken his complaint to the Village Pump. I think we should probably ask for an administrator to look into this editor. If this person claims to be so knowledgeable about BLP, then the ed. must have previous experience with Wiki, but May122013 only signed on, on May 20 this year. Was this editor previously blocked? Alaney2k (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, May122013 claims to have been User:Mr.grantevans2 and prior to that User:Mr.grantevans but both times 'forgot' his/her password. It may be that an admin should look into that further. Something doesn't seem quite on to me Natty10000 | Natter  15:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
By his/her own admission May122013 (talk) used to edit under Mr.grantevans2. This user has old history dating back to fall 2010 when he edited this article and others during the 2010 election. In both incarnations he likes to remove content from his talk page that he doesn't like. See [4] and here [5]. It's as if he doesn't understand the nature of page history in Wikipedia. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Under the previous account, his Ford article contributions include promoting a paragraph of the article up to section status, based on the fact it was "widely reported" (see edit summary.) -- Zanimum (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, it was User:Martin Hogbin who opened that section at the village pump. For what it is worth, he called this an "attack article". Geo Swan (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have created a report on WP:3RRNB about May122013 (talk · contribs)'s behavior on this article. Four reverts equals a violation of 3RR, whether the user wants to admit to it or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Alaney2k (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Guys, I don't mean to be disruptive and hope I am not. The 3RR complaint was determined "no violation" so perhaps there is a stronger argument against inclusion than some think. I will likely stop editing again if I can not be of any constructive use here. May122013 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
You certainly are. The article stays to the letter of WP:WELLKNOWN. Allegations have been made. We are not purporting that the video exists or not, only that it has been reported. You are edit warring. Maybe you have not violated the 3RR rule, but you are certainly edit warring. Alaney2k (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Toronto Police Services acknowledge they learned of the video months ago

Canadian newspapers are reporting that Toronto Police learned of the video months ago. I think this means that the existence of the video does not rely solely on the Gawker and TorStar reports.

I think these reports justify the frustration many of us felt with the policy objections to including balanced, neutral coverage of the crack video allegations in the article back when it was first reported. Geo Swan (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Greg McArthur, Ann Hui, Patrick White, Shannon Kari (2013-06-13). "Police learned of alleged Rob Ford crack video during year-long gang probe" (in English). Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2013-06-14. Toronto police learned of an alleged video that appears to show Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack-cocaine as part of a year-long investigation into drugs and gangs, The Globe and Mail has learned. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |trans_title= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  • Lauren Strapagiel (2013-06-13). "Toronto Police knew of alleged Rob Ford crack video: Report". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 2013-06-14. Toronto Police have known about an alleged video of Ford using a crack pipe since weeks before the story broke on Gawker and in the Toronto Star, reports CTV News. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • David Rider, Paul Moloney (2013-06-13). "Mayor Rob Ford says he knows little of police raids". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2013-06-14. Shortly after Blair's news conference, CTV reported that Toronto police using surveillance techniques were aware of a video allegedly showing Ford smoking crack cocaine weeks before the Star and Gawker.com publicly revealed its existence in mid-May. CTV said a "highly placed source" confirmed that "persons of interest discussed that video in detail, and referred to the mayor's alleged presence in the video." {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • Greg McArthur, Ann Hui, Patrick White, Shannon Kari (2013-06-13). "Toronto police aware of alleged Rob Ford crack video prior to media reports" (in English). Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2013-06-14. Toronto police became aware of an alleged video that appeared to capture Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine during the force's sweeping investigation into a network of accused drug dealers and gun runners – before the alleged video was revealed in the media, The Globe and Mail has learned. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
Not the best way to ask for an edit, but yes, that is done ;)

new scandal

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mayor-rob-ford-apologizes-for-lewd-language-says-he-s-getting-support-1.1542963 Not sure if you want to add this - Mayor Ford is saying that he is getting help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.224.248 (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

500+ page report. Comment

I keep hearing about a 500 plus page police report in the news media. Was this a report into Ford's activities??? Does it have to do with another criminal investigation Ford blundered into??? I am not finding it in this article, nor am I finding it in the dense and confusing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Rob_Ford_video_scandal article. If someone wants to know quickly and concisely about the report, they can't find it. This is what the Toronto City Council uses to drive the issues on Ford.User:JCHeverly 01:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been referenced from several news media sites. It's actually the document submitted to get search warrants on Sandro Lisi. Try this link: here If that doesn't work, try googling for "Project Brazen ITO"Alaney2k (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
It's referenced in the article, in the last section, and in reference #5. siafu (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I added it as an external link to the Timeline article. Alaney2k (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • With due respect, I can see a lot of time and effort were put into both articles, but, unfortunately the present scandal is why a majority of people are consulting Wikipedia about him. A sentence or two in the introduction about the police investigation and report would be a big help. Just saying.User:JCHeverly 16:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC) . . . K, K. It would appear that Ford blundered ---who would have thunk it???--- his way into an ongoing criminal investigation/drug bust by local police. He has been compounding the issue by channeling Chris Farley, the fat, stupid brother that gets into politics because no one trusts him w/ the family business. Unfortunately, as this thing goes on, you may be required to add a criminal section near the top and move the 1999 Florida DUI/unprosecuted marihuana possession up as well. On a personal note, as an American, it's sad his family is ennabling this situation. Toronto is a lovely city and this thing is getting worse daily. Once again, just sayingUser:JCHeverly 16:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Please correct factual errors regarding the 2010 Election

Please correct the factual errors in the first paragraph by replacing them with the correct information provided in the second paragraph

Ford was elected mayor with 383,501 votes (47%) over George Smitherman's 289,832 (35.6%) and Joe Pantalone with 95,482 (11.7%). The voter turnout was around 52% of registered voters, the highest in Toronto's post-amalgamation history. Ford's 11% margin of victory was the largest for any incoming mayor in post-amalgamation history, roughly double that of Mel Lastman in 1997 and David Miller in 2003.[Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).55] Ward-by-ward electoral results showed that Ford had won all of the former pre-amalgamation suburbs, while Smitherman topped districts in the pre-amalgamation Toronto districts. Ford also received 80,000 votes from the "Downtown 13" wards, or 20% of his total votes.[56]


Ford was elected mayor with 383,501 votes (47%) over George Smitherman's 289,832 (35.6%) and Joe Pantalone with 95,482 (11.7%). This number of votes stands as the second highest number of votes to the 483,277 votes received by Mel Lastman in 2000. The voter turnout was around 52% of registered voters, the highest in Toronto's post-amalgamation history. Although Ford's 11% margin of victory was the largest for any incoming mayor in post-amalgamation history, roughly double that of Mel Lastman in 1997 and David Miller in 2003 it was not the largest margin of victory in a the post amalgamation of Toronto.[55] Mel last man won 79.96 % of the vote in his second term with 79.96% of the vote and a margin of 71.5% over runner up Tooker Gomberg who received 8.46 % of the vote .Ward-by-ward electoral results showed that Ford had won all of the former pre-amalgamation suburbs, while Smitherman topped districts in the pre-amalgamation Toronto districts. Ford also received 80,000 votes from the "Downtown 13" wards, or 20% of his total votes.[56]

Here is the link which provides the correct information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_municipal_election,_2000 Edukator99 (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the correct approach is to remove the dubious highest margin for any incoming mayor. I've removed that. As for Lastman's total in 2000 being larger, I'm not sure of the validity of the comparison? Alaney2k (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The point is that Ford did not receive "the highest [margin] in Toronto's post-amalgamation history." Of course many of Toronto's pre-amalgamation elections had been relatively uncontested. See for example Toronto municipal election, 1974#Mayoral race, when Crombie won 100,000 votes and Don Andrews came second with 5,000. TFD (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

new picture

You need a picture that show his character, that is more honestly representational of his, er, personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.69.51 (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

In this photo he's confident (even cocky), and he's showing major bling. Is this unrepresentative? Can you nominate a superior replacement that meets Wikipedia's stringent requirements? -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if I would call the chain of office 'major bling'. Mayors in Canada wear them at official functions. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I should indeed have said that he's showing mayoral bling. (Or baronial bling, if you prefer.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I like how we're affectionately humouring this idea. CaffeinAddict (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I am glad I came in for a chuckle too, Addict. Perhaps we can create a whole section dedicated to Ford's buffoonery! 31jetjet (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 31jetjet
His "substance abuse" section kind of already is that, except it follows WP:NPOV. ;) CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
That is true,would still love to add a picture to that section, something more recent. Cheers. 31jetjet (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)31jetjet

Orange Order Parade 2012 and Mayor's Refusal to Participate

The Mayor's religion keeps being dropped from his info box profile with no discussion as to why his or any other politician's call to God should or shouldn't be listed.

This might have something to do with his substance abuse and family troubles, however we are unaware that the Mayor has reformed his ways.

Neither the Mayor or any city councillor was in attendance in the parade or cenotaph; The Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday's office called to outright refuse.

W T Moore Toronto

From: Jennifer Dwyer <jdwyer@toronto.ca> To: wtmoore@rogers.com Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 4:34:27 PM Subject: Re: Toronto County Orange Order Parade

Hello William,

I have been notified that, unfortunately, Mayor Ford will not be able to attend this year. I have extended the invitation to Councillors involved in the 1812 Bicentennial events and will follow up with you with any confirmation.

Thanks again for the invitation.

Jennifer Dwyer | Events Coordinator Office of Mayor Rob Ford City Hall | 100 Queen St W, 2nd Floor Toronto, ON | M5H 2N2 t: 416.338.6474 e: jdwyer@toronto.ca

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.88.63 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 4 January 2014

And the relevance to the BLP is? Collect (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The Orange Order has not been a force in Toronto politics for decades, and is therefore unimportant to the article. If you have a source for Ford's religion we could add it, but if rs have ignored it, then there is no reason why we should add it. TFD (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
At least once, I have removed it. There was no citation, when it was added. As Ford has been filmed at various churches, and does not make a point of visiting any one church regularly, it's speculation as to whatever church he belongs to, if he belongs to one. So a religion in the infobox can't be specified. I have not been able to find a reliable source. Sometimes, this type of info is specified in campaign materials, but I've not seen it mentioned. My personal guess is that he does not go regularly. Alaney2k (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2014

Ford's late night drinking at the bar in British Columbia has caused the province's liquor control board to investigate. [1] Festeron (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: Until the investigation is complete and there is actually some coverage of it, this falls into the CRYSTALBALL and NOTNEWS categories... — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 03:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.vancouversun.com/liquor+board+investigating+late+night+Coquitlam+visited+Ford/9504261/story.html

Should today's announcement of Ford having a tumor be included

I know the article is long, but the news coming in from today regarding his tumor should be worth mention. Though maybe moreso in his campaign article maybe and maybe just a one-liner here in the personal life section which does mention his history of (outside of the obvious saga) health issues (asthma, kidney stones, etc) 96.23.4.165 (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: health problems

It's the Humber River Hospital, not Humble. Also, there is no such thing as being "self-admitted" to a hospital; it's doctors who decide whether to admit patients.

The section also needs general copyediting due to the awkward section title, repetitive wording, extra capital letters, etc. --65.94.51.64 (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize I was supposed to supply replacement text myself (and I also didn't notice that two hospital names were wrong). I request:
  1. Change the section title from "Health problems/Illness" to "Health"
  2. Change "a Kidney stone" to "a kidney stone"
  3. Change "Sunnybrook Health Services Centre" to "Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre"
  4. Change the third paragraph to read as follows (leaving the existing reference in place):

On September 10, 2014, Ford was admitted to the Humber River Hospital in North York when stomach pains that he had been suffering for 3 months prior became unbearable. Preliminary examinations, including CT scanning, revealed an abdominal tumor, and further biopsy examinations are required to determine its benign or malignant nature. His brother Doug Ford will discuss his pending election in the following days.

--65.94.51.64 (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I've done #3, I think others have done #2, #1 is unnecessary, and part of #4 has been done. Cannolis (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The wikipedia is not a hagiography

The wikipedia is not a hagiography. If an individual has been criticized in reliable authoritative sources around the world what possible excuse could we have to suppress coverage of that criticism?

In particular, reliable sources in newspapers around the world criticize their local politicians when they think they are following the Rob Ford model. Why shouldn't criticism of Ford from outside the GTA merit a section of its own? Geo Swan (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticism sections are poor style and should be avoided. There is a lot of criticism in the article. If you can find an article explaining how Ford was covered in international media, that might warrant a section. TFD (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: Sorry, I find this is an unsatisfactory response. The section could be called something like "International recognition", or "Coverage in the International Press". Having a properly referenced section, with a neutral title, that only contains coverage of articles that call Mr Ford a joke is not an instance of bias, even if essentially all reporting on him, outside of Toronto, treats him like a joke. If someone finds international recognition of Mr Ford that didn't treat him like a joke, that can be covered as well. But obfuscating coverage of international recognition of him is highly irresponsible.
When I was a kid I was taught that Dr Norman Bethune was the world's most famous Canadian, because every school-kid in China had to read what Mao wrote about him. But, when Baywatch was broadcast, Pamela Anderson was said to be the most famous Canadian. Now? Mr Ford has got to be the most famous Canadian. Geo Swan (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Infamous, no? :)  Natty10000 | Natter  15:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

2009_tumour...

The article currently takes at face value Ford's assertion he had previous tumours.

While Ford did claim he had a tumour removed in 2009, about a month after his diagnosis with the current tumour didn't his doctor, one of the leading oncologists in Canada, tell reporters that after reviewing Ford's medical records, he could find no record of a previous tumour?

I am afraid that since Ford is an addict, so his memory is generally unreliable, his assertions of previous tumours are simply not reliable. Geo Swan (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rob Ford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Article is way too long

It needs to be seriously edited and pared down. I can't find any information I'm looking for without doing ctrl+f. It's like reading a novel. Rizla (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There are sub-articles that cover some of the aspects in detail. The problem with this type of article is that it gets updated as events occur and becomes overly long with overly detailed descriptions of events. TFD (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It is 126k. That's way above guidelines. It's time to summarize. Is there anything we can put into lists or any other suggestions? Alaney2k (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
"Removal of powers by City Council" could be cut down to say that by an overwhelming margin city council decided to transfer his executive powers and most of his staff to the deputy mayor. While it is for some reason omitted in the section, it should mention that this action was motivated by the video scandal. All the rest is excessive detail, unless one wants to create a sub-article explaining in detail how this was enacted. The same applies to much of the rest of the article. TFD (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A cleaver would help -- the article reads like an election pamphlet by an opponent than as a serious biography of an actual person -- including violations in the lead where clearly undue weight is given to his travails. And I demur that sub-articles are a panacea -- often they also become POV-fish bloating in the sun. Collect (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's more likely his supporters are at risk of POVing the article. The only things I've seen from his detractors is vandalism. We can point to literally hundreds (possibly even thousands) of media articles and popular culture references to his antics. CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

media rations should be reduced

reduces biases about drug and alcohol use — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.73.8 (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

update on political life

as of last election ford in now counselor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.73.8 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That's already in the article in the 2014 election section. Meters (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rob Ford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rob Ford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wanda Kozlowski

@Nocturnalnow: pinging you because I'm not sure if you'll be notified of my reversion just now. I've removed the Wanda Kozlowski quote again. I appreciate your explanation, but I feel that adding in a quote from some random, non-notable well-wisher is unnecessary detail for an encyclopedic discussion of Rob Ford's health. If it were a quote by a famous person or someone with any kind of connection to the Fords then maybe it would be useful to include. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree with this content removal. Meters (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
ok..thanks for the details of your thinking. Best wishes Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned links

There are currently nine (9) orphaned links which are unverified probably due to the transfer of a large section of text to the Mayorship of Rob Ford, which was created today. Quis separabit? 22:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rob Ford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Religion

Given that his funeral service was at the Anglican Cathedral would it not be correct to be a bit more specific with his religion and list him as an Anglican? I would be bold and do it myself, but I would like to know if there is a reason that he currently listed generically as 'Christian' Cyndane5 (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Cyndane5

Religious denominations are almost always controversial. You should have a source which clearly states he was a practicing Anglican in order to make the change. It's entirely possible he practiced some other form of Protestantism and they just needed a larger church for the funeral service, and many people do simply state their religion as "Christian". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The use of St. James is more practical than religious. The church is the biggest in Toronto. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV issue

I just read through the Blp for the first time in a long time and I think it is way too unbalanced on the negative side. I will be working on it to add more of the positive events and activities of his life. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

And simultaneously try to reduce the bulk of the Blp as Rizla (talk) suggests. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Policy does not say that negative and positive views should be balanced. The subject of this article is universally seen in a negative light in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I see, but I would say "usually" instead of "universally"? Anyway, please have a look at the comment of Collect (talk) above, as I somewhat agree with his assessment. Anyway, We will work in a consensus driven manner I expect. Do you disagree with Collect's assessment? Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The section about Ford's battles with alcoholism and drug addiction should not read like tabloid attack pages. Alcoholism is a disease. It's not right to attack someone for having a disease. It's important to use professional and neutral language, such as 'intoxicated', rather than 'drunken'.199.7.157.14 (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The content has been present for quite a while. You seem to want to hatchet it. Alaney2k (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Battle with Alcoholism and Drug Addiction

This is an encyclopedia article. Ford's battle with alcoholism and drug addiction should not be treated as sensational tabloid gossip, but rather as a victim struggling with a disease. Language should include a disinterested tone. Also, extra intricate detailed information from the video scandal should be kept to that extra page. 2607:F2C0:95F1:E900:BD7D:EBF3:58E2:F8ED (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The entire article should not be 99% about alcoholism and drug addiction. This is undue weight. Is Bill Clinton's article 99% about Monika Lewinsky?2607:F2C0:95F1:E900:3DB6:5B84:5DC5:634A (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
(edited) Thanks for coming to the talk page. There is more than one article about Rob Ford. There is the mayoralty article and the timeline of the video scandal. As far as I can tell, you have not added anything that supports your contention that Ford battled addiction. He is known to have gone to rehab once. It appears more like Ford self-medicated himself for his psychological problems. You have been 'dumbing down' the content consistently in the last day. Alaney2k (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The content you keep trying to add is far too long. Keep it concise and to the point. There is no possible reason every incident needs a 3 paragraph play-by-play, especially since there already is a separate article about the drug video. There's also no possible reason to keep adding unattributed quotes of tabloid-style jargon. Keep the language professional. Also, there is no biography article anywhere where the death of someone comes before what happened in their lives. Stop messing with the chronological order. Take the feedback and alter your edit, rather than edit warring.2607:F2C0:95F1:E900:3DB6:5B84:5DC5:634A (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I summarized his erratic behaviour in early 2013 in one paragraph. That is summarizing and keeping it brief. I put the personal issues together. Alaney2k (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
No, you have gone into unreasonably lengthy detail with the political goal of transforming the entire article into a hit job about Ford's addictions. You have used countless unattributed quotes designed intentionally to sensationalism events. Keep each incident to 1 or 2 sentences, leave out the lengthy quotes, and weasel words. Also, do not change the order of the paragraphs as this is inconsistent with ever other biography on Wikipedia.2607:F2C0:95F1:E900:3DB6:5B84:5DC5:634A (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok. I'll put Illness and death after political career. But I must object to a legacy section when there is no legacy. It was voted down. Alaney2k (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
It is still newsworthy because the current mayor endorsed the idea. Also, I added 2 sources which state that Ford's alcoholism and drug addiction is a disease. Please don't discriminate against people dealing with addiction. Also, stop it with the weasel words, intricate detail and lengthy quotes.2607:F2C0:95F1:E900:3DB6:5B84:5DC5:634A (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I've always tried to use the words of those reporting, or witnessing. You find it sensationalistic, but these examples were considered very shocking behaviour of a public official. Alaney2k (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Like it or not, Ford's addictions were a major component of his notoriety to anyone living outside of Etobicoke and a primary one for anyone living anywhere but Toronto. While perhaps embarrassing to his family, Wikipedia entries aren't supposed to be fan pages, comfortably entombing moral skeletons and failings out of sight and mind. From where I sit, there isn't any reasonably arguable lack of balance in the entry. I think once you've been around a bit longer and widened your area of editing expertise, you'll see that Alaney2k's contributions adhere to the expectations the Wiki community has of every editor  Natty10000 | Natter  11:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Natty, I agree that Ford's alcoholism and drug addiction belong in this article, just like Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky scandal also belong in his article. One of the problems is balance. 99% of the Clinton article is not about Monica Lewinsky. It's about what he did (good or bad) as President of the U.S., his personal life, etc. There are only 5 paragraphs about the Lewinsky scandal on the main page because most of the details are on a subsequent page dealing specifically with that issue. In this article, there is a separate wiki page about Ford's drug use, which can include a play-by-play of all the intricate details of his drug use. The main page, however, should absolutely mention Ford's various episodes of alcohol and drug addiction. None of them should be left out. However, the length of these descriptions could be condensed, and the sensational qualifying weasel words could be left out. That's all I'm saying.2607:F2C0:95F1:E900:AC59:88B7:D0E:3C18 (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
A better U.S. president to compare him with would be Donald Trump. Comparisons could also be made to Burlesconi, Duterte, Tony Abbot, Yeltsin and Hugo Chavez. All these politicians attracted controversy virtually every time they said something and broke accepted standards of behavior, both creating enemies and drawing a committed core of supporters. Where Ford differs is that unlike these other politicians, there was very little else of significance to his time in office. Partly that's because he worked at a lower level of government and partly because the office carried little official power. Executive power in Toronto is placed in the mayor and council. Mayors have power only because they manage to lead council, which Ford was unable to do, largely because of his erratic behavior. Most councilors actually sided with him ideologically. TFD (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rob_Ford/Archive_7&oldid=1142482461"