Talk:Timeline of Rob Ford crack video scandal

Gawker came out first

Gawker broke the story I think here: [1]

The Star responded initially with a link to the Gawker Story ( which was already out ) and added that their reporters had also seen the video. [2]

 *U.S. website alleges Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smoked crack cocaine in a video
 *The Toronto Star has seen the video in question.
 *Our full story on Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is now live.'

So, I think the timeline should be fixed to reflect that sequence ( Gawker 1st., then the Star followed) May122013 (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed it. Note however they both reported on the same day. TFD (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TFD, it seems good now. May122013 (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

They found "Slurpy"

[3]

Maybe someone wants to add this; I don't think its notable enough even for this timeline; the guy bears noresemblance to Ford at all, imo. Much ad about nothing re: Slurpy, imo. May122013 (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I put it in because the article already mentions "Slurpy" twice.

It would be helpful to have the picture of Ford in front of the Rexdale bungalow. Does anyone know if it is in the public domain and how to add it?

TFD (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the article describes a still-ongoing event. --99.235.129.26 (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see the media as this is a blatantly hoax and report back here for discussion on deletion. Fatum81 (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I am asking for proof that his is not a hoax? Fatum81 (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Prove that it IS a hoax, or delete these templates. And it is clearly not "blant vandalism", either. Echoedmyron (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Full proof that the video is a fake. [National Post: "Meet Neil, better known as Slurpy, the Rob Ford lookalike at centre of scrapped plot to film fake crack video"] Fatum81 (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

no. THAT statement is original research, as the article you mention is about something else. Stop being disruptive with bogus templates. Besides, this article is not about the video per we, but about the controversy it's supposed existence created. Ergo, your reason for deletion does not apply. Echoedmyron (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I already took off the deletion tag. Thanks. I also moved the title...wonder if the url will update from an admin? Fatum81 (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

stop your disruptive editing. Renaming the article to suit your POV is not how things work around here. The article is about a scandal. End of story. Echoedmyron (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You're a little control freak. Fatum81 (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe the consensus of opinion internationally is that this video is a hoax and has not verified as accurate. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

We can have articles about hoaxes, provided they have received on going media attention. See for example, Hitler Diaries. TFD (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What happened here is an example of the 'drive-by' attacks Rob Ford attracts. Thanks. I don't know why people want to counter simply stating the events. There doesn't seem to be an interest in actually editing, rather just attacking. And then insulting persons who are acting properly. Sheesh. Alaney2k (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Any of you guys gonna own your words. This is why we shouldn't rush to delete. Nlsanand (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hahahaha. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"The allegations have not affected the level of support for Ford among Toronto voters."

That statement is not credible. 99.237.143.219 (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not cited, and as far as I could see there was no support or citation for it anywhere in the article, so I removed it. It would probably be okay if it cited polls showing such, though. (As long as I'm commenting on this page, I'm just going to say that I cannot believe this article is still here and hasn't been seriously challenged. I don't care enough to AFD it myself, I just find it amazing that nobody else has.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It is cited under May 27. The lead is a summary of the article. As for the article, it was a compromise over having the content in the Rob Ford article or separately. Alaney2k (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I took it out again. It's unjustifiable to say, on July 2, that "the allegations have not affected support" while citing a poll that was reported on May 27, when the article itself reports a zillion developments between May 27 and July 2 that could have affected support. If you must, you can say "As of May 27, the allegations have not affected..." and I won't take that out, but it would be pretty silly because that information is so outdated. Actually, even if you find a current poll about voter support (and I thought I saw one just the other day), the date of the poll should still be mentioned directly alongside any mention of it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I found a cite from today. Alaney2k (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

RobFordCrackHouse.jpg

image:RobFordCrackHouse.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Tense

Most of the description on this page is written in the present-simple tense. Would it be better to switch to past-simple/past-perfect? For example,

"Toronto Star reporters Robyn Doolittle and Kevin Donovan meet with Mohamed "Soya" Siad, 27" would become,

"Toronto Star reporters Robyn Doolittle and Kevin Donovan met with Mohamed "Soya" Siad, 27"

A related discussion here didn't decide either way. Sancho 07:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Call for protection

Due to recent vandalism and the sensitivity of this page, I have called for semi-protection of this page. CaffeinAddict (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Length of postings

I think we should keep postings terse. For example, the article currently says,

Call for Blair to Resign

Doug Ford calls on Police Chief Blair to resign, calling him biased against Rob Ford. “This is the most political police chief this city’s ever seen. He went out believing he was the judge, jury and executioner, he’s created a bias towards the mayor, he’s also compromised himself and jeopardized the case". Doug Ford sends a message to the Police Services Review Board Chair Alok Mukherjee asking for a meeting to make a complaint. Mukherjee turns down the meeting, stating that a meeting with Doug Ford would be viewed as interfering with a police investigation.

This could shortened to,

Doug Ford calls on Police Chief Blair to resign. The Police Services Review Board Chair refuses to meet with him.

If additional detail is require, it can be added to the footnotes.

TFD (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Brevity is usually good, except if and when this is revised to become prose. At that point, this content will be necessary. If any editing for length is done, it shouldn't be as short as you've suggested. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The example goes beyond brevity to the removal of meaning from the content. I put in quotes from the individuals. I think it is important to have the principal's words so as to remove interpretation by others, where it is precisely on topic/subject. In the second part, the subject was quite wordy so I did not use quotes. But Ford's comments are part of the record. Alaney2k (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The beauty of the style of this page is we can have longer form writing like that and have quotes from all sides - that brevity is on Rob Ford's actual page, where it's a sentence or two summarizing major points, with a link to this page for further reading. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Over time excessive detail will make this article unreadable. Fortunately one advantage of the format is that it is easy to remove or reduce material later. Since you posted, we have gone from having 95 references to 146. If Ford completes his term, that could run into hundreds.

Doug Ford's call for the police chief to resign, as presented seems to violate neutrality and BLP. We are reporting Doug's opinion, but neutrality requires us to balance that by providing appropriate weight to all views on his opinion. His complaint is a serious accusation against an individual. It probably does not appear that way to other editors, because they of their knowledge of the story, but would not be apparent to readers unfamiliar with the story.

TFD (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

One issue with providing other "sides" of the issue is there almost isn't one. Even the conservative media like The Toronto Sun is not being easy on Ford right now... once there's a break... which for two weeks straight there literally hasn't been, we can go back and cull and shorten some of the information. But because new information as The Dude would say has "come to light, man" every day since October 31st, it's hard to sift through what's important. We want the article to reflect the main points in a long term perspective without being giant and unreadable, yes. CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I meant the other side on Doug Ford's accusation against Bill Blair. See WP:BLP#Balance: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints...." Unless you believe that Doug's comments about the chief represent a consensus among neutral observers, then you need to present the other sides. Then the article would have an extensive section about a minor event in the story, which is also a violation of neutrality. TFD (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Continuing from November 19

I would like some opinions on how to proceed from November 19 forward. I would think we have to keep this article focused on the topic of the video scandal. I'm thinking this article could go on indefinitely if Ford continues to make controversial comments, but I think we should leave out further comment/topics/re-election talk by Ford from this point forward, and stay with items directly related, like the release of further text from the ITO, etc. What do people think? When do we look to end the timeline? Election 2014? Alaney2k (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this now the "Rob Ford substance abuse scandal"? Or should we be concerned with precise semantics. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We could certainly re-title the article then. But, I don't think I mean that was what I was wondering about. I guess I figure that Ford will now go on a round of interviews, etc. whatever, and we could note them here - or not. I think, probably not? We need to somewhat figure what is relevant or not? The SNL thing? I think editors' opinions is divided? Alaney2k (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the solution is to avoid long quotes. For example, see Sunday, November 3: "On his weekly radio show, Ford apologizes for "making mistakes", but plans to continue as mayor and run for re-election in 2014. "There's no one to blame but myself, and I take full responsibility for it. I'm the first one to admit, friends, I am not perfect. I have made mistakes. I have made mistakes, and all I can do right now is apologize for the mistakes."" The direct quote could be removed without reducing the amount of information provided.

Scandals end when all significant information comes to light and the fate of the main figure(s) is determined. Even, then there are always footnotes. But that has not happened here.

CaffeinAddict, the scandal is about the video. Substance abuse became an issue when Ford was still a councillor. The renewed interest in substance abuse is a direct result of the video story.

TFD (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree wholly. The story would seem to end when the police finally release the video to the public, if that ever happens. The substance abuse is indeed a satellite to the crack video, however it is now, at least in Ford's words, and explanation for it's existence, a la "Drunken Stupor". The problem with Ford is he doesn't stop doing things. He runs over a councillor or he says something outrageous. We want to keep everything concise and not UNDUE, but there's just SO much that happens every. single. day. It's a chore, haha. But indeed, the "Crack Video" is still the core of the contentious issues. And everything that's surrounded it. True. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Call to rewrite into prose

Could the editor who proposes prose at this time, please make their case here? There is no rush to rewrite the article. It is still an on-going event, and changing it into prose is a major change. Alaney2k (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It is typical for timelines to write in the present tense. TFD (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Prose format

I've seen all the discussions discussing how we would handle the structure of this article, and my glaring question is this: why is it a timeline? It wreaks of laziness. I come on Wikipedia to see a messy timeline of a notable story, I come to see something like this. This is a complex story, and I think we need to sort it out. Of course, I decided to be bold, but got reverted because of non-existent claims that the idea was "rejected". So, does anyone have any opinion? ViperSnake151  Talk  01:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talk page. Someone in the past added a prose tag and it was removed. I'm not sure which edit revision it was, so I can't point it out. I am not against a rewrite. But, I want to point out that the event is not over. And, I had a concern in the above text about how to proceed and what should be added from this point forward. A point was made that it should be "Rob Ford substance abuse scandal", but that was just a little earlier today, and we should wait a bit before a major rewrite. I don't think that is unreasonable? Alaney2k (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

So far, no reliable sources (the media, academic journals) have written an account of the scandal, as they have with the Watergate scandal. Note that most of the Watergate scandal article is based on sources written after the scandal ended and most information was known. All the sources have done is report information as it becomes known, and we diligently add it. When they collate all the information and form it into a story, then we will be able to create an article based on those sources. If we jump the gun, we will have do deal with issues of weight, without reliable sources to guide us.

Incidentally this approach has avoided edit-warring and other disputes which actually occurred in the Ford article when the material was added and is typical of articles covering news stories. Compare also the Tea Party movement and the Shooting of Trayvon Martin.

We should remove the list template. Timeline articles are written as lists. If someone wants to create an article "Rob Ford video scandal" then nothing is stopping them and it does not mean this article should be deleted.

TFD (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Alaney, I have nothing against a rewrite but a) It's a huge undertaking and b) the scandal seems to be far from over... I think it would be best until there's some conclusion to the story before changing the format. CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Can we have some closure/consensus on this? I definitely don't disagree with changing the format of the page, but for now it's a timeline - until there's a time that someone takes the time to convert the page, I think we should remove the banner/tag for changing to prose. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Since there does not appear to be support for this change, I will remove the tag. However, I would not convert this article, but begin a new one once we have sources that discuss the topic in depth, rather than news reports. Robyn Doolittle's book, Crazy Town, comes out 4 Feb 2014, and that could be a start. TFD (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There is also the continual question of where the "Video" scandal ends, and simply ford's "Controversies" take over, there is so much satellite information to just the crack video scandal it's hard to know what's appropriate. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That is up to the sources. If articles about Ford connect the latest news to the video, then it is relevant. TFD (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't believe we should do a conversion in article space at this time. At any time, something could happen that is relevant. What if Ford is arrested, for example? So, what about working in some parallel location? Does article incubation space still exist? A start could be made on a prose article. Alaney2k (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that incubation doesn't apply to this article, as that's for deleted articles. The Articles for Creation doesn't fit either. The best alternative is starting an article in user space, I suppose. I do think it's premature for release into article space, but I was hoping for some way to start a prose article. Any other ideas? Alaney2k (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

dramatis personae

Since there are dozens of people mentioned in the article, I think it would be helpful to have lists of them. I am therefore adding a section about Ford's office staff. It is significant because 11 out of 20 of them left as a result of the scandal, and several of the remaining staff were promoted. Also, some of them are mentioned because of their being mentioned in the article for other reasons. TFD (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Report from the future?

The following section makes no sense

• Thursday, December 12 Police Chief Blair states that the investigation of Ford was not politically motivated or connected to a Ford demand for a 10% budget cut in the police budget of 2012. Blair is also asked about "Project Brazen 2", the investigation of Ford, but only comments that he "cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."<ref>{{cite news |newspaper=National Post |location=Toronto|url=http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/11/rob-ford-investigation-not-payback-for-budget-cuts-police-chief-bill-blair-says/ |title=Rob Ford investigation not payback for budget cuts, Police Chief Bill Blair says |first=Natalie |last=Alcoba |date=December 12, 2013 |accessdate=December 12, 2013}}</ref>

Today is Wednesday December 11th. The article is dated as the 12th, but it is still the 11th in Canada. What is going on? JDDJS (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Settling up this page/Condensing/Closure

Now that a) Rob Ford is no longer in office (as mayor) b) The video fiasco seems to have come to some sort of a conclusion, minus the fact that the first video was never released - should we look to come up with a closure to this article or a way to condense the main information? --CaffeinAddict (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I think many of the entries are too lengthy and we could replace some of the direct quotes with a summary of what was said or happened. But the scandal is not over. Ford is still in City Council and there are still future developments such as the outcome of future trials and it is expected the video will be released when presented as evidence. TFD (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Associate's name

From this article, it's unclear what Lisi's full name is. At one point, it appears as Alessandro "Sandro" Lisi, and at another point, it appears as Alexander "Sandro" Lisi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirby777 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources used different spellings. I'm guessing it's Alessandro on his birth certificate, given his nickname, but he uses the name Alexander. I suggest we use the actual first name only once, then Sandro Lisi. What do you think we should do? TFD (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"alleged video"

What does this mean? Is there some doubt as to whether it is a video? Are some saying that it is, in fact, some other form of media? Waidawut (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree and I removed the word CT55555 (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)