Talk:Rob Ford

Semi-protection please?

Previously there was indefinite complete protection on this article which I thought was a little heavy-handed. Now there is no protection and the article is now a target for every idiot with a beef against the mayor. I recommend long-term semi-protection. This would limit the attacks by anonymous users but still allow experienced editors to deal with the article. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I support the idea. Do we place a request somewhere? I think we have to follow some procedure. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The place is WP:RFPP. The request would be for indef semi-protection. (I'm not sure this article will get indef though) The Interior (Talk) 17:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ford's Wiki entry reads more like a list of charges at the Nuremberg Tribunal. I get it, Ford's not a popular Mayor...but does the venom have to come here? I donate annually to Wikipedia, and if there is one thing I appreciate, is the ability to delete the RANTS against the man. Claimsfour (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who is ranting. Your recent edit has no place in Wikipedia. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a compelling need to semi-protect here. The IP and unconfirmed edits look to be of pretty low frequency, as opposed to edits by red-name auto-confirmed editors, which sprot won't prevent. So that leaves full protection as an option if the problems are bad enough. Franamax (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the thing to do, is just to become knowledgeable on the vandalism rules around here. And report it. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk)

Yeah I had thought about semi'ing it when asked to look on the situation, but the edit frequency is so low that it is best to just revert or fix where needed. On both sides of the issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's funny how 'controversies' if they are written about by other politicians (Jack Layton/Adam Giambrone), there's literally PARAGRAPHS of 'spin/downplaying/context' placed after the initial 'controversy'

There's nothing of the sort for Ford's 'controversies', even though it's plain as day (and sourceable) that those who are Ford's critics really have a lot to lose in regards to what Ford is affecting (cutting programs/reducing the budget).

The bike lanes is a good one: Ford is having dedicated bicycle lanes being built, especially since the rates of rider/vehicle fatalities have increased as a result of increased traffic in the city.

The Wiki entry doesn't include this 'context' Claimsfour (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No-one is trying to stop you from doing positive edits to the article. So feel free to add the context. I've added lots on Ford's term, e.g. budget, etc. If you have something to add that is reliably sourced, then add it. I would not object. I can't even work on the article much, if all you do is chop, so I can't even get to it. I believe that people in TCHC have positive impressions of Ford and I want to add that, (along with the firing of the TCHC board) but if we are stuck in this you-chop and I-restore cycle, we won't progress. You just can't control the content to leave out things you disagree with. That's not how editing works around here. You have to be a disinterested observer. You are not that. Further, people expect to have Ford's controversies included. If you leave them out, it's a white-wash. I don't think they have undue prominence, which is another no-no. This stuff can be debated, for sure, but debating is supposed to be done here on the talk page, not by merely chopping in the article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 November 2012

Rob Ford was the prior mayor of Toronto, and was removed from office on November 26, 2012, after being found guilty of conflict of interest by the Ontario Supreme Court. Presiding over the Ontario Supreme Court, Justice Charles Hackland found Rob Ford guilty of using his position as Mayor to benefit his his football foundation after a highly public trial in which Ford did not deny the charges but claimed innocence due to ignorance of the specific law as his only defense. The prosecution was able to provide evidence that Ford had been specifcally provided a briefing on the law and, although Ford claimed not to have read it, was expected in his role as mayor. At this time, council for Rob Ford has stated an intension to appeal the decision within the 30 day limitation on appeals.

news reports on verdict http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1293190--mayor-rob-ford-guilty-kicked-from-office-but-can-run-again http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/26/posted-toronto-political-panel-just-because-rob-fords-removal-was-just-doesnt-mean-the-law-that-turfed-him-is/

full text of judicial statement http://torontoist.com/2012/11/rob-ford-conflict-of-interest-verdict-full-text/

history of the trial http://torontoist.com/2012/09/why-is-mayor-rob-ford-in-court/

Emmisvi (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you want changed - if you are a registered user, you can make the edit. Add more details? The judgment says that it is reserved for 14 days, so we can't call him the previous mayor yet. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I am setting this edit request to  Not done: in light of the above response. I also note that at this time the OP cannot edit the article because his/her account is not autoconfirmed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It is worth noting that while a verdict has been handed down, at this moment he is still the mayor for the duration of the 14 day period, unless he resigns before it is up. So, technically speaking, it would not be true to call him a "prior" mayor, just yet. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal for conflict of interest

The accuracy of this section could be improved by using this reference:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-44902.pdf

rather than media reports of the content. (The original report of 2010 follows the report of 2012.)

"Ford had accepted $3,150 on behalf of the foundation and the commissioner indicated that Ford should pay back the money"

The amount raised by the Mayor was around $37,500. Of this, $3,150 could be identified as coming from lobbyists or companies doing business with the city and the commissioner indicated that Ford should pay back this money

"Several did not want repayment and Ford forwarded letters from several donors expressing their wishes to the integrity commissioner."

The integrity commissioner indicated that this forgiveness by the donors of the need for repayment constituted a further improper benefit.

NitPicker769 (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Bus diversion

On my recent visit to Toronto, I heard multiple conversations about a controversy involving Mr. Ford diverting city buses, including ejecting paying passengers, to pick up members of his foundation-supported football team. This also seemed to have received some news coverage (e.g. this article [1] from the Toronto Star), but there isn't any mention of this issue on the article. Since this man is apparently a rather controversial figure, and I'm not familiar with the previous discussions on this page, I thought it best to raise it here rather than just being bold. siafu (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

By itself, it's not much. The police apparently ordered a bus to pickup a high school team that Ford coaches. The only Ford involvement was that he called the TTC chief to see why it was late. The TTC on its own diverted a bus that had paying passengers. So it's more of a TTC controversy though who knows what conspiracy theorists might think. :-) If there was a paragraph on Ford's coaching of football, then it might be relevant. The controversy section is rather large as it is, although it is all attributed. I'm thinking of merging the various controversial comments that Ford has made into one paragraph, rather than the chronological order we have. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

might it be worth considering a separate article for the controversies, and have a brief summation and a "see also" link in this article? ;) Echoedmyron (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly, part of the problem with Ford is that he's accomplished so little of any real substance that most of the time the controversies are all there is to write about him. But as I've noted in other discussions in the past, we need to maintain a critical filter here: some of the controversies (the conflict of interest impeachment/unimpeachment, the libel suit, etc.) are worth writing about due to the fact that they had high profile consequences — but the myriad times when he puts his foot in his mouth and gets flayed in the media for a day or two, but nothing more comes of it afterward, should really just be avoided (as should anything that's limited to conflicting but unverifiable claims.) I'm no fan of Rob Ford, trust me, but WP:NPOV requires that I keep my actions as a Wikipedian separate from my opinions of him as a voter — so we need to stick to what's genuinely important, which is the stuff that actually has consequences, and not get caught up in documenting every little political pothole he hits. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The event is covered in the Don Bosco Catholic Secondary School article. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

Semiprotection

Various editors have been keen to add a most interesting nugget to the article. This is sourced to the Toronto Star, which sounds dubious about its veracity (a video "appears to show" such and such). Let's wait until reputable news sources are rather more certain of its worth until we consider allowing its addition to the article (even as an "allegation"). After all, there's no hurry: Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. In order to cut short a resource-wasting edit war, I've s-protected the article.

Sleepily, I did so for an indefinite period. That was not deliberate: any admin who wishes to end the s-protection is free to do so without consulting me. The article will not be on my watchlist; if further edits seem to require full protection, then again an admin is free to do this without consulting me. -- Hoary (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Hoary. The 2 sources; Gawker and Toronto Star even conflict on what the video reveals:

Gawker witness claimed it was Pierre Trudeau called a faggot by someone "off camera"

[2]

Toronto Star witnesses say it was Justin Trudeau who was called a fag by Ford himself

[3] May122013 (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Gawker has clarified this in an update (mid-article). The speaker only said "Trudeau". Gawker didn't understand immediately that "Trudeau" likely meant the currently topical Justin and not the more internationally known Pierre. [4] 24.212.129.21 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You realize that the crack cocaine video is being widely reported? I think it might be more appropriate to put a tag on the page that there are current events going on, rather than disallow adding anything. Alaney2k (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder, is there room for the article to briefly mention the story in a way that doesn't violate WP:BLP? Is it a problem to just say that 3 journalists (1 Gawker, 2 TorStar) have reported seeing the video, and that Ford denies the allegations? It would obviously be wrong to assert in Wikipedia's voice that anything on the alleged video is true, or even that the video exists, frankly, but it seems to me that a brief neutral mention that the story exists might be appropriate. Although, bottom line, I agree with Hoary - there is no hurry, and edit warring is always pointless, so I'm not trying to make a strong case for its inclusion, I'm just genuinely wondering if there is any appropriate way to mention this kind of thing while respecting BLP guidelines. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP in my opinion precludes including this at this time. "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid:". As others have said, there is no rush, either the video will soon become available or it will not; that will be the time to include it in this BLP I think. May122013 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The controversy, now making international headlines, in itself is very notable. Even if it turns out he's not smoking crack (doubtful), it's still a notable and increasingly major event in this person's biography. We're putting denial blinders on ourselves here by withholding mention. Not only will this likely require its own section, but I believe it will eventually have its own article. --Oakshade (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

On the BBC now [5] I'd say that's a reliable source... 141.0.46.202 (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As to conflicts between Gawker and Toronto Star's reportage of the content, if you were watching a video in the back of a shady car, and only had three times to watch, how accurate do you think your notes would be? (see Inattentional blindness) -- Zanimum (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why the entire episode is so sketchy at this point in time, its based upon watching a video in the back seat of a car and in Gawker's case, I think it may have been only 1 time. May122013 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The only difference in description is in the comment about Justin Trudeau. Hardly a conflict. Alaney2k (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree because A: The other difference was who the Trudeau comment was attributed to, so there are 2 differences ( the Trudeau and the speaker) plus B: the video clip they saw was only 90 seconds long; you would think a couple of reporters if they were paying attention would not have 2 differences in recall of the content of such a short time span. The entire incident and the reporting there of seems sketchy to me; at least at this point in time, 5 days after Gawker first reported it. May122013 (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Does this at least qualify as "media relations", given his comments about the Star in reaction to the acquisitions? Especially considering they weren't the ones who broke the story internationally, only the ones breaking it locally. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ford and the Star do have a long running feud complete with lawsuits and access denial but since Gawker appears to have published the story first, it would seem like shoehorning to get it into the article under media relations at this time, I think. May122013 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP policy: This is not a gossip rag or tabloid: "Contentious material about living persons ....that is ......poorly sourced should be removed immediately." I think that putting any reference or story about this non-available video is making Wikipedia a participate in a smear campaign and our BLP policy is clear in tone and content that this is something that does not qualify for inclision in a BLP at this time. May122013 (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not poorly sourced, though, when the Toronto Star is reporting the story. If necessary, we could broaden the scope and pull in the CBC's reporting of the allegations. If we need to tread carefully with anything in the article, it's to err on the site of using weasel words, such as "a video appearing to show" instead of "a video showing". —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the wording is completely open to discussion. Leaving this incident out is more or less just denial that this allegation has been raised. Remember that Ford himself has been arrested for DUI and marijuana possession, that he was drunk and disorderly at a Maple Leafs' game, at the two functions in March. It's an important allegation given his past behaviour. It's also important given that he is the mayor. I live in Toronto. I don't believe it reflects well on Toronto or Ford. But if we stick to what is reported, then we are doing what is expected of Wikipedia. I've written a lot of this article - I've put in lots of content on the budgets, transit policy, etc. I don't believe that we are out of line. Ford and his behaviour is widely known. Believe me, there is lots of salacious stuff that is not in this article. Before this, I removed the trivial complaint about the magnets on the cars. I try to keep it on the mark, which is providing a fair and as best possible neutral article about this person. I have been editing here for six years and have learned a lot about Wikipedia and doing a good job.

I fully agree that this story should be in the Wikipedia article, even if the tone is very conservative (for example "Unsubstantiated reports of filmed crack cocaine usage made international news, to which Rob Ford has responded with...") the true purpose of the BLP policy is to protect rumours from turning into presumed facts. Right now we have the opposite, The Daily Show covers it and people presume it is true, come to Wikipedia and become confused as to why it is not here. They do not get a chance to read what Mayor Ford has said about it. -- Zachaysan (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, it is the Fords' typical behaviour to launch smears about opponents or persons who make allegations, not the other way around. That the Star and Ford do not get along is not news. There are several columnists who disagree with Ford openly, but I have not seen any smears. You could argue that because they report on things outside of City Hall, that they are going beyond what was reported in the past. In the 1950s, drunken-ness of public officials was not reported. But that's not the case today. Alaney2k (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I see under the RFC section above another editor said this, some time ago; "anything that suggests that Ford is guilty of having broken the law where he has not been convicted of doing so should not be on the page." I agree with that and think that simple assessment might equally apply with this non-available 90 second video clip reportedly seen in the back seat of a car. May122013 (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard

I have placed this matter on the BLP noticeboard. It concerns me greatly that many Editors here have inserted their personal opinions about the past behaviour of the subject of this BLP and refer to their or others' opinions as reasoning for how to deal with the content of this BLP. I could be wrong about this but I feel it is clearly contrary to the spirit and letter of our BLP policies to include any reference to this salacious news item at this early stage, especially since the alleged evidence ( video ) is not available to any reliable source yet. May122013 (talk) 02:19, 21 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, May 21, 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)

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 [6] 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)

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)