Jump to content

Talk:Rob Ford

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.140.239.85 (talk) at 20:47, 15 January 2022 (→Controversies need to be included: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

And simultaneously try to reduce the bulk of the Blp as Rizla (talk) suggests. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The content has been present for quite a while. You seem to want to hatchet it. Alaney2k (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rob Ford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rob Ford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral procession revert

copied from my talk page -- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)

I saw that you reverted my edit here citing peacock, although none of the copyediting I did highlighted or promoted the subject. I think you may have interpreted my edit surrounding the funeral event and media coverage thereof as vandalism? Just looking for an explanation before I undo your revert. Outback the koala (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought it was vandalism I would not have given an edit summary, or it would have been "rvv", and I would not bother responding to you. WP:PEACOCK covers adding grandiose embellishments to describe an event, like changing "a public funeral" to "a large-scale, multi location, live-televised, public funeral" and describing crowds as "large" and "a rare peoples' parade" without any citation. If you want to describe the event of public mourners joining the funeral procession that's probably fine, if you have a source, and if you can do so with neutral language. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem now?Outback the koala (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "what's the problem now"? You just reverted to the same content. The problem is the same as it was before. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Ford

I removed a mention of Doug Ford being Premier as not being needed, and my edit was undone as vandalism [1]. The claim was unsourced, but that's not a problem since it is easily sourced. And we shouldn't say he is "now" premier, but again that would be easily fixed. The reason I removed it is because it was added to a sentence mentioning that Doug Ford was a councilor while Rob was mayor, in a section on Rob Ford's early life. The mention of Rob's brother being a councilor while Doug was mayor is a reasonable thing to mention (but not in that section), but I feel that what Doug Ford is doing now, after his brother's death, is not really relevant to Rob Ford's article. If readers want to know that then they can read Doug Ford's article. If we do decide to keep that material, it certainly does not belong in the "Early life" section where it was placed. I'll move the mention of his brother being a councilor to a more appropriate section, and if there is consensus to include the statement about Doug being premier now we can add it to the same place. Meters (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the mention of his brother being councilor here. No objection if anyone wants to remove it entirely. I think we can make a case for keeping this mention, but I don'r really care about this bit either way. Meters (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies need to be included

Controversies need to be included 24.140.239.85 (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rob_Ford&oldid=1065893076"