Talk:Rob Ford/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Images

is it possible to add the photo of Rob Ford when he was arrested for Driving under the Influence in Florida Milesgilbert (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

POV tags

A controversies section isn't NPOV, the material should be instead integrated with his career. MonkeyKingBar (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So why not do so? In any case, there's a specific tag for that issue. Rostz (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A controversies section is not prohibited, though. There are incidents that are outside the political sphere. Like the Maple Leafs' game incident. They don't seem like career items. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest notably missing from Controversies section

Ford's potentially worst blunderbuss, his on-going conflict(s) of interest are notably missing from the controversies section on this page: http://www.thestar.com/news/cityhallpolitics/article/1146465--ford-s-conflicts-of-interest-date-back-to-2005

Especially relevant: the impending lawsuit to be served to him today: http://www.thestar.com/news/cityhallpolitics/article/1144654--could-mayor-rob-ford-be-removed-from-office-over-a-conflict-of-interest 76.67.109.53 (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is embarrassingly awful, can it be locked?

The anger/rage against Rob Ford is beyond hysteria...Ford's wiki entry shows how profoundly messed up his critics are. Pretty much every rumour against Ford is entered in this 'article'.

Suggestion: Delete pretty much everything and start all over with 'just the facts'.

If someone wants to read all the rumours/snarky comments on Ford ...they can simply read pretty much any blog out there. However that does not mean it's true.

Ford's wiki entry reads like a comment forum and not an encyclopedia entry.

User talk:ClaimsFour —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC).

You should see some of the stuff we've removed! But you make a valid point, I assume you are mostly referring to the "controversy" section? Ideally, articles should not have these sections. They are magnets for poorly sourced criticism. However, as I'm focused on other things (and am not a fan of this man at all), I'm not that interested in putting in the work to properly source and trim/integrate that material into the rest of the article. But you can! (lnks WP:SOFIXIT ;)) The Interior (Talk) 16:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether you are a 'fan' of this politician or not...isn't that kind of irrelevant? This is supposed to be an unbiased encyclopedia right? Shouldn't it be incumbent upon you of all people to ensure that you leave your politics at the door?

Aright fine, I'll go in/clean up the Ford entry...but I guarantee you: It will be 'reverted' in record time and you'll have a bloodbath of angry "CENSORSHIP" posts/blah,blah, frickin' blah.

LOCK THE PAGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claimsfour (talk • contribs) 07:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You probably have cut too much. I think people expect to see a mention of the CBC visit, the non-attendance at Pride parades, etc. It's part of complete coverage of Ford. I was thinking that I would do some of the work you are doing, but I don't mind if you do the cutting and I do some of the 'put-back'. I certainly agree with you that the article was a mess. See no need to lock it. You could suggest some level of protection to the admins. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk)

Why not also include his recent relapse on his weight loss (where he went to KFC)? My point being: Rob Ford is a municipal level mayor, and the focus really should be limited to that. The CBC visit really wasn't that important as well as Ford's ducking Gay Pride. It's just not really that big a deal, in the grand scheme of things. The whole entry read like a messageboard forum rather than a Wiki entry. Claimsfour —Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

I think the main thing is to try to keep perspective. You know, not just post stuff immediately. I am in basic agreement with your points. My only difference is that I think it would be incomplete to just recite his mayoralty. Most of this other stuff can be summarized quickly, and in much smaller amount than discussing his mayoralty - the budgets, labour, transit, the main stuff. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Weed Whacker

I'm going through Ford's Wiki entry and doing my best to leave the RELEVANT stuff in, every single 'Ford said this! Ford said that!' is NOT RELEVANT FOR AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY.

Trying to shape this page into some semblance of a Wiki entry and not what it currently is: A COMMENT SECTION.

Claimsfour —Preceding undated comment added 07:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

May 11th, I come back and this article 'grew' like weeds with the usual unsourced/hearsay crap.

This wiki really should be locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claimsfour (talk • contribs) 06:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing content

Any particular reason why this article omits the Mary Walsh/This Hour Has 22 Minutes incident that made international media coverage? The Toronto Star reporter incident from May 2 is also getting considerable coverage. It's not a matter of maintaining NPOV; certainly the Walsh incident got plenty of bipartisan coverage. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't cut the content. I think the problem before was that the article had controversies and little else. I have no objection to adding it back in, but we need some perspective. Adding stuff same day usually over-inflates an item. That said, I was thinking of adding a "Media relations" sub-topic to the "Mayor" section, and we could add the CBC and the Toronto Star vs. Rob Ford stuff. I think that can be done NPOV. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The telling of this story suggests that Ford knew who Mary Walsh was, and that her character from a left-wing CBC "comedy" show is known by all Torontonians. In fact, many conservatives never watch that show, and have never heard of Mary Walsh. Ford was in his driveway, with his young daighter, and was confronted by what appeared to be a raving harpy in a Viking suit, brandishing a sword. He took his daughter to safety, in the house, and called 911, which was a perfectly reasonable reaction, but Ford's leftist enemies construe his reaction as unreasonable, because they cannot believe Mary Walsh is not as well-known as, say, Justin Bieber, and they portray the story dishonestly, as if Ford was being a poor sport. This whole article is a series of drive-by smears, and most of the citations are from left-wing newspapers that are not considered reliable by the vast number of voters who chose Ford as mayor, over the other candidates.184.147.127.216 (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Possibly a question to ask the 22 minutes crew. I doubt they sit around and think about whether Marge is known to the person before she goes out. The paragraph sticks to the events, which aren't in dispute. It sounds like you'd like some disapproval of the incident written into the paragraph. Alaney2k (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Relationship of Rob Ford and Toronto Star

I've created the above sandbox, to see if we can get a decent article on the topic, which doesn't seem to be stopping any time soon. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a whole article, but it might make a sub-section of this article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would be undue weight in Ford's article, and undue weight in the Star's article. It'll be short, but I think there's enough justification to spin it out to itself. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see the point. While the Star vs. Ford issue may be 'hot' now, it's a local issue that won't really merit a page of its own once this all blows over. The question begs to be asked, what need is there to provide the minutia of this conflict? About the only thing I think needs to be done is that the 'media' section on this page should be reorganized to put the events into a more chronological order for sake of continuity and readability. The second paragraph really needs to be moved to the end imho. --Savant99 (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved it. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That looks better. It might be wise to add a month to "In 2012" since that can be vague. I'd also suggest that the heading for the 'Media' section be renamed to "Media Relations", since that would be a more descriptive title. (It also fits in since the the term 'Labour relations' has been used above it.) --Savant99 (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

While I've started with the alleged trespass, I'm talking about the entire story of their relationship. It started with a story suggesting Ford assaulted a student while coaching football, which lead to him blacklisting them from media events, the Ford mother being "stalked" by the Star, the Star allegedly trying to photograph the Mayor at the family cottage during Pride, things management regrets like the KFC video. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I can appreciate the sentiment, but I personally don't see the need to document the minutia of this conflict. The major facts are what is important. The usual standard for suggesting that a section be broken off into its own page is when the content in question overwhelms the main page. Right now it's only a few papagraphs. --Savant99 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article is needed here. I think this issue can be dealt with in the current Media relations section. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Relevance

Why does it matter what David Miller and Doug Holyday did during labour negotiations?

Also, there are other parts of the article that need to be clarified with regards to how relevant it is to Rob Ford. For example the Gary Webster incident. It is never explained how Ford was involved.

Also, I am not a fan of the way the election breakdown was written. Somebody who has better writing skills should edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.191.152 (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Claimsfour content removal from "Controversies"

Additional: Barbara Hall (Former Mayor of Toronto) once banned "The Barenaked Ladies" from playing in public venues due to the 'sexist name' of the band. In many respects, she's probably most in(famous) for this, and most Torontonians would recall her banning this band.

Question: Why isn't this entered in her wiki?

The fact is: In the grand scheme of things, it's really not relevant...same for Rob Ford and the daily bullshit that's happening with him/Toronto Star.

Savvy?

Claimsfour (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Claimsfour

It was June Rowlands, not Barb Hall, who disliked the Barenaked Ladies, but they were not banned from "public events", merely not invited to a mayor's event outside City Hall184.147.127.216 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In this edit, Claimsfour deleted two topics of controversy, in particular, a very high-profile incident when Ford was a councillor. While initially denying he was even at the scene of the incident (Air Canada Centre), he later admitted he was indeed at the Maple Leafs game, and apologized for being drunk. While I don't think we need more than three sentences on the incident (as opposed to 11, including the quotes), it was many non-Torontonians first introduction to the councillor.

Claimsfour's edit summary reads: "Only include 'controversies' which are validated. Not rumours." True, of course. But Mr. Ford admitted fault for the incident. If the subject of an article says that they did something, and the media says they did the same thing. Is that not a verifiable, non-disputable fact? It needed editing, not removal. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I restored the removed content. It disposition should be discussed here first before its outright removal. All of these 'controversies' are referenced and verified, however whether they should be given the prominence they now have is something that needs to be discussed. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think for a complete picture of Ford, the controversies are part of his historical record. I think rather than remove controversial content, we need to include more of his non-controversial record. Which is what contributors here seem to not bother to add. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"Absolutely. I think for a complete picture of Ford, the controversies are part of his historical record."

Have you ever met the guy? I did, talked to him and shook his hand. He's nothing like the crap the media gins up on the guy. I personally know people who had problems with their apartment/called Ford (because their own city councillor wouldn't even return a phonecall), Rob Ford showed up at their FRONT DOOR to help out.

I'm not saying make the Wiki entry into a Ford-lovefest, I'm simply saying: Using Wikipedia as a means to 'get revenge' on Ford is stupid. - Claimsfour — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claimsfour (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"Ford has been branded a "radical conservative" by left-leaning Councillors."

Why not include Adam Vaughan's "Blackshirt" comment in his wiki entry?

Or the fact that Pam McConnell had first choice of a penthouse condo, while her fellow councillors (Raymond Cho) tried to make it look like McConnell was virtually 'living' at 200 Wellesley when the fire happened? (Insane hypocrisy on her part)

My point being: You'd have to be blind/deaf/dumb to pretend there's not a concerted effort by people who hate Rob Ford to use wikipedia as an "I Hate Rob Ford" forum, rather than a 'just the facts' entry.

My suggestion: Cut out the weasel words and trim the ad hominem attacks on the guy. I donate annually to Wikipedia...and this entry really drags down the whole website. - Claimsfour — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claimsfour (talk • contribs) 21:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You are not being objective. When you are a friend of someone, which is what you appear to be, you should not be contributing to Wikipedia. Stop just ripping stuff out. It's part of the record. It's not productive. We are trying to make this a good article. If you are concerned about balance, add things from the record, don't just remove. You will be blocked for your behaviour. I don't hate Ford, we have to be objective and have a neutral point of view. That does not mean leaving out others' criticisms of him. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"You are not being objective. When you are a friend of someone, which is what you appear to be"

So because I met/spoke with Ford on the street for a few minutes, that suddenly renders me not 'objective'? What about the 'journalists' who see Ford all the time? What are they? Teflon?

I met lots of politicians in my life, shook their hand/talked to them. Some I like/don't like, regardless of their politics (NDP/Whatever). I just know that from everything I've heard/seen about Ford, this wiki entry is a gross misrepresentation of the guy.

If it's a matter of media, I have a degree in Journalism and I can tell you: The crap on Wikipedia is a total smear campaign.

"I don't hate Ford, we have to be objective and have a neutral point of view. "

You call this wiki entry 'neutral'? You're kidding right?

Claimsfour (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Claimsfour, the purpose of the talk page is for a constructive debate on how best to create the best article possible. Reaching consensus on the content is the goal here. I must say though that your incoherent ramblings have added little to this debate. Unless you can add some intelligent comment, please desist. Thanks, EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is absolutely surreal. You honestly think this line of shit will absolve you from the crap you're

flogging on this page? I get it, you hate right-wing politicians...good for you (slow hand clap) why

not find a blog/forum where you can write in excruciating detail every crime against humanity

Ford has committed.

The wiki entry is embarrassingly bad, it's reads like something a group of gossips mongers

would write...and if you read other wiki entries on politicians (Adam Giambrone is a good one)

you'll find the usual restraint/to-the-point without an endless series of links/b.s.

Some of the crap on Ford are linked to indie filmmakers with an axe to grind, hardly

'objective'

Watch/read the link regarding Ford on bicyclists: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17914504

It's totally biased, zero objectivity. A lot of Torontonians hate bicyclists cutting into traffic

Yet this crap tries to make it look like Ford is operating on his own steam.

THIS WIKI ENTRY NEEDS OBJECTIVITY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claimsfour (talk • contribs) 05:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If you were contributing to other articles on Wikipedia, we might be able to substantiate your comments of objectivity. But this is the only article that you've edited. If you are a friend or related to his staff or family in any way, you should not be editing this article. Of course people insert unsourced and slanted stuff into Wikipedia, and Ford is a target for that. But you should not feel like you have to be on a crusade. The incident with Mary Walsh is a famous incident and it should be included in this article somewhere, although you dislike it. I will rewrite it. We might want to go to an admin for a decision. As for cycling, I think some mention might be warranted, but the one you removed was not that good. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think it is "not that good"? Note that Ford was given the opportunity to comment, but refused. Rostz (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it's a bit terse, without the context of the bike lanes issues and what the comments are talking about. (Specific projects, council decisions, etc.) It gives voice to criticism, which is fine, but does not educate a reader further about what's going on. This article is about Ford, and certainly it's not just Ford who is anti-cycling. Did you know there is a cycling route along his street (Edenbridge)? I find it rather ironic. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I restored this text previously removed by Claimsfour. Removal of another editor's comments is very impolite. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap. I met the guy ONCE on a street when he was campaigning...guess what? Ford met HUNDREDS of people ::::that day. Ever heard of the 2010 Mayoral campaign? Does that suddenly mean the thousand these politicians met ::::invalidate themselves? I also met George Smitherman and a slew of other candidates, does that mean I am now unable ::::to comment on any of them?

For six years I've been adding/correcting stuff on Wikipedia. I knew this Ford article was outside the usual spelling/date ::::corrections I'd normally add, hence the registration. Btw, "EncyclopediaUpdaticus" only other Wiki contribution was a  ::::correction for Gord Perks, so don't accuse me of being 'biased'.

For the record, my edit total stands at 4,582 since 28 November 2007. Yours stands at 35 since 15 April 2012. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 ::::I never would of registered with this site and would of been happy (and have) for years donating time/money to this  site, but this crap over Ford is ridiculous. 

The whole Mary Walsh thing is not 'famous' it's stupid and until the CBC releases the raw footage (which they never will) we're only getting a distorted/skewed version as to what went on.

You can't take a COMEDY show's clip and use that as a 'news source'. Lots of networks for years would release the camera raw footage, especially in situations like this.

Also, the crap about "I'm Rob Fucking Ford", seeing that the 911 call was never released and the chief of police contradicts what Ford was accused of: You can't enter this into Wiki until you get the 'smoking gun'

So yes:

- You can't base the Mary Walsh wiki segment on a 'funny' clip with a LAUGH TRACK.

- You can't cite something Ford was accused of, without evidence (especially since all 911 calls are recorded): So please supply the 911 call in .ogg format preferably

- The cyclist article was based on an indie filmmaker who did not interview anyone 'opposing' the bike lanes. #1 rule in journalism: GET THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY.

Claimsfour (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this really necessary? Reads like old people's gossip

(From: "Political views"): July 2011, Rob and Doug Ford and their wives made a day trip to Prime Minister Steven Harper's official summer residence at Harrington Lake, Quebec as a thank you for Ford's efforts in the 2011 federal election.[31] A month later, in August 2011, Ford's mother hosted a barbecue for federal finance minister Jim Flaherty, with Tim Hudak, leader of the PC party and Harper attending.[63]

What's the point of this? So if Ford had a beer with Jack Layton...does that suddenly make Rob Ford an NDP'er?

Ford, Smitherman, Sarah Thomson (from different political stripes) all attended a post-electoral fundraiser held by John Tory (PC): So because they all broke bread together...does that suddenly make them all one big political party?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/27/mayoral-fundraiser-%E2%80%98right-thing-to-do%E2%80%99-smitherman/

This is what's pissing me off with this Wiki page. Every stupid piece of crap is getting thrown on Ford's page.

It's becoming less a Wiki page...and more like 'modern art'

Claimsfour (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You are definitely grumpy. The section in question just illustrates that Ford is a Conservative and, absent to any contradictions from him, I would expect that he shares their views. That seems 'within bounds' when discussing a politician. There are thousands or millions of Conservative party members. I don't think they would object to being associated with the party. As for stuff that is probably out-of-bounds: the page does not mention the 9-1-1 call from his wife, his assault arrest or his mother-in-law's call to police about his drunken-ness. Although that all could be grouped together in the personal section, I suppose, with his sister's drug addiction, his ex-brother-in-law the murderer, the drug dealer break-in to his house, and on and on. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You are definitely grumpy. The section in question just illustrates that Ford is a Conservative and, absent to any contradictions from him, I would expect that he shares their views.

I see 'guilt by association': Why not you post "Rob Ford has yet to deny he raped and murdered a 10 year old in 1990"? I mean, since Ford hasn't denied it yet...that means there must be some truth to it right?

Why not list every single crime ever conceived and add "Rob Ford has yet to deny this"?

Because that's basically where you're going anyways. I mean, if you're going to destroy this Wiki page...do it right?

"I don't think they would object to being associated with the party. "

I'm talking about a Wiki entry here, not a "Celebrity sighting" blog.

"Although that all could be grouped together in the personal section, I suppose, with his sister's drug addiction, his ex-brother-in-law the murderer, the drug dealer break-in to his house, and on and on."

Would be amazing for "The National Enquirer", but a Wikipedia entry?

At one time, you were complaining, - sorry - making the point - that we were missing covering Ford's helpfulness to constituents. I was thinking about expanding on that in the councillor section. (There has to be some reason people re-elected him :-) ) He is well-known to have spent lots of time making call backs and intervening in public housing tenants' concerns. I've not found any real sources about that, though. The public housing board re-signing last year needs to be mentioned, because Ford personally demanded their resignations. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"He is well-known to have spent lots of time making call backs and intervening in public housing tenants' concerns. I've not found any real sources about that, though. "

You're kidding right?

Claimsfour (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Not kidding. The media mainly covers his behaviour at council, that sort of stuff. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

POV content

The text:

Despite a concerted effort by Toronto's media to attack Ford, a recent poll has shown the Mayor's numbers have gone up. The rise in numbers were mainly due to Ford avoiding a garbage strike and bringing the city in with a surplus budget. [3]

is clearly a POV edit, and is inappropriate in Wikipedia. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU,

that now means I can delete the crap about Jack Layton's poll numbers rising after the massage parlour fiasco.

Jack_Layton

Claimsfour (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"Despite a concerted effort by Toronto's media to attack Ford" is certainly POV. There is no conspiracy out there. You have to have evidence of that, cited. And then you interpret the reasons for the increase yourself, and leave out the drop of the previous year. You can add something like "according to the National Post", but we don't do analysis/opinions here. That's original research and is frowned upon here. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Uncontroversial edit

Please change the sentence "Ford dreamed of becoming a professional football" to "Ford dreamed of becoming a professional football player" in the second paragraph of the "Personal life" section. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, so Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonprofit support. Remove.

This line should be removed from the personal life section: "Ford supports the Salvation Army's Red Shield Appeal, Terry Fox Foundation, Heart and Stroke Foundation, Etobicoke Chamber of Commerce, Toronto Board of Trade and the Toronto West Rotary Club.[6]"

It should be removed for three reasons:

1) His "support" of these charities is ambiguous and nonspecific - it could simply be a matter of verbal support, or $1 donated 20 years ago. 2) It is not notable. 3) The source of the quote does not appear to be an NPOV, secondary source.

Cheers. TheAwesomeHat (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I support the removal, per nom. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Sentence removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully another uncontroversial edit

"At the first meeting of the new City Council in December 2011, Council voted to cancel the annual $60 personal vehicle tax passed by the previous Council. The tax cancellation, a campaign promise of Ford's, took effect on January 1, 2011."

The first meeting was in December 2010, not 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstopping (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing that out. You'd need a time machine to do what it said in that statement. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Edits

1.) Elizabeth Brown links to a disambiguation page. I have no idea where this should link to; can someone please fix it?

2.) One ref is turning up a cite error since no ref exists by that name. Remove this please.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the request. I made these changes. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Addition of current event to "Controversies" section, please

Hi admins. I request the following current event be added to this article's "Controversies" section. It has hit multiple mainstream media outlets today and appears as notable as the existing content in the section. It supports the theme of Ford's controversial behaviour while driving. "Toronto Mayor Ford was 'probably' reading while driving." Thank you. --Ds13 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with it, and that section is appropriate. But, what is written has to be encyclopedic. There have serious complaints about too much trivia/complaints in this article. It might be time to remove the protected tag. The controversies section is out of date. It has been a while. How can we propose this? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You should request a change to the prot level at WP:RFPP. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that I am the admin who fully protected the page due to an edit war. I have no objections to the protection being lifted, as long as either i) the dispute has been resolved or ii) the behaviour which brought about its protection is not likely to resume. WilliamH (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

For i) I think there is a legitimate difference of opinion on a cite and its use to support a paragraph. We'll need to work towards a compromise/consensus. It's a minor part of the page, so I don't think ii) will resume. Also, I think we've had enough of a "cooling off" period. I will get the other eds to post a comment here. I'm not sure how we'd continue to proceed with full protection 'on' indefinitely. The article is not yet up to a satisfactory state, I think. We need to cover more of his council career, and copy-edit the 'Controversies' section so that it is NPOV and comprehensive. Ford is somewhat polarizing in public opinion, so it won't be very easy. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page and will monitor it for any more edit warring or vandalism. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is much too long.

This article should be considerably shortened to a length appropriate to to the stature of a mayor of a fairly large city in his first term. The obviously politically-motivated sections need to be removed. Landroo (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ford was also a long-time councillor with a 'track record'. As for size, it's not that long. It's about 50k. As for politically-motivated sections, how do -you- define that? One, please be more specific. Second, it seems very subjective. It's appropriate to take an 'all-around' view of his career, so I'd rather not omit stuff that some people object to on their politics. Ford has become known outside of Toronto for his controversies, so that's another reason I'd rather not chop stuff. I frankly doubt his term of councillor and mayor will be forgotten for a long time. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"Define that?" Simple: Read "NDP" Canadian politicians and you'll see a lack of 'controversies', and a whole lotta spin. "Conservative" politicians simply don't get that. The bias is glaring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claimsfour (talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The writing could be much improved. Auchansa (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

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)