Talk:Doug Ford/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Referencing Subject as a "drug dealer" or "dealing drugs"

This at least 3 times that Nixon Now has attempted to get this terminology into the Blp. Once actually calling him a "drug dealer" with Ivanvector assuming it was a mistake, thus "@Nixon Now: I think you restored the offending edit accidentally, but please be careful not to do it again." Now he seems wanting to edit war again about this. What can be done? I realize he is otherwise a fine editor. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I corrected it to "hashish" but it absolutely does not deserve a header. I only did not undo the edit in order to avoid conflict. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2018

Hashish isn't a drug? Nixon Now (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In any case, I believe the Globe was alleging that Ford not only sold drugs but that he supplied a network of dealers in his employ ie he was a drug trafficker rather than a drug dealer so perhaps that is the phrase that should be used? If the term "drug" is too plebeian perhaps "alleged narcotics trafficker" would be preferable? If that's too edgy, what about "dope peddler"? Nixon Now (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail article specifically uses the phrases "drug dealer" and "drug dealing" - the article is titled The Ford family’s history with drug dealing and states: "But some of the sources said that, in the affluent pocket of Etobicoke where the Fords grew up, he was someone who sold not only to users and street-level dealers, but to dealers one rung higher than those on the street". Frankly, NN is splitting hairs by insisting "drug dealing" is somehow beyond the pale as a phrase as it's been used widely by credible media in relation to Ford. Nixon Now (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Please get consensus before using a header or the "drug dealer" terminology relating to tabloid type allegations re: 32-39 year old behaviour. The really interesting thing here is whether a normally reliable source like the Globe and Mail should be seen as a RS with a story that would be more typical for the Natl. Enquirer, however, the RFC consensus is our boss, imo, and that is it can be included with extreme care and emphasis on the "alleged" aspect. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail is about as far from a tabloid as you can get, and repeating the term "tabloid" ad nauseum will not change that. Sorry but the term "drug-dealing" is fairly straightforward. Nixon Now (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The RFC consensus was related to inclusion of specific wording and no header. Let's agree to disagree and see what others have to say before changing the content the RFC is about. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A word search shows no mention whatsoever of headers or headings. Nixon Now (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The RfC made it clear that the information included was to be brief and NPOV. Placing it prominently in his early life under a special header violates the consensus of the RfC. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Placing it in the city councillor section may mislead casual readers into thinking Ford sold drugs as a city councillor. The allegations regard his youth and/or early business career and so belong there. Also, it is a notable issue so merits a topical header. Nixon Now (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Nixon Now, you're beating a dead horse now; Curly Turkey's move to the councillor section was a perfect edit because it was that time period when the report was published and also when looking at the BLP the report visually fits in new location much better. Nobody is going to be mislead into thinking he sold drugs as councillor...lol on that one:). Anyways, I think the Blp might now qualify for a featured article, if that's possible for a Blp...it really looks and reads great, imo, even with the Globe accusations included. Certainly seems NPOV to me. I'm actually surprised it turned out this well....great teamwork I'd say, led by Ivanvector (no flattery intended, just observation). Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

None taken. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"Nobody is going to be mislead into thinking he sold drugs as councillor...lol on that one" Um, have you ever heard of Rob Ford who not only used drugs extensively while in office but once offered to get oxycontin for a constutuent? Nixon Now (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I just mean that I do not think Readers are going to be misled into thinking that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing section headers and plonking a paragraph you want to get rid of in the middle of a wall of text does look like burying. Nixon Now (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Bruce as middle name

The only way the subject would be Douglas Ford Jr. is if he had the exact same name as his father ie Douglas Bruce Ford Sr. The variance in middle names is precisely while the 43rd President of the United States is not George Bush Jr and why people who informally call him that are mistaken. If Jr is legally and properly part of Ford's name then I think it can be assumed he has the same middle name as his father. Nixon Now (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anything could be more original research than assuming what the subject's middle name is without any reliable source. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, if the father is Douglas Bruce Ford and the son is Douglas Robert Ford then "Sr" and "Jr" don't apply. Do we have a source that the subject's name has a "Junior" on it, legally? Nixon Now (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, yes there is.[1] Nixon Now (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In my experience (and occasional dabbling in genealogical research) fathers and sons are called "senior" and "junior" in common practice when they have the same first and last names, but they rarely have the same middle names. Yes, I realize I'm countering your anecdote with an anecdote of my own. Anyway, it seems we've both arrived at the same conclusion by different sources, so good work team. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Also it is usually given to the eldest son, and is fairly unusual in Canada. Typically, the first name with a different middle name is given to one of the younger sons, who is distinguished from the father by use of a different name. There is no evidence that Doug or others usually add junior to his name. TFD (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Way too many subsections—let's revert

The text is hard to read with it being chopped up into all these short paragraphs with their own headings—often only one short paragraph. Plus it now jumps back and forth in chronology. I say we should revert all this. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Topical subsections make an article easier to navigate than the huge block of text that was there before so let's not revert. Nixon Now (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Topical subjects do not in and of themselves make an article easier to navigate, and the sections were not long to begin with. Subject headings such as "Conflict with police chief" and "Integrity Commissioner ruling against Ford" are ridiculous—the latter is not even two lines long on my screen! This has made a botch of the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Nixon Now (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, but you haven't refuted what I've said. Wikipedia discourages short sections like this. They make for terrible reading, and bring WP:UNDUE attention to what's in them. You've distorted the article with the way you presented the hash dealing, as well. This needs to stop. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

WP policy is to break up long articles with headings and subheadings in order to ease navigation. If you can suggest better subheadings and organization go ahead but I don't think reverting to a long block of text, as you suggest, is acceptable. Nixon Now (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Nixon Now on this one; as I alluded to in my last edit, I think it looks just great right now. Having said that, I am not well versed in language, article construction norms. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the subsections as well, they're fairly balanced (in that they reflect real-world POV) and there aren't an excessive number of them. However we should add more content to the sections so that they're not just basically one-liners. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Are we even looking at the same article? Under "Municipal politics" we have 7 subsections for a total of 10 paragraphs. Show me an FA that does something this ridiculous. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

ok, but I see a F.A. candidate has a "reign" section with a lot of subsections; but maybe I'm missing something, or maybe its just beauty in the eye of the beholder. All I know is I like the way it looks and reads, but it could use more content. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not an FA, is it? Regardless, it's not even remotely comparable—the ratio of paragraphs-to-sections is higher, and the paragraphs themselves are far longer. There's 14kb of text divided into 8 sections in the "Reign" section of Ramses IV compared to 5kb of text divided into 7 sections in the "Municipal politics" section of Ford's article (about 1750B vs 800B per section—or about 2.2 times)!

This isn't about "beauty"—it's about readability. The way it is arranged now chops up the reading experience and throws events out of chronological order, drawing far too much attention to particular aspects of his biography. And I'm not alone in thinking so. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

You're beating a dead horse here. Nixon Now (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, I see what you're saying, I will to defer to you and others who are more knowledgeable and experienced about this matter than I am. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Given that there is a consensus here for subsections I don't understand why Curly "JFC" Turkey unilaterally removed them. Nixon Now (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus—Nocturnalnow retracted their support and another user removed them, so you now have only one support—and besides, you're stonewalling rather than discussing. I've raised real issues with the sectioning, and your response has been "Nuh-uh". Demonstrate a concrete issue solved by (a) subdividing the section into these absurdly short sections; and (b) messing with the chronology.

I see you've reverted again. You are now editwarring, despite holding the minority opinion, and can't even justify what you're editwarring over. The first step should be for you to show your good faith and revert what you've done, then try to find a consensus for these absurd edits (which you currently don't have). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Nixon Now: I now see what you're up to—you've also added an "Allegations of hashish dealing in the 1980s" section to the article, against the consensus of the RfC, so that it's now highlighted even in the Table of Contents. Ivanvector, I know you're in favour of the subsectioning, but as the "hashish" subsection is clearly against the consensus, and I don't want to be accused of editwarring, could you please do the honours of removing this? He also undid a ream of copyedits I made to the article, so we now have curlyquotes and other formatting issues, redundancies, and all kinds of other problems I'd removed reintroduced into the article. The article is no longer WP:MOS-compliant, and I'm not going to re-fix it if Nixon Now is simply going to revert everything I do. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't undo your edits, I kept the changes you made to the ordering of the article and wrote appropriate subheaders. As you moved (buried?) the hashish section I added a header so it wouldn't be part of the previous subsection. I also added a quote to the integrity commissioner section and clarified that the Ontario Press Council ruled in the newspaper's favour and also tried to clarify/respond to your antisemitism note. Nixon Now (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"Buried"!!! Now we know where you're coming from, and why you're bent on giving the hashish bit its own section! You're editing in contradiction of the outcome of the RfC and the #Referencing Subject as a "drug dealer" or "dealing drugs" section above, Nixon Now, and if are going to persist, I will take this to WP:ANI. You're comments make it clear you're pushing a POV at ths point. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but plonking a passage you'd like to remove, but can't, in the middle of a wall of text does appear to be an attempt to bury it. And no, there is no consensus against a neutrally worded subheading. The RFC does not address headers but the issue of whether the material should be in the article at all and the consensus is that it should. Nixon Now (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Nixon Now: "a passage you'd like to remove"—what the fuck is this?! I voted include in the fucking RfC!!! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Please be civil. See WP: Civility. Nixon Now (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Garbage Pickup West of Yonge Street

NixonNow is trying to remove the statistic about how much money was saved privatizing garbage pickup west of Yonge Street.This has a source and everything. I think NixonNow's secret motive is to remove anything successful about Ford's time in office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:930A:1F00:39F9:A970:B468:2486 (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Struck comments of banned user — 2607:F2C0:930A:1F00:39F9:A970:B468:2486 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There were a couple of problems with the edit. The source said it was for the first years, mentioned that it was challenged and that City Hall had not verified the numbers. I have tried without success a recent reliable source that explains the savings. TFD (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of what was saved through the privatization move, it doesn't belong in this article as Doug Ford had little to do with it. Reviewers should note he isn't even mentioned in the source provided - all instances of Ford in that article refer to his brother, then-mayor Rob Ford. The push was instigated by the City Council's Public Works and Infrastructure Committee (PWIC) under Denzil Minnan-Wong, a committee which Doug Ford was not a part of. This is the PWIC decision (the word "Doug" does not appear in it except as the name of two different residents who submitted comments) and this is the Council decision. Doug Ford's entire contribution was voting "yes", and he was just one of between 31-33 councillors (because they re-voted several times) who did so (out of 45). In other words his contribution to this was pretty much entirely insignificant, or no more significant than any other councillor, and mentioning it here is undue weight. This is reflected by available sources from the time: CBC (the source given, doesn't mention Doug Ford), Toronto Star (only mentions Doug Ford in a list of how every councillor voted), Globe & Mail (doesn't mention Doug Ford), National Post (doesn't mention Doug Ford), CTV Toronto (doesn't mention Doug Ford), an earlier CBC piece (doesn't mention Doug Ford), even the Toronto Sun doesn't mention Doug Ford in their coverage. There are probably things that Doug Ford did that were significant contributions during his four years on Council but this was not one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 02:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Adoration for Ford on St. Clair?

User:Nocturnalnow has added the following:

Singh was impressed with all of the public adoration for Ford which was apparent as they walked along St. Clair Ave., as people from all racial and demographic cohorts hugged Ford while taking selfies.[2]

and gives this news article as a source. I've read over the article and I see nothing that supports Nocturnalnow's wording in it. All the article says is "Ford, an SUV-loving driver, takes Singh on a drive through the streetcar lane “disaster” on St. Clair Ave. And Singh, an ardent cyclist, takes Ford on a bike ride through the busy streets of downtown Toronto." So I'm wondering Nocturnalnow is relying on from the article to support his wording? @Nocturnalnow: Nixon Now (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I already removed it, and replaced with a descriptive account of the episode as the source presents it. When I revdeleted this back in January it was sourced to this Toronto Sun article and was a direct copyvio. Nocturnalnow has rewritten it but I don't know if the change is sufficient to pass WP:CLOP. Anyway, the article's statement that "men and women of every race and age embrace Ford and take selfies" seems like a highly exaggerated euphemism given the cultural makeup of the St. Clair West area and the Sun's noted tendency to skew coverage of the Fords in a positive light. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

sorry guys, an admin, NeilN removed the prior wording which had words like "amazed" taken straight from the Toronto Sun article which says "Singh has his eyes opened for sure, but not about the TTC — he’s amazed to see the outpouring of affection for Ford when they leave the car and go for a walk along St. Clair Ave." I see now that when Neil removed the CLOP wording, he also removed the source, but that was the source from which I gleaned such exaggerative wording. I have now put back the Sun article as a source and since the Sun article mentions how "amazed" Singh was at the outpouring of affection, that aspect seems noteworthy to me...I mean I think that kind of revelation and comradery is what that TV series is all about. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece and it's the Sun, which is a tabloid with a strong political point of view and without a clear line between editorial and news coversge so I think whether or not Singh was "amazed" is an opinion and doesn't belong in an NPOV article. Also are they really "friends" now? Was Ford invited to Singh's wedding? Is Singh invited to Ford family gatherings? Nixon Now (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Literally everybody is invited to Ford family gatherings, they make a spectacle of it. The Star did a follow-up interview that might be useful to support some of the views in the Sun column. Cycling Magazine did a bit on it too. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

ok, thanks, I'll have a look at the followup. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wise Tag lawsuit

I wonder if anyone with better research skills is able to find a reliable source to fill in this gap. Ford purchased Wise Tag in New Jersey in 2008 and (sources say) fired most of its staff, including Kevin Wise, the son of Wise Tag's founder. Wise sued Ford for alleged unpaid obligations from the sale in 2012 (lawsuit, source); this source says the suit was due to go to trial on November 10, 2014. Then there is no more information that I can find, which I assume is likely to be the case if there was an out-of-court settlement or it was just too mundane to report. I did however find Kevin Wise's obituary: he died in 2016 (source) so it can be presumed the suit is not still outstanding. Maybe none of this is useful to mention in the article if there's no reliable source coverage. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Pushing this section down the page, since someone else asked about it. I still haven't been able to find anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"Has this guy ever had good press?"

Responding to Moxy's edit summary here. This article is throwing a lot of attention after coverage of generally negative aspects of Ford's career. Unfortunately that kind of reflects the real-world situation: "backbench" city councillors don't generally make the news unless they're controversial. We should try to add some coverage of positive aspects, but personally, having been a resident of Toronto during Ford's council term, I don't know of anything he did that wasn't overshadowed by his brother's involvement, or that was actually spearheaded by someone in a more senior position on City Council (like private garbage collection west of Yonge Street, see a few sections above), or that was Council's response to something Ford tried to meddle with (like the Port Lands ferris wheel). Any ideas? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: or anyone can see from the topic directly above how much resistance there is to so-called "good press" about this Subject getting into or staying in the BLP. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The point is is it notable? A rally of 500 people? Not really, that happens all the time. A politician saying this election is about the people, not the politicians? Is that really interesting or notable? It's the sort of platitude every politician of every political stripe says every election. I predict we'll also here someone say that this is the most important election in a generation - because that's what people say about every election. Doesn't make it noteworthy. Nixon Now (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Finding good press on the guy is hard—Ford's a populist with mainly grassroot support, which doesn't lead to much in the way of WP:RSes.

Meanwhile, finding widespread coverage of the most trivial, unencyclopaedic things is far too easy—look at the coverage of his "cuts to the CBC" quote. A better balance will probably be found keeping out the unencyclopaedic negative than by loading up the article with the trivially positive, although that's obviously going to take a lot of work—so many people want to see all the dirt on Ford in this article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The main problem is the article is largely base on news articles (the worst type source we allow). I understand that is where most info is located....but we should screen theses stories a lot more.--Moxy (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There are a few books on the Ford family (focussing on Rob but Doug also features in them) which could be used as source material. Mayor Rob Ford: Uncontrollable: How I Tried to Help the World's Most Notorious Mayor by Mark Towhey and Johanna Schneller; Crazy Town: The Rob Ford Story by Robyn Doolittle; The Only Average Guy: Inside the Uncommon World of Rob Ford by John Filion; Ford Nation: Why hundreds of thousands of Torontonians supported their conservative crack-smoking mayor by Arthur Weinreb. Nixon Now (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Will look over these see if any are academic in nature. Got to be a way the article is not a platform for local media.--Moxy (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're looking for something substantial and "academic in nature", you'll probably have to wait until his career is over—but there's also Google Scholar. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Moxy: I actually found a few good sources there right away—nothing "positive" per se, but actual journal articles summing up the 2014 mayoral election. I've replaced some of the newspaper sources with them and rewritten some of the material in a better summary style. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks CT. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Is the Toronto Sun a credible source?

I see another edit using the tabloid Toronto Sun as its source, [3] and not just the Sun but one of its opinion columnist. Is the Toronto Sun an acceptable source under WP:V? The article, which is IMHO more opinion than news, has passages such as "Needless to say Ford Nation not only came to the steel city but took it by storm too" and generally reads like a press release from the Ford campaign. Nixon Now (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Joe Warmington, "the journalist Rob Ford still likes talking to", a.k.a. "{Rob} Ford's personal Oprah", should not be used as a sole source about the Fords, but the Sun itself isn't automatically suspect. We should couch this with coverage from a neutral source, if we can, or omit if Warmington is the only one offering this point of view. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The Toronto Sun is a reliable source and Joe Warmington's article is news rather than opinion. But note the article does not support the text. It does not say he is finding support in Hamilton, but that he is looking for it. TFD (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with your assessment. Warmington's favourable view of the Fords has been noted by other reporting agencies (CBC, for example) and by the Fords themselves (see the Toronto Life link I posted above). Although, that "unique relationship" (Doug's words) has gone both ways at times. Warmington's bias is clearly bleeding through the text of this "news" report, using grandiose euphemisms like describing the hall as "packed to the rafters" and suggesting the "wheels are coming off the usual rides". I'm not saying it's unusable, only that we should be careful, just like we would be careful using sources known for a negative bias. There's a pretty good article in the Hamilton News (part of the Metro group), and Global did cover it within a larger article - these two both omit the attention Warmington gives to the crowd's reaction and instead describe things Ford said at the rally, fact-checking and contrasting against other parties' platforms, whereas Warmington is basically cheerleading. I'm also generally wary of including every one of Ford's campaign events, per WP:NOTNEWS, but this was his first after being elected leader so it's probably noteworthy that way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The article itself has more "positive press" to it (see next topic) than I even put in. Just the photo shows standing room only, and that has nothing to do with any media. Also, I did not see any point of view expressed, but then I wasn't looking for any as I myself never read the Sun nor hardly ever even heard of Warmington...I'm a Financial Post and CBC guy. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The venue's website indicates it holds 1,000 people, while we have two sources estimating the size of the crowd at 500. Doubtful that the room was "standing room only" if it was only at half capacity. The photos in the Sun article are from Ford's own Twitter account, btw. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And we, of course, don't know how many of those people were actually from Hamilton and how many made the 30 minute drive from Toronto. I used to volunteer for a political party decades ago and it was quite normal for a "rally" to be enhanced with large number of party members driving or being driven in from a different city in order to make a "local" event look more impressive. Nixon Now (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you two really suggesting that the photos in the article are doctored and that when the article says the room was "packed" that the Sun is part of your conspiracy theories? Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

But thanks Ivanvector, for finding the additional sources. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying all political parties stack rallies with party members brought in from within a vicinity of a few hundred km so a one off rally with an attendence of 500 doesn't mean anything in particular. Nixon Now (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a simple matter to count the number of people in the photo (333) and see that even if we're generous about the ones not visible we'd barely get to 400. So fine, inflate the number by 25% and say 500; standard practice. Phrases like "standing room only" and "packed to the rafters", however, are quite clearly promotional and are an indication that the Sun article should be somewhat discounted. The other two sources are considerably more neutral. ―StvnW ^talk 21:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Warmington's support of the Fords does not mean he is a liar any more than other reporters skepticism of them means they are liars. Did Doug Ford campaign in Hamilton? Were there 500 people in the room? Did he quote Ford's supporters accurately? And reliable sources are allowed to include opinon and it is our responsibility to distguish between facts and opinions in articles. TFD (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting Warmington is lying about the size of the crowd, only that he has a noted bias which suggests a propensity for exaggerating small details in a favourable light. In this case, his numerical report of the crowd size is backed up by the Hamilton Spectator's claim. Warmington's claim that the room was "packed to the rafters" is not, and I think "standing room only" is Nocturnalnow's own description. The photos are from the campaign itself and should not be trusted at all: it's very likely there was a campaign staffer off-camera encouraging supporters to fill seats from the front first and it's very likely the photographer chose an angle maximizing the size of the crowd while minimizing the physical size of the room. It's what they get paid to do. Election campaigns are promo machines, they have no interest in neutrality whatsoever. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct about "standing room only" being my rephrasing of "packed to the rafters", and those descriptions are no longer in the article, and the 2 other universally acceptable sources are where all the content comes from now. So, hopefully we've worked through the topic of Toronto Sun/Warmngton and disgarded any influence of that article on this Blp.Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hamilton rally

Is the stuff on the Hamilton rally really encyclopaedic? It smacks of WP:RECENTISM (and WP:UNDUE) to me. Ford's obviously going to have quite a few rallies in the upcoming couple of months. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

True, but just as pointed out initially by Moxy and discussed in the topic above, the Subject gets such little "good press" the BLP needs some for balance. First objection, by NN was that the Sun was not a good enough source and that the rally should only be included with other sources. Then Ivan provided 2 more neutral sources so I went to the trouble of writing it up with those 2 sources, so it now feels like having to jump through a series of hoops or like I'm wasting my time trying to improve the article. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Trying to "balance" something negative with something "positive" but lightweight isn't particularly effective. It does little more than add filler. Nixon Now (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

NN, if you don't think the Hamilton rally is worthy, why did you at first criticize a source? Do you just want editors wasting their time? I spent a lot of time working up content from the other 2 sources Ivan provided. Do you get my point? Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That is a serious issue, but nonetheless I don't think the rally is encyclopaedic. Like I said elsewhere, finding positive coverage in WP:RSes that's also encyclopaedic is going to be a challenge, but a better strategy to achieve balance would be to keep the article from getting filled with negative minutia. We don't need to quote every nimrod comment the man has made—WP aims at WP:Summary style. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

ok, I understand, but I still think overall its good well sourced content for the Ontario General Election section of the Blp. We can certainly remove quotes ("nimrod comments") as far as I am concerned. Which comments would you like to see removed and I'll remove them myself...I'm assuming that won't count as a revert by me. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean to make you feel that you're spinning your wheels on the article, and if I've given the impression that I'm only objecting to things because you've suggested them, I apologize. For what it's worth much of the improvement and expansion of the article over the last two months has been as a result of things you've added, even if they've been edited subsequently. Sometimes that's how articles on controversial topics go, but that's by design: controversial topics sometimes generate a lot of discussion, and when there are many viewpoints, the resulting articles are more stable. This one is well on its way, I think, notwithstanding some open disputes.

My opinion on the Hamilton rally is mixed: it was Ford's first rally as PC leader, and it was paired with a somewhat significant policy announcement (giving Hamilton a blank $1B cheque previously intended for a specific project) which we discuss elsewhere. I'm in favour of having more content at this point, although in the long run I think this rally and other specific campaign events will fade into background noise of the campaign and eventually be irrelevant to the article. Given that it's early in the campaign, would it make sense to simply remove the "political positions" subheader and make this part of one continuous section on the ongoing campaign, until there's enough content that it needs to be broken up? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Ivan, I was addressing NixonNow before, but that's ancient history now, imo. I think the "political positions" subheader is useful for readers, so we should keep that, imo, and I'm going to remove what I think CT is referring to with "nimrod comment" from Subject. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I meant that in general—he's made lots of comments, and many people would like him to speak in his own words in the article, to give the false impression of being more "neutral" (especially by framing or refraining from framing them in particular ways). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

CT, I finally figured what you mean, I think. That an editor may want to make a positive or negative impression on an objective reader, and by using the Subject's own words within the content the reader assumes that the overall content gives a correct impression of reality? Is that it? If so, I'll have to think about that for awhile, but it does, off the top, seem possible. Do you think that's happening with this BLP? or am I totally wrong in my interpretation of what you are saying? Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I definitely do—particularly with the way the "Jewish" comments were presented. They were definitely not plonked there in that way simply to be informative. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The Hamilton Spectator says there were 350 people at the rally, not 500.[4] Another reason we should take reports about rally turnouts - and Toronto Sun coverage - with a grain of salt.Nixon Now (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops, the source I cited was Hamilton News, not the Hamilton Spectator, and it also says 500. [5]. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tags

@Nixon Now: put 2 NPOV tags up. So, in that regard, I encourage NixonNow or anyone to add more content to balance the content as you feel benefits the BLP. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not only that. The language you are adding borders on peacock language ie the descriptions are not neutral. Phrases like "media frenzy" (which I changed to "media criticism") are unencylopedic and written to convey a specific spin, in that case to dismiss media commentary on Ford's decision not to have a media bus and the source you used was a Sun Media opinion piece rather than a neutral news item when there were many non-opinion pieces to choose from. The two sections sound like they were written by the PC campaign rather than by a neutral writer. It's not other editors' task to make your writing neutral, you should be writing neutrally to begin with. Nixon Now (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes you point out that my words or summary are not reflected in the article. With this article "frenzy" was the tone and words of the article.

• I'll try harder, but in the meantime, why don't you, or anyone, anyone, go fixit ? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

If I had time I would but I think it's a better idea for the editor who wrote the material to have another go first. Try avoiding using the Toronto Sun/Canoe as a source. There are plenty of others media that covered the exact same things you added but using more objective language. Try not to write from a partisan point of view ("media frenzy") but from a Neutral Point of View. It's not your role to write as if you're a PC partisan and leave it to others to clean it up. Nixon Now (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Rather than aggregating material from whatever newspaper articles we can find, we should be finding articles that summarize events and put them in perspective. It makes for better balance and a better reading experience. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I am comfortable with that approach, however, as you've said, its hard to find articles that talk about this Subject in a summary way that is neutral or positive, otoh, there are lots of articles that generalize negative labels and events about him. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It might be better to wait until after the election campaign is finished and then write what happened rather than do a play by play as it happens. For one thing that would make it easier to avoid adding trivialities and unnecessary detail and also might mitigate the temptaion to write with the purpose of trying to influence voters or the election. Nixon Now (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Nixon Now could you slow down on news quote spam......ongoing talks all over about this. --Moxy (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Nocturnal now told me above, in bold, to "go fix it" and so I've attempted to balance and NPOV the section myself. I am quite fine with, as I suggest above, eliminating the section and not writing one until after the election in order to avoid recentism and other issues with a play by play, day by day, approach. Nixon Now (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The polling stats in particular have no place being there—are we going to give a week-by-week (or day-by-day) update? Those stats make sense in a chart or something on the election page, not in the Ford article. Obviously eliminating the section entirely won't fly, but we should be choosy with what is included, and focus on summary-style articles rather than "breaking news" ones. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with removing the polling stats if its ok with NixonNow. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to trim the section. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

So, I took out the polling and 2 non events; him not attending a debate and his campaign not having a media bus. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nixon Now:, Please reinsert whatever you wish, I am just trying to help rectify the issues discussed above. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It's too soon to know whether passing on the Black community debate or cancelling the bus will be substantive points in the campaign or just ephemera that no one remembers or cares about in two months which is why it's better to write these things in retrospect rather than as it happens. As for polling, an initial baseline might be helpful but again, probably better to wait until after the campaign. If Ford starts strong but ends up losing then it is of interest. Less so if the polls remain constant. What isn't needed is reportage of each poll. Nixon Now (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Like Curly Turkey said, it's highly unusual to include polling results in politicians' bios. They're normally included in articles on particular elections, or sometimes in separate articles entirely (c.f. Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018). The only results normally included in the individuals' bios are the actual vote results, like we already have here for Ford's Toronto campaigns and obviously there is no info available yet on the future Ontario election. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. If a frontrunner ends up losing or someone has a come from behind victory it is worth noting though, but not necessarily with actual polling data. Nixon Now (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That. See Michael Ignatieff#Leadership or Kim Campbell#Election defeat for good examples, or Bob Rae#Election victory for an example in the other direction which also includes some discussion of poll results. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)