Talk:Doug Ford/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hashish scandal

Well, since the page is semi-protected, we should have a place to discuss whatever we can do. Is Ford WP:WELLKNOWN enough to warrant a mention of the Globe and Mail report on Ford's dealing of hashish in the 1980s? Alaney2k (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

He meets WP:POLITICIAN as I would imagine do all Toronto councillors. However I think it is better to source the information to an article about the investigative journalism article, rather than to the article itself, so that we avoid problems of weight and reliance on primary sources. Those articles mention that Ford denies the story, which should be included. Also of importance is that the Progressive Conservative Party now deny that he will be a candidate in the next provincial election. TFD (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Religion not listed on Info box

Please list the subject's religion, as is listed on other encyclopedia articles abou this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.88.63 (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned in the talk page for his brother's article, we would need a reliable. If neither the councillor nor the media ever mention it, then there is no need to include it. TFD (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversial election issues

Dear @FordDixon: this article of a living person currently has only one sentence about his campaign for Mayor. Inserting two sentences about controversy over said campaign, which clearly cannot be linked to the subject directly, is WP:Weight issue. As such, I am removing your recent edit. If you chose to write a broader section on the campaign and then include a line or two on his direct participation in the controversy - be my guest! ...and, by the way, it is a custom on wikipedia to explain reverts of others' edits.--Truther2012 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: please see above...--Truther2012 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I was just cleaning up, although it did seem to be undue weight. Figured someone else would revert if they disagreed. Ivanvector (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Birthplace

The source given inline for Ford's birthplace is his father's obituary, and does not actually give his place of birth. Before I stick a {{fv}} tag on it, do we have a source that says he was born at Humber? Ivanvector (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is it important which hospital he was born in? If you don't think the source is reliable enough - we should remove it altogether...--Truther2012 (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Not that the source isn't reliable - there is no source for this. I am off to remove it. Ivanvector (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What does the "ethical vegetarian" feed his lab?

Mayoral candidate Doug Ford's cozy domestic side, "A loveable lab waits on the mat in the front hall shaking with excitement. Hard to believe Buddy is 15. “All he wants is to be petted the whole time,” says Doug in mock exasperation." Does NPOV kinda necessitate this?199.7.156.136 (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 25 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. A discussion on whether or not Doug Ford should be moved here should be a separate RM. Furthermore, removing the comma from the title seems uncontroversial, so if someone wishes to do that, I'd have no objections. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Doug Ford, Jr. → Doug Ford (politician) – Almost no reliable sources use "Jr" when referring to Doug Ford. For example, a search of 'Doug Ford Jr" returns only 83 results in Google News currently. A search without Jr returns over 36,000 results. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hm, wouldn't further disambiguation be necessary? Doug Ford, Sr. was also a politician. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (edit conflict) - Doug Ford (politician) is unnecessarily ambiguous with his father, Doug Ford, Sr.. Doug Ford, Jr. is the more notable of the two no doubt, but if we don't have to have an article at an ambiguous title, we shouldn't. (WP:NATURALDAB) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

However, I think you could make an argument that this article should be at Doug Ford, given his notoriety. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Can you make an argument that it should be at Doug Ford? Please do. Zarcadia (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Nah, let's stay on target here, that's a separate discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

If consensus is to move to Doug Ford, I'm in favour of that too. In any event, I don't agree with you re NATURALDAB: "Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.". Like I said originally, Doug Ford Jr. is rarely used (and certainly without a comma). FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose original proposal. I already redirected "(politician)" to Doug Ford, a dabpage. By the way, maybe remove the comma from the Jr. and Sr. pages? That's better than using a parenthetical but ambiguous title. George Ho (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I moved dad to Doug Ford Sr. and fixed the commas in both articles, but will wait for this RM discussion to finish before messing with the comma in the title. Dicklyon (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This BLP Protected under false pretenses

The editor who requested protection has been edit warring and his claim of vandalism is baloney as you can see by the fact that no editor has been even warned of vandalism. This is a Subject who just a few days ago joined a major party leadership race governing a population of 16 million and there are likely to be many citizens who will be attracted to read and maybe some to edit the BLP....it is not nice for the newly attracted to editing be discouraged based upon no evidence at all of vandalism....especially when the request was made by an engaged editor. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you could let us know what in the article is currently inaccurate or inadequately covered. MPS1992 (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The content is not a reason for protection as far as I'm aware. But this is a major political event just getting underway so I think there will be many new editors wanting to add new content within the next month. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Need to bring, somehow, more neutral editors into this BLP

look at what I found (and removed) over on an associated and important article [1]. We can't be allowing this type of stuff, at least I don't think so. Maybe we need to refer to the BLP noticeboard? What do the rest of you think? Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's no good, thanks for removing it. We can't publish unproven allegations as though they're proven facts like that; @Nixon Now: I think you restored the offending edit accidentally, but please be careful not to do it again. It is not present in the article as of when I checked just now.

Have a look at the BLPN link I added a few threads above, that is the noticeboard to ask uninvolved editors to review a BLP dispute. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

ok, thanks vey much, Ivan. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Middle name is incorrect

His middle name is Robert - full name Douglas Robert Ford Kscourt (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

That's unlikely, his brother's name was Robert. However the sources given for Doug's middle name in this article are either unreliable or don't actually verify it, and both his father's and his brother's middle names were Bruce, so it's pretty unlikely that Doug Jr's middle name was also Bruce. Any better sources out there? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Campaigning

Re this edit, what about the vague statements made at a stop along the campaign trail is noteworthy enough to warrant their inclusion in a biography?

I also am of the opinion that interim polling data doesn't belong here either. If the consensus is otherwise, then to avoid the appearance of cherry-picking I would suggest mention be made of the other two polls—referred to in the same source—which are somewhat less favourable. StvnW ^talk 05:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nocturnalnow, a separate section for the 2018 campaign is indeed warranted, and should summarize his platform, but at the moment there is nearly as much written about a one-day campaign stop in Sudbury as there is about his entire four-year term in office as a councillor, and more than his previous two campaigns combined. Can this be pared down to the salient points? StvnW ^talk 16:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I see what you are saying...about the poll too; the other polls seemed more vague with words like "marginal", but I'll pare it down as you suggest. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

30 year old high school Hashish smear

I could not access the diff that Ivan made..it shows 14:00, 30 January 2018‎ Ivanvector ...but with a line through it. Anyway, I remember when this article came out during all of the Rob Ford mayoral period and the local papers printed a lot of stuff like the one about this Subject which they would not have normally printed, imo. This is just too old and, UNDUE etc., imo, especially with a big campaign underway for the Subject now. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You can't access the diff because it contained a copyright violation and was expunged, but that wasn't related to this. We don't remove referenced information from BLPs just because it's negative or because the subject alleges a conspiracy of defamation. The allegation claimed by the Globe and Mail is well-documented and covered in detail by many independent publications, only a few of which are used as references in the article. As for anonymous sources, anonymous does not mean unverified or "fake", and the Ontario Press Council ruled in its review of these reports that the use of anonymous sources was justified ([2]). My opinion is that the whole incident (the report) is significant to Ford's background, and is presented sufficiently neutrally in the current revision. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

ok, I do not know if the Subject has said he's being defamed, I'm just saying that during the time this was published there was, imo, a lot of sensationalizing about the Subject's family and I think this was a part of that. Don't you think its too old and, especially since there was no related criminal charges, that it's inclusion is not really in line with our more conservative Blp guidelines? Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"Alleging a conspiracy of defamation" is my neutral version of Ford and his brother complaining for years before and after this incident that Toronto media (the Star and the Globe and Mail in particular) were executing a coordinated smear campaign against them and threatening to sue for various things, although as I recall they never actually did. And no, I don't think it's too old to include: it's information, and Wikipedia does not need to be cleaned up so it can be a vehicle for Mr. Ford's many political campaigns. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand and can see you remember the commotion as well as I do, but I don't think we should construct a current Blp with content bias because somebody alleged some conspiracy. Such allegations, accepting that there were some, should be ignored. I also don't know that this subject threatened to sue anyone nor would I agree that such a threat should effect the Blp. Also, this Blp is not much of a campaign vehicle...its certainly not flattering in any way that I see. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we're having some editwarring over this now—and now it's placed front-and-centre in the "Early life" section, dominating the section. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It's quite ridiculous that there are insinuations of drug dealing on a BLP without any proof of criminal charges. 104.247.233.166 (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC) (sock of banned editor)

There are no insinuations of drug dealing. There is a sourced NPOV description of a report published by two of Canada's largest newspapers, along with an explanation (also sourced) that there were no criminal charges. This is the proper way to deal with this information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I don't think this info belongs in the article. AstronautPants (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC) (sock of banned editor)

For those of you interested in discussing this with respect to the biographies of living persons policy, I have opened a discussion at the BLP noticeboard. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

At what point did Ford sue the Globe and Mail for defamation? Nixon Now (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This isn't some blog rumour or something from a tabloid. No reason not to include. Nixon Now (talk)`

Drug dealer

Given that a major national newspaper ran a lengthy investigative report on Ford's history as a drug dealer and that this has been repeated in other major media it's a complete whitewash not to mention that in this article. Ford had the opportunity to sue for defamation and did not, despite having the funds to do this. By all means include that he denies the charge but don't pretend the charge has never been made. Nixon Now (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• I support including this (the current revision is mostly using my text) but just pointing out that no criminal charges were ever made, according to the report. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, not only has Ford not been convicted of any drug-related offenses, but he has never even been charged (Nixon seems to believe Ford has been charged). The problem with suggesting that someone is a drug dealer, is that some readers might believe it. Unless there is any proof to these very outdated Wikipedia:Recentism allegations, this violates BLP. The fact that so many years have gone by, and that there is still no evidence to back up these allegations is very telling. 2607:F2C0:94DD:F900:69BF:3310:D0B:E2FB (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Anon, I never said he was charged, I said he never sued for defamation despite saying he would. Nixon Now (talk)`

For the record, The Globe and Mail has continued to assert that Ford was a drug dealer—this article is only a month old: "Among the things we already know about Mr. Ford: He was, as revealed by this newspaper, a drug dealer in the 1980s. ..." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

MPS1992 made these 2 comments at the noticeboard the last time this came up and I think this never charged, much less arrested or convicted, drug dealer smear has no place in a Blp.Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that is that other sources are also continuing to report on it, and it's obviously affecting how people perceive his campaign. Neglecting to include this (in a NPOV way) will lead to a biased, uncomprehensive article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Good grief, I see what you mean; that is a lot, but I still say that MPS1992 points still apply. We must go back to the Blp noticeboard I think since the Subject's profile has gone up so much since yesterday and he is immediately in an even bigger campaign race.Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Given the widespread mainstream coverage of these allegations, ignoring them would make it look like we're covering up. Nixon Now (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Nixon Now, could you please put this on the Blp noticeboard? I think we definitely need some input from there given the Subject's much increased public profile. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to be offline for a week so perhaps someone else could do this? Nixon Now (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• There's been some mention of this incident in the article for nearly four years, except every once in a while some editor with an overly conservative read on the BLP policy comes by and removes it because it's "outdated" (the report's age is irrelevant) or that he wasn't charged so we're forbidden from mentioning it (we're not). This is the fifth discussion about removing the report in those four years: I've already brought this up at BLPN twice ([3] [4]) and it's also been discussed on this page, here in 2013 and here earlier this year. None of those discussions supported removing that content or even really attracted significant comment from anyone not already involved in editing the article, though they have attracted sockpuppets. I doubt that making a third post at BLPN is going to change any of that. The only thing that has changed here is that Ford is now a candidate for a higher political office than he's held before and that reliable sources are continuing to mention the now four-year-old report and some are reporting its allegations as facts, which obviously we should not, but this strongly indicates that the report is a significant event in Ford's political life. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2018

Please remove "Carleton University" as the alma mater of Doug Ford — he did not attend Carleton, according to the university's administration. I work in the communications dept. at Carleton. Thank you. Danielrube (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done as there is no source given and I couldn't find one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Instead, I see lots of sources for his brother attending Carleton. There seem to have been a few instances of Rob's info being put into this article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Borderline promotional content

Attn @Nocturnalnow:. There is a large segment of the 2018 leadership section that is borderline promotional and feels like it came right from his campaign.

In a jammed full hall in Sudbury, Ford told the people, "I love Sudbury", and that he would be sure Northern Ontarians' issues are addressed at Queen's Park. "I love the people here. They're down to earth, they're real people, they're grassroots people. And they've been ignored," Ford emphasized. Ford said that he and local candidate Troy Crowder would team up to fight for Sudburians. Ford's message was that he relates to the front-line, working-class people whereas the other candidates don't and he drew a stark comparison between the other PC candidates and himself, calling his opponents "Insiders", "political elites", and "Liberal lite". "I'm proud that I'm a social conservative. And I stand up for the little guy." Ford said, summing up his theme. Ford brought up a hospital experience with his brother, Rob Ford as an example of how 'broken" Ontario's health care system is. He said the former Toronto mayor fell while he was guiding him to a chair, Ford said, and only two nursing staff were available on the floor, so he had to rush down 11 floors to find a pair of security guards to help. As for the Northern Ontario Ring of Fire, the candidate said he's ready to take action. Ford also wants to reintroduce the Ontario Northland train routes that the Liberals scrapped, citing the need to get to the best hospitals in southern Ontario. He also told people in Huntsville that the province's health-care system is broken and that the province should be able to sustain small and medium sized hospitals like those in Muskoka.

The whole thing could probably be replaced with something along the lines of...

While campaigning in Sudbury, Ford promised to represent the interests of Northern Ontario if elected PC leader. He called his opponents "insiders", "political elites", and "Liberal lite" who did not represent the interests of the "down to earth... real people" like he could. Ford pledged several northern-focused policy initiatives including moving forward with resource development in the Northern Ontario Ring of Fire and reinstating the Ontario Northland Railway's Northlander train service.

On issues of health care, Ford brought up the hospital experience of his late brother Rob Ford as an example of how "broken" Ontario's health care system is. He stated that the province should support transportation to allow Northern Ontarians to travel quickly and easily to the south to receive medical care and increasing provincial support for Ontario's small and medium-sized hospitals such as those in Muskoka.

It would get the same information, Ford's policy proposals and the fact he is campaigning in the north, with none of the promotional tone. 70.49.159.250 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

References

I agree that this proposed change would be a significant improvement. The current wording is far too promotional in tone, and the proposed revision conveys the same information in a much more neutral way.--Trystan (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

ok, I'll replace the wording with 70.49.159.250's improvement. Thanks. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

oops, I'll ask admin to do it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

request made. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Lift Full Protection

Ivanvector, Please have the protection lifted if you can. There's not going to be any edit warring, and lots of fresh content is coming out about the Subject. Also, in the Rfc an Anon disputes the sockpuppet allegations so maybe we could try no protection? What do you say? Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: you could take it up with the protecting admin, CambridgeBayWeather, or make a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. I'm WP:INVOLVED on this page, I can't do anything directly. Personally I feel that since protection is finally drawing in comments from more neutral observers that the article is going to improve from all the resulting discussion, we're likely going to finally resolve some longstanding disagreements, and editors can still propose changes like in the sections above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Ivanvector here, the full-protection is leading to a lot of constructive discussion that would likely not otherwise happen. Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

ok, I agree that there is additional constructive discussion taking place. Thanks for your opinions. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Move

15:41, 11 March 2018‎ Nixon Now (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (546 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Nixon Now moved page Doug Ford to Doug Ford (disambiguation) over redirect: disambig) (undo | thank)

What's the purpose of this discussion section? It's just a written copy of an 'edit summary' of a page move. GoodDay (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It was added here by In ictu oculi. We should ask them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Contacting @In ictu oculi:, concerning this item. GoodDay (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

What's the purpose of you asking GoodDay? Isn't it obvious. It relates to the RM below and was seen and moved back 20:07, 11 March 2018‎ Timrollpickering (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (572 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Timrollpickering moved page Doug Ford (disambiguation) to Doug Ford: revert undiscussed move, let the RM discussion run its course) (undo | thank) In ictu oculi (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not following your reasoning. But, anyways. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 March 2018

The Rfc re: alleged hashish dealing is showing about 90% of editors who vote for inclusion wanting a cautious and balanced content; and then there are those who feel the entire topic should be avoided.

With the foregoing in mind, I request that ASAP this part of the content be removed as it is not even directly related to the Subject: "though his brother, Randy, was also involved in the drug trade and was once charged in relation to a drug-related kidnapping." Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, that addition seems to be coat-racking the criminal past of Mr. Ford's non-notable, low-profile brother as though it demonstrates the subject's connection to criminal activity. If we were to list here all of the people connected to the Ford family with a documented connection to criminal drug trade, it would be a very long article and it would cease to be about Mr. Ford. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It hasn't been removed yet, can someone cut through the "view source" barrier and move that very extreme BLP violation. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, please advise, what is the "view source" barrier? Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I see its the protection level. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed as requested. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Paul. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

For future requests, if you add the {{edit protected}} template underneath your section header, the page will be added to the list admins check for edit requests and someone should get to it pretty quickly. I didn't notice before it hadn't been added yet; I added a completed one just as an example. You should make sure that you have consensus for an edit before adding the template. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks Ivan, I did not know about that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 March 2018

Any objections to adding in the Early life section: "saying later that he decided it would be "a waste of time" at the end of the last sentence "Ford said he planned to sue the newspaper for libel, but did not do so.[10]...therefore reading:"Ford said he planned to sue the newspaper for libel, but did not do so, saying later that he decided it would be "a waste of time". new content from the new article mentioned in the Rfc. Any objections to putting in Subject's explanation as to why he did not sue? Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Responding to these separately, sorry for breaking up your comment. I'm fine with it, but I suggest that it's long enough afterwards that we should give a date. Ford said he planned to sue the newspaper for libel, but did not do so.(source) In a 2018 interview he explained that he decided it would be a "waste of time".(source) Does that work? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, giving the date is better, Ivan, that's fine with me. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's hold this one, pending the RfC results. If the RfC concludes that the material should not be added then this will be redundant. If it favours inclusion then we might end up with a different consensus version. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, under "political positions" please add:

On March 13th, Ford told the Globe and Mail he wants to implement a more populist agenda if elected. Ford said he is open to greater privatization of marijuana and alcohol sales in Ontario as well as scrapping the relatively new "foreign-buyers tax" on real estate. Ford confirmed he is is replacing the party platform adopted under former leader Patrick Brown with a "simple..five point" plan focusing on health, education, creating jobs, getting rid of the province’s cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions and reducing hydro rates.

A couple things. The source doesn't say more populist, I would omit that word. Globe and Mail should be in italics per MOS:ITALIC. Also this is picky and someone can correct me if I've got it wrong, but I believe there should be a comma at "... carbon emissions, and reducing hydro ...". And some terms can be wikilinked depending on where there are other links in the file, but that might be best to work out later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all of your suggestions, I think the comma after emissions is optional, which goes toward including it...just in case. So, yes, these improvements are great. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, just noticing now that this doesn't fit neatly under any of the subheadings already in the "political positions" section. Should it be broken up between the sections, or is this more of an intro? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Right, I'd say it'd be good as an intro. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I was thinking about trying to do the edit request myself but, I dunno, what do you think? Do we have a consensus on it being put in as an intro under "Political Positions"? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: sure, give it a go, you can see an example in my request a couple sections above. Be as specific as you can be about the change you're requesting, admins are lazy and don't like to do extra work to figure out what you want ;) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

In the "Political positions" section, please insert the following introduction text above the "Abortion" subsection:

On March 13th, Ford told the Globe and Mail he wants to implement a populist agenda if elected. Ford said he is open to greater privatization of marijuana and alcohol sales in Ontario as well as scrapping the relatively new "foreign-buyers tax" on real estate. Ford confirmed he is is replacing the party platform adopted under former leader Patrick Brown with a "simple..five point" plan focusing on health, education, creating jobs, getting rid of the province’s cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions, and reducing hydro rates.

References

Done. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 March 2018

per topic above, please replace existing related content with "While campaigning in Sudbury, Ford promised to represent the interests of Northern Ontario if elected PC leader. He called his opponents "insiders", "political elites", and "Liberal lite" who did not represent the interests of the "down to earth... real people" like he could. Ford pledged several northern-focused policy initiatives including moving forward with resource development in the Northern Ontario Ring of Fire and reinstating the Ontario Northland Railway's Northlander train service.

Ford brought up a hospital experience with his brother, Rob Ford as an example of how 'broken" Ontario's health care system is. He said the former Toronto mayor fell while he was guiding him to a chair, Ford said, and only two nursing staff were available on the floor, so he had to rush down 11 floors to find a pair of security guards to help. He stated that the province should support transportation to allow Northern Ontarians to travel quickly and easily to the south to receive medical care and increasing provincial support for Ontario's small and medium-sized hospitals such as those in Muskoka." Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Is that meant to be "Liberal lite" and not "Liberal elites"? Also, I think the first instance of "Northern Ontario" should be "northern Ontario" (no caps on northern, it's a description of a region and not a proper name). I would also prefer not to use a direct quote for "down to earth ... real people" as it's meaningless political pandering; we could just say "residents of northern Ontario" or something similar. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

He uses the term "Liberal lite" (as in "light") twice, implying they're not "real conservatives". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I see the term "liberal lite" actually existsas per Natl Post headline. It also seems like the "n" is capitalized usually in Northern Ontario. "Residents of Northern Ontario" is fine but now that I see the new version leaves out the description of how he had trouble getting help when his brother fell in the hospital, I missed that change before and I think that description is very important to make the point of what he calls broken health care so that should not be taken out I'd say on second thought. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

So, here's what I'd suggest:

Ford promised to represent the interests of Northern Ontario in Queen's Park. He called his opponents "insiders" and "political elites", who did not represent the interests of the Residents of Northern Ontario like he could. Ford pledged several northern-focused policy initiatives including moving forward with resource development in the Northern Ontario Ring of Fire and reinstating the Ontario Northland Railway's Northlander train service.

Ford brought up a hospital experience with his brother, Rob Ford as an example of how 'broken" Ontario's health care system is. He said the former Toronto mayor fell while he was guiding him to a chair, Ford said, and only two nursing staff were available on the floor, so he had to rush down 11 floors to find a pair of security guards to help. He stated that the province should support transportation to allow Northern Ontarians to travel quickly and easily to the south to receive medical care and increasing provincial support for Ontario's small and medium-sized hospitals such as those in Muskoka. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• The first paragraph is fine. Capitalizing Northern in Northern Ontario seems odd to me but I can't argue with the sources, however "Residents" should not be capitalized. I added the ref from the section above, my {{reflist-talk}} tag is not in the right place.

The second paragraph is not good. There's some redundant and ambiguous phrasing as to who is doing what, and verb tense disagreements in the last sentence. I suggest basically what the IP suggested in the "promotional content" section above:

Ford promised to represent the interests of Northern Ontario in Queen's Park. He called his opponents "insiders" and "political elites", who did not represent the interests of the residents of Northern Ontario like he could. Ford pledged several northern-focused policy initiatives including moving forward with resource development in the Northern Ontario Ring of Fire and reinstating the Ontario Northland Railway's Northlander train service.

Ford called the Ontario health care system "broken" while relating the hospital experience of his brother, former Toronto mayor Rob Ford. He explained that Rob fell while being guided to a chair, and as the hospital was understaffed Doug had to rush down 11 floors to find security guards to help. He stated that the province should support transportation to allow Northern Ontarians to travel quickly and easily to the south to receive medical care and should increase provincial support for Ontario's small and medium-sized hospitals.

References

I still don't really like the second paragraph, I find it odd to use an example of Rob's experience in a hospital in Toronto when complaining about inefficiencies in the north. But populists gonna populism, I guess. The sources say what they say. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I get your point, but I think 1 picture is more communicative sometimes than a lot of words and I find the personal story about the experience with his brother to create a picture of what happened that day and also to communicate very well how passionate Subject may feel about this particular issue. I know its a bit on the "literary" side, but I still think, with its good source, worth inclusion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have phrased that better. I find it odd that Doug used that anecdote to illustrate the example he was going for, but that is in fact what he did (per the source). Encyclopedically, I have no problem with it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: we didn't quite finish this. Did you have any more comments on the latest suggestion, or can I request it be added in? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if its this, from above,:

Ford promised to represent the interests of Northern Ontario in Queen's Park. He called his opponents "insiders" and "political elites", who did not represent the interests of the residents of Northern Ontario like he could. Ford pledged several northern-focused policy initiatives including moving forward with resource development in the Northern Ontario Ring of Fire and reinstating the Ontario Northland Railway's Northlander train service.

Ford called the Ontario health care system "broken" while relating the hospital experience of his brother, former Toronto mayor Rob Ford. He explained that Rob fell while being guided to a chair, and as the hospital was understaffed Doug had to rush down 11 floors to find security guards to help. He stated that the province should support transportation to allow Northern Ontarians to travel quickly and easily to the south to receive medical care and should increase provincial support for Ontario's small and medium-sized hospitals.

References

then that's cool with me. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, seems to be consensus then. In the request below I've changed 11 to eleven per MOS:NUMBER, I assume that's uncontroversial. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

In the "2018 Progressive Conservative leadership campaign" section, please replace the two paragraphs starting with "In a jammed full hall in Sudbury..." and "Ford brought up a hospital experience ..." with the following text:

Ford promised to represent the interests of Northern Ontario in Queen's Park. He called his opponents "insiders" and "political elites", who did not represent the interests of the residents of Northern Ontario like he could. Ford pledged several northern-focused policy initiatives including moving forward with resource development in the Northern Ontario Ring of Fire and reinstating the Ontario Northland Railway's Northlander train service.

Ford called the Ontario health care system "broken" while relating the hospital experience of his brother, former Toronto mayor Rob Ford. He explained that Rob fell while being guided to a chair, and as the hospital was understaffed Doug had to rush down eleven floors to find security guards to help. He stated that the province should support transportation to allow Northern Ontarians to travel quickly and easily to the south to receive medical care and should increase provincial support for Ontario's small and medium-sized hospitals.

References

Please also note that the original Sudbury paragraph may be a copyright violation from the Sudbury Star source; please revdelete if necessary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Doug Ford Jr. → Doug Ford – I propose renaming this article Doug Ford as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as he is now a leading politician in Canada as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. Nixon Now (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - the nominator didn't suggest why the subject of this article should be considered the primary topic, but looking at pageviews over 2017 (in an effort to smooth out the effects of recent coverage of the Ontario PC leadership race) he is neither "much more likely than any other topic" nor "more likely than all the other topics combined" to be the subject readers are searching for when looking for "Doug Ford". See pageviews below; note that Doug Ford (golfer) consistently scores nearly as many pageviews, and several others are also reasonably frequently visited.
  • Doug Ford Jr.: 19,165
  • Douglas Ford (GC): 2,822
  • Douglas Ford (bishop): 266
  • Doug Ford (cricketer): 181
  • Doug Ford (golfer): 15,548
  • Doug Ford Sr.: 4,301
  • Doug Ford (musician): 1,494

Also revert the move of Doug Ford to Doug Ford (disambiguation). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Ford Jr is already the most visited Doug Ford page. This number will only grow now that he's party leader.Nixon Now (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The onus is on the nominator to demonstrate that this Doug Ford is the primary topic. The criteria suggested by that policy are:

• Is this "Doug Ford" highly likely to be the topic sought when a reader search for "Doug Ford?" The suggested threshold is "more likely than all other topics combined," which the pageview stats show isn't the case.
• Is this "Doug Ford" the topic that has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" than all the other Doug Fords? For this criterion, you might find it helpful to take a look at WP:NWFCTM. Yes, to observers of Canadian politics, this Doug Ford is clearly the most important, but we can't assume the same viewpoint will be held by the average Wikipedia user. As of now, he's sat for one term as a Toronto councillor, run unsuccessfully for mayor, and led a provincial opposition party without holding a seat or winning an election. These are relatively minor offices on the global scale, and don't make him the primary topic to your average Joe.

Madg2011 (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and put back the dab page In ictu oculi (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, as he's the most recognized Doug Ford in Canada. Haven't heard of those other Doug Ford fellows, accept Doug Sr. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• This article pretty clearly doesn't qualify as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Doug Ford," as per either the usage or long-term significance criteria. I would support a move to "Doug Ford (politician)" instead, as PC leader is a much more notable political office than his father's single term as a backbench MPP. He is almost never referred to in the media as "Doug Ford Junior" (although I have seen "Doug Ford Senior" in common usage to refer to his father). A move to "Doug Ford" would be appropriate if he becomes premier. Madg2011 (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support move to Doug Ford (politician). I can't find one news clipping that refers to him as Doug Ford Jr.. - Carlbergman (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Carlbergman: The proposal is to move to Doug Ford, do you support that? Nixon Now (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM—before he declared his candidacy, this page was getting only 50 pageviews a day.

And he's now leader of a major political party in Canada's most populous province so his status has changed. Nixon Now (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Nixon Now: This is your response to WP:RECENTISM? The guy doesn't even have a seat in the Provincial Parliament. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose move to Doug Ford (politician), as his father was also a politician. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

But the son is much more notable as a politician than the father. What about:

• Move "Doug Ford Jr." to "Doug Ford (politician)"
• Move "Doug Ford Sr." to "Doug Ford (politician, born 1933)"

My issue with "Doug Ford Jr." is that the "Jr." seems like part of his name, not a disambiguator, and "Doug Ford Jr." isn't how he's commonly known. Madg2011 (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Madg2011: "More notable" as of the day after the leadership win? That's the very definition of WP:RECENTISM. "seems like part of his name"—yes, because it is. That, and the fact that it's so much shorter, are why it should stay where it is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Ford Jr.'s political career is more notable because it's more recent. I think it's more notable because being the province's Leader of the Opposition > being a backbench MPP for a single term. The dates on which both assumed office are irrelevant. Madg2011 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Ford Jr. is more notable, because he is. Not because of the time period. There is a big difference between being a backbench one-term MPP and being the leader of the party. Also Ford Jr's page has almost 5x the traffic. Carlbergman (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Carlbergman: "Also Ford Jr's page has almost 5x the traffic": as to be expected immediately after his election as leader. He's currently all over the news—thus WP:RECENTISM. Let's see him actually win a seat in the Provincial Parliament before considering whether he's really WP:PRIMARY over someone who actually did. And, seriously, please don't stoop to "because he is" in a discussion with other adults. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean "because he is" literally. Actually leading a major party into an election is more significant than just acquiring a seat. Carlbergman (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Carlbergman: WP:NPOV is policy, and there's nothing "self-evident" about a unelected official being WP:PRIMARY, especially when he's had the job for less than two days. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ivanvector, In ictu oculi and Curly Turkey. The above Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#Requested move 25 November 2016 did not succeed in moving the main header Doug Ford, Jr. → Doug Ford (politician). Would, however, support a move to Doug Ford (politician, born 1964) and his father's entry to Doug Ford (politician, born 1933). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

In November 2016, Ford was not leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. He was only a defeated mayoral candidate and former city councillor so I don't think the previous requested move is relevant. Nixon Now (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia practice is not to put birth years in an article title as a disambiguator. Nixon Now (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Roman and Ivan. It's not possible to displace Doug Ford Sr page to create a single politician page. Outback the koala (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

That is not the proposal. Someone else proposed Doug Ford (politician). The current proposal is Doug Ford. Nixon Now (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I understand that, yet let me be clear, I oppose moving this page as proposed as well as any other option suggested here so far, as none of them jive with our policies and guidelines at all. His name is his name, what more is there to discuss? Outback the koala (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

If that's your argument you should move Dalton McGuinty back to Dalton McGuinty, Jr.. Nixon Now (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Nixon Now: maybe Outback the kola supports that, but that's a different article that has nothing to do with what happens here. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per everything already listed. RoyalObserver (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I definitely grant that Mayor Crackhead's even less likable brother is a clear primary topic for Canadians, over and above even their dad — but Wikipedia is not optimized for the benefit of Canadians, but for the benefit of the entire world, and he has no special primary topic claim for American or German or British or French or Australian or South African or New Zealander readers. The current pageview gap between the politician and the golfer is driven entirely by his recent newsiness among Ontarians, and is not large enough to claim that he's permanently eclipsed the golfer to the world yet. If he wins the provincial election (God forbid, I beg thee), then we can revisit the stats after six months or so to determine if the pageview stats have changed enough — but just being selected as a party leader is not enough in and of itself to make him the permanent primary topic to the entire world for all time. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. No clear primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Nixon Now is absolutely correct about this. Ontario is the 17th largest economy in the world and given Subject's position as Leader of the current most popular political party...according to all polls...and Subject's ability to attract news articles as a politician, even if he were to not win the Ontario General Election I expect this move would need to be made sometime soon anyways, may as well do it now, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment Subject has had 96,000 views this month; yes, its likely to tail off after the General election, but still, imo, this Subject is already and, common sense (and public opinion polls) tells me, will remain the primary topic as far as the eye can see. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Positioning of hashish report

A blocked anon moved it from early life to political career and I think it seems to fit better there, once I looked at it. ? Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the alleged activity was in his youth. Looks like the anon was attempting to bury the paragraph. Nixon Now (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It makes sense to me to put it at the top of the business career section. We don't have a lot of info in the article about Ford's early life but could probably expand it, but as it is that allegation is dominating the section. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, as you observed, the IP is a sockpuppet of banned user Soulspinr and their opinions aren't important. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it dominates the early life section and any sort of highlighting of this content is contrary to what the RFC consensus is, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There was discussion in the RFC about what phrasing to use, not whether or not a header is merited. Given the amount of attention the allegations have received it's hard to see how a neutrally worded header isn't justified, particularly in light of attempts by anons who have failed to remove the material to, instead, bury the information in a lengthy section. Nixon Now (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the RFC clearly calls for no header or any other type of emphasis. Maybe I'm wrong, I'd like to know what others say. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A word search shows no mention whatsoever of headers or headings. Nixon Now (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's notable because of when it came up in his political career, besides not having been proven in a court of law (regardless of whether any of us believes it). Placing it it "Early life" violates WP:NPOV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)