Talk:Rob Ford/Archive 6

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Archive 6
• 7

How's that again?

Quoting article: "Ford spent $1,723,605.77 on his campaign, which exceeded the mayoral campaign spending limit of $1,305,066.65. This was not an infraction as the rules exclude a broad range of fundraising expenditures."

In other words, "he exceeded the limit but did not exceed the limit"  ??

If the $1.7M includes expenditures that are excluded by the rules, then please either reduce the $1.7M figure by removing the excluded expenditures or do not compare the $1.7M apple to the $1.3M orange.

Wanderer57 (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Good catch Wanderer. I agree. There are many other similarly confusing and self contradictory items in the BLP, imo, so perhaps you could be giving the entire article a copy editing audit so that when the protection is removed you can contribute similar improvements. May122013 (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Should be re-written and shortened. Should say that Ford was accused of over-spending by $400K, but the audit committee found it was only 40K, as fundraising expenses incurred by the campaign were not considered campaign expenses. TFD (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest as well that TorStar was backing George Smitherman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HochMeister (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The campaign spent 1.7 million. That's how much they spent. What's unclear about that? The sentence is trying to explain the situation where it was not an infraction. Alaney2k (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Alaney, I think what Wanderer is saying is that, in a literal sense, the 2 sentences stand in contradiction with each other.

Improvement suggestion: The 3rd. sentence in the paragraph says "Smitherman's campaign spent $2.2 million": I suggest we combine the 3 sentences and leave out the contradictory stuff, so it will read like this: "Ford spent $1,723,605.77 on his campaign while Smitherman's campaign spent $2.2 million. " May122013 (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It uses the word 'exceeded'. That means 1.7 was larger than 1.3 million. The sentence did not say the campaign illegally spent 1.7 million. At the time of writing, the amount of money allocated to fund-raising was not available. Hence the campaign audit to determine what it was. It's simply a case where the writing needs to reflect the final outcome more clearly. Just needs to be updated. Not a big deal. Alaney2k (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've copied the text over to the 2010 mayoral election article and done some editing there. Since it led to nothing about Ford directly, we could remove it from this article. Alaney2k (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

removal from the BLP is a good idea, I agree. May122013 (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Rob Ford Look-alike "doppelhanger" in Toronto (connected to video): National Post

[1] Ford Look alike reported. Its a good thing this article has been protected because now a bit of balance is being reported by RSs. Its shameful, imo, at how reckless and assumptive, news coverage has been of this event and some editors here at Wikipedia have been ready to disregard the very spirit of BLP policy by putting large quantities of content which all originated from an attempted illegal act (in Canada it would be "proceeds of crime" whether it was a real video or a fake one)) orchestrated by anonymous drug dealers. I hope that 1 or 2 of the editors who have been pushing for more content in Ford's BLP on this matter will join the rest of us and wait for this tale to develop further. Wikipedia is not a news bulletin, imo. I think it will be funny as hell if a couple of our local criminals tricked the entire media world into believing and repeating a vicious falsehood based upon 3 people ( with differing accounts) viewing a cell phone video in the back seat of a car. It will not be funny if this encyclopedia's consensus was dragged into that same level of non-verified, salacious and persecutory content. May122013 (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It says, "he and his friends briefly considered making a fraudulent crack video starring an acquaintance and Rob Ford lookalike nicknamed “Slurpy,” in an attempt to discredit the real thing." But policy requires us to use these sources. If you do not like that then you should work to change policy. Considering that Ford weighs 370 pounds and is white, it seems unlikely that another person who matches that description and looks like him, also hangs out with these people, and no one has noticed. TFD (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

May, please try to keep your clear and obvious personal biases out of this. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The 'lookalike' thing is honestly beyond the pale and doesn't belong in the article. I might add that the track record of 'lookalikes' is generally pretty dismal as far as being a "doppelhanger" (I believe the word is properly "doppelgänger" [though the typo is amusing]) and it might be meaningful if the reporters that broke the story weren't familiar with Ford and his mannerisms.  Natty10000 | Natter  14:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The reporter for the National Post , O'Toole, said "As O’Toole noted in her article, the claims added to the growing list of surreal developments in the Ford saga which make it difficult to know “what to believe and what to dismiss.” My point is that the BLP , because of the skepticism that is now increasing within Reliable Sources' articles, should not include anything about these cell phone video allegations until the story has more time to play out. May122013 (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That is why we report what newspapers say, not what we happen to believe. Incidentally, how do your comments today fit in your desire to add in birther and other conspiracy theories to Barak Obama articles? TFD (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope you get blocked for continually making ad hominem, beligerent misrepresentations of my past contributions. Please stop it. Anyone who wants to check my past edits can do it themselves. BTW, I received a tireless barnstar award for my positive contributions on that very subject[2]. Btw you misspelled Barack. May122013 (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on, May wouldn't want that. Wouldn't that stuff be non-verified, salacious and persecutory content? Alaney2k (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The reporter in the linked article is Josh Visser not Megan O'Toole. Also, in the O'Toole article is also the claims the source "has viewed the alleged video and believes it to be authentic; that he has seen other more innocuous footage of Mayor Ford “hanging out” in the neighbourhood; that Somali gang members who support the mayor are angry at the video’s sellers" [3]. Are we only to give credence to the "Slurpy" component? The "skepticism" thus far seems most cherishedly held by those with a pro-Ford axe to grind and not unbiased editors  Natty10000 | Natter  17:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I really care about how Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia would be effected if this turns out to be nothing more than a fraud ( selling a phony video made by drug dealers for $200,000). The headlines could say " Major newspapers tricked....even the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia". I don't think some of you have thought of that potential pitfall for us jumping in too soon with this content. Please read our BLP policy again and try to understand the spirit of it, as well as the language of it. May122013 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If it turns out be a hoax then we will add that but it does not invalidate any of the facts that are in the article. Star reports did write that they viewed a clip that they said appeared to show Ford. Gawker did say that they were offered a video. Also, while not in the article, the story did receive more substantial coverage and half Ford's staff have left. It is a fact that a man has been arrested for murder. If it is a hoax, then it will probably be more significant, not less. But it is not up to us to make predictions.

If you disagree with BLP policy, then get it changed. However I do not see how you can defend salacious details of unproved sexual assault allegations against the former president of the IMF, yet argue to delete allegations of the mayor using an illegal drug. TFD (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I really care about how Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia would be effected if this turns out to be nothing more than a fraud ( selling a phony video made by drug dealers for $200,000). The headlines could say " Major newspapers tricked....even the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia". I don't think some of you have thought of that potential pitfall for us jumping in too soon with this content. Please read our BLP policy again and try to understand the spirit of it, as well as the language of it. May122013 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is that the circumstances have moved far beyond the video itself. That said, thus far the video 'fakery' is one ridiculously unbelievable and unconvincing attempt by an Oshawa car painter who uses the unbelievability and unconvincingness of his attempt as 'proof' that professionals (Somali drug dealers who moonlight doing CGI) could do better and a 'thought better of it by some guy who might look like Rob Ford'. Hardly the quality of material to impugn 3 reporters who viewed a "well-lit" video on a high definition screen.  Natty10000 | Natter  18:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone not identified has removed my properly cited and referenced addition to the wiki regarding the impersonator ads. I cited the two ads, as well as the o.canada.com article relating to the 18 january 2012 ad. WHO removed the information and why??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????HochMeister (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Canada Listed is a classified ad space online and twice in 2012 ad were posted for a casting call for a Rob Ford look alike I would like the details of this posted to the Rob Ford page. I have the links to the ads, and to date despite the 3 media organizations contacted, they have yet to report on this verifiable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HochMeister (talk • contribs) 05:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about Ford. Are you advertising the classified ads service? That someone has posted an ad looking for a look-alike doesn't add anything notable to this article. I'm sure lots of other politicians have people working as a look-alike for them. Alaney2k (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

An online classified ad space is obviously not an RS, if HochMeister is implying the alleged crack-cocaine video was the result of a look-alike actor. HochMeister should also go review WP:Synth as well. HarryZilber (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Lede section clearly lacking

As per WP:LEDE: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects .... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

That has clearly not happened to this article's introduction. An additional paragraph should be added to the lede stating:

During his tenure as Mayor of Toronto, Ford has been the subject of a number of personal and work related controversies and legal proceedings. In 2013 he became the subject of unproven allegations of substance abuse which were widely reported in the national and international media.

The present lede only provides a very brief description of Ford's political office and his family's involvement in politics, which is clearly inconsistent with the section's stated purpose. A fuller lede summation of Mr. Ford's life is required. HarryZilber (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I note there is no mention of the word "sex" in Bill Clinton's lede but with George W. Bush it simply says : "he was a highly controversial figure". That might be appropriate for the lede here. May122013 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to update the Clinton and Bush articles to Wikipedia's standards. Or go change Wikpedia's LEDE requirement in the MOS if you don't like it. However merely saying that Ford is a "highly controversial figure" hardly satisfies the existing format. HarryZilber (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The article's lede has now been updated with the above paragraph. HarryZilber (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No consensus for this, Harry. I think it creates a NPOV issue when you put this in the lede. May122013 (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Neutral wording works just fine  Natty10000 | Natter  13:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it violates NPOV. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Nor do I. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This simple paragraph seems perfectly appropriate, and in fact the lede is incomplete without it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - It's a delicate task to write paragraphs like this. I think the wording is neutral. However I could see how you could argue that the second sentence may give undue prominence to the substance abuse. The final chapter or conclusion has not happened, so how important is this. We cannot exclude completely the possibility that a hoax has been perpetrated. Or it could be the thing that Ford becomes most notable for. I do think there should be no discontent over the first sentence. May, can you provide a suitable alternative to the second sentence here? Alaney2k (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Alaney; I think that what would be best would simply be "he is a highly controversial figure"; if that's good enough for George W. Bush I think its good enough for a mayor of Toronto; however, Alaney, I feel comfortable in leaving the wording up to you as I can see that you are truly trying to improve the BLP and manage it in a NPOV way. May122013 (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Getting to answer your question, I think the second sentence should be left out entirely at this point in time. It obviously, imo, should not be left so salacious as it currently is. May122013 (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

True. IMHO, whether or not it is a hoax, it's such a major story that has driven news coverage to the point that it deserves a lede mention. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing WP:LEDE as noted at the very top: "[ledes] summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." The lede is not creating anything new, but summarizing the article's important points, including prominent controversies. Since the prominent controversies (more than one) of substance abuse are occupying a significant proportion of the article, there's an explicit requirement they should be part of the lede. HarryZilber (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Casting call for Rob Ford Look-alike

A new attempted editor of the BLP, Hochmeister, tried to ad this to the BLP; I think at least 1 of the editors who removed it would have put it here on the talk page for discussion.

On 18 January 2012 Canada Listed an ad for a casting call for a Rob Ford look alike was posted. The only news reporting of this was by O Canada on 23 May 2013.

May122013 (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It can and should be discussed. The O Canada article author says "Although there’s a small chance the whole thing is an elaborate 18-month setup, it’s much more likely the ad is just an amusing coincidence." – Muboshgu (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like sock-puppetry at work. I don't see any point in adding it to the article. If the video appeared, I could see its relevance. Or if Ford discussed. But as Ford said, "there's no video". Alaney2k (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There have likely been a number of casting calls in the past for Barack Obama look-alikes as well, but that doesn't mean there's an imposter in the US White House who has replaced him. If there were a reliable published source which stated that Barack Obama has now been replaced by a look-alike, then that fact could be written into his WP article. Such a reliably sourced statement has not happened with Rob Ford, so similarly you can't state or imply that the current crack-cocaine controversy stems from a Rob Ford look-alike casting call. HarryZilber (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of minor details that have popped up around the crack story, and few have made it into the article. For example, the links between Ford and Anthony Smith, or the reports surrounding Ford's chief of staff and the internal turmoil of his office, Doug Ford's drug dealing reports, etc etc. If they don't warrant mention, then neither does this obscure piece of news. 72.208.60.225 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)--72.208.60.225 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't see anyone making a Loose Change kind of video on this one. Alaney2k (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard again (new)

I have put this in the BLP noticeboard again with the new information [4] - the prior discussion has been archived. I will likely not be editing this BLP much, if at all, in the future, but these serious matters about what, if any, of these anonymous sourced crack smoking cell phone video allegations as well as the overall BLP brought up by many other editors, need to be addressed. I think its shameful the way a new contributor, hochmeister, has been called a sockpuppet directly above and his 1 attempt at editing called "obfuscation". May122013 (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

May122013, this is your third BLP case on this subject. Each time you just bring up your blind original research speculation as to why sources are un-reliable and that the story is a "hoax" and each time nothing happens. As this point you're just being disruptive and it's getting really tiresome. --Oakshade (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Seconding Oakshade's assessment. The sundry reporters can't unsee what they reported seeing. Obviously, they were certain enough of what they saw to report it as such and run the risk of a massive defamation-of-character suit from a righteously angry Ford family if they were printing a tissue of lies. The absence of that suit speaks volumes. If you're in the Ford camp, it's emblematic of his overwhelming ability to forgive the media outlet he believes has it out for him. If you aren't in the Ford camp it suggests that where there's smoke, there's fire and even if this particular video never surfaces, something else of equal political harm will.  Natty10000 | Natter  16:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thirding. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Video "Gone"

"Gawker editor-in-chief John Cook says owner of alleged video wants to be left alone. After weeks of silence, Cook says the owner contacted the intermediary and that person reported back to Cook on Friday. “His message was: ‘It’s gone. Leave me alone.’ It was, the intermediary told me, a short conversation,” Cook wrote"[5]

I don't think BLP policy allows for any content related to this sordid, potentially libelous and likely fraud created by admitted drug dealers and implemented by a gossip website to remain in the Subject's BLP. May122013 (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Old news. It was already "gone." The allegations, the reports by John Cook and the Toronto Star reporters, not to mention the worldwide coverage of these allegations, didn't disappear. They will be there forever. There's nothing you can do about that. "BLP" are not magic letters you can use to summons the elimination of heavily sourced content just because it's unflattering to a subject you like. WP:BLP is to ensure the content is supported by reliable sources, even if that content is negative. Any of your allegations that editor John Cook, Gawker or the Toronto Star are committing "likely fraud" is your 100% original research and an actual violation of WP:BLP. Stop with the disruption, May122013. --Oakshade (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't the casting call ad for a Rob Ford look alike part of the page? It is verfiable. What concerns me as well is the lack of reporting by MSM on this issue despite my personal reporting of the facts to them over 10 days ago. Oh and Paul Erik, as a new user I don't understand your threats of blocking me for providing valuable and factual information. I just found you to be rude! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HochMeister (talk • contribs) 05:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The casting call is an absurdly tenuous link to the crack story. There are a lot of minor details that have popped up around the crack story, and few have made it into the article. For example, the links between Ford and Anthony Smith, or the reports surrounding Ford's chief of staff, Doug Ford's drug dealing reports, etc etc. If they don't warrant mention, then neither does this obscure piece of news. --72.208.60.225 (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

To whom it may concern....STOP removing the casting call ads for a Rob Ford look alike. You are not even stating a reason, and you have done so twice. Paul Erik removed it once. It was due to lack of proper citing of reference which I have sinced corrected. Whomever is responsible your IP is the only indication of your identity which is still far too anonymous to be of practicle use. Why are you deleting a valid addition? What are you trying to hide from the general public? You may want to rethink what you are doing...this entire issue is being monitored by interested parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HochMeister (talk • contribs) 09:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You have been given a reason, it has virtually nothing to do with this article, don't edit war please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Until you can demonstrate that the 'casting call' is directly relevant and not just being thrown in for speculative obfuscation, it will be removed. Other information with much more solid provenance is being withheld from the entry so why does this nugget of whatever belong?  Natty10000 | Natter  11:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This casting call is highly relevant....so much so the TPS Intel unit has asked for it. All the media now are asking for it. One media organization has reported it. Who made you folks the final deciders? OMG we are not partisan are we? Don't be so flippant with your confirmation bias.unsigned comment added by 204.237.25.252 (talk

204, learn to edit without messing-up others' comments. That said, at this point there's no evidence that it's relevant at all and if we're withholding multi-cited information of solid provenance from the entry, why does this speculative component trump when its relevance hasn't even been established?  Natty10000 | Natter  13:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why an article does not return to its previous level of protection, which in this case was indefinite semi-protection, when full protection expires. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

May, you have got to stop with your disruptive editing and refusing to follow any consensus. If this continues you will certainly find yourself banned. Show us where consensus was reached on removing a well-reported subject. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Avoid Gossip

In answer to the question above by Echoedmyron, the editors here, imo, need to read and think about this section of our BLP policy:[6]. especially "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself...... whether the material is being presented as true..... Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. This is not rocket science; just read the words in our policy and respect them. Consensus does not trump policy and when you include all of the editors who have been chased away from editing this BLP, there really is no consensus to include allegations of drug dealers that a 90 second non-verifiable cell phone video clip shows someone who resembles the subject smoking crack. Its absurd. May122013 (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't falling under that BLP policy. As has been said before, this isn't just a report about a video. Reporters have viewed the video and said it's Ford. Those reporters are not anonymous and not engaging in gossip. If you try any shit like this again, I will take you to WP:AN/I to see you get banned from editing this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What a nasty,dirty and threatening mouth you have. It'll be interesting to see how(if) your associates respond to what you just said. May122013 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't consider it a threat, consider it a promise. Your behavior here is unacceptable and we'll need to sort it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You should be blocked ASAP and then banned. There is not room on Wikipedia for bullies who make vicious threats with filthy language. May122013 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The language may be questionable, but threatening to have you banned from editing this page is hardly "vicious". Tone down the rhetoric. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The man from Gawker and the Toronto Star reporters are not drug dealers and we are not reporting that the person in the video was actually Ford, just that the people who saw it said it appeared to be him. And now the media is reporting having found the house where the picture of Ford and the video were supposedly taken. TFD (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Gawker and Star reporters reported what the anonymous drug dealers told them and showed them; so they attributed material to anonymous sources...read the policy carefully...word by word "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources'' May122013 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Three reporters saw the video. They reported what they saw. Then, the international media picked it up. It is that simple. This is becoming quite tiresome and one of the worst cases of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I have seen in ages. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not a newspaper. I challenge you to find any BLP on Wikipedia which includes any content about what reporters say they saw. May122013 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That, actually, is what reporters do, they report stuff they saw. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a great point, but reporting what you see from a natural disaster site is different from reporting what you see in the back seat of a car on a cellphone screen. Btw, if this issue is about what the reporters saw themselves, doesn't that make them a primary source rather than a secondary source? May122013 (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Star and Gawker are primary sources

I'm not well versed in the distinction, but in light of the discussion directly above, aren't the Star and Gawker primary sources and subject to the inclusion limitations thereof.

• policy"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[7] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. " May122013 (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I'd say that these 2 primary sources can not be used because they do not make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" and also what they claim can not be "verified by any educated person with access to the source" as the source is not accessible at all. May122013 (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, using primary sources

classifying sources "In some instances, the reason for identifying a text as the "primary source" may devolve from the fact that no copy of the original source material exists", now maybe it does exist or does not exist at this point in time. May122013 (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If these 2 sources are primary sources, why has that not been mentioned here before? Would it not have been helpful and relevant to the discussion? It would have been to me as the way primary sources are and can be used is different than secondary sources, according to the policy I've read this AM. Has this aspect been considered before in relation to this BLP's content? May122013 (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

They are reporting what they saw. Nobody is misusing anything. THere is a very strong consensus to keep this material here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You said that in the section above, this section is about whether Gawker and the Toronto Star are primary sources, not about consensus. May122013 (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The original source exists, the reporters' accounts of seeing the video. Move on seriously. This is so god damned tiring. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The video makers would be the primary source. All we have are secondary sources. If the video makers wrote such and such about their video, we would look for secondary sources. It's like Ford and his claims of $1 billion in savings. We need a report analyzing his claim to validate that. Alaney2k (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

New article

I have started a new article about the scandal, see Timeline of Rob Ford Video Scandal. TFD (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Probably should be Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal according to MOS guidelines, wot? Alaney2k (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I moved it. I think a timeline article is the best approach for now as it is an on-going story and hope it will stop this article from being overwhelmed by information about the scandal. TFD (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea ! Its important to give Gawker credit for breaking the story, I think. I have put the details on the talk page over there. May122013 (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops: I don't think it should be called "Rob Ford video scandal" as "scandal" is too salacious. I see the Toronto Star is calling it that but for Wikipedia I think Huffington Post's "Rob Ford 'Crack' Video Allegations" is better: also the word "crack" should likely be in the title so it doesn't get confused with being a sex video :) May122013 (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That was the first title that came to mind. See if we can think of any other titles and see what other editors think. TFD (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There as yet is no snappy nickname. I think if it was in the US, CNN would have named it something by now. :-> Alaney2k (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

3rd paragraph of lede

So here is the current text of the third paragraph of the lede:

During his tenure as Mayor of Toronto, Ford has been the subject of a number of personal and work related controversies and legal proceedings. In 2013 he became the subject of allegations of substance abuse which were widely reported in the national and international media.

Rather than duke it out in the article, why not register your opinions here? Support or oppose with reasons. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support The City Hall bureau chief of the Toronto Sun, which endorsed Ford for mayor, wrote under "Mayor Rob Ford's unforgettable legacy", 25 May 2013. "Ford has spent the last week entangled in that crack cocaine scandal - the biggest one to date to threaten his mayoralty but another in a long line of scandals that are more personal than political. And that plague of personal scandals will likely be what Ford’s legacy will be once his time in office is done...."[8] TFD (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per above. It is neutral and factually accurate, whether or not the allegations themselves are accurate. It's a big part of who he is, and can't be left out of the lede. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per TFD's rationale.  Natty10000 | Natter  19:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per TFD, and, it is, after all, in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Concise, accurate, and representative of the article itself. siafu (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support For all of the above. Clearly belongs there. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support I do think it is appropriate in the lead. I added Don Peat's cite to support the wording. Alaney2k (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I think its almost exactly the same as putting the unproven "Birther" allegations in the lede for Barack Obama, allegations which also gathered enormous RS attention. I suggest that this entry needs to be thought about rather than fought about. I am pretty sure it will not be supported in the lede by senior and less engaged ( in this BLP ) editors; although I could be wrong about that. May122013 (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is meant by "senior" editors? siafu (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Good question. A "senior" editor is one who is experienced enough to be capable of critical thinking. May122013 (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not the role of editors to provide critical thinking, which in this case would mean determining the validity of the claims. Articles are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No, your extension that critical thinking "would mean etc." is just another opinion; critical thinking is the opposite of soundbite opinions. Critical thinking in this case means reading the BLP policy and applying it to this BLP (see my recent edit here under video gone). — Preceding unsigned comment added by May122013 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Your link says critical thinking "is a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false." If you have not read that article you should not have linked to it. It is not the role of editors to decide whether claims are true or false, merely to report them. TFD (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a template for a "senior editor" award [9], note it has nothing to do with critical thinking, my definition (of Senior editor) would have been different. Ironically, TFD has employed a key ingredient of critical thinking by reading the article about it before responding. May122013 (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So basically this is a version of the No true Scotsman fallacy that also has the effect of being an insult to your fellow editors. Comments like these are not likely to win anyone over at all. Many of the editors commenting here have been working on wikipedia for years, and are as "senior" as they come-- at some point you simply have to accept that your view is the extreme minority, and while you are entitled to hold it and advocate it, you cannot simply dismiss the consensus. siafu (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm as democratic as anybody, but its reasonable when dealing with tricky/challenging situations to try to bring in the most experienced editors to have a look and add their guidance to the mix, I think, and the senior editor award must mean something otherwise it should not exist at all, common sense tells me.

• I still don't know what happens if/when there is a conflict between policy and consensus; but it does seem to me from what I see and hear here that consensus might trump policy. Interestingly I heard Obama say, in relation to the Snowden and the "national security" / 4th. amendment trade-off issue, that he (Obama) was hoping for a nationwide discussion on the trade-off to try to reach a "consensus"(his word). And how this relates to this BLP is that perhaps consensus is all we need talk about and aspire to; but I will say one thing; if consensus ruled in Alabama and Georgia in the 50s and 60s, there would have been no public school integration...at least not before the 70s....and that's a fact! Hopefully the polices of an entity, whether it be the U.S. Constitution, in the case of racial integration in the 50s/60sBrown v. Board of Education, or Wikipedia's BLP policy today, will somehow have an elevated focus that lies somewhere above the level of general consensus; i.e. something to strive for. That does not mean that my opinion about our BLP policies' proper application in this matter is correct, but I do not think consensus should be held in as high regard as it is. High regard; yes. As high regard; not in my opinion. May122013 (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Editors are following policy and repeatedly explained to you how you are misinterpreting it. When newspapers give ongoing extensive coverage to an event, then we are supposed to report it. If you think that articles should not mention accusations until proven in court, then you should get the policy changed. However you have in the past been more than happy to include accusations against the former president of the IMF and the president of the United States. Also, while consensus may be wrong, if you have a better way of deciding what to include, then present it to the policy pages. TFD (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I think you are obviously wrong when you say that "we are supposed to report it". That's what Wikinews is for. We are not reporters; we are editors. Its a lot more challenging to edit in accordance with a broad array of policies than it is to report what some one else has already reported. This is more a matter of reading and accepting Wikipedia policy than it is a matter of interpretation. Let's have a look right now; I'm going to italicize the parts where I think this BLP is walking on thin ice:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV)....

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.....

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment....May122013 (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

When a large number of reliable sources, AKA newspapers, report on a person, that's what makes the person notable to Wikipedia. It makes the event notable too. But if it is a single off, then it's not notable. To translate the Wiki speak, if it's notable, it means we add it, if it doesn't pass the notable test, we leave it out. I don't think the word 'must' is exactly right, but I think 'should' applies. If a large number of reliable sources report something, we should include it. Readers will expect to see a mention. Alaney2k (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Alaney2k. Your comments make sense. I think that this particular BLP has been especially difficult to edit in a reasonable way, for years; largely because of the behaviour of the Subject; and in Toronto, and even Canada, I have never seen such extreme division of opinion among people ( our readers ) about any politician. Nor have I ever seen our local newspapers get so engaged in any stories as they are in this current one as well as the prior COI story. This is why I suppose I feel that its an exceptional opportunity for an encyclopedia, i.e. Wikipdeia, to see how best to apply our BLP policy in a way that does far more than report what others report. In other words, I see this as a tremendous opportunity for thoughtful and careful application of our BLP policy to establish a BLP that could even reach Wikipedia:Featured articles status...that would be quite an accomplishment by the editors here I think. I realize some/many of my discussion points may be off-base or irrelevant, and I will try to better understand all of the dynamics invloved in improving any article or BLP. May122013 (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As you say, the newspapers cover Ford differently. If they are wrong, then you need to take it up with them. Someone reading an article in Wikipedia about Ford should find what they would learn by reading through numerous newspaper articles about him. That is the policy and if you disagree with it then get it changed and stop arguing about how unfair you find it. TFD (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

TFD, your 1st. sentence: I agree. your second sentence: "wrong" is the wrong word and I'm not taking up anything with any newspapers, I'm just editing them. your 3rd sentence: I disagree; they still have library newspaper racks for that (I think). your 4th sentence: strange and combative non sequitur. I'm certainly not arguing now, just trying to communicate, and I never apply the words fair or unfair as I don't believe those words have any true meaning whatsoever. May122013 (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)  Natty10000 | Natter  13:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Much of the commentary from newspapers and broadcasters from across the political spectrum is very much along the lines of what TFD has quoted above from the Toronto Sun. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Paul, In terms of how important this will be in regards to Ford's Legacy, I think the key mistake you, and TFD and the Toronto Sun may be making is in respect to "Ford has spent the last week...". We are really looking at a short time span in relation to Ford's long political history...how many years...and counting???. I do not think you or the Sun, or TFD have a crystal ball. Also, Ford told a reporter back when he was a long shot for mayor, that he intended to become Prime Minister of Canada ! Of course the reporter's network anchors ( I forget which one, but I did see it) scoffed at his bravado because at that time, it was a joke that he was running for mayor. Look, This guy's got something; I can't describe it, but for every person in Toronto who laughs at him, there's another one who will vote for him. Its a well proven error in judgment to underestimate Rob Ford. But, if you and the other editors wish to put this silly anonymous and unverified drug dealers' sourced allegations in the lede, go ahead. I don't know if my dedication to the credibility of Wikipedia will allow me to leave it there or not. May122013 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The Sun says Ford's mayoralty been "a long line of scandals". The latest one is "the biggest scandal to date." No crystal ball is required to say that. WP:CRYSTAL btw says, "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included...." Obviously The Sun's City Hall bureau chief is an expert. Funny btw that you worry about the "credibility of Wikipedia", yet think that the Canada Free Press is a reliable source. TFD (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support It's appropriate and keeping within wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.60.225 (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

COI section finished

Since this event is over, and notwithstanding Collect's efforts to reduce its size, it needs to have some NPOV added by including the Subject's response to the finbal dispensation of it. I also think it should be trimmed by certainly more than half in terms of words and details....that seems obvious to me; especially since the Subject has been judicially cleared of the charges which were petty, imo, in the first place May122013 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that the section be moved into a new article and the events re-written to summarize what happened. I do not think it makes a section POV because we do not have the subject's response to what a judge said. TFD (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Would another 'Timeline of' type article be appropriate? What do you think? Alaney2k (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you can characterize the charges as petty, but I know what you mean. It was a case of some people trying to use the law to get rid of Ford on a 'technical violation' really. The issue of writing to lobbyists was an especially sensitive one in Toronto due to the MFP scandal during Lastman days. It was in the article because Ford would have been the first Toronto mayor removed from office. And of course a trial itself that removes a mayor from office is notable in this instance. If people don't feel the new article would not simply be a fork, I would have no objection. We could summarize the trial here in a much smaller form and the new article have the stuff that Collect removed and Ford's final quote. Secondly, I don't think Ford's last quote should stay 'as-is' if the article here stays 'as-is'. We can't remove all the other quotes, as Collect did, and add Ford's conclusion. You could -describe- his statement, but not as a full quote. Summary style or full style; don't mix. May, you argued for summary style/cutting back the size of the section; so you shouldn't add the full quote. Alaney2k (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Collect's trim is a definite improvement and certainly should not be reversed, imo, and I do not think it warrants an additional article. What about just a rewording to show that the Subject was the final victor in the event? Just to say the Supreme Court "declined" to hear it does not put the kind of "period" on the matter that I think it needs. May122013 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The lack of a "period" is what keeps it NPOV.  Natty10000 | Natter  20:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I mean by period that the COI accusations are over; nothing to do with npov on that point. May122013 (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and created Rob Ford conflict of interest trial. Since it raised questions about the conflict of interest law, I think it can stand on its own and be encyclopedic. It was also notable on its own. It is also a relevant link for several articles. We should add more information on the trial and issues, but I put in most of Ford's statement from yesterday . Alaney2k (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The case itself is important because of the legal issues raised. Part of it remains important to the Ford article, just as Clinton's impeachment remains important to his. TFD (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There is certainly a lot of work that went into the new article and kudos for that. However, out of curiosity I just had a look at Hazel McCallion's BLP as her COI was dealt with a few days ago and I found only 3 lines included in her Political career section. I am baffled at how much attention and space this COI re: Rob Ford has garnered. I am willing to just accept the situation as being something I just simply do not understand, but if either of you can explain to me what it is about this Subject that attracts so much attention and space, I'd be very interested in trying to understand it. May122013 (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hazel has been mayor for 35 years and her COI cases are only a small part. Also, Ford's testimony in his case made the story much bigger than it otherwise would have been, which btw is similar to the video story. TFD (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This BLP needs a NPOV tag

I think this recent editing with regard to the COI, unfortunately and without intent, is a good example of how this BLP is not neutral at all. I am not going to put the tag or change any edits because I fear one of the regular editors here would take me to the Administrators' Notice Board again. But since I AGF and do not think this NPOV issue is by intent, I will show what I mean. Collect trimmed the COI section. When TFD and Alaney suggested reinstating what Collect removed in a new article, I was definitely opposed to that, Yet Alaney did it anyway, without reaching a consensus, and, of course,I can not do anything about it.

• Here is what I mean by NPOV. The source being used for the final decision by the Supreme Court of Canada has the headline "Rob Ford wins: Supreme Court of Canada rejects appeal request"[10], a definite reference to Ford "winning" this issue and the appeal being "rejected", yet our sentence says "declined", a much more muted description, and I was not allowed to make it more representative of the contents of the surce article. May122013 (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You can always propose the new article for deletion. Or you could edit it, hopefully in a collaborative way. I don't mean to be negative, but the extent of your involvement seems to be debating on the talk page. Anyway, to the point: When you make an application to the Supreme Court, either they hear your application or decline to hear it. That's the proper terminology. So, Ford didn't "win" that. There is no indication that Ford or his lawyers were involved at all. In the new article, I put the relevant comments Ford made about the case into the article. Doesn't that cover your point to put a 'period' on it? I do intend to put some info from the news about Magder and the others who drove the case, because Ford referenced them in his comments. Alaney2k (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in a factual way that the Supreme Court either hears it or declines to hear it; but that's not the thrust of what the source said; so I think, to be consistent with the thinking that we are supposed to reflect the source articles, that this would be an opportunity to provide a bit more NPOV balance by phrasing the outcome as a victory by the Subject, just as the Toronto Star did and that should be done on the Subject's main page, I think, since its so full of negative stuff about the Subject. I'm afraid any attempt by me to edit the articles could be used in a fresh accusation of edit warring. If the other 3 regulars, TFD, Muboshgu , and Natty would espress an acceptance of me editing collaboratively, then I'll definitely give it a go. May122013 (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It ain't broke in the text; why're you proposing to fix it? It's neutral now and what you're proposing is modifying it in a manner that would take it away from "factual". Had the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal and Ford prevailed at that point, then I'd agree that the word "win" would be an accurate representation of circumstances. However, the reality is a more passive one and while the Star summarised the circumstances as a "win" for the purposes of the headline, the more accurate description of the process is as described. Why not use this other citation from the Star so we get away from this win/lose situation? "Supreme Court declines to take on Rob Ford appeal case"[11]  Natty10000 | Natter  15:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the wording currently. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I started reading the BLP carefully and only got a third of the way through the main article and found the content below which is, quite frankly, a pile of mundane, non notable junk mostly painting a negative profile of the Subject. I'm not the only one who has this view. A review of the talk page archives shows that literally half the editors who have ventured into this BLP have found it to be full of tabloid type content unworthy of an encyclopedia.

• I suggest these 9 sentences below be removed: that will be a good start:

• From the lede "conflict of interest trial that nearly removed him from office" not suitable for the lede "nearly" is obviously biased and OR

Leave it in: It's a notable component of his political career and is 'NOT' biased despite your characterisation of it as such  Natty10000 | Natter  11:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep or rewrite It was a prominent part of his mayoralty. He was the first Toronto mayor to be convicted of COI. Alaney2k (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ford made the football squad, but did not play in any games

It can go if the other references to his football dreams are removed. Otherwise, removing just that pushes the entry towards puff piece.  Natty10000 | Natter  11:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep I think Ford would have liked to have played as he want to play pro. I think it fuels his interest in coaching. Alaney2k (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ford left Carleton after one year to return to Toronto and did not complete his degree

Leave it in: In the context of the paragraph it's in, to remove it would be to suggest by omission that he completed his poli sci degree which clearly he did not.  Natty10000 | Natter  11:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep Trying to provide a picture of him outside of his political comments. Alaney2k (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• His fund-raising for the football foundation on city letterhead led to his being sued for conflict of interest. more references to a petty COI accusation that was dismissed in court

Leave it in: I'm not sure about your judgement on such matters but to have been

a) charged and convicted of COI

b) had that conviction stayed at Appeals level court and

c) had the supreme court of the country decide whether it would ultimately hear the issue hardly qualifies the issue as "petty" in the world view of most people.  Natty10000 | Natter  11:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite - Could be re-written. 'Led' might not be the right word. Alaney2k (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ford has had various health issues, including asthma and kidney stones. He was hospitalized twice in 2012, once for kidney stones [15] and once for stomach and throat “irritation” that aggravated his asthma.[16]

Leave it in: Unless you think it isn't factual  Natty10000 | Natter  11:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep or remove - at this point his health is not a primary topic. Alaney2k (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ford extended his exchanges outside the chamber with columnist John Barber of The Globe and Mail: "I am not a racist. Anyone who calls me a racist is going to face the consequences!" to which Barber replied "You are a racist."[32]

Leave it in: It's factual, neutral and serves as an additional example of his character. In fact, if anything perhaps it should be fleshed-out to include what ever consequences Barber actually faced.  Natty10000 | Natter  11:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep - I think that Ford was especially combative with Barber. Barber is no longer writing on City Hall. I did not find consequences or any sort of follow-up. So I'm neutral at this point. Alaney2k (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• After then Mayor David Miller pointed out that women are the largest growing demographic of people contracting AIDS, Ford responded that it must mean 'they are sleeping with bi-sexual men'.[36]

Leave it in: It's factual, neutral and serves as an additional example of his character. You may not like that he said it but a dispationate overview of the man requires a warts-and-all viewpoint.  Natty10000 | Natter  11:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is relevant to a topic that is not well-covered, and that is the antagonism between him and the LGBT community. I cannot recall the last mayor in Toronto who was openly antagonistic, so he is notable in that way. Alaney2k (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• On May 25, 2009, Ford said, "It's no secret, okay. The cyclists are a pain in the ass to the motorists."[

Leave it in: It's factual, neutral and serves as an additional example of his character. You may not like that he said it but a dispationate overview of the man requires a warts-and-all viewpoint.  Natty10000 | Natter  11:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep - I think it is balanced with the Sherbourne lanes. Alaney2k (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Cherry added "Put that in your pipe you left-wing kooks" and "I’m wearing pinko for all the pinkos out there that ride bicycles and everything, I thought I’d get it in." Comments not even made by the Subject...guilt by association inference.

Leave it in: It's factual and neutral. Comments made by his own choice of person to introduce him, a man known previously for comments of the type. You may not like that he chose Cherry to introduce him but a dispationate overview of the man requires a warts-and-all viewpoint.  Natty10000 | Natter  11:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what is wrong. It's a bit of colour. I don't think Ford himself would object. Makes me think of writing Ford to ask for his opinion. He is accessible. Alaney2k (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I remove these 9 sentences? May122013 (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Some of it could be re-written but the issues seem to be important. His academic achievements, school football, inviting Don Cherry, attitudes toward bicycles, physical health, etc., are relevant to who he is. TFD (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I do for the reasons detailed above.

As ever, I don't believe the article is finished. As the writer of most of these sentences, I would like to see them continue to be present. But, as I've said, I generally add first, then cut, or edit or rewrite. Some of them are incomplete at present. However, I'm not sure of the disagreement over them. Ford himself has referred to himself and his comments as 'his style'. I am completely openly to rewrite. I don't expect to recognize my own biases as well as others would. But then I would expect to be given the opportunity to recognize biases opposite to my own. Alaney2k (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm feeling a bit foolish about how I've behaved ( so pushy) re: this BLP. I can see now that there are good faith reasons for it being the way it is. May122013 (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)