Jump to content

Talk:Doug Ford/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Antisemitic comment by brother

Curly Turkey inserted the following commented out comment/request. "What alleged antisemitic comments? This comes utterly out of nowhere." According to the Toronto Star "Rob Ford was recorded using the word ‘k- -e’ to describe Jews while apparently intoxicated in March. Doug Ford first attempted to avoid the issue, then listed various Jewish people in his life."[1] I inserted this information into the article, as requested by Curly Turkey, however Nocturnal Now reverted the insertion and reinserted the original comment and request - ie he readded a request for Rob Ford's antisemitic comment to be added after removing the antisemitic comment! Nixon Now (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Total bull...the whole episode was nothing important enough for this Subject's BLP, and everybody can see that, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree it probably shouldn't be there in the first place—but if it is, it needs clarification. The comment jumps out of absolutely nowhere—like a desparate attempt to smear the Fords. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The point is, Doug Ford was asked about an antisemitic comment Rob Ford made (on tape) and he gave a bizarre, tone deaf response. I didn't add the original reference to the article. Turkey asked what the comment was and the context and I found a better reference that answered his question. Nixon Now (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
You need to read WP:WEIGHT. Even if this bit isn't WP:UNDUE (which it almost certainly is), it was presented abruptly and context-free—utterly baffling to the reader. You're pushing a very anti-Ford agenda here, Nixon Now, with your highlighting of the hashish thing and now pushing to include this totally undue antisemitism thing (which is overlong either way—why such a long quote? Why a quote at all?). We get it—you don't like ford (neither do many of the rest of us), but Wikipedia is not the place for your POV-pushing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not pushing anything. Please stop trying to personalise things. I did not add the reference to anti-Semitism, it was already in the article. I simply added the clarification in response to your inline request. Nixon Now (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
After accusing me of "attempting to bury" the hashish bit, you're demanding others to "stop trying to personalise things"? Let's see you retract your comments first. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, so this is a tit for tat thing then, I understand. You asked what Rob Ford's antisemitic comment was. I'm sorry you didn't like the answer but don't shoot the messenger. Nixon Now (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Nixon Now: The only "tit for tat" is you spazzing out over opposition to your butchering of the "Municipal politics" section. Why do you refuse to retract your "attempting to bury" comment? If you're acting in good faith and all, it should be a trivial thing to do. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I said it appears to be buried because that is the effect. Whether or not that is your intention is irrelevant. I'm not speaking of your motives, simply of the outcome. I was mistaken in assuming you had previously opposed inclusion of the drug material in the article and I apologise for that. Regardless, you asked ""What alleged antisemitic comments?" and I found a source and provided the answer and for that I've been accused of all sorts of things. Nixon Now (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLP: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" (shortcut:WP:WELLKNOWN) There are now four sources cited to demonstrate that this incident meets the above criteria. I can add several more sources if you wish.Nixon Now (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Please read WP:HATRACK. We do not include simply everything that we can find a source for. This text comes out of absolutely nowhere. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, you are mistaken. The hashish allegations were in the article from the very beginning of the RFC until now. Nixon Now (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I took it out again. It is obviously WP:HATRACK and UNDUE. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The question being posed is, essentially, do you agree with your brother's racist comments? Which to me is a perfectly fair thing to ask a candidate for office, and the answer is important as that person will be expected to represent all of their constituents, including the Jewish ones. Doug's response of, essentially, I'm not a racist because I go to Jewish people for some services, seems very out-of-touch today. So let me throw my hat in the ring as agreeing the content should remain, though it might stand to be pared back slightly. tubedogg (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
So let's toss WP:HATRACK and turn this whole article into an unreadably long list of rambling Doug Ford quotes. The man is extensively covered in big-name media—it will not be hard to find a mountain of quotes to skew the article any way you choose. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I said earlier it could possibly stand to be pared down. I'm not suggesting an incoherent list of Ford quotes. I'm suggesting we keep a bit about specific, especially controversial remarks that touch on a very hot-button issue in politics. To me, that makes it (per WP:BLP) "noteworthy, relevant," and as we've established, well documented. tubedogg (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This seems like guilt by association to me. If Rob Ford said something stupid when he was drunk or on drugs, that belongs in the Rob Ford page, not the Doug Ford page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.231.184 (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Struck comments of banned user

We can debate whether it is undue but it is certainly not guilt by association. This is about comments made by Doug Ford himself for which he drew criticism from John Tory and audience members at a public debate. The incident was reported in the media independent of the Rob Ford video. ―StvnW talk 16:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether Rob Ford said something stupid. It's the response of his brother when asked about it. Listing the Jewish people he knows seems a rather dumb way to respond. That said, he eventually got around to saying that his family has "the utmost respect for the Jewish community," so he did redeem himself somewhat. It's like if you asked him, "Your brother used to take drugs. Do you plan to take drugs while in office?" and his response was, "I know plenty of people who don't use drugs." That's great, but it doesn't in any way answer the question. The question being posed is, essentially, do you agree with your brother's racist comments? Which to me is a perfectly fair thing to ask a candidate for office. tubedogg (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Right. Keep – This brief passage covers a part of his campaign that got a lot of news coverage; no reason to omit. Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
What has Ford uttered that hasn't had a lot of news coverage? He's a very public figure. Again, please see WP:HATRACK. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Doug Ford's response attracted attention in secondary sources because it reinforced stereotypes of Jews as lawyers. Whatever he meant by it, it was not a clever thing to say. Some politicians - Hugo Chavez, Donald Trump, and Tony Abbot for example - were well-known for controversial statements. TFD (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
It should definitely not go in without consensus. If anyone feels so strongly that it should go in soon, then please take it to the Blp noticeboard. I think it is a biased smear on its face, UNDUE, and WP:HATRACK. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we need to take this to the Blp Noticeboard, some of the newer editors here do not seem to realize this content was dramatically embellished a few days ago by the same editor who has also been pushing exaggerating the hashish reference, without anything close to consensus on either. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
How could it possibly be a smear to quote the man's own words, in context? See smear campaign: "Smear tactics differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question ... Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies." The article reports what was asked, the context for the question, and his answer, and is focused on a clear issue that is very relevant in politics - racism. At least some significant portion of the population would consider whether Doug agrees with his brother's racist comments to be extremely relevant to whether they would support him for political office. I can see differences of opinion on whether it should be in the article at all, but unless you are stating that he didn't say what he is quoted as saying, or the proposed text has somehow taken it out of context, painting this as a smear is absurd. tubedogg (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You make a good point about some of the content but this part I think is a smear: "His comments resulted in boos and laughter from the audience. Ford's campaign got the attention of Last Week Tonight's John Oliver who closed an episode begging Torontonians to vote for Doug Ford for the world's amusement.". But leaving aside the "smear" terminology. do you think the part I just put in italics belongs in the Blp? Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The John Oliver sentence belongs, though not necessarily as a direct followup to the antisemitism issue. It shows that he was more widely mocked than just within Toronto media, or even just within Ontario or Canada. I think the initial sentence should be contextualized more by stating that the comments were made at a debate hosted by a Jewish group, therefore letting the reader draw their own conclusions on whether the crowd would be more likely to boo someone mishandling a response to his brother's use of a Jewish slur. See my response to Curly Turkey below with suggested rewording. tubedogg (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Neither of those two things is a smear. You do not "smear" someone by saying the audience laughed or booed at their comments or that a satirist made fun of them. Nixon Now (talk)
Tubedogg: first, you need to carefully read both WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. Then, you need to demonstrate how:
  • out of the vast amount of information reported on Ford, this comment carries sufficient WP:WEIGHT to warrant mention. Having a source is necessary, but not sufficient basis on which to include any information in the article.
  • the wording and presentation is balanced and WP:NPOV ("but it's his own words!" doesn't cut it, so cut that out already).
  • the placement of the text is appropriate and properly contextualized.
There are quite a few editors here who dislike Ford and want his article to paint him in a bad light, whether by omission, or by inclusion of certain "facts", especially presented in a particular light. This is an encyclopaedia, and WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NPOV are official policy. If that doesn't satisfy you, then there are plenty other outlets on the internet for you to push your POV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, my POV is that this specific information belongs in the article because of its noteworthiness within the context of policy. I don't care specifically about Doug Ford one way or the other. I'm not Canadian, and I have zero interest in whether he succeeds or fails in whatever it is that he's running for or just ran for. I can't speak for NixonNow but I, personally, am not pushing any POV about the subject of the article.
  • The fact that a comedian in another country with a nationally-televised program, who has more than enough political fodder in his own country to work with, felt it was worth a mention in a short segment about Ford only emphasizes the weight of these particular comments. Ford's opponent, John Tory, also released a statement specifically condemning Doug's comments. Ford was still clarifying his comments over the next few days. It wasn't a quote that was buried in an article somewhere, or mentioned offhandedly to fill space. It was in the headline in stories about the debate, which a debate is, in itself, a noteworthy event during a campaign.
  • The wording and presentation is mostly NPOV. ("It's his own words" was a specific response to the statement that reporting a person's own words in context is somehow a smear, so cut out trying to do your own job of taking things out of context.) I would rewrite it as this:
During a mayoral debate held by the United Jewish Appeal Federation of Greater Toronto and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, Doug Ford's opponent Ari Goldkind responded to a question about Jewish safety by mentioning Rob Ford's use of an antisemitic slur while intoxicated. Doug initially said he wasn't going to address it directly, stating: "You know something? My doctor — my Jewish doctor, my Jewish dentist, my Jewish lawyer — hold on, my Jewish accountant." Amidst booing and laughter, he continued, "Our family has the utmost respect for the Jewish community". The following day, during a radio appearance, he commented, "I said in the public numerous times his [Rob Ford] comments were unacceptable and inexcusable." (source for the last quote)
  • The placement of the text is within the section discussing his 2014 mayoral candicacy, which is when the comments were made. The changes above contextualize it within the campaign.
Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, this "incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented," and therefore "it belongs in the article". tubedogg (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Tubedogg: You really didn't answer my first point at all, did you? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that NixonNow is pushing an anti-Ford POV. He keeps trying to remove Jagmeet Singh's response to Ford during the Blind Date (because it is positive), and replace it by John Oliver's opinion (because it is negative). Jagmeet Singh actually met Ford and spent a day with him. John Oliver never even met Ford. Surely the federal leader of the NDP is more noteworthy to a Canadian political WP page than some American talk show host. Sadly, NixonNow only wants to pile on the negative, and gut out the positive regardless of encyclopedic value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.231.184 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Struck comments of banned user

See the discussion elsewhere on this talk page re the John Oliver piece and why it is notable. As for Blind Date, I'm sorry but not only is it banal and trivial and the show low-rated but the passage you wish to add is full of peacock language. Nixon Now (talk)
  • In the way that it was originally added, I agree that the coverage of the "Jewish" incident is out of place, it's really about Rob, and it's highlighting one negative incident in a summary discussion. However, we are still maintaining a discussion of Ford's disputed claim to Jewish heritage in the personal life section, which as I recall came directly out of this. We could somehow connect the two incidents in the article, but I don't have a suggestion at the moment.
As for Last Week Tonight, coverage of a Canadian city councillor by American A-list comedians seems noteworthy, particularly if regional public TV's Political Blind Date is. It all needs to be balanced, though, and we need more details on Doug's mayoral campaign in general before we start itemizing these things, so at the moment I'm in favour of exclusion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The Comedian had a very infinitesimal amount of his show devoted to Ford whereas the Canadian show was focused on Ford (and Singh), so that's why I think the Oliver nastiness should be excluded and the Political Blind Date show, which had no bias, is worthwhile. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Added at BLP noticeboard

ok, so I've added this issue to the Blp noticeboard. I also clarified the topic heading to make it clear the topic is about Subject's brother's singular comment (while intoxicated, according to the source). Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

the comments at the noticeboard are worth reading, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Timeline/placement

I wasn't really following these events when they happened, I had tuned out the Fords by this point in the 2014 election, so I had to go back to check some of my assumptions that I stated above. In a debate put on by two Jewish organizations, darkhorse candidate Ari Goldkind brought up comments made by Doug's brother Rob during a drunken bender in March of that year, which the Star had published from a recorded phone call in May. Doug leapt to his brother's defense at the debate with some tone-deaf comments of his own. Several outlets covered the incident on Oct. 5, 2014 ([2], [3], [4]). On Oct. 6 Doug defended his own comments by explaining that his wife, Karla, is Jewish ([5], [6]). On Oct. 7, the Star published a report casting doubt on that claim, in which Bernie Farber (at the time CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress) called the claim "disingenuous". Over about the next week there was a trickle of coverage; Karla supposedly did two television interviews elaborating on the details which was summarized by Huffington Post on Oct. 16. After that it seems to have basically never been brought up again by any mainstream news sources. The Star mentioned it a bit in passing in coverage of Doug's book release in Sept. 2016 ([7]) but that's really it. This is the sort of flash-in-the-pan sensational news cycle stuff that we should not include.

Doug's claim made it into the article here on Oct. 28 ([8]), and the Star's refutation was added on Nov. 4 ([9]). A year later it had been edited to state factually that the claim was a lie, and I removed most of it. It's been basically stable since then. But should it be in there at all? I don't think it's really harmful, but is the subject's partner's great-grandmother maybe practicing Judaism really relevant to this article when it's had basically no impact on the subject's life, outside this one not-really-notable controversy? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

My understanding was that Ford's wife's family was actually Russian Orthodox 100 years ago and Ford and/or his wife confused Russian Orthodoxy with Jewish Orthodoxy. Ignorant, but not antisemitic. Nixon Now (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Ivan...nothing notable, per Huff Post, his wife said; "I don’t practice Judaism. I never have," she said. "And as far as I know maybe my great-grandmother she did. But it was always kept hush hush. We feared persecution." So, maybe its just much ado about nothing. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

criticism for alleged bigotry, such as misogyny and anti-Semitism

@Curly Turkey:, with respect, I can not access the source and I have not heard of the misogyny before nor that Doug(as opposed to Rob) has been accused of anti-Semitism. Could you please paste the section of your source which relates to these 3 accusations? Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think either that it is a relevant source. It's about strategic voting for John Tory to stop Rob Ford. TFD (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
TFD: I don't understand this comment. Tory ran against Doug—Rob was busy dying. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot that Rob replaced Doug in the election. Rob was actually a candidate until his illness caused him to drop out. TFD (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
By removing the details of Ford's remarks about Jews, CT has created text that leaves the impression that the comments were worse than they were. The comments about Jews were not "bigoted" as CT's wording asserts, but ignorant, which is not the same thing. Nixon Now (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to add the URLs to the sources (I've added them to the article now). From "Voting 'Ford' or Against: Understanding Strategic Voting in the 2014 Toronto Municipal Election":
"Rob's older brother Doug Ford stepped in to represent the Ford family brand in the mayoral race. Doug's career has also been controversial, and he faced stiff criticism during the campaign for public comments laced with bigotry, including charges of misogyny and anti-Semitism (Dale, 2014; Dale and Pagliaro, 2014). He also faced his own allegations of conflict of interest and narcotics dealing in his youth (Doolittle and McArthur, 2014)."
From "Voters Who Abstain: Explaining Abstention and Ballot Roll-Off in the 2014 Toronto Municipal Election" (which I haven't added to the article yet):
"Doug was previously a municipal councillor, and was himself controversial and polarizing. He faced stiff criticism during the campaign for public comments laced with bigotry, including charges of misogyny and anti-Semitism, as well as allegations of conflict of interest and narcotics dealing in his youth (Dale 2014; Dale and Pagliaro 2014; Doolittle and McArthur 2014)." (p. 19)
Both Social Science Quarterly and Urban Affairs Review are peer-reviewed journals, which Wikipedia generally prefers over newspaper reporting; both were also written 3–4 years after the fact, after the dust had settled. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Both sources also have extensive bibliographies that might be useful hunting through. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for supplying the details here, CT. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The folliwing sentence needs to be removed immediately: "Comments Ford made during the campaign received criticism for alleged bigotry, such as misogyny and antisemitism, and critics accused him of conflict of interest and of drug dealing in the past." Its only source does accuse 'ROB FORD' of misogyny, conflicts of interest, drunkenness, anti-semetism, etc. However, this source does 'NOT' accuse 'DOUG FORD' of these things. Regardless, this accusation is the opinion of the university student who wrote this thesis dissertation, and should not be presented as fact IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.24 (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I've already quoted the sources above, which make it clear the subject is Doug, not Rob. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

John Oliver Obscenity source

The John Oliver source quotes John Oliver thus: “Sure, his brother was fun, but at a certain point we felt bad laughing at him, whereas Doug Ford doesn’t have a drug problem. He’s just an a*****e— a non-chemically-assisted a*****e. So please, Toronto, I beg you — Let us laugh at your a*****e for another four years.” The actual linked monologue uses worse language, and I quote "Siblings like to jack off each other..beat off each other.....make each other come". Isn't the inclusion of this source a violation of BLP policy and UNDUE ? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of it wouldn't be a violation of UNDUE. That would depend on how much space was given to it and whether or not it was in the lede (and also whether it was a minority theory being given undue emphasis versus a widely accepted hegemonic theory - eg an article on vaccination that that gives a lot of space to anti-vaxx arguments, which is really what UNDUE is meant to address). Please look at WP:UNDUE and if you think there's a violation then quote the relevant part of WP:UNDUE to support your point. Reading it, I don't see how UNDUE is at all relevant here. As for BLP, the quote you mention is not actually included in our article. Also, the fact that the John Oliver piece is still being referred to several years later, for instance in this 2018 National Post article[10] which was written four years after the John Oliver commentary aired, is evidence against either UNDUE or BLP being violated. Nixon Now (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
"Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)....Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." So, I think only a tiny minority, perhaps of Oliver and a few of his audience , wanted Ford to be elected "for the world's amusement". So, yes, any mention at all of some obscene comedy skit is UNDUE. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
"Views that are held by a tiny minority" refers to theories such as conspiracy theories or other minority or fringe theories. Oliver is not propounding a theory, minority or otherwise. His comments are not in regard to some sort of historic or scientific debate, it's a comedy monologue that's been widely quoted. You're misapplying UNDUE. But even if you weren't, UNDUE, doesn't say they minority or fringe views shouldn't be mentioned at all, which is what you're arguing, but that they shouldn't be given a disproportionate amount of space. In your quote above you omitted the line "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject" (italics added) and the Oliver monologue has been mentioned in a number of reliable sources, including the CityNews article you reference and the National Post article, published four years later, which I reference above. We don't have paragraphs and paragraphs on the Oliver monologue, it's just a brief mention, so there too UNDUE does not apply. Nixon Now (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The way it's included in the article isn't a BLP issue; it may be a WP:WEIGHT issue, depending on how well represented it is in RSes overall—preferring summary-style reports, books, and journal articles over day-to-day news reporting. According to Google Books, none of the Ford books published since the Oliver piece appeared (The Only Average Guy, Mayor Rob Ford: Uncontrollable, Rob Ford: A Case Study in Emotional Abuse, Lynched: The Media War Against Rob Ford) have so much as mentioned Oliver. We should question why any material that can't find room in a several-hundred-page book (a couple of these are close to 400 pages) should be included in a summary-style article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Because the books are biographies of Rob Ford, not Doug. Nixon Now (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
How does that contradict what I wrote? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The absence of a mention of John Oliver's comments about Doug Ford in books about Rob Ford is obviously irrelevant, regardless of how many pages the book has. Nixon Now (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
You're ignoring virtually every word in my comment. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
You have failed to respond to any points I've made. Your comments don't make any sense but I have addressed them. You mistakenly refer to them as "the Ford books" when they are actually "the Rob Ford books" and they are not bios of Doug therefore the fact that they don't mention the John Oliver monologue on Doug means nothing. While Doug is mentioned in them and there is sourceable information that can be cited (which is why I brought them up in the first place a few days ago and have pleased you've followed my suggestion and consulted them) their focus is Rob, not Doug. I'm sure, for instance, they mention references made to Rob by various American late night shows. That they don't mention when Doug is the primary focus of a monologue is of no consequence and irrelevent to this discussion. I've now addressed this several times here in much more detail than should have been necessary and have nothing further to add or repeat so if you're going to try again I will leave it to others to respond to or ignore your comment. Nixon Now (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Right, so I'll repeat my primary point, which you pretend I never made: "it may be a WP:WEIGHT issue, depending on how well represented it is in RSes overall—preferring summary-style reports, books, and journal articles over day-to-day news reporting". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
And then you elaborated by talking about biographies of Rob Ford not mentioning things about Doug as an argument for not mentioning those things in this article, an argument that may make sense if this was an article on Rob Ford, not Doug. I refuted your point and you ignored my refutation. The reality in regards to Canadian politicians, particularly at the provincial and municipal level, is you generally won't have books or even journal about them (at least not about current politicians). Rob Ford is an exception because the crack scandal made him internationally notorious. By your argument, therefore, we shouldn't have articles on these figures at all, or articles that are little more than stubs, since they are generally only mentioned in news reports while they are politically active. That's simply not practical or realistic. Nixon Now (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
So ... I'll repeat my point (please stop trying to bury it): "it may be a WP:WEIGHT issue, depending on how well represented it is in RSes overall—preferring summary-style reports, books, and journal articles over day-to-day news reporting". The rest of your comment is irrelevant—I'm not going to fight strawmen. Building articles by accretion of whatever we can find in day-to-day newspieces makes for shitty, unencyclopaedic articles. We already have plenty of sources of the type I describe, such as this and the journal articles I added to the article. Focus on those sorts of sources and we'll have a better, more balanced article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I suppose if you can't respond to my argument you might as well just repeat yourself. Nixon Now (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
And again you ignore virtually every word I wrote—best strategy to achieve a filibuster to maintain whatever text you want to keep in the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Our readers do not want to be exposed to this perverted, sicko incest humour, and don't find it funny, or interesting or encyclopedic. This kind of content does not belong in Wikipedia, and everybody knows it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED aside, the Oliver piece contains no "perverted, sicko incest humour"—just lots of swearing, none of which is quoted in the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
C.T., listen to the comments when the brothers are on the see saw and right after. Real creepy incest word play jokes. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen it a bunch of times (I watch Oliver regularly). It's not quoted in the article, and isn't why the piece picked up media notice. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
ok, maybe I'm wrong about this. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Ford and libraries

Why isn't there anything in the article about the controversy over GlFord arguing for closing library branches in 2011 and the fight he got on with Margaret Atwood over it? There are several references in Google Books and Google Scholar that can be used. 72.143.6.202 (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably just because nobody's got around to it. Do you want to try? The article is protected but you could draft an edit here for review. We do need to be mindful of adding too many arguably negative incidents to this article as it would make it seem unfairly negative overall, but this one did gain a fair bit of attention. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doug_Ford/Archive_3&oldid=846023306"