Talk:Doug Ford/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

RFC: Hashish dealing subsection and heading

Should the subheading "Allegations of hashish dealing in the 1980s" be retained or should the relevant passages not have a subheading? Nixon Now (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Include The subheading is neutrally worded and the subject matter merits a subheading and without a subheading the material is effectively buried in the section on Ford's municipal career. Nixon Now (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion as per WP:NOTGOSSIP....in fact the article seems to have this problem through out. This is not the place for scandalous news Headliners when no charges have been filed.--Moxy (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

See the earlier RFC above, it's not gossip, it's the result of an investigation by a highly reputable news outlet and has been reported widely in other media. The current RFC is not about whether the material should be included but simply about whether a subheader is appropriate. Nixon Now (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Dame did not see that.... disappointing to see how many people got it wrong. Just because there's a news report or documentary about something doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion. In my view then its own section is clearly undo weight considering the gossip nature of it-Moxy (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Strong oppose as contradicting the RfC, being WP:UNDUE, being obvious POV pushing, and being far too short a section to warrant a subsection and place in the Table of Contents (!!!). The paragraph itself probably goes into too much detail as it is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The previous RFC didn't discuss headings or subheadings. That's what the current one is for. Nixon Now (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The previous RfC made it clear that no undue weight was to be placed on the hashish issue. After trying to shove it into "Early life" (where you had it making up almost the entire section), you've now put it in the table of contents. This is clear POV pushing and has to stop. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "shove it in early life". That's where it had been for years before it mysteriously disappeared around the time Ford announced his candidacy earlier this year. I simply reverted the attempt to cover up the drug dealing allegations. Nixon Now (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That undue weight should not be placed on this (or any) issue is simply WP policy, not the result of the RfC. The latter dealt with the material's inclusion, while leaving questions about how to represent it entirely unaddressed. StvnW ^talk 18:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude heading but include the content. There are too many short sections which goes against MOS:LAYOUT. Roll a bunch of them together and deal with them that way instead. No previous RfC that has been closed on any topic related to this subject, at least not that I can see so there's no use appealing to an RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude heading per above reasons. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Sidebar @Nocturnalnow: Please consider undoing your recent edit that short circuits this discussion. This RfC is not yet 48 hours old and will probably elicit more responses before it can be determined that consensus has been reached. StvnW ^talk 12:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@StvnW: ok; I just saw your request and undid that recent edit of mine. Thanks, Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude Also note that this "stuff" goes far past WP:UNDUE, hits WP:BLPCRIME squarely in the jaw, and Wikipedia should never be used to say "if you don't sue, it must be true" . One should be cognizant of the election issue about his brother, and the editorial position of the newspaper making these criminal allegation. That a newspaper cites anonymous sources for a claim of felonious activity does not make those charges proper in any BLP. Collect (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You might wish to append your comments about inclusion of the material to the previous RfC so that they can be considered. This RfC is only about whether to use a subsection heading. (Note though, that WP:BLPCRIME is very clear about being not applicable to public figures.) StvnW ^talk 14:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The Atlantic is not usable as a source for this as "fact" and the Globe does not state that this is a "fact" , only that anonymous people make a claim. Read WP:BLPCRIME more carefully - it is not intended to allow auto-inclusion of innuendo and allegations of felonies. And the fact that the person does not sue for defamation does not mean nor imply that the anonymous accusation is true. Collect (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll reply to this up at the previous RfC. Let's keep this one to the topic of the heading. StvnW ^talk 18:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think the heading should be removed for the time being, given the unanimous-1 opposed consensus thus far. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

and also since the RFC was initiated soon after the heading was injected without consensus. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, since Nixon Now has editwarred to keep this heading against consensus, it should be removed immediately. Perhaps it's time to take Nixon Now to WP:ANI and have him TBANned from the article for POV-pushing and editwarring? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

And will the two of you be banned for edit warring against consensus re inclusion of the response to anti-Semitic comments or in NocturnalNow's case edit warring over inclusion of the hashish allegations? Will you be banned for your consistent violations of WP:Civility? As you've been blocked a total of six times for personal attacks and don't seem to have improved your behaviour or your temperment I don't like your chances. Nixon Now (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been blocked "six times for personal attacks"—I haven't even been blocked six times, and the last two were overturned. Meanwhile, the consensus is unanimous against your POV-pushing subtitle header, but you still won't allow it to be removed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Correction, blocked five times for personal attacks I think "overturned" is an exaggeration looking at the admin comments. Lifted or shortened to "time served", yes, but not a ruling that the block was an error. Nixon Now (talk) 08:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Overturned, and the others were for editwarring—as you've demonstrated you've read the blocking admins' comments, you've now demonstrated that you've lied. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"(Unblocked) Per agreement to return to dialogue instead of confrontation" and "reducing to time served per unblock request; see talkpage"[1] is quite different from those blocks being "overturned" User:Curly Turkey. You are self-servingly confusing parole with acquittal on appeal. Nixon Now (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to bang my head against the wall with your distortions of the truth. You obviously will stop at nothing to get your way with this article, with the constant editwarring and aspersions. You won't even accept a unanimous judgment against your POV-pushing subsection header, which is what we have here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - AFAIK, Ford hasn't been found guilty of these accusations. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include the section per the RfC above, since this unsurprisingly became a rehash of that discussion. As previously established, the Globe & Mail report and its allegations were and continue to be a significant event in the subject's political life, as indicated by coverage of the paper's report in multiple reliable sources, and the subject is not a low-profile individual for whom the protections offered by WP:BLPCRIME do not apply. As for the bewildering suggestion that the G&M report did not state an allegation as fact, the report literally opens with this text: "This investigative report reveals that: Doug Ford, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s brother, sold hashish for several years in the 1980s." It does not qualify that statement in any way, and then goes on to repeat the allegation as a fact several more times with different wording. Wikipedia is not stating as a fact that the subject participated in this activity, only that the paper made the allegation. The prose needs work, and a discussion of whether or not to bookend it with a subheader is premature, IMO. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  Ivanvector: "discussion of whether or not to bookend it with a subheader is premature"—it would be if there weren't a subsection header there right now, prominently displayed in the Table of Contents. If discussion of a subheader is indeed premature, then surely it should be removed until the discussion is no longer premature (given this is a WP:BLP and all)? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  Well then I'll be explicit: yes, it is a significant event and should be in the TOC, if it can be neutrally worded, as it helps readers navigate to a significant content section. Because of where the section is placed in the article we unfortunately have to describe it in this awkward way, otherwise it would read as though he was accused of dealing drugs while he was a city councillor. How else should we do it? Would you suggest removing the header so that the drug dealing allegations appear below the "conflict with police" subheading? That's nonsensical. Should this just all be part of a new "Toronto city council" subheader combining all of the sections above "aspirations"? I guess that's not awful, but I still don't really agree with the decision to place this content in his political career section at all: combining it this way again makes it look like he was accused of dealing drugs from City Hall. If I had my way (consider this a proposal) the allegations would be moved back to early life, without a subheader, and that entire section expanded so as to minimize the allegations' weight in an NPOV fashion. But in the last year the only significant early life edits that have happened have been to remove info that was placed there that was actually about Rob. I'm going to go work on that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  The consensus is that "Early life" would violate NPOV by asserting the allegations were fact, so I hope you're not suggesting that's what you mean by "going to go work on that". All of this would be so easy if "Municipal politics" weren't divided up into subsections in the first place. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  • That's not the consensus, that's just your personal view. If the information is NPOV it is irrelevant to NPOV if it's put in the early life or councillor section but since it's info related to his early life logic dictates that that is where it should go. Nixon Now (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude unnessescary. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)(Summoned by bot)
• Exclude it's own section, unnecessary and given undue WEIGHT for an unsubstantiated/unproven alleged offence over 30 years ago. Text itself could probably be pruned further, since all we have is an allegation and a denial, (what's the 'he didn't sue' for?). It belongs in 'early life' or similar since he would have been circa 20 at the time of the alleged offence. (Summoned by bot)Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  Pincrete—Big problem with putting it in "Early life": it implies it actually happened, which per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV we're not allowed to do (he denies it and hasn't been charged). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why mentioning a later allegation implies 'truth', that's a question of phrasing, however, as I said 'or similar'. It doesn't deserve its own section and could be put into the chronological (date of allegation, not 'offence') sequence as whenever the accusation arose in his public life. Pincrete (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete—It's awfully straightforward: if Ford is telling the truth and it didn't happen, then it couldn't have happened in "Early life"—the events (if untrue) wouldn't have existed until The Globe and Mail published them in 2013. As long as Ford continues to deny it and charges haven't been laid, placing it in "Early life" would violate WP:NPOV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Still don't follow, we have other events in early life of other biogs, which are disputed - but I'm not going to labour the point. It is equally valid to say that the important date is when the allegation arose, not the 'offence' itself, either way it's not worthy of a section on its own. Pincrete (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a conceit that CT invented. Nixon Now (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you cut out the horseshit right now, Nixon Now? Swarm has already formally warned you for this sort of thing, (and which you continue to defend) and you just keep POV-pushing regardless. We all know why you want it (a) in the "Early life" section and (b) highlighted in the Table of Contents. You are not commenting in good faith, just as you have not been editing in good faith. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

CT, has User:Nocturnalnow been POV pushing? Clearly yes, yet, you admit below that he came up with the objection to Early Life (an objection you then championed). Your objection to POV pushing is highly selective. Nixon Now (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record, Nocturnalnow objected to the placement in "Early life" before I did. "conceit that CT invented" is a typical gibberish Nixon Now smear—notice how he smears me in some places as "pro-Ford" and "anti-Ford" in others ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a creative but baseless embellishment. In fact, I have never said you were "anti-Ford", I simply pointed out that by leaving the charge of antisemitism but removing the details of what the allegation was based on, the effect would be that people would assume it was worse than it was. I never said that was your intent. In fact, I'm quite sure it wasn't but that in your zeal to remove things you weren't considering that the effect might be the opposite of what you intended. Nixon Now (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you or Nocturnalnow originated it, you have been the main proponent of the argument that placing the allegation in early life was NPOV but that it wasn't elsewhere. In fact, since Nocturnalnow says it is NPOV anywhere, you are the originator of the here not there claim which is utter nonsense and bafflegab. Including the allegations is not NPOV, that has been established by consensus. Outside of being in the lede, which section it's placed in is secondary Nixon Now (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Try as you might, you haven't convinced anyone of this gibberish yet, and the last time you forced me to bring you to ANI, you received a last-chance warning for your POV-pushing editing. Your push to have it in "Early life" is more of the same, so if you're itching for that promised TBAN, go ahead and move it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Another fact free embellishment. By my count, two three other editors agree with me, Pincrete and Ivan (and now also StvnW, below). Now, if you want to seriously claim that making an argument on a talk page is "POV editing", it's a laughable claim but be my guest but you still haven't said whether you agree that Nocturnalnow's actual edits to the article itself are POV pushing or why you have failed to object to them. Nixon Now (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just pointing out again for the record that I've also endorsed inserting a pared-down version of this in the early life section, if we can find more details to balance the section out, which we should do anyway because it's awfully thin. The events are alleged to have occurred in his early life, though the allegations were published much later. The placement of the text is not a POV issue, it's simply a matter of whether it makes logical sense to include a neutral description at the time the events supposedly occurred, or at the time when the allegation was made. I prefer the former, but I can see it making sense either way, and both ways can be done in a way which does not unfairly distort POV. As Pincrete put it, it's a matter of phrasing; placing the content chronologically at the time that it is alleged to have occurred does not automatically imply that the events definitely actually occurred. As for the subheader, ultimately it depends on where the content ends up. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete: "we have other events in early life of other biogs, which are disputed"—could you provide a parallel example? I'm not aware of one. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

With the exception of the lede, where the passage appears within the article is not a POV issue. Putting it in Early life does not, in itself, imply that it is fact, and so on this point is not a violation of WP:BLP. ―StvnW ^talk 17:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

StvnW, Ivanvector—no, this is clear-cut. If the allegations were false (say, Ford sued, or whatever), under no circumstances would "Early life" be an appropriate place to put them—the events would belong strictly to 2013 and after. All we have to work with right now are the 2013 allegations and the media attention it attracted at that time. We also have to take into account the editing history of the one editor who most vocally wants it there.

But are there any reasonable objections to placing it where the allegations occurred? I have not seen one. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If the allegations were false they wouldn't belong in the article at all. Also, no, my editing history is completely irrelevant as is the two-month old edit you keep shopping around. The inclusion and placement of the information should be based on policy and the merits of the arguments, not on axes you have to grind against me or any other editors. Your argument is a classic ad hominem fallacy, attempting to refute an argument based on the person making it rather than the argument's merits. (ad hominem: "an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments."[2])Nixon Now (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"If the allegations were false they wouldn't belong in the article at all."—so we now have your POV on record: that the allegations are true and that's why they're in the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Logic is not your strong point. The allegations have not been proven false. If they were proven false they wouldn't belong in the article. That is not the same as saying the allegations are true. Set aside your obsession with me and focus on the article instead. Nixon Now (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Your argument follows no form of logic. Even if proven false, they were so persistently in the news that they'd have to be mentioned in the article, just as the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories are. "Logic is not your strong point" is an ad hominem, by the way. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You're evading my point which is that A vs B is not the same as A vs not-A. To say something has not been proven false is not-A as opposed to saying B - something is true. You confused not-A with B and you've responded to having that pointed out with deflection. Nixon Now (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

CT, I agree 100% with your logic on this; even though there may be no prohibitions of an "early life" placement, that would not pass a common sense test, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

And if the allegations were proven true then they would absolutely belong in Early life and nowhere else. These are both only hypothetical scenarios, however. I reject the premise that placement in Early life alone implies truth. A stronger argument might be to say that, because if true they do belong in Early life, and because if false they belong in Politics, therefore, absent proof, the presumption of innocence dictates they should be included in the latter. If you were to make this argument, you might convince me. (Perhaps that's what you are inferring?) Ultimately more important than placement is that it is precise, neutral, and not unduly weighted. ―StvnW ^talk 00:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

StvnW: That's exactly right—if proven, they belong chronologically where they happened; until proven, they didn't "happen" until 2013—we presume neither innocence nor guilt. As you can see from this recent comment, Nixon Now wants this information in "Early life" because he insists they are true (blantant POV-pushing, which is why he also did this). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

No, in my proposition above, proven ⇒ early life, disproven ⇒ 2013. Until proven and until disproven are undefined. ―StvnW ^talk 01:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

StvnW: Until proven or disproven, they remain allegations. The allegations are an event in Ford's life, and they occurred in 2013, regardless of whether they are ever proven or disproven. For example, if ever proven, the article would most likely report the actual drug dealing in "Early life" and then the allegations again in "Municipal politics", as the publication of the allegations was a separate, notable event in Ford's life. If disproven, the publication of the allegations would still be a notable event in Ford's life and would remain in the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record this is CT's second ad hominem in less than an hour. Nixon Now (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Pointing out your blatant POV-pushing? Why not take it to ANI, then? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I think an RFC on your chronic incivility may be more appropriate or given your past incivility blocks, which have failed to improve your behaviour, Arbcom may need to get involved. Nixon Now (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

So stop blustering and take it to ArbCom already. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe and it may change. The policies that apply to this RfC are those of MOS:LAYOUT and WP:UNDUE. Both of these are to be interpreted within a context that is dynamic, changing as the article evolves. I'm not going to take a hard position on this because I don't have enough experience with MOS:LAYOUT, but I will comment that it's fairly easy to show that sections of this length are not without precedent.

A similar section in Kathleen Wynne contains six single-paragraph subsections, five of which are shorter than the section in question here. Barack Obama is an FA-status BLP with a dozen single-paragraph sections, nine of which are shorter in length than the section that is the subject of this RfC and half of which are fewer than 100 words. See in particular § Cybersecurity and Internet policy, § Africa, § Committees, and § Hiroshima speech. Perhaps the Wynne example can be dismissed by way of WP:OTHERCONTENT, but the Obama FA less so.

Reasoning put forth here involving WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:RS, "conclusions" on the subject of headings made by the previous RfC (there were none) should be discounted as none of those are applicable to the question at hand. ―StvnW ^talk 16:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include. Arguements not to include it as gossip are fallacious as there's no reliable sources out there suggesting it's gossip rather than a simple well-known and well-documented fact. To try and pretend that this is gossip is a blatant NPOV failure. It could certainly be reworded though. The word 'hashish' isn't in common use, and this seems to be actually be some POV spin on it. The word in the original article's headline, and the word in every day usage is Drug not Hashish. Nfitz (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  The dispute is neither over whether to include the information nor over whether it should use the word "hashish", but whether, per WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NPOV, it warrants a subsection and placement in the Table of Contents. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Until April 24th? Must the subheading stay in place until then?

Even though this RFC has an 8–2 consensus against a subheading? I think its crazy to keep the subheading in place for another 2 weeks. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, disputed edits in an WP:BLP should be removed until there is a consensus to include them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Nocturnalnow and Curly Turkey: The RfC should not be closed early, and the issue absolutely isn't "settled" until it is closed, and we should continue to bear WP:CCC in mind. That being said, there has been a strong consensus to remove the subheading for two weeks now, and given the BLP considerations, it would be more reasonable to preliminarily remove it than to let it remain in contradiction of a strong consensus, just for the sake of process. Swarm ♠ 20:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: if there's an evident strong consensus for a result, and the discussion has degenerated into a handful of editors sniping at each other, why should the discussion remain open? Not that I'm saying that's definitely the case here, but there's certainly a consensus emerging regarding the question that was actually asked, and no new editors have joined the discussion in several days. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Hmm, well, if all parties agree that consensus has been reached, then there's nothing stopping the RfC from ending early. Swarm ♠ 15:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Opposition to autistic children's house

User: Nocturnalnow made this edit in regards to a much noted incident where Ford opposed the placement of an autistic children. His attempt to change the term "autistic children" to "challenged youth" is a shameless attempt at obfuscation and misdirection. "Challenged youth" is usually a euphemism for youth suffering from addiction or problems with the law. Nixon Now (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Nixon Now, from the source you cited, #30; "The centre recently purchased and renovated the house at 22 Jeffcoat Dr. where four challenged youth, some with autism, have lived for the past two months." The way the source content reads to me is that they are all "challenged" and not all autistic, so it's more accurate, if you wish to apply a term to the group that challenged is more accurate. The most encyclopedic definition of the youth is the one given by the director of the group, which I had quoted. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You've also increased your original content dramatically from:

Ford opposed proposed housing for autistic children in his ward, claiming they had "ruined the community".

to

Ford opposed an existing house for autistic children in his ward, saying at a public meeting that the home had "ruined the community".[30][31] When the father of an autistic child filed a complaint about Ford's comments he replied that he could "go to hell" and accused him of being part of a "jihad".[32] Then-mayoral candidate John Tory said of Ford's conduct: “Councillor Doug Ford's comments about the father of an autistic boy are disgraceful and totally unacceptable for an elected official".[32] Four years later, when asked about the comments, Ford said his critics were "lying" by claiming he'd made the comments despite the fact that he'd defended the comments in 2014.

The present content on this subject is factually wrong (according to your sourcing) and way unbalanced against the Subject, while highlighting what 1 person said against Ford and nothing about what all the "angry" and "anxious" residents at the meeting said about all the commotion, including many police calls, related to the housing. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You took out the specific and factual "autistic children" and replaced it with the vague and meaningless "challenged youth". Why? Having removed any context what does "challenged youth" mean? Nixon Now (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Obviously because it's what the source explicitly said. The term may be unhelpful to readers as it stands, but it is counterfactual if replaced simply with "autistic children". Another wording is required.

The expanded content is also obviously a violation of WP:WEIGHT. It needs to be trimmed and rewritten to conform to WP:INTEGRITY. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"Challenged youth" alone is meaningless obfuscation and to cherry pick that phrase in isolation and claim it's all the source says is misleading and misdirection. The first source explicitly says "developmentally delayed youth with mental health issues" in its lede and other sources simply say "autism". As for the additional info it's sourced and Ford's current comments are relevant. Nixon Now (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

THE SOURCE YOU CITE CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU WROTE! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Swarm: we have a violation of WP:INTEGRITY here, but we can't revert it per WP:1RR because Nixon Now has already reverted Nocturnalnow's rewrite. This can't seriously be allowed to stay in the article—can you please do something about it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

By cherry picking "challenged youth" and leaving out autism and developmental delays you are misrepresenting the source and proposing something that is deliberately vague and meaningless. Also, your original revision [3] said "autistic children" so you had no problem with that phrase before and did not think it was contradictory. In fact, what I did was revert to your version, then corrected the error about the house being "proposed", then added info from two other reliable sources. Nixon Now (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I have now clarified that the house was for "developmentally delayed children, some of whom had autism" as per the source. Nixon Now (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"revert to your version"—don't pull this horseshit. I didn't add or remove any of this information—I only copyedited it for clarity before Nocturnalnow pointed out that the source didn't say what the text did. Do we have to go through these mind games with you over every motherfucking edit? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

According to your edit note here you read the source (you admitted misreading it). So you read it and had no problem with "autistic children's house" so please stop your belated pretense of outrage. And please remove your rude and uncivil language from your comment, now. Nixon Now (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

And your outrage is selective as you have had none of it for Nocturnalnow's obfuscation through his use of the phrase "challenged youth", indeed you have attempted to excuse it so please stop it with the faux righteousness and manufactured, inappropriate and undisciplined temper tantrums. Nixon Now (talk)

I didn't misread the source, I misread the first half of the sentence I copyedited, which is why there's only 36 seconds between edits [4][5].

Meanwhile, you both read and deliberately misrepresented the source you provided. The source you provided that uses the term "challenged youth" that you call "obfuscation". In short, you continue to be a menace to the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This is your final warning. Please remove your rude and intemperate language from the comment you made above at 06:50[6] and do so now. As for your last comment, please reread my earlier comment, without anchors in the passage such as "developmentally delayed" and "autism" which are in the source the use of the phrase "challenged youth" is meaningless and the substitution of "autistic children" with it is obfuscation. Your protest is also unconvincing since the only way you could know whether "they" refers to the children or the house (and thus make a clarifying edit) is by reading the source so your denial is not credible. Nixon Now (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You've already had your final warning about this horseshit, Nixon Now, and you continue to push it. You deliberately misrepresented the source and refused to fix it until I pinged an admin.

"Your protest is also unconvincing since the only way you could know whether "they" refers to the children or the house is by reading the source so your denial is not credible."—this is painfully obvious horseshit. Again. You are not editing or engaging in discussion in good faith, and thus continue to be a menace to the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed this section from the article:

Ford opposed a house in his ward for developmentally delayed children, some of whom were autistic, saying at a public meeting that the home had "ruined the community". When the father of an autistic child filed a complaint about Ford's comments he replied that he could "go to hell" and accused him of being part of a "jihad". Then-mayoral candidate John Tory said of Ford's conduct: "Councillor Doug Ford's comments about the father of an autistic boy are disgraceful and totally unacceptable for an elected official". Four years later, when asked about the comments, Ford said his critics were "lying" by claiming he'd made the comments despite the fact that he'd defended the comments in 2014.

References

Obviously the section is in dispute; in particular the first sentence contains a politically sensitive redlink and the last sentence reads like WP:SYNTH. Please get all your petty edit warring and name calling out of your systems in this thread first before deciding what to restore to the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, well then let's start with CT's copy edit[7]:

Ford opposed proposed housing for autistic children in his ward, saying such homes had "ruined the community".^[1][2]

CT presumably agrees with this version so is there consensus? Nixon Now (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I prefer "Ford opposed a house", it flows better, but perhaps "home" would be better. As for the whole developmentally delayed vs. challenged youth vs. autistic debate, Ford was under fire for his comments specifically about autistic youth so I think it's appropriate to just say that. Ford opposed a home in his ward for autistic children, saying at a public meeting that the home had "ruined the community".^[1][2] Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I'm just going to vomit my opinion here and then go away, like I do. The second sentence is too much detail in my opinion, we could just say that Ford publicly ridiculed a father who complained, and leave it to readers to check the source to see what he said; it also wasn't Ford who invoked jihad. The third sentence is probably just fine as is. In my opinion the fourth sentence should be removed entirely, as there isn't much of a way to say this without it seeming like we're reading an opinion into the source. Also, the citation code for the 4th reference should not include the article's subtitle as part of the citation title (corrected above). So here's my proposal:

Ford opposed a youth group home in his ward, saying at a public meeting that the home had "ruined the community",^[1][2] and later publicly ridiculed the father of an autistic child who filed a complaint about Ford's comments.^[3] Then-mayoral candidate John Tory said of Ford's conduct: "Councillor Doug Ford's comments about the father of an autistic boy are disgraceful and totally unacceptable for an elected official".^[3][4]

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd accept that. For the record, I had not read the source when I copyedited it—I WP:AGFed that the content was legit. More fool me. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I prefer content which includes the thrust of the 1st. article's headline and content explaining why Ford was even talking about this issue, i.e. "angry and anxious residents". Since it was Ford's job to represent all the residents of his ward, its important, I think, to include reference to this content: "Staff of a residential home for developmentally disabled youth with mental health issues newly opened in a north Etobicoke neighbourhood faced an angry, anxious group of residents....residents packed Toronto police 23 Division station’s community room on May 15 to hear from Griffin Centre staff and city staff. Many charged the residential home should move to another area of the city. “I’ve never heard of a facility where the police come so many times,” one man said. “Something is very, very wrong with your facility that the police come so often. Why are you still licensed?” Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, though, if we reported on every instance of a small group of NIMBYs packing a room to yell about something, especially in Toronto, we could fill the encyclopedia with irrelevant trivia. See the Google results for toronto residents angry, you'll find neighbourhood groups whining about things like not lowering a flag, an intersection under construction, building a house (just a regular house), condos, snow (!), a hydrogen plant, three park benches, a tall building, people who live near Canada's busiest airport complaining about aircraft noise, Forest Hill residents buying mansions then complaining that their neighbours' mansions are too big, a disqualified Tory candidate, the Salvation Army, speeding, maintaining local police, and on and on and on. Not all of these are Toronto and some are pretty abstract, but come on. Meetings of angry residents are not encyclopedia-worthy. The noteworthy part of this incident is Ford's dramatic response, as an elected official, and his being chastised by other elected officials. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The same could be said about his responses to pretty much anything, though, which is why we should be focussing on summary-style sources and not cherrypicking day-to-day news articles—and is all the more reason to keep these "incidents" maximally brief. I believe this is a point I've made repeatedly. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer to ignore all the name calling among Ford and the residents and say something like "Ford agreed with angry residents in his ward that a group home was causing lots of commotion and would be better located elsewhere." I would not think the other individuals involved would warrant mention, at least imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That basically says nothing and leaves readers scratching their heads over why it's even in the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, CT, now that you mention it, as I look at it now, I must agree. I suppose it may be tough to come up with something brief, factual(re article content) and notable....maybe the best we can do is your previous edit with slight factual adjustments, maybe something like;

• "Ford joined residents in opposing an existing group home in his ward for 4 youth, some being autistic, saying that the home had "ruined the community"". What do you think?Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That makes it sounds like there was a general opposition for him to join. Is that really the case? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Going by this headline and article, there seems to have been general opposition, however, the article also says "Doug Ford arrived 25 minutes late for the meeting his office organized", which would mean Ford initiated the meeting. You make a good point; i.e. maybe only the opponents went to this meeting, the NIMBY types maybe...so, your original edit; 'Ford opposed proposed housing for autistic children in his ward, saying such homes had "ruined the community" would work for me as long as we don't add the other details which I think are too individually related to one person. But it will be more accurate if we can word it in some way to reflect the reality that not all of the children involved were autistic.....maybe

'Ford opposed a house for developmentally disabled youth in his ward, saying the home had "ruined the community".'? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree—the less said the better, especially when working with day-to-day news sources. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

CT, would you mind putting it into the Blp? thanks if you will, Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was gone. What sources are appropriate? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I found the ref and put it back in. Ivan had taken it out because of the dispute. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)