Talk:Rob Ford/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

While I was reading the Rob Ford bio, I came across a couple of glaring errors in the 3rd paragraph of section 2.2 (Toronto Mayoral Election):

1. The vote totals at the beginning of the paragraph appear to be wrong. The Wikipedia article "Toronto Mayoral Election, 2010," which has a broken link to the City of Toronto web site's official results, gives the following numbers:

Rob Ford - 383,501 George Smitherman - 289,832 Joe Pantalone - 95,482

2. There is also this statement at the end of the paragraph:

, while 60% of Smitherman's votes came from Wards 27 and 28, the two wards corresponding to the provincial riding he had represented as MPP.[42]

George Smitherman received 17,335 votes in Ward 27 and 12,513 votes in Ward 28. Added together, he got 29,848 votes in those two wards. That's about 10.3% of his total, which is obviously nowhere near 60%. So those clauses should be removed.

88FingersLooie (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The vote totals used in this article were probably preliminary (not all polls counted). And the reference to Smitherman probably referred to the "Downtown 13 wards". TFD (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Of the four external links currently listed in the External links, three should be removed. The text of the conflict-of-interest decision is already a ref, so can be removed. The link to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is pointy, and places undue emphasis on Ford's COI troubles. The fourth, I'm not sure why it's here at all. The Interior (Talk)

The Interior (Talk) 15:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The municipal act was probably included because Ford was investigated for violation through over-spending on his campaign. TFD (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. May122013 (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit ridiculous that as soon as the protection expires, it instantly starts with reverting again. I've full protected for one week. You need to take this to

I was sorry to see that it was fully protected again, but given the immediate back-and-forth reverting without first discussing proposed changes on the talk page, you were right to do so. I find it a bit difficult to have discussions split across different pages, and I wondered if people would agree it could be in just one place, either just here on this talk page, or just at BLP/N. I'd suggest here (with a note at BLP/N pointing other editors here), as discussion these past couple of days has been more active here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I will happily defer to your wisdom on a venue. It might be helpful if someone mediated as well, if you were so inclined. These discussions are always full of good faith, but stray in so many directions that an objective voice at the wheel is often helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dennis. Ideally a mediator would be fully neutral and I have already weighed in with an opinion here. That said, I will try to reduce the heat on this page where possible, and I would be glad to edit through the protection where there is a clear consensus for a change (which I have done once already) if there are not objections. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I propose that my edit [1] intended as a middle ground for the story about the video be accepted as reasonable in content and in WEIGHT. IT is the current status of the article, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this request.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think what Collect wants is for his/her version to be considered the 'stable' or 'reference' version, and any adds to have to be justified. Not really an edit request. Obviously it is not a stable copy as it was made earlier today, and removed considerable content. I did suggest earlier to include the content in a minimal way and ask for a week protection, but I would object to Collect's version as being suitable. Alaney2k (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have stopped there. I think what was there previously was suitable. It had the three statements that Ford had on the topic. The only dubious part was about the remarks reported, but even the difference in reports was mentioned. I did an undo on Collect's first chopping, because it made a statement that was not based on cite - that of $200,000 which was not in the report, but was initiated with the crowdfunding. The current paragraph is a bit of a hack and slash. Alaney2k (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the crack cocaine allegations, it should also mention that Gawker reporter John Cook viewed the tape. Right now it only mentions the Toronto Star reporters have viewed it. Cook explains in great detail of its contents. [2] Giving the impression that only the un-named Star reporters viewed it is inaccurate, which of course needs to be corrected per

 Declined. The current state of the article does not violate BLP, and this is the disputed material, which you need to work out by discussion not by edit request - whatever happened to templates?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus above has worked this out. It is overwhelmingly in favor if including the content about the crack cocaine allegations. Right now, the article is inaccurate by claiming that only the Star reporters viewed the tape. This is an unfortunate denial of article accuracy which really should be re-considered. --Oakshade (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, consensus has not been worked out and Collect 's version is the best compromise we could have in a protected mode, imo. I, for one, do not think there should be any mention at all of these salacious allegations in a BLP at this time, especially since the 90 second cell phone clip, which the entire issue is solely about, seems to have gone missing. May122013 (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

May122013, you're just repeating your arguments about deleting all mention of this controversy and declaring consensus was not made which is contradicting reality. This conversation is about accuracy of content that's in the article and you're simply interrupting. --Oakshade (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell me that the current version "deletes all mention of this controversy"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, I don't know if you're aware but it was Gawker's John Cook that broke the story and viewed the video in addition to Toronto Star reporters Kevin Donovan and Robyn Doolittle [3]. To leave out the reporter who broke the story is to again render this Wiki entry on the cusp of PR uselessness  Natty10000 | Natter  13:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This story is moving so fast that it needs its own article. The Globe has published an article saying sources have told them that members of the family engaged in dealing drugs and kidnapping and had ties to the Ku Klux Klan. The chief of staff was fired and the press secretary and deputy press secretary resigned. Ford and his brother called the media "maggots", then retracted. The 200K for the video has been raised. A member of Ford's office said that the person who took the video was murdered, and the police confirm they are investigating. The person who said he had the video has disappeared. Some media have used the name "crackgate", while the project on Indiegogo is called "crackerstarter." TFD (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• To be clear, a new article shouldn't be started while this article is protected. If one is started to bypass protection, it would redirected here and the redirect full protected until this issue is solved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's difficult to solve when eight out of ten editors want the material mentioned, and two are actively rejecting the consensus. Any ideas? Alaney2k (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    • • (edit conflict) I'm not seeing two editors rejecting the consensus. Even with the reverting that happened today, the crack cocaine video allegations story remained in the article rather than being removed completely. So that's a change from before, a movement towards a compromise. What remains contentious is how much detail to include. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Sorry, was thinking of the past week, really. The 8/10 came from the above discussion. If May122013 is now willing to not remove all mention, this is a step forward. Maybe we can all agree now that a mention is warranted by consensus? Alaney2k (talk)
    • If 8 out of ten agree on adding, and all 8 can agree to a specific version, that is exactly a consensus. I would recommend creating an actual version to include, and allow discussion/voting on that specific version. It might have to be changed a few times, but the goal is finding a version that most people agree on. Sometimes, a little formality and structure is helpful to make it very clear there is a consensus for a specific version to be included. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
      • • How would we do that? Is that incubation? Or do you create a sandbox? Alaney2k (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Editors can create talkpage sandboxes Talk:Rob Ford/proposal 1, Talk:Rob Ford/proposal 2, Talk:Rob Ford/proposal 3 ... Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph #1

"Blah blah blah blah, he did this, or that [1]"

• support Bob 00:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• oppose Alice 00:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Like that. Here is fine. You are only talking about a single paragraph or so, right? Individual pages are ok as well, but if it is short, it is easier on one subpage, so they can look at them side by side and add as needed, and change votes. Then ask someone to implement the change and unprotect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • • Paul, the Conflict of Interest section has been also identified as needing trimming. Would it be preferable that I begin a proposed paragraph on that as well or wait until the new crack video section is agreed to ? May122013 (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
            • It isn't up to me, but my experience has always been that dealing with one fire is easier than two. It is less confusing here, and the COI issue is likely better done without protection. Once a consensus on this issue is reached, I'm expecting to lift the protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal Life: 5th paragraph "After Ford Sr.'s death, Rob has maintained political connections with the provincial PC party and the federal Conservative Parties." Should read, in part, "federal Conservative Party."

Political Career: City Councillor: 1st paragraph: "Ford served three terms as city councillor from 2000 until the end of 2011." Should read, in part, "from 2000 until October 2010." (He became Mayor in 2010. This would agree with the information in the biobox at the top of the page.)

Hurdingkatz (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The source for Ford and the PCs says, "The mayor is a staunch member of the Progressive Conservative party but some among his strongest supporters would appear to be Liberals."[4] The source that he has "maintained political connection" with the Conservative Party is a picture of him with the Prime Minister.[5] I imagine he was a PC when his father was an MPP, but there is little to indicate he is member now. Also, the article should point out that his supporters included Liberals and that many Conservatives and Progressive Conservatives supported his main opponent.[6]

I agree though that his term as councillor ended in 2010.

TFD (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Another editor said recently that the crack scandal probably warrants its own article, akin to "Weinergate", at this point in time. I agree ! How do other editors feel about this idea? There are definitely loads of RS material pouring in like this Toronto rehab clinic offering [7] to accept the money Gawker raised. I would be willing to start up the article and work on it with anyone else who might be interested. May122013 (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose at this time: Perhaps once the article is unprotected and those editors who can't be trusted not to insert POV edits have gotten bored and moved on, we may be able to fashion a workable description of the incident. At that point, it will become clear whether the crack allegation merits its own Wiki entry. It's too early to judge whether we've reached that point.  Natty10000 | Natter  23:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is locked for one week, but this scandal will run for months, if not years. Ford had more Google searches than Barack Obama and Lady Gaga combined. As The Sun, one of two papers that endorsed Ford for mayor said, this will be his legacy. If, as Darkness Shines says, Ford is "relatively unknown", then we should consider creating an article about the scandal and re-directing this article to it. (However the notability policy says that Ford is notable as mayor of a major city.) TFD (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, when I mentioned that this scandal might warrant its own article, I wasn't suggesting that we create an article on the scandal and then purge this BLP of all mention of the scandal or redirect the Rob Ford BLP to the article on the scandal. I was merely noting that, given that it is a topic that may currently or eventually be big enough to qualify for its own article, there should be more information on it in this article than there presently is, and less splitting hairs on what information should be included. The inclusion of more information in this article and less bickering about it was my key point; the issue of a separate article was only to support that argument. Even if the scandal does eventually get its own article, there would still need to be information on it in this article (continuing the "Weinergate" example, look at Anthony Weiner's page - there is obviously still information on the scandal in his BLP, with a link to the scandal's own page for anyone who wants further detail). I would also not support replacing Ford's BLP with an article on the scandal. He was independently notable long before this incident, so it would not make sense to do so. Starswept (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Starswept

Gawker has just unqualified itself as a Reliable Source if it ever was one, and lost any credibility it might have had as its now blaming Indiegogo, sayng it may hold onto the money indefinitely etc.. Please have a look at its latest "news" about this cell phone video. [8]

"I was busy fielding phone calls while trying to steer my young children away from a very hot grill without spilling my beer."

"....the Indiegogo web site is not cooperating" "You won't hear anything more from us about our attempts to get the video for some time."

"We haven't selected an institution yet." (for Gawker to hand over the money to)

In order to save time, lets agree right now not to use Gawker as a RS for this BLP. May122013 (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose That isn't the article cited for this entry and as such, is moot. If you have issues with the original reporting, identify the shortcomings.  Natty10000 | Natter  16:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Wow, I honestly don't understand how any of this makes Gawker a non RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment There have been many discussions about alternative media at RSN and I do not have an opinion about whether Gawker is rs. However, I think that the relevant policy is weight. We should not use investigative journalism as a source, and instead use secondary sources that report what the journalists say. Also, Toronto has extensive media that are reliable sources that should be used, The Star, the Globe, the Sun, the National Post, and CBC, CTV, Global and City. Gawker of course is part of the story and should be mentioned. But there is nothing that has been reported in Gawker or the Star or Globe investigative journalism reports that have not been mentioned by other media that belongs in the article. TFD (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think all this demonstrates the importance of covering the hoax/scandal. Please, look beyond the simple question of whether the accusation was true (which I strongly doubt) and consider the real world effects - the effect on the politician's numbers, the firing of a staff person (if that is in fact caused by it), the ability of a few people on the web to rustle up $200,000 for a charity of their kickbackchoice by claiming to have seen a videotape... these are real world phenomena worth covering somewhere on Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • According to The Star, a new poll "hasn’t changed Mayor Rob Ford’s election prospects — he’d still lose...."[9] TFD (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Since many other RSs have covered the issue I'd be more comfortable leaving Gawker's involvement out of the BLP entirely until the disposition of the money they raised is determined. The crowdfunding aspect could be included right now in
  Crowd funding and Gawker's involvement could be included in Gawker. Would that be acceptable at this stage? May122013 (talk
  ) 19:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, obviously - May122013, you just keep
  conflict of interest with this article topic? --Oakshade (talk
  ) 22:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No conflict at all; can you please inform us if you are under 14 years old ? May122013 (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, if you read the Gawker post there is no dispute with Indiegogo. The idea that because a writer mentions that he was trying to keep his kid from burning himself makes Gawker not an RS is completely and totally bizarre. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it May122013 has any COI. His previous contributions have included arguing to add evidence that Obama was not born in the U.S. and that his autobiography was written by Bill Ayers, and arguing for inclusion of salacious details contained in the false sexual assault allegations made against the former director of the IMF. TFD (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed you put that ad hominem crap in a few days ago and then took it out before I could respond [10]. Obviously the discussion about those edits does not belong here, but, re: Obama, I thought it was censorship to leave it out. Those were allegations brought by political opponents which I feel makes them notable; here we have allegations brought, essentially, by drug dealers which I consider, without verification, to be unworthy of inclusion. Regarding the IMF chief there were NY City police reports and charges which included the details of the sexual assault DSK was charged with. Right now his BLP includes "A semen sample was found on the maid's shirt, and on May 24 it was reported that DNA tests showed a match to a DNA sample submitted by Strauss-Kahn" so if the allegations were false, as you so definitively say here, then get your ad hominem methodology over to his BLP and get that sentence out of there. I prefer to stay focused on this BLP, and you and Oak are not going to exhaust me as you have so many others. May122013 (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A couple of days ago I was suspicious that May122013 was just trolling in here, but wow, that is some irresponsible editing to put it mildly. It does sound like he's demonstrated a heavy right wing POV which might explain his vigorous attempts to remove any mention of this controversy from this article. --Oakshade (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Or are you just trolling here trying to annoy adults? May122013 (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

May122013, you don't realized it but the more comments you make like that the more credibility you lose in here.--Oakshade (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

For 4 deuces (TFD) and Oakshade: Quit wasting my time and deflecting my thoughts away from this BLP. For me its a conundrum when an editor like you direct ad hominem and negative remarks toward me, or anyone else. On the 1 hand, I don't want to dignify them with a response, yet I know that, human nature being what it is, if someone throws enough negative shit against someone else, in the minds of many people some of it will stick; especially if the victim doesn't fight back. The thing that really pisses me off about pushy article "owning" trolls like you and 4 deuces is the way you forum shop and waste everyone's time having to respond to your ad hominem crap which you inevitably crap out when the article is not as you want it to be. Please just discuss the BLP here, not what I believe. May122013 (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Can everyone here, on both sides of this issue, please take a deep breath and move beyond it to deal with the matter at hand? FWIW, throwing around terms like "troll" isn't helpful either, but neither is dredging up May's editing past, however suspect you may think it to be. While I note that there may be some inferred bias present, May has at least shown an effort at working towards consensus, and we need to reach one moving forward. My two cents. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - For the purposes of this article, we are only reporting that Gawker has made allegations as one media outlet. We are not repeating that Ford smokes crack, based on Gawker. Following
  WP:WELLKNOWN. Sometimes I think I feel like we are emulating US federal politics a little too much with procedural bantings. Alaney2k (talk
  ) 23:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'm sure this comment is unhelpful (I apologize in advance), but it is ridiculous battles like this that turn people off editing Wikipedia, while simultaneously making Wikipedia look like a joke to readers. This is international news. Regardless of whether the video was legit or not (and I'm sorry, but who really, honestly believes that several reporters would risk their careers by lying about it), the stories stating that it exists have led to the firing of Ford's chief of staff, the resignation of other senior staff members, a letter from Ford's own "cabinet" demanding he speak on the issue, Ford's firing as football coach (albeit indirectly), calls from former mayor Art Eggleton, former finance minister Dwight Duncan, and current Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne for Ford's resignation over concerns the scandal is disrupting business in Canada's largest city, comments from the leader of the federal Liberal party, and a huge amount of coverage in mainstream newspapers, magazines, and TV programs nationally and internationally. This scandal probably warrants its own article, akin to "Weinergate", at this point, let alone a hell of a lot more coverage in this article than the four barebone sentences currently in it. Starswept (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Starswept

• Agreed wholly. This sort of debate, while we may think it's private, is actually a very public process. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Starswept that this scandel does warrant its own article. I just googled the exact phrase "Paul McCartney is dead"405,000 results with many RS articles about the hoax. We even have a Paul is dead article. But in his BLP there is not 1 section dedicated to the hoax. Until someone other than drug dealers say that Rob Ford smoked crack, I put this story in the same category as the "Paul is dead" hoax, and although it justifies its own article, it should not be a part of his BLP at this point in time. At least that's my opinion. Why haven't you started a seperate article Starswept? I think thats a very good idea and would solve everything. May122013 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is not one RS that says this is a "hoax". Please stop inserting your own POV and OR into this discussion. The Deputy Mayor is inclined to believe the video exists. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Echoedmyron, what do you think about having a seperate article about the crack smoking allegations? May122013 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: There is nothing about this that would warrant its own article and it properly belongs here. The video was observed by 3 professional reporters and the only claims of "hoax" have been emanating from those with a pro-Ford POV.  Natty10000 | Natter  23:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for ever using the word hoax. It is just my opinion that it may be, and looks like, a hoax to me. Other editors have other opinions that they've expressed about whether Ford is really shown smoking crack, but I will not use the word hoax anymore. btw I also believe that a video was viewed by the Toronto Star reporters. May122013 (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The man that Ford told his staff (according to the press)had the cellphone has been arrested for murder, so maybe we will find out what happened to it. TFD (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please add the following to end of the health paragraph in the 'Personal life' section. ("Ford has had various health issues") I assume the following is not controversial:

In July 2009, Ford was hospitalized for emergency surgery to remove a tumour on his appendix.^[1]

I am still looking up information about the BMI categorization for Ford's weight. That's the basis for this paragraph and his health concerns, but the first added content was uncited. (It's still there, but commented out) Alaney2k (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how noteworthy this appendix thing is, it sounds rather run of the mill, like a root canal or something. Unless a case can be made that such a condition is linked to other potential health issues that can affect his performance (which woulspd make it noteworthy) I'd skip it. Echoedmyron (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm building up the article on his health. Other eds in the past have raised the point that we are not discussing his health, of course related to his weight, and to discuss his weight, we need to show that he has health concerns. I will add when I have more about the weight, etc. to make it more notable Alaney2k (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually - this is clear OR/SYNTH when you aver we have to show his health concerns. It is not up to us to do anything of the sort - our task is to write an encyclopedic biography of a living person in a conservative manner, following

Reliable sources have made statements of fact about his weight and health. In fact, Ford had himself weighed in front of television cameras. TFD (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not what Alan averred he wished to do. Collect (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I am in the process of searching for relevant reliable sources about his health. It came up in the mayoral election, for one. Don't know why Collect is so hostile to the topic. Alaney2k (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My concern is what is known as

WP:BLP and other Wikipedia policies - we are not supposed to ignore them. Cheers. Collect (talk

) 20:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood. All I was saying was, if we were to discuss his weight, then it should be in the context of discussing his health. Not, that we have to add anything in particular. See? Anyway, his health and weight was an issue in the mayoral campaign and several times it has come up in the editing record, without any context or proper citations. His weight and health are notable, as usually looks and health are a factor in electability. But that would be OR, not that Ford has health problems as indicated by three hospitalizations in three years. It might be in the Toronto Life article. Alaney2k (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Brian Johnson -- if my math is right he is the 4th staff member to resign or be fired in the last week. Geo Swan (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there's been two resignations (so far) today: [11] Echoedmyron (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I wonder how many he has left?

FWIW there have been reports from members of the Mayor's staff that contradicted Ford's claim he knows nothing of the video. Anonymous taff members have been cited, who said they know the address of the photographer. Maybe this explains today's resignations? Geo Swan (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And the person the mayor said has the video was arrested today for murder, so perhaps we will find out more about the tape. TFD (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I sure hope so TFD; it will be frustrating if the cell phone clip never gets into a public venue. May122013 (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

[12]

This is illustrative of our conundrum. Here we have perhaps the most reliable source in Canada with a headline front page article titled "Rob Ford’s former chief of staff out to ‘kill the mayor, politically and otherwise’". Normally this would be important enough for immediate inclusion in the BLP. But is it ? I simply do not know so I am asking for other editors opinion about this specific and this type of RS reporting. May122013 (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• [13]

And someone else has seen the video. Alaney2k (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

And what claim in the BLP would you ascribe to that cite? It appears to have no actual facts in it that we can use, as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Headlines and titles should never be used as sources. The headline reads in full, "Rob Ford’s former chief of staff out to ‘kill the mayor, politically and otherwise’: source". It is probable that the source did say that, but we would need to read the article to determine what he actually meant. Many people say "literally" when they mean "figuratively". TFD (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that this entire story ( about a cell phone video allegedly depicting the Subject smoking crack ) fits into the category of Yellow journalism, as defined by our own Wikipedia article on the subject; i.e. "Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers." This definition definitely fits the Gawker profile for sure and also, imo, all reporting of these allegations by drug dealers. I don't think this belongs in an encyclopedia. May122013 (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Give it a rest. You're not being constructive or productive. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Star is a highly respected newspaper and so are the mainstream Canadian and international media that have covered the story. TFD (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Myboshgu. If this pattern continues, can May12 be blocked as an editor on this story? A lot of time is being wasted addressing repeated, unsubstantiated assertions et al from this poster, distracting from improving the entry and keeping it current  Natty10000 | Natter  22:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Also agree with Myboshgu. You just keep throwing up red herrings, platitudes and trivial objections to not have any content on this controversy which is not a surprise considering your previous very strong right wing biases that have been demonstrated. --Oakshade (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Natty, I've been trying to improve the BLP to make it less biased against the Subject ( I count 7 other editors on this talk page who agree with me on that point) perhaps one of you four could suggest something to improve the entry ? Not necessarily to make it less biased, as you may not think it is, but just to improve the article in any way? May122013 (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• As I've said before, this article regularly attracts 'drive-by' criticisms instead of editing improvements. It's very frustrating. Now, we have a new low where we can't even edit. The article is not biased. As I've pointed out before, the subject regularly lands in hot water. It's not easy to develop a base of objective reporting on accomplishments due to the current nature of his notability. Ford regularly resorts to hyperbole over his achievements, and we must use secondary sources instead of simply accepting his word. This week he was saying he has saved the taxpayer $1 billion dollars. The only saving that is well-reported so far is the severance of 1,000 employees. Whereas several media outlets sympathetic to Ford are regularly hyping Ford without solid evidence. So, when you get to this article, and I try to stay with reliable second sources, it can appear to be biased, because the $1B is not mentioned. Really May122013, this guy is not some sort of hero. He's a blow-hard, ready to toot his own horn how great he is, type of guy. Even his own supporters like Sue-Ann Levy regularly say Ford is his own worst enemy. If it doesn't come across as the article as written by the Toronto Sun, well, that's because that would not be accurate, it would not be backed up by facts. I find that those people who most complain about slanted reporting are really the ones who only read slanted reporting and are upset to find that the article does not follow that line. I asked earlier about Toronto Community Housing. Ford regularly states how much he is doing for TCH, and he even did so today on radio. But I've not found secondary sources that back up his hyperbole. But if there aren't any, then they can't be mentioned in the article. So, sorry, not biased. Maybe incomplete, maybe needing editing, but it is not an attack article. Just stop being frustrating. You are not on some noble cause, just being frustrating. May, you've only tuned in after this scandal. Don't pretend any sort of sincere connection to editing of this article. Alaney2k (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Alaney, for the very clear description of the difficulties in adding Ford's own claims to BLP and also the reasons you feel its not biased. I find your comments directly above very helpful. I do have a sincere desire to make good solid improvements to the BLP with my editing. Thanks again. May122013 (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I suggested minimal content. What I suggest is the first part of what was there, earlier today. I had started to work on trimming, but content of the other sections will have to wait, I suppose while we deal with this extraordinary situation.

In May 2013, American gossip web site Gawker,[139] Toronto newspaper The Toronto Star[140] and Toronto radio station CFRB[141] reported that a group of men involved in the Toronto drug trade had attempted to sell a video clip that they claim shows Ford inhaling from a crack pipe.[140] Both Gawker and the Toronto Star claimed to have viewed the video, although they did not agree to purchase it. The Star reporters wrote that they viewed the clip on a smartphone in the backseat of a car on May 3, and noted that while they have "no way to verify the authenticity of the video", it "appears to clearly show Ford in a well-lit room."[140] Both the Gawker and Star accounts alleged that an anti-gay and racist comments were made, although their reports differed.[140][142]Ford denied the allegations on May 17, calling them, "Absolutely not true."[143] The allegations subsequently received significant media coverage both within Canada and in the United States, including on Jimmy Kimmel Live!,[144] The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,[144] and The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.[145] Gawker started a crowdfunding campaign to raise $200,000 in order to purchase the video and make it publicly available.[146] However, on May 23, it was posted that although the campaign was likely to reach its goal, Gawker had lost touch with the video owner. Gawker subsequently reached its $200,000 goal but as of May 27, 2013, has not released any video recordings.

Oppose: Much too wordy e.g. 1:Both the Gawker and Star accounts alleged that an anti-gay and racist comments were made, although their reports differed.and 2:Everything after "Absolutely not true" May122013 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: It's fine as-is. To be tossing away information at this stage is irresponsible. Perhaps in six months or some other span some of the details may turn out to be unnecessary but cross that Rubicon then, not now  Natty10000 | Natter  16:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we can leave out Mark Towhey's firing, the resignation of his communication staff, the week of silence, the calling of Toronto reporters as "maggots" for a week or some other reasonable period. My main concern is to provide an encyclopedic mention. The only contentious part of the above, to me, is the "anti-gay and racists comments were made" because the reports differ, although I included "although their reports differed". To allow the above paragraph (wording improvements welcome!) I would give that up. Also, maybe not mentions of the tv shows, but simply "The allegations subsequently received significant media coverage internationally", because I think it did get that. Please provide your feelings in a !poll/straw poll? below: Alaney2k (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm okay with this, except the Kimmel/Leno/Stewart mentions. Making the late night joke scene isn't a major element in this controversy from what I've read. Is is possible to add the refs to your draft? There's the {{Reflist-talk}} to display them. The Interior (Talk) 23:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I pasted from the diff available on the page. I don't know how to get them from the protected page. Alaney2k (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• It must be also described that Gawker reporter John Cook also viewed the tape and his description. Giving the impression that only two un-named Star reporters viewed the video is grossly inaccurate. Accuracy in a BLP situation needs to be as solid as can be.--Oakshade (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Could you propose a sentence then? It is mentioned above that Gawker viewed it. Alaney2k (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Gawker editor John Cook reported that he viewed the video and described that it features Ford holding a clear glass pipe in one hand and a lighter in the other. Cook then says Ford subsequently lights the pipe and inhales.^[2][3]

--Oakshade (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think this is good, but I would suggest that it should be a bit clearer in terms of who broke the story and when. As written, I think it could be initially interpreted as only 3 media sources reporting the story, when what is key is that there were 3 media sources that reported the video was offered to them, and then many other sources reported that. I did like the earlier phrasing that specified the dates the Gawker and Star stories broke, but if we're aiming to be minimalist but still be a bit more specific we could do something like this:

In May 2013, American gossip web site Gawker,[139] Toronto newspaper The Toronto Star,[140] and Toronto radio station CFRB[141] independently reported that they had been approached by a group of men involved in the Toronto drug trade, who attempted to sell them a video clip that purportedly shows Ford inhaling from a crack pipe.[140] The Gawker and the Toronto Star reporters each claimed to have viewed the video on a smartphone in a car in Rexdale, although they did not agree to purchase it.[139][140] The Gawker and Star accounts both assert that anti-gay and racist comments were also made in the clip, although their reports differed.[140][142] The allegations have subsequently received significant media coverage throughout Canada,[Some more citations to demonstrate this] as well as internationally.[144][145][Some more citations to demonstrate this] Ford briefly denied the allegations on May 17, calling them, "Absolutely not true",[143] before issuing a formal statement on May 24.[Citation to this effect] Gawker started a crowdfunding campaign to raise $200,000 in order to purchase the video and make it publicly available.[146] However, on May 23, it was posted that although the campaign was likely to reach its goal, Gawker had lost touch with the video owner. Gawker reached its $200,000 goal on May 27, but has not yet released any video recordings.

Oppose:Too many superfluous details: over half of the content. May122013 (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: It's fine as-is. To be tossing away information at this stage is irresponsible. Perhaps in six months or some other span some of the details may turn out to be unnecessary but cross that Rubicon then, not now  Natty10000 | Natter  16:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Other (fairly minor) changes I made were altering the "authenticity/well-lit room/etc" comment, which I think has always seemed out of place in this paragraph, and clarifying Ford's denial timeline a bit. I do think it will be critical to eventually include the information on Towhey's firing, the resignation of Ford's other senior staff, the letter from the executive committee, and so on, which are a huge part of why this is such a big deal. I would also want to be more specific on when this story broke, the week-long silence, etc, but I agree that we can wait on those things. Starswept (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Starswept

I don't think "claimed" is proper for journalists' reports as both the

WP:SOURCES. I've never seen "A BBC (or whatever) reporter claimed he witnessed..." anywhere in Wikipedia or otherwise when referring to journalist reports and I see no reason to single out such a qualifier of reliable sources for this article alone. --Oakshade (talk

) 04:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, claimed is a bit of a weasel word here. The reporters saw a video which showed someone who looked like Ford. Unless we are implying that they are making it up. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

UNDUE still has meaning on Wikipedia - what we have is that a video was offered for sale, with the only confirmed price being $300,000. The "anti-gay and racist" bit has nothing to do with "substance abuse" and does not belong at all. The opnly viewing asserted was on a smartphone in a car, which makes it hard to tell much at all (I trust that folks here have tried watching movies on their smartphones, of course). The current content:

In May 2013, Gawker said it had been offered a video showing Ford apparently smoking crack cocaine.[136][136] The Star reporters wrote that they viewed the clip on a smartphone in the backseat of a car on May 3, and noted that they have "no way to verify the authenticity of the video" but that it "appears to clearly show Ford in a well-lit room."[136] Ford denied the allegations on May 17, calling them, "Absolutely not true."[137] On May 23, Gawker posted that it had lost touch with the video owner.[138]

Support Although I feel this entire event has not yet developed into anything other than an unverifiable smear or hoax, I will agree to support Collect's version in order to reach a consensus on this aspect of the BLP. May122013 (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

is sufficient and accurate. The reast of the entire section is still UNDUE by the way. And does not use "claim." Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The current content minimises a pivotal moment and tossing-off information is ill-advised. Perhaps in six months but certainly not now  Natty10000 | Natter  16:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, it is quite debatable as to whether "Gawker" meets

WP:RS at all, as it is primarily tabloid in nature. The concept of paying $200,000 for a video is, in fact, part of the essence of "tabloid." Collect (talk

) 14:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that it seems that Gawker leading with the story was good enough for the Star (which it appears nobody's disputing meets

WP:RS), I'm not sure your rationale for throwing out "debatable"? Natty10000 | Natter 

15:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Gawker mention is the basis for the Star publishing their story. Your wording is incomplete, as CFRB also reported being offered the video. It's not a suitable substitute for the suggested text and the revisions people have suggested. Alaney2k (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

splitting hairs and looking like desperation to not have content on this controversy. --Oakshade (talk

) 15:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Oakshade and Alaney2k . Would you please identify specifically what there is about Collect's version (below) that you have a problem with? I agree with him/her that his version is sufficient, more concise and much more accurate. Gawker is not a very reliable source in my opinion nor in the opinion of many other editors. Also, Oakshade, your ad hominem characterizations like "desperation" are obviously combative and unhelpful. Please stop it. May122013 (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

:In May 2013, Gawker said it had been offered a video showing Ford apparently smoking crack cocaine.[136][136] The Star reporters wrote that they viewed the clip on a smartphone in the backseat of a car on May 3, and noted that they have "no way to verify the authenticity of the video" but that it "appears to clearly show Ford in a well-lit room."[136] Ford denied the allegations on May 17, calling them, "Absolutely not true."[137] On May 23, Gawker posted that it had lost touch with the video owner.[138

Well, for one thing, I think it is essential to note that CFRB was also offered the video. CFRB is not a gossip site and the Star is tainted in some persons' minds. (E.g. if the Toronto Sun had made the report, things would have been quite different) I think the jump from Gawker to 'The Star reporters' is too terse and poor writing. I think it's important to give Ford the final words (to this point) on the topic. As serious as the comments reported are, the main point is that there was drug abuse, so the comments do not have to be mentioned at this point. Neither report had a word-for-word report on the dialog. You can't mention the viewing in the car without mentioning the well-lit room, so maybe we just go with 'using crack cocaine'. I also think the crowdfunding is essential. It is an extraordinary situation. Secondly, mentioning that Gawker lost touch with the video owner only makes sense in the context of the crowdfunding. I am working on a compromise text right now. I'll post it soon. Alaney2k (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

How's this:

In May 2013, American gossip web site Gawker, Toronto newspaper The Toronto Star, and Toronto radio station CFRB independently reported that they had been approached to purchase a video clip that purportedly shows Ford using crack cocaine. Gawker and the Toronto Star identified the sellers as members of the drug trade in Toronto and both reported having viewed the video. Gawker offered $15,000 for the video and was turned down, but raised $200,000 over the internet in an attempt to purchase it. The Star and CFRB did not offer to purchase the video. The allegations were widely reported in the media in Canada and internationally, including late-night talk shows in the United States. Ford commented on the allegations on three occasions: first calling them, "Absolutely not true", in a statement: "I do not use crack cocaine. I am not a crack addict" and on radio: "There's no video."

Is that too minimal? Alaney2k (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have cites for it all. Alaney2k (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Support I'd change "a video clip that purportedly shows Ford" to "video recording that reportedly shows Ford". Otherwise, I'd say good to go  Natty10000 | Natter  17:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

comment: Thanks, Alaney2k, I can support this if you would consider removing the 3 sentences in the middle , beginning with "Gawker offered" and ending with "United States". I can't see that the aspects covered in those 3 sentences are notable at this time. May122013 (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain how it is you find them not notable? I'm not sure I fathom your logic  Natty10000 | Natter  19:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I think what is proposed is fine. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It must be shown that something is notable enough to go in; not that its not notable enough to stay out, so please let us see your logic as to:

• Gawker offered $15,000 for the video and was turned down, but raised $200,000 over the internet in an attempt to purchase it.

Why is this notable to the Rob Ford BLP?

• The Star and CFRB did not offer to purchase the video.

Why is this notable to the Rob Ford BLP?

• The allegations were widely reported in the media in Canada and internationally, including late-night talk shows in the United States.

Why is this notable to the Rob Ford BLP? May122013 (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Answer: Because this is about Rob Ford. The first two sentences provide context about the opening statement that these organizations were approached to purchase the purported video, and answer the natural question, "if they were offered the chance to purchase the video, then what happened?" Similarly, the third sentence indicates some of the impact that the emergence of the news about this brought. I really can't imagine what you see wrong with any of these three sentences. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

May, I can see your point, if I accept your premise that the article can only be about Ford. But I do think we need some context like Echoedmyron suggests to finish off the report of the "shopping" of the video. All I could suggest for the two sentences is to leave out the $ details. "The dealers turned down Gawker's offer for the video, while CFRB and the Star declined to offer any money for the video." As for the third sentence, I accept that it of itself is not complete. It probably needs something to connect it to Ford's reputation or to the reporting of past allegations. But then, it has been cut down. Mentions on the late-night talk shows indicate a level of raised notability Ford has now, compared to the past. It might be better as an opening sentence in another paragraph. So I don't object to leaving it out at this time. The mention of it may fit better in the Media section, in a paragraph about reporting about Ford and the notability he has gained in the media through his controversial statements and behaviours. But I think others need to weigh in. There may be a better way to tie this together. Such as connecting the amount of exposure of Ford to the raising of the $200,000. Alaney2k (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Alaney, perhaps if you make the adjustments you indicate it will be ok with me. May122013 (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Updated

In May 2013, American gossip web site Gawker, Toronto newspaper The Toronto Star, and Toronto radio station CFRB independently reported that they had been approached to purchase a video clip that reportedly shows Ford using crack cocaine. Gawker and the Toronto Star identified the sellers as members of the drug trade in Toronto and both reported having viewed the video. The dealers turned down Gawker's offer for the video, while CFRB and the Star declined to offer any money for the video. Ford commented on the allegations on three occasions: first calling them, "Absolutely not true", in a statement: "I do not use crack cocaine. I am not a crack addict" and on radio: "There's no video."

For discussion. Alaney2k (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Closer:

In May 2013, American gossip web site Gawker, The Toronto Star, and Toronto radio station CFRB reported that each had been approached to purchase a video clip that purports to show Ford using drugs. Gawker and The Toronto Star identified the sellers as members of the drug trade in Toronto and both reported having viewed the video on a smartphone. The dealers turned down Gawker's offer of $200,000 for the video, while CFRB and the Star declined to offer any money. Ford has said the charges are "absolutely not true", "I do not use crack cocaine. I am not a crack addict" and "There's no video."

Dunno if Gawker saw it on a smartphone or not - but I think that the size of the video image may well be of significance. As we have "crack" in the denial, no need to have it twice in one section. Use of "on three occasions" is pretty useless -- ought we numerate every time he says something similar? "Reported" and "reportedly" in the same sentence is odd language. Gawker apparently did offer the $200,000 raised - thus the figure is now proper in this context. Collect (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: I'd change "that purports to" to "purporting to". Also. one important aspect that's getting overlooked in these edits is the length of Ford's silence (lawyer-advised or not) between the denials, the silence which is central to why this story has had 'legs'. Someone looking back on this with no knowledge of the present circumstances would be hard-pressed to understand why there's been such a ruckus based on the three above quotes without knowing of the time that passed with Ford MIA and the press and public left to wonder.

Collect, the display size is completely irrelevant. Smartphone displays are high definition, the video has been described as well-lit and none of the reporters have suggested in any way that they had any difficulty identifying Ford. Can we finally put that and the 'viewing in a darkened car' (which, given that the display is backlit, is also moot) to rest already?  Natty10000 | Natter  11:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever really tried looking at a film on a 3.5" screen? In the back seat of a car for all of 90 seconds? Really? Screen size matters to a great number of people - and this was a fact the Star specifically stated so the newspaper itself found it important. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh...yeah; frequently. It's one of the things I do for a living. Now if you were suggesting watching "Lawrence of Arabia" on an iPhone and then discussing the finer points of Freddie Young's cinematography, you might have a point. However, we're talking about a medium wide shot showing 3 men in a well-lit room, clear enough that three professional reporters had no trouble putting a name to the most notable of them. That they could means the screen size is moot.  Natty10000 | Natter  13:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In which case you are far better than I at recognizing people in small images - where if there were any fakery, I strongly suspect they would use make-up to make someone look quite like Ford. As for noting any "Photoshopping" etc. of images - I am quite unable to do it while examining a smartscreen rendition over a periof of 90 seconds. I suspect the Star was making the same point when they specifically described the condiditions under which the video was seen. As the newspaper made the point, I suggest we abide by their decision. Collect (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Evidently, so are the reporters for the Star and Gawker. And it isn't as if we're talking about a Zune-size screen or parsing a "Lawrence of Arabia" size image on a smartphone. If you have evidence of "fakery", cite it or drop it. The continued harping on a non-issue is not helpful.  Natty10000 | Natter  13:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the Star referred to the smartphone, and so ought we. I made no claim of fakery, so the "cite it or drop it" is an inane form of discussion - the purpose here is to reach

WP:CONSENSUS not to "score points." Have videos been faked in other cases? Yep. Is there any evidence of fakery here? Nope. Does that me we aver that there is no issue? Nope. So we stick with what the sources state - that is how Wikipedia works. Cheers. Collect (talk

) 14:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Then why on Earth would you throw in "if there were any fakery" in your previous comment? I'm not attempting to "score points" but out-of-the-blue comments about fakery which you personally wouldn't be able to spot on a smartphone are needlessly distracting and trying to say the least when we're trying to deal with reported facts. That 3 reporters to their satisfaction and that of their employers' solicitors made an identification should be sufficient  Natty10000 | Natter  15:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Collect, that the circumstances of the viewing - on a phone in a car - should be covered here as reported by media, without emphasis on whether this makes it more or less believable. A reader may draw their own conclusions on the citable facts if they choose, but it's not up to us to tell them what to believe. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that the platform,type of phone, should be mentioned if the sources mention it. May122013 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

comment Today the CBC clarified the Deputy Mayor, Doug Holiday's position. Perhaps we can include this for a bit more balance?

"Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday told reporters Wednesday that "eventually someone has to put up or shut up," when it comes to the video that published reports say show Ford smoking what appears to be crack cocaine. Asked to clarify his recent remarks that he believes the Toronto Star reporter who said she saw the video, Holyday said that to him, the lingering controversy isn’t about its existence."The thing is whether it’s authentic and whether it’s been altered, and we won’t know that until we get our hands on it," he said." [14]

May122013 (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No -- extended commentary (such as pointing out that Leno mentioned it in a monologue) is pretty much not of use in an actual biography. Collect (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

ok. May122013 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I'd rather not make the suggested changes. $200K was not Gawker's offer. Leave out the viewing/screen size. It's in dispute, and it seems to be POV to include it when it is in dispute. Alaney2k (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I still support Collect's version but I prefer that these allegations not go into the BLP at all at this time. There is certainly no consensus to put anything more than Collect's version into the BLP. May122013 (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.