Talk:Doug Ford/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article include mention of the 2013 Globe and Mail investigative report which alleged that Doug Ford sold hashish in Etobicoke in the 1980s? (example) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include - the report attracted international attention when it was released, as it was in the midst of Doug's brother Rob's crack smoking video scandal. I'm not sure it should be placed in the "early life" section, seeing how the report was released while he was a Toronto city councillor. The allegations in the report continue to play a role in recent news coverage about Mr. Ford's campaign for Ontario PC leader. As reliable sources continue to make it an element of their coverage nearly five years later, it's clear that the report is viewed by those sources as a significant event in Ford's political career, and it's therefore warranted by NPOV to include a brief, neutral summary of that event in Ford's bio. It would be whitewashing not to include it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Expanding: the text being discussed is largely based on this edit added to the article on 27 May 2014. It has been discussed in some detail three times not including this discussion nor the one directly above: here in 2013, here again earlier this year, and a companion discussion at BLPN. None of those discussions ended in an authoritative consensus, neither to include nor remove the section. I prefer inclusion, obviously, but I'll honestly be happy just to see a decision made, instead of the ongoing back-and-forth. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include - Globe and Mail is Canada's leading quality newspaper and conducted an extensive investigation. The newspaper is a very credible and has repeated the claim regularly and recently as have other media. Ford threatened to sue for defamation but never has and the deadline for him to file a lawsuit expired years ago. Excluding this material would be a whitewash. Nixon Now (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Include - The Globe and Mail is definitely a reputable newspaper in Canada, and I have no doubts about the integrity of their investigation. The information is clearly relevant, and the exclusion of it would be just plain irresponsible. Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - If it wasn't newsworthy before he became Ontario PC leader, then I don't see why it should be newsworthy now. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It certainly was newsworthy before he became leader - the Globe and Mail ran a very lengthy report in 2013, long before Ford ran for leader and it only started to be removed from this article around the time he declared his candidacy in January. Nixon Now (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

For reference, here is a revision from November 2017 here is a revision from May 2014 with the content. It's important to note that the wording has since been changed (for the better). The fact that there was a article about substantive investigation done by one of the most reputable Canadian newspapers that was published long before Doug's PC leadership bid illustrates that it is newsworthy. Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I simply don't see a reason for having such info in the article. If it's so necessary to show it? then create a separate article for it. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - even an admin assumed there were drug charges when asked to protect this; that says it all because

there were no drug charges

This Globe report was done back when there was a big commotion about Subject's brother, Rob Ford, and Subject was coatracked into commotion by the Globe

It pertains to alleged 30 40 year old high school behaviour

The Subject is in a huge general election that only has 2 months to go and this content is highly prejudicial

This content is, imo, extremely offensive to the spirit of Blp policies. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug Ford is 54 years old. 30 years age he was well into his twenties and an adult, not a high schooler. Nixon Now (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Its not constructive to cherry pick the more minor points in a person's opinion to challenge, and even if so, that's ancient history and 30 years is a helluva long time ago. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Nixon Now The article says"His tenure as a dealer, many of the sources say, lasted about seven years until 1986, the year he turned 22". Maybe you could reconsider putting this into his Blp since it relates to high school years. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a minor point, you were suggesting Ford was a minor at the time when he wasn't, he was a mature adult. Also, the age of the allegations is irrelevant and not a reason to exclude. Also, 22 years old certainly does not "relate" to high school years, it's almost an entire cohort removed. He may have started young but he continued well into adulthood. You're beating a dead horse with this argument.Nixon Now (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I also think that MPS1992's 2 comments at the admin noticeboard are worth considering. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Admin User:EdJohnston's comments are interesting (as you claim above he was misled into thinking drug charges were laid): "The information comes from a reliable source, and it doesn't appear to be a BLP violation to include it. So it comes down to editorial judgment as to whether it is important enough to include. When something comes from a WP:RS it becomes harder to refute."

Also User:NeilN's comment to you: "I have more concerns with your seeming desire to hide this information just because the subject is now running for office. I looked at the article history and the info was added almost four years ago. Many editors have worked on the article since then and the content doesn't suddenly become a BLP vio just because the subject may have a higher profile now. As Ed says, it's a matter for editorial judgment."

(Comments copied from User_talk:EdJohnston#Doug_Ford_Jr._No_drug_charges)

Nixon Now (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Ed's comments, I was referring to this on your talk page about "drug charges" (of which there are none re: this Subject afaik)...its an honest mistake Ed made and I am concerned other readers will make the same mistake with this content. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

COMMENT why did you guys get the Blp protected just after opening a Rfc and putting the contentious material back in? Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude Seeing that Ford was never convicted, or even charged, and that there is no clear consensus to include this info it should be omitted. Also, the alleged anonymous source comes from the left-wing Globe and Mail (a paper which endorsed both Smitherman and Tory against the Ford brothers) is very suspicious. I also find it unfair that NixonNow is accusing anyone who opposes this info of engaging in disruptive behaviour. It's worth noting that the IP editors who have opposed NixonNow come from Mississauga, Ottawa, and Toronto, and that these edits were made less than an hour apart. 199.7.156.134 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

In fact, the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives under Tim Hudak in the last provincial election[1] and the federal Conservatives under Stephen Harper in the last federal election. [2]. The Globe and Mail is simply not a "left wing" newspaper. Nixon Now (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail is most definitely not a "left wing newspaper" as claimed. Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"left-wing Globe and Mail" marks this IP as an obvious troll. The !vote should be discarded. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include Include per above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Include. The Globe and Mail is Canada's newspaper of record, and the report was also covered by numerous other reliable sources. As long as the allegations are phrased so that it sticks to what has been reported, and includes Mr. Ford's denial, then it is okay to include it as long as we avoid the pitfalls that WP:BLP warns us about. That being said, I'm not a fan of how its currently worded. For example, the actual claim is that Doug Ford was a top level dealer who sold to street dealers, while the current wording leaves that detail ambiguous. The current phrasing also tries to imply Doug Ford's guilt by association with his brother, which might be a step too far. On the other hand, the phrasing implies that anonymous sources are ipso facto back and mentions an Ontario Press Council hearing, but doesn't mention that the hearing vindicated the Globe and Mail.[3] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Include, with especial care to keep it clear that he has not been charged and denies the accusation, but that it has been (and continues to be) widely reported. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Sigh... We aren't a tabloid journal, and saying Ford dealt cannabis in the 1980s based a single disputed article basically seems WP:UNDUE. On the other hand, the Globe is a reputable newspaper and should be taken seriously. If we do include this claim, we should be careful to balance the assertions of the Globe with the explicit denial of Ford. AdA&D ★ 00:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

We aren't a tabloid and neither is the Globe and Mail. That's the point. If a leading credible newspaper covers this story extensively it's not for us to censor or cover up.Nixon Now (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - For being WP:UNDUE. Also because they were allegations and he was never charged. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  Meatsgains: can you elaborate on why you think WP:UNDUE applies, given the brevity of the proposed text and the extensiveness of the coverage ? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Meatsgains as it takes up over 90% of the "early life" section. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

And less than 10% of the article overall. We don't determine undue weight based on a section. Nixon Now (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Why does everyone who says Exclude get a pushback? Isn't an Rfc for getting the opinions of others rather than challenging those opinions?Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow: Meatsgain gave a rationale without given support for that rationale, thus making it impossible to evaulate their !vote. Could you please let Meatsgain speak for themself? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include in some capacity. Especially considering the topics relevance to the Ford political dynasty. - Carlbergman (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Include This article is about Doug Ford's life, his whole life, and not just the good parts. If it happened for good or for worse, it is relevant for inclusion. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude, he wasn't charged, convicted, or photographed in action, it is an alleged activity (although in my opinion an honorable activity). And he apparently denies it. So it's a rumor. Wikipedia shouldn't add rumors into BLP pages, even if they are sourced (the National Enquirer contains lots of rumors but we don't use it as a source, but if the rumor is upgraded to a paper of record we do? A rumor is a rumor). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  Randy Kryn: I hope you're not comparing The Globe and Mail to the Enquirer—it was founded by two Fathers of Confederation, one of whom was Canada's first Prime Minister, and has about as solid a reputation as any newspaper in Canada. Nor is it a "rumour"—the G&M printed the article as a result of an investigation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  He denied it, there were never any charges from legal authorities. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's use of such things as BLP violations, so will leave it to more policy-knowledgeable people to figure out. I know how journalism works these days, and the story is often built backwards from an accepted assumption, and often they get it so wrong that you can see Russia from your porch (or anybody's porch). He may not have sued because it would have kept the story alive which, from his perspective if he's being honest, was an inaccurate story. And even if it's accurate, it's hashish, which will now be sold openly in Canada so any investigative journalist will be able to walk in a shop-around-the-corner and purchase. In any case, as I mention, I'm not up-to-the-minute savvy on BLP policy, the closer will have to determine if policy covers such matters. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Canada's upcoming marijuana legalization only applies to fresh and dried marijuana and cannabis oil. Hash and concentrates are still going to be illegal. Which is not to say that they're not sold openly already anyway. (ref: http://www.slaw.ca/2017/04/18/canadas-cannabis-act-a-high-level-overview/) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, I didn't know that. Seems silly not to go the whole route on these products. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot about this legislation that's silly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include For the record, as Ford is a Canadian, it would be a "rumour" not an American "rumor", and it's neither, it's supported by a reliable source not a tabloid or broadsheet. We discuss what RSes discuss and there are few more reliable sources in Canada. That they have not had to print a retraction or have been sued for the piece is enough to conclude there is veracity to the story and it is not a rumour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Include A report by a respected national newspaper is part of the public record, and, as long as we summarize it fairly, complies with BLP. If the Globe has not seen fit to issue corrections or remove the report in the more than four years since it was published, we have to assume they stand by the reporting. The Interior (Talk) 15:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment I just noticed this part of the inserted content which I think should be removed ASAP: "though his brother, Randy, was also involved in the drug trade and was once charged in relation to a drug-related kidnapping." as guilt by association and "also involved in the drug trade" can be read as if it was heroin or crack that Doug is alleged to have been "also" involved in....extremely misleading terminology, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Limited include - Distrust election-cycle news hype but ... put it down in later life since that's where it surfaced, and approval is only to language of RFC or similar saying that it was a story which alleged it happened in the 80s based on anonymous sources, and no charges ever occurred. By Google the mention of the papers reporting seems prominent enough to be WP:DUE a mention and as a WP:PUBLICFIGURE he is not sheltered by WP:BLPCRIME. But WP:BLP lead still directs "must be written conservatively" and not a tabloid; and WP:PUBLICFIGURE says to avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts so just describe the story occurred without use of sensationalist words like "drug dealer". If the OPC is mentioned, give it a cite like this one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - See this HuffPo article on a CBC Radio interview with Ford earlier this week:

"Near the end of the interview, the CBC host asked Ford why he hadn't followed up on his threat to sue The Globe and Mail over a 2013 story that alleged he sold hashish for several years in the 1980s.

Ford questioned why Bresnahan wanted to "hash up" an old story about his high-school days that was "absolutely false," and said he thought a lawsuit was a waste of time.

She countered by saying it was an issue of trust, noting that Ford initially denied that his late brother, former Toronto mayor Rob Ford, had used illegal drugs."

so not only the Globe but also other mainstream credible media such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Canada's public broadcaster) and HuffPo are still covering this issue. Nixon Now (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Nixon Now, if you're going to quote from an article which we are not presently allowed to use in the Blp, I think you should have also included Subject's response to the reporter's question which is:

Ford said he didn't know at the time that Rob had done drugs.

"I appreciate you bringing his name up, because he was one of the best civil servants there ever was," he said.

I also think its a worthwhile article but we can not even reference now because of the protection so it is ridiculous for any of us to cherry pick content out of new articles and insert that on the discussion page. The growing consensus here is that any mention of the 40 year old alleged events is very awkward to include in a Blp, and since you copied and pasted some content on Ed Johnston's talk page, I assume that's ok since no one corrected you for it, I'm copying and pasting MPS1992's 2comments from the Blp noticeboard which I think are the most relevant and cerebral comments thus far:

"based on interviews with anonymous sources and noting that the newspaper could find no record of drug-related criminal charges against Ford" .... uh... MPS1992 (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The usual test for "accusations of criminal activity that lack both charges and convictions", is the question of whether the alleged incident was significant in the specific named person's future career, one way or another. MPS1992 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment: "The growing consensus here is that any mention of the 40 year old alleged events is very awkward to include in a Blp" - looking at this discussion there are 11 votes to include and 5 to exclude so by more than a 2:1 margin the consensus is actually moving in the opposite direction of where you claim it's going and the CBC interview and HuffPo article demonstrate why, Ford's alleged background as a drug dealer is relevant. As for why I did not quote the entire article, the parts you cite above have nothing to do with the drug dealing allegations and are irrelevant to this discussion. Nixon Now (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

More importantly, Nixon Now, we all have to make sure we do not go down the road that lots of us went down with Rob Ford, getting all obsessed and pissy about the Blp. I wasn't going to mention it but Bearcat's reference above, in a different section, to the, now dead brother of this Subject as "crackhead mayor" should absolutely be stricken, I am very disappointed that Bearcat would say that here on thad dead man's brother's pages and we simply must treat this Subject with respect and as his own person, imo, especially the great editors like Nixon Now and Bearcat who should be carrying the NPOV and Blp conservative (no pun intended:) policies very high for the benefit for the newer editors. I am not perfect either..we can all do a much better job here, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right, IMO, that a descriptor like "crackhead mayor" qualifies as something requiring a reference inline as "contentious material ... about living persons", so here's one. Use at will.

The subject's brother having died is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, but just to comment: we owe Rob Ford no more respect in death than reliable sources gave him during his life. BLP instructs us to describe individuals as they are described by reliable sources. We can no more describe them as flowery posthumous eulogized versions of themselves than we can describe them solely as drug-addicted politically-ineffective monsters. But that being said, we must allow some leeway, within reasonable limits, for material of this nature to be discussed, so we can find a truthful version in the middle and not just shout at each other from opposite ends of a long, dark hallway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"Crackhead" is neither NPOV nor encyclopaedic language, no matter how many RSes use it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Not for use in the encyclopedia, no. I don't think anyone would argue that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include. Subject to significant real-world coverage in reliable sources. PS: A seven-year career as a dealer isn't some minor youthful transgression, a momentary lapse of judgement. It's a focused career decision to engage in long-term, deliberate criminal enterprise. Many of us don't work regular jobs for anywhere near that long.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment:SMcCandlish and others, I get your point, but how do you feel about these 2 points made at the admin noticeboard....

based on interviews with anonymous sources and noting that the newspaper could find no record of drug-related criminal charges against Ford" .... uh... MPS1992 (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC) The usual test for "accusations of criminal activity that lack both charges and convictions", is the question of whether the alleged incident was significant in the specific named person's future career, one way or another. MPS1992 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)</ref>

if MPS1992's point are valid, which I think they are, (how)/are they not mutually exclusive with your point, and if they are, why would your point hold sway? I mean, your point would dominate had Subject been charged, arrested, convicted, but that is not the case here, should not there be an extreme deference be given to MPS1992's points ?? "Innocent til proven guilty", or at least arrested, or at least charged" and all of that? Especially when considering the spirit of Blp policies?Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first point isn't really a point, it's just a quote from the article's prose. I think MPS1992 had meant to make a point about the use of anonymous sources, but we're not using anonymous sources, we're sourcing to a frequently-repeated report in one of Canada's most respected news outlets, which they have not retracted, defended at an industry tribunal, and continue to assert is valid. On the second point I think we're discussing whether or not significance has been established; I argued above why I think it has. As for "innocent until proven guilty" Wikipedia is not a court of law, and we're not saying "Doug Ford definitely dealt drugs in the 80s". We're reflecting what the sources actually say: that a report led to an allegation, and nothing more than that. That's all we should say, anyway, we might have to work on the wording.

The "spirit" of BLP policy is to get things right, by following the sources, balancing various points of view, and removing things when they're not relevant or not properly sourced. It's not to protect individuals from any negative information about themselves. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes; hiding the fact of a public controversy isn't a fair and balanced treatment of the sources. It's not WP's job to say that the accusations are true, but it is not our job either to say that they were not made in a major publication and the subject of considerable scandal for Ford. That is itself "significant in the specific named person's future career, one way or another". I'm not a student of this subject's history and public commentary on it; it may well be that later sources have completely exonerated him. Our job here is "teach the controversy" not "hide controversy to make the subject happy". This would be completely different if some piece-o'-crap publication like the Weekly World News had done something crazy and implausible, like claimed Ford was a living-dead zombie alien with psychic powers. [Yes, they actually do things like that [4].]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - Allegations and/or rumors of criminal behavior from the 80s for which he was never arrested, charged or convicted, and he apparently denies, should not be included in a BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Include - Basis for requests for exclusion seem to be political, rather than encyclopedic. Activist (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include. I'm a little shocked at how many Exclude !votes there are. I don't understand the basis for them. Fine, so he wasn't arrested; since when is that a prerequisite for inclusion? Only for non-public figures. Obviously Ford is a public figure, and by running for elected office he subjected himself to scrutiny about his past. This material is sourced to several very reputable outlets. WP:UNDUE concerns are totally out the window as the issue has received plenty of RS coverage. Of course we must include Ford's denials, but that's a separate issue. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude Anonymous claims which the source does not even claim to be fact are rumors. Worthy of the Daily Mail but found in the electorally involved Globe as well. Not even close - and per WP:BLP contentious claims require a strong positive consensus for inclusion. Collect (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Collect: (above, and also in regards to your comments to @StvnW:) You are mistaken, the Globe and Mail does clearly assert that these claims are facts. There was a complaint to the Ontario Press Council about this. The council ruled in the Globe and Mail's favour. I think the statement made to the hearing by John Stackhouse, Editor-in-Chief of The Globe and Mail, is instructive. Note that editor's use of the word "facts", not "allegations"[5]

Starting in late 2011, our reporting began to explore that family background, and the more people we spoke with, the more it became apparent that the drug trade had been a part of the lives of Doug Ford and his siblings, and that they were known for that amongst their peer group in central Etobicoke. Given the serious public concern about drug trafficking in Toronto, and given Doug Ford’s own statements against the drug trade, we felt this information was irrefutably in the public interest.

The facts were established, through multiple interviews with multiple, independent sources, all of them anonymous.

[...] 2. Were adequate efforts made to verify the allegations?

This story was 18 months in the making, in large part because the reporters (on the advice of editors, and in some cases, legal counsel) were sent back multiple times to corroborate details and further authenticate information provided in previous interviews. More than 100 people were approached. Many refused comment. Many referred to second-hand information about the Fords’ role in the illegal drug trade. Our reporters searched only for people with direct knowledge – those who had purchased hashish from Doug Ford, supplied him with hashish or witnessed him possessing large amounts of the drug. Eventually, the reporters located and interviewed 10 people who said they had such knowledge.

Mr. Chairman, it may be worth reiterating at this point that the focal point of our investigation was never the recreational use of drugs or some fleeting misjudgment of youth, as has been suggested by the participants, perhaps as a way of diverting critical public attention; this was about a serious and sustained commercial activity, something most of us associate with criminals.

Some of our sources were interviewed more than five times and the reporters went back to them repeatedly to run new names and anecdotes by them, in order to test the credibility of these sources. Some of our sources met with senior editors and, on three occasions, with legal counsel for The Globe. Each person who was quoted anonymously said they were afraid to attach their name to the story, citing the influence of the Ford family or problems they may face in revealing their own involvement in the drug trade. One person sought legal advice and was advised that there is no statute of limitations for drug trafficking offences in Canada. Another source who wanted to go on the record sought the approval of his immediate family, who convinced him not to consent to his name being published. One concern that came up with several sources was how the disclosure of their identity might affect their ability to travel to the United States.

After repeated, unsuccessful efforts over many months to convince sources to agree to the use of their names, we faced a dilemma: we could publish the story citing only anonymous sources, knowing the facts of the story are both true and in the public interest, or we could not publish at all. The latter option would have been journalistically and socially irresponsible.

Accepting this, we set extraordinary standards for the extent, documentation and validation of each interview. In addition to these direct sources, the reporters worked for months to seek all available public information, including court documents, related to the cases cited in the story. Additionally, as many of the events documented in the story occurred before the advancement of the Internet, they spent months examining microfiched newspapers, yearbooks and old phone directories for further contacts and information."

Nixon Now (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Court records? None What is clear is that anonymous people said Ford was a dealer on a felonious crime. No court cases existed to be checked by the Globe. A big clue is that there is no statute of limitations for drug trafficking offences in Canada. Therefore the Globe specifically avoided saying anything more than the weird wording of "the drug trade had been a part of the lives of Doug Ford and his siblings" which one may note does not make the statement that Ford was a major drug dealer. Yet we are willing to make Wikipedia into Rumorpedia when the Globe and Mail is the only original source for the charges, that it was editorially opposed to Ford's family, that it worded the article to avoid any legal claim of defamation, and that it specifically said the sources are anonymous. No other source was involved in the "investigation", and the result is on the level of the Daily Mail at best. The fact that the Atlantic carefully used a question mark in its title indicates that it was unwilling to make any claim of fact, by the way. That is why question marks exist. Ford may be Satan Incarnate, but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia to state as fact. Collect (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Collect, aren't there PRIMARY sources, that we don't rely on, and also the work of professional reporters and journalists, vetted by professional journalists, that we do rely on? Isn't the Globe and Mail one of the most prestigious and well respected newspapers in Canada? So, when the sources journalists and reporters, at a respected publication, include court records, and interviews with individuals who knew a BLP, surely their reporting should not be dismissed in the same way we dismiss raw primary sources. In this particular case, don't we have respected journalist and reporters, who specialized in Toronto's drug scene, and Toronto's political scene? So, their reporting on Doug Ford, isn't it a secondary source, where respected authoritative sources used, and interpreted their sources, using their experience as journalists, and their experience covering those fields?

  One never used to see arguments like the one you made here, claiming that the restrictions we place on relying on primary sources, should also apply to the secondary sources that used primary sources someone doesn't like.

  No offense, but I believe your argument here constitutes a serious lapse from policy. You and I, and every other contributor, are not WP:Reliable sources. We are supposed to rely on the judgement of reliable sources. I'd been here less than two years, when I realized I was working on topics where my personal opinion was at odds with what RS were saying. I thought policy was clear. When RS differ from what we personally believe our choices are either to (1) walk away, and let other contributors do all the work on those topics; or (2) summarize, quote, paraphrase what the RS say, even though we personally disagree with it.

  You wrote that the Globe and Mail's reporting carefully did not explicitly say Doug Ford was a former drug dealer? That is an excellent point. But your conclusion? Way off. You are correct we should not state, in the wikipedia's voice, that Doug Ford is a former drug dealer. We should not even state that the Globe and Mail stated he was a drug dealer. But, reporting that the Globe and Mail conducted research into his past? I suggest that is completely compliant with policy. Wikipedia coverage of the Globe and Mail reporting that doesn't go any farther than the Globe and Mail's reporting? Why isn't that completely compliant with policy?

  No offense, but it seems to me that you are placing your judgement ahead of that of the Globe and Mail's editors. You, I, other wikipedia contributors, are not reliable sources. Just as adding our own unreferenced opinions, unreferenced interpretations, would be a lapse from WP:No original research, it seems to me that attempts to excise opinions and interpretations that are neutrally written, and properly reference good reliable sources, isn't that also a lapse from NOR? Geo Swan (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Collect: to your comment in the subsequent RfC ("Read WP:BLPCRIME more carefully - it is not intended to allow auto-inclusion of innuendo and allegations of felonies.") I fully concur, however, again, WP:BLPCRIME is very clear about the fact that it does not apply here. BLP policy guidance on this is provided by WP:PUBLICFIGURE. ―StvnW ^talk 19:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

We can report crimes. The standard for rumours is different. "George Gnarph was rumoured to be the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth" is beyond the pale, for example. In the case at hand, we have a single newspaper (the sole real source) which politically opposed the person and his entire family, publishing an "investigation" which carefully avoids any identification of any accusers, avoids making an explicit claim of a specific crime, and couched in language that avoids a defamation suit by a mere centimeter, and which then is promoted as fact in Rumourpedia. Collect (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment Collect points out something "couched in language that avoids a defamation suit by a mere centimeter" which I think is quite profound; i.e. the classic use of weasel words by the Globe in describing their so-called "fact", i.e, "the drug trade had been a part of the lives of Doug Ford and his siblings". Classic because the phrase fits so perfectly with our Weasel word article's definition (which also ironically equates "weasel word" with "anonymous authority"..ironic because this whole thing is based on anonymous sources): "A weasel word, or anonymous authority, is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when instead only a vague or ambiguous claim has actually been communicated." In fact, the weasel words are so effective that Nixon Now misreads them in his comments above, just like I and likely most everybody else did. Actually, the only "facts", which the Globe refers to, are never identified by the Globe other than the fact that when any one person in a family ever buys or sells (thus the word "trade") a marijuana joint or any other drug, that "fact" becomes "a part of the lives" of the siblings. This phrase comes very close to "I never had sex with that woman". Thanks Collect, I have been quite smug in thinking our Canadian media were much less misleading than American media, and you have opened my eyes with your observation of the literal meaning of "the drug trade had been a part of the lives of Doug Ford and his siblings" being boldly pronounced as if it means something definite and important. Hopefully, this Rfc can incorporate your observation going forward and stop the insanity of pretending this type of anonymously sourced crap deserves to be in anybody's Blp. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• TY. My family was rife with journalists, including newspaper owners, editorial writers, and even a cousin at the NYT. Spotting such stuff is what genuine journalists used to be taught to do. Collect (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• The article cannot state (or even imply) that it is a fact, but given how widely and persistently the G&M article has been reported, we can't just leave it out, either. It comes down to wording—and to not drawing WP:UNDUE attention to it, such as by belabouring it or highlighting it in the Table of Contents. And a consequence of leaving it out entirely would be that we'd have to be constantly vigilant for drive-by editors adding it in—inevitably without any sort of balance. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• @Collect: "The Globe and Mail, a Toronto newspaper, has reported that he sold hashish for several years during the 1980s, but Mr. Ford has denied that report." ("Brother of Rob Ford Elected to Lead Conservatives in Ontario", New York Times, March 11, 2018, - article includes hyperlink to Globe and Mail article) Nixon Now (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that libel and defamation laws are far harsher and more plaintiff-friendly in Canada than in the United States. In Canada, defamation law does not make the distinction that US law makes between public and non-public figures, the same rules apply for both, and while in the US it must be proven that the defendant knew the impugned statements were untrue, no such requirement exists in Canada. Accordingly, Canadian media is far more reticent to publish controversial allegations about individuals - and yet the Ford drug dealing allegations were publishable and no lawsuit ensued. Nixon Now (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Eventually, the reporters located and interviewed 10 people who said they had such knowledge. is the statement of "fact" from the article. And Canada defamation law is not friendly to plaintiffs when defendants only need to point out that they made claims of "fact" which are fact, and the defamation is so carefully worded as not to be an explicit claim of felonious behaviour. Read my posts above before leaping off a cliff in your claims, please. the more it became apparent that the drug trade had been a part of the lives of Doug Ford and his siblings is the claim the Editor made. Note how nicely it is parsed. Collect (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• (Indentation and attribution got screwed up, somehow, I made a good faith attempt to correct it, so I could place my comment in the right place...)
• Collect wrote: "My family was rife with journalists, including newspaper owners, editorial writers, and even a cousin at the NYT. Spotting such stuff is what genuine journalists used to be taught to do.".

  I can't tell you how disturbing I find this comment. You realize that, even if your relatives who worked at the New York Times were interested in working on this article, they, like you, and I, and every other wikipedia contributor, would not be reliable sources? A journalist, or editor, puts their professional reputation on the line, when they sit at their desk at the New York Times, or the Globe and Mail. Even reporters without a byline, or editors, who also don't have a byline, are putting their professional reputation on the line. If they submit an article based on bad research, or that turns out to have contained laughable conclusions, their bosses know who was responsible, their colleagues know. They have a strong incentive to measure up to generally accepted professional journalistic standards.

  But when a professional journalist goes home, pops a beer, and signs on to the wikipedia, they are no longer a journalist. Wikipedia ids are semi-anonymous. If your cousin was contributing here, right beside you, the semi-anonymous nature of their ID means they are not putting their professional reputation on the line. If your NYT cousin were participating here, all the restrictions that apply to you and I and every other wikipedia contributor would apply to them. In particular, the restriction that we keep our personal opinions and interpretations to ourselves, and rely instead on the opinions and interpretations of journalists who are putting their professional reputation on the line, would apply just as fully to your NYT cousin as it applies to you or I.

  If I understand you, it is your relatives who worked for RS -- not you personally, so, no offense you have even less justification to claim we should rely on your journalistic judgement, than we would on your NYT cousin. Geo Swan (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Nice that you completely missed my point. My point is that we should not allow the Daily Mail type of "investigation" to be used as claims of fact when the wording of the actual article does not make the claim . Headlines and sub-heads are not what the journalists write. Yes - the Daily Mail writers are journalists. Your real point? My point is that we have to use what the reporter wrote, not what the headline writer wrote. Now might you kindly stick to the point I made instead of venturing off brazenly at ninety degrees? Or do you think "headlines" are part of any newspaper article, and as reliable as the rest? Including when major papers talk about impossibilities? Columbia Journalism Review "Amphibious pitcher makes debut", "Study shows frequent sex increases pregnancy chances". The New Yorker [6] "First, misinformation appears to cause more damage when it’s subtle than when it’s blatant. We see through the latter and correct for it as we go. The former is much more insidious and persistent. It is also, unfortunately, much more likely to be the result of sloppiness or inconsideration rather than a deliberate effort to lead readers astray. " Headlines are a serious concern within the journalism community, and the purpose of headlines is exactly the same as for "clickbait" headlines. To sell. Is this sufficiently clear? Collect (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Nocturnalnow, you link to the wikipedia article on Weasel words.

  WP:Weasel words, on the other hand, redirects to a short subsection of WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch entitled Unsupported attributions. The guideline aims to give wikipedia contributors advice on how to make sure their own wording doesn't use weasel words to make, you guessed it, "unsupported atributions".

  Since this discussion is about whether or not to use properly attributed reporting from the Globe and Mail, your link to the wikipedia article is just not appropriate.

  Can you find a section of WP:RS, WP:VER, or some other policy or guideline that is relevant to what you regard as the Globe's use of weasel words? If so, great.

  You do realize that we have lots of policies, guidelines, and essays that tell us how to draft neutrally written articles that rely on RS that do not aim to achieve the wikipedia's strict standard of neutrality? Geo Swan (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Geo Swan, I noticed yesterday TFD's thoughts some 5 years ago on this same matter, so, and please pardon my ignorance in this regard, is the Globe investigative piece the primary source and the Atlantic question mark piece the secondary source? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• No, a WP:PRIMARY source is something like a diary, an experimental write-up, a police report. It is something that is the work of one person, or one party; something that is unreviewed.

  An example of a WP:SECONDARY source might be when an experienced historian uses old documents, like the diary I mentioned above, other documents like shipping manifests, deeds, parish marraige records, to write a coherent account of a historical event. If that experienced historian wrote an article based solely on that diary I'd argue it was still a SECONDARY source, because they wer bringing were bringing their experience to bear, to provide context and perspective.

  Another example might be if a scientist, or journalist, read a bunch of PRIMARY documents, stitched them into a coherent whole.

  Using those definitions, the Globe reporting would definitely be a SECONDARY source.

  You asked for my opinion of TFD's comments, from five years ago? TFD noted that the Globe's reporting had been widely reported on by other newspapers. Sometimes a newspaper will publish the results of a piece of solid investigative reporting, and other newspapers will not pick it up. Newspapers are rivals. Another newspaper's story has to be significant for other newspapers to report on it. If TFD argued that our article should note how the Globe's reporting was itself widely reported on, they were correct. If TFD were asserting our article should only summarize, paraphrase or quote those elements of the Globe's reporting that were republished in another newspaper, I'd say they were wildly incorrect.

  Why ask about a comment from TFD, from five years ago? Why TFD in particular? Note, they also described FORD, (and the entire Toronto City Council,) as measuring up WP:POLITICIAN, which he clearly does not, since POLITICIAN explicitly says it only applies to PROVINCIAL or FEDERAL office-holders. TFD's understanding of our policies, back then, seems iffy. Geo Swan (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Geo Swan, very much, for those clarifications. I think I "get it" all now. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you can claim that the G&M is carefully couching its language when it prominently writes "This investigative report reveals that: Doug Ford, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s brother, sold hashish for several years in the 1980s." at the top of the piece. It's pretty clear that they are asserting that the claims are true. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Do we have any critique of the article yet? Real odd this did not get picked up at large?--Moxy (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting but ultimately WP:SYNTH discussion of Wikipedians' non-expert opinions of the legal weight and/or validity of Ontario Press Council tribunals

[The following comment and associated replies originally appeared outside the RfC and have been moved to where they occurred within the timeline of its discussion.] ―StvnW talk 18:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Comment: Ontario Press Council "ruling" The Ontario Press Council (OPC) found that the G&M did not violate the Press Council's rules. They did not rule that Doug Ford Jr. committed felonies. [7] In fact the OPC specifically does not examine legal issues or make evidentiary findings at all. In short the OPC made zero findings of "fact" at all in this matter. Clear? That is how the OPC "ruled." Collect (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Nobody here is claiming that the OPC evaluated the veracity of the Globe's claims. Is your concern with how the wording of the article might be interpreted by readers otherwise? ―StvnW talk 19:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC) One editor, in fact, has made a point of the OPC ruling on the G&M article. This note was made in response to the claim made by that editor. What is left is the G&M did not actually state that Ford committed the felony of drug-dealing, which means the desire to make the claim in Wikipedia's voice is weak. Collect (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC) If you mean where Nixon Now states: the Globe and Mail does clearly assert that these claims are facts and The council ruled in the Globe and Mail's favour, both of these are true, but I don't read the latter as being a validation of the statements in the former. In any case, I think we agree both on the substance of the OPC ruling and that the claim should not be made in WP's voice (which it currently is not). ―StvnW talk 20:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC) The OPC found that the Globe and Mail's investigative practices used in this piece, including the use of anonymous sources (which you and several others agonize over on this talk page), were fair and ethical practices. From page six of the decision: "In this case, the lengthy, extensive efforts made by the Globe satisfied the Council that the information was reasonably reliable and the reporters were sufficiently diligent in their efforts to verify their conclusions." ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC) The OPC states clearly that it examined no evidence at all. Did you miss that part? Collect (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I'm looking at it right now and don't see it. Could you give a quote & page number, please? Not that it ultimately matters. Wikipedia is not claiming that he sold hashish (although Nixon Now seems bent on trying to give that impression to the readers). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC) I don't mean to be pedantic, but felonies no longer exist under Canadian law. TFD (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC) I don't think we've ever had felonies. The Criminal Code of Canada only has summary offences, indictable offences, and hybrid offences. Nixon Now (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Before the Criminal Code was enacted in 1892. See S. 535 of the original code which eliminates the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors.[8] TFD (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Interesting. I did not know that. Nixon Now (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Self defeating text on page 5 of OPC statement This Supreme Court text from page 5, below, which the OPC appears to have relied upon, seems to me to be specific to "institutions", not individuals or families. I'm thinking the OPC got it wrong by conflating the public need to hold public or "some private" institutions accountable with an imaginary equal public need to hold public individuals or families accountable to the same extent: "The right to use anonymous sources is set out by the Supreme Court in Globe v Groupe Polygone [2010] SCR 41and National Post v The Queen [2010] SCR 16. The reasons why it can be in the public interest to allow journalists to use anonymous sources is best described by Justice Binnie: “The public also has an interest in being informed about matters of public importance that may only seethe light of day through the cooperation of sources who will not speak except on condition of confidentiality. The role of investigative journalism has expanded over the years to help fill what has been described as a democratic deficit in the transparency and accountability of our public institutions. There is a demonstrated need, as well, to shine the light of public scrutiny on the dark corners of some private institutions”. I'd say that the mere fact that the Supreme Court went to the trouble of specifying "institutions" as being important enough to warrant anonymous sourcing dictates, or at least infers, that individuals do not meet that high bar of importance (to warrant anonymous sourcing). Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC) You're grasping at straws. The SCC case was about whether it's in the public interest for journalists to be compelled to reveal their sources when bring cross-examined in court. The OPC is not citing the SCC cases for that reason but simply to argue in what situations anon sources are credible. Whether or not the investigation is of an individual or institution is irrelevant as far as credibility is concerned even if it makes a difference as far as being shielded from exposing the sources during cross-examination. Nixon Now (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "in what situations anon sources are credible"? exactly, so the OPC referencing a SCC cited situation where anons were ok for institutions was in error as it is irrelevant for giving an "ok" for anons re: individuals, it seems to me. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC) I disagree, but even if, for the sake of argument, we say you're correct you're engaging in WP:Original Research and therefore your line of argument is irrelevant unless you can find a published source that says the same thing specifically about the Ontario Press Council ruling. Do you have any source that explicitly states the Ontario Press Council made the error you described? If not, then it's original research and there's no point in continuing this line of discussion further. Nixon Now (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC) I thought about that, but I figure critical thinking/analysis, aka OR, on talk pages is ok, especially when addressing text used to support inclusion of anonymous sources within a Blp. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC) You're not a lawyer and you have no idea how to interpret or apply legal decisions. We might as well be arguing theology. Nixon Now (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC) At the time Rob Ford was a member of Toronto City Council, which was a public institution having executive and legislative and power over the City of Toronto. He also was an ally and adviser to the mayor. TFD (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include (1) the Globe and Mail devoted considerable effort to their research; (2) the Globe and Mail is a highly respected newspaper; (3) Doug Ford, as a public figure, is not entitled to the courtesy discretion we apply to people who become the subject of news coverage against their well; (4) invalid arguments have been made above that the Globe and Mail's reporting is tainted by relying on PRIMARY sources. Every SECONDARY source relies on PRIMARY sources. Wikipedia policy is to rely on the judgement of reliable sources, and the Globe and Mail is a reliable source. WP:Verify says we should suppress any personal doubts we have over what RS report, because our goal is verifiability, not truth. Geo Swan (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the Globe and Mail investigative article itself a primary source, as TFD indicated five years ago? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No, news reports are not primary sources. The only way it would be is if it was either written by Ford or one of the witnesses. But even if you want to think it is a primary source there are plenty of news reports that reference the Globe article, including one in the New York Times, which you would have to agree are secondary sources. Nixon Now (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nixon Now. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It is similar to a primary source in that it reports the author's interpretation of evidence, the interpretation is considered opinion rather than fact (unless subsequently proved) and its weight depends on whether or not other sources report it. Even in news reports, opinions are primary sources. The claims made in the Globe series should be treated differently from say a news report saying that Ford became the PC leader. TFD (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Include The Globe and Mail is probably the most respected newspaper in Canada. Certainly it would be undue to include investigative reporting that had been ignored by other mainstream sources. But this story received extensive coverage in all major media and the Press Council found it to be fair. NOTGOSSIP is wholly inapplicable: it says that we should not include information we heard "through the grapevine." In other words, we must not include information that we received through unpublished sources. Articles should not draw attention to information not covered elsewhere nor conceal information that may be embarrassing to the subject. Incidentally, we had similar discussions about Ford's brother, Rob Ford. TFD (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing - It's been a month. Can this RFC be closed now? Should a formal request for close be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure or can we agree there is a consensus? I would say it's to include. Nixon Now (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include This report by the nations's leading and generally conservative-supporting newspaper was based on years of research, with numerous witnesses, and years later, no fact has been shown to be wrong. None of the Ford's even challenged the claims in court. Complaints about the article were strongly upheld by the Ontario Press Council. Why wouldn't it be mentioned here. Heck, why isn't such a fundamental foundational information about years of Doug Ford's past not in the lead? Nfitz (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include I don't see any policy based argument against. Being an allegation is not a reason to exclude, neither is not being arrested, nor is it being 30 years or whatever, nor do we exclude reporting because the source is supposedly left wing. What determines inclusion is reporting in RS, and only that, and per the sources there is WEIGHT for inclusion Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018

In the early life section can Doug Ford's status as a high school graduate be clarified? Contemporaryhuman (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. At the moment, the source that we have in the article now only says that he attended Scarlett Heights, it doesn't say that he graduated from that school or at all. It would be a good thing to add to the article, and perhaps his postsecondary if there are secondary sources (or if he attended at all, I don't know). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)