" 
 ==Semiprotection== 
 Various editors have been keen to add a most interesting nugget to the article. This is sourced to the Toronto Star, which sounds dubious about its veracity (a video ""appears to show"" such and such). Let's wait until reputable news sources are rather more certain of its worth until we consider allowing its addition to the article (even as an ""allegation""). After all, there's no hurry: Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. In order to cut short a resource-wasting edit war, I've s-protected the article.  

 Sleepily, I did so for an indefinite period. That was not deliberate: any admin who wishes to end the s-protection is free to do so without consulting me. The article will not be on my watchlist; if further edits seem to require full protection, then again an admin is free to do this without consulting me.     

 :I completely agree with Hoary. The 2 sources; Gawker and Toronto Star even conflict on what the video reveals: 
 : Gawker witness claimed it was Pierre Trudeau called a faggot by someone ""off camera"" 
 :  
 : Toronto Star witnesses say it was Justin Trudeau who was called a fag by Ford himself 
 :     

 :: Gawker has clarified this in an update (mid-article).  The speaker only said ""Trudeau"". Gawker didn't understand immediately that ""Trudeau"" likely meant the currently topical Justin and not the more internationally known Pierre.     

 You realize that the crack cocaine video is being widely reported? I think it might be more appropriate to put a tag on the page that there are current events going on, rather than disallow adding anything.    

 :I wonder, is there room for the article to briefly mention the story in a way that doesn't violate WP:BLP? Is it a problem to just say that 3 journalists (1 Gawker, 2 TorStar) have reported seeing the video, and that Ford denies the allegations? It would obviously be wrong to assert in Wikipedia's voice that anything on the alleged video is true, or even that the video exists, frankly, but it seems to me that a brief neutral mention that the story exists might be appropriate. Although, bottom line, I agree with Hoary - there is no hurry, and edit warring is always pointless, so I'm not trying to make a strong case for its inclusion, I'm just genuinely wondering if there is any appropriate way to mention this kind of thing while respecting BLP guidelines. Cheers,    
 ::WP:BLP in my opinion precludes including this at this time. ""Biographies of living persons (""BLP""s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid:"". As others have said, there is no rush, either the video will soon become available or it will not; that will be the time to include it in this BLP I think.    

 : The controversy, now making international headlines, in itself is very notable.  Even if it turns out he's not smoking crack (doubtful), it's still a notable and increasingly major event in this person's biography.  We're putting denial blinders on ourselves here by withholding mention.  Not only will this likely require its own section, but I believe it will eventually have its own article.    

 : On the BBC now  I'd say that's a reliable source...    

 : As to conflicts between Gawker and Toronto Star's reportage of the content, if you were watching a video in the back of a shady car, and only had three times to watch, how accurate do you think your notes would be? (see Inattentional blindness)       
 :: Agreed, which is why the entire episode is so sketchy at this point in time, its based upon watching a video in the back seat of a car and in Gawker's case, I think it may have been only 1 time.  ([[User talk:May122013|t