Talk:Jian Ghomeshi/Archive 1

Wrestling
Regarding the following bit:

This has led to the suggestion that the CBC and World Wrestling Entertainment will collaborate to stage a no holds barred, free for all cage fight between Ghomeshi, Stromboulopoulous, Ben Mulroney and Alexandre Trudeau.

While this is funny as hell, could you please quote a specific source for it before adding it to the article? Bearcat 17:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

billy bob thorton
The section is clearly valid as it is how this DJ gained international exposure, i imagine 90 percent of the people who navigate to this page will be doing so because of the Thorton story, so it would be an error not to mention it. This section was deleted by someone who did not have a wiki account, who listed it as "news, not relevant" which seems absurd to me,how can the main reason most readers will know about this person not be relevant? I think there would be a better title for the section, but the section it self is a valid entry. Perhaps we could call it "international exposure" or something. Any thoughts? —Preceding [User:Norwhales's tusk|Norwhales's tusk] comment added by Norwhales's tusk (talk • contribs) 03:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do people keep deleting all the information on Thorton without a discussion? And if current events are not supposed to be added to wiki articles why does the ship captured by somlean pirates and its captain have their own page? (see Richard Phillips)? Neither this ship or Phillips were on wiki before the incident. Signed, Norwhales's Tusk.

Protection
I have filed a request for protection following recurring vandalism on the page regarding the interview with Billy Bob. Inochimizu (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - how do you do that - for the record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suivoh (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You visit Requests_for_page_protection and write it there. For now they have blocked the user who did the vandalizing, but if it occurs again then further petition should be made. Inochimizu (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for teaching me something new. You are the sh*t man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suivoh (talk • contribs) 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC) That guy is a d bag how could he be such a jerk treating Jian Ghomeshi like thatClf95 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Music as Cultural Diplomacy
I think there should be some mention that the Q show oftens enters into the realm of music as cultural diplomacy. For example, the show might discuss the impact of punk music in Czechoslovakia and its affect on the Velvet Revolution that overthrew the government there. This type of CBC programming is more about propaganda and promoting certain performers who are soft power agents. For example, the University of Southern California's Public Diplomacy Center tell of how jazz music and certain musicians were used by the US government during the Cold War to promote dissent in the Soviert Union and elsewhere. See http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/library/reviews_detail/satchmo_blows_up_the_world_jazz_ambassadors_play_the_cold_war/ I don't have any references on radio programming as cultural diplomacy or soft power propaganda but if anyone does, I would like to see them included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.163.55 (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Birthday is wrong
he surely is not 107 years pld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siato (talk • contribs) 09:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

LIGHTS
At various points in the article, the singer/songwriter is referred to as LIGHTS or Lights. Fix this? TorontonianOnlines (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. Fixed. Sunray (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Jian, what's inaccurate here?
On his show today, interviewing Cory Doctorow, Ghomeshi said that when he looks himself up on Wikipedia he is amazed by the inaccuracies. Doctorow told him to edit the inaccuracies himself, to which Ghomeshi replied "you can do that?" Doctorow compared it to eating bacon for breakfast. --Mathew5000 17:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

He first came to large (not national, I guess) attention as a teenager with a hit single by what I understand was his one-man band, "Tall New Buildings". Someone who knows more should correct/elaborate.

I've noticed that famous peoples' friends' are understandably reticent about writing about them on the web. They could provide lots of interesting and correct information, but do not. I know about Jian via my ex-wife, who knew/knows him very, very well, and has since before the Moxy era. But she, and people like her, aren't likely to add any information to WikiPedia and the like because it's hard to know what is properly public and what is private. It's easier to avoid the issue entirely, even if you're a webhead who likes completeness, like me. I have a friend I've known many years who is a moderately big Hollywood producer. I always am tempted to correct and add to her IMDB entry, but refrain.

I wonder what the reasoning is that people themselves are reluctant to edit their own WikiPedia entries and the like? A sense of propriety, perhaps, feeling that paying much attention to such things is narcissistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.107.190 (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe they are afraid of letting out too much of the truth. You know, Ghomeshi stated on his November 15, 2009 show that he has a bachelors degree in political science. Why does Canada's state run propaganda machine have an ethnic Iranian with a poli sci degree front and center on an arts show? Because Ghomeshi is to be an agreeable and likeable Iranian for Canadians and at the same time to be cute and cuddly picture of Canada for Iranians. Ghomeshi often talks about the "democracy" movement in Iran. He is there to report indirectly on over-throwing the Iranian gov't a la Chile, Argentina, Viet Nam, Guatamala etc... Music is often used by the US for its propaganda (public relations) purposes. Ghomeshi is just another such tool. See University of Southern California's public diplomacy center for more on music propaganda...http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/events/events_detail/1752/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.181.25 (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

''I wonder what the reasoning is that people themselves are reluctant to edit their own WikiPedia entries and the like? A sense of propriety, perhaps, feeling that paying much attention to such things is narcissistic.''

And yet he's self-absorbed enough to do self-indulgent radio stories about his own Wikipedia page. Interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.18.193.6 (talk • contribs)


 * He hasn’t done “radio stories about his own Wikipedia page”. Rather, he uses his own Wikipedia page as an example when discussing Wikipedia. For example, the podcast of his interview of Jimbo Wales, available here.
 * Just as two years ago when this issue arose, it would be helpful if Ghomeshi had mentioned specifically what was incorrect. In any event I deleted the mention from the article because it’s not really appropriate. --Mathew5000 (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If he was born in the England, why is his origin listed as Iran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.66.207 (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting that; I've corrected it. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

thornton
some idiot keeps deleting the section on thornton, and uses it to take prejudicial stabs at Canadians. how do you delete that person's account, or remove their ability to edit. If someone took a prejudicial stab towards another nationality, it certainly woudn't stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suivoh (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "idiot"? Hardly.  The Thornton section reads like an excerpt from a gossip rag, not a wikipedia article.  Under normal circumstances, such tripe is deleted, but seeing as Q will just send in one of the 'fans' to restore the cherished bit of trivia, is it worth the bother?  Not for this article.--Voola (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright infringing text.
This still has obvious copyright-infringing text from CBC after four years notice. See here, and here. I'll re-work it to remove these violations. __ E L A Q U E A T E  22:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a problem, but it's easy to fix by just removing the offending text — which is only a small percentage of the overall article, and is mostly vague promotional content that isn't adding anything of substance anyway — and absolutely does not require the complete blanking of the entire article, inclusive of passages that aren't copyvios. You use a flyswatter to kill a fly, not a sledgehammer. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then fix it. After taking a look at how extensive it was and how a lot of the copyvio is obscured in the duplication report because it doesn't pick up on threads where we've inlinked, I realized didn't have time to thread through the whole thing all by myself. When I saw that previous flags of the problem resulted in the text being left alone, I just followed advice about what to do with articles with extensive copy-vio, which is file a report. If you can get rid of it great. I'm not trying to kill flies, I reported copyvios, which is not a "Wikipedia has no deadline, let's get around to it later if it's not being noticed this week" kind of thing.__ E L A Q U E A T E  19:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: official sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request 10/25/14 - Leave from CBC
It was reported today that Jian is taking a break from CBC as he is having personal problems since the passing of his father. [1 ]This article makes no mention of his fathers passing, would should be mentioned if it has had a big impact of his well being. For such an accomplished Canadian I am surprised there is not more to this article. 31jetjet (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC) 31jetjet

Written by his employer's Promotions Dept. and publicity agent - conflict of interest
This biographical entry is taken directly from publicity material prepared by the CBC to promote Ghomeshi. http://www.cbc.ca/q/aboutus.html As such it stands in conflict of interest as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines. It also repeats entries:

- “He is also a writer whose editorials and opinion pieces have been published in The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, and The International Herald Tribune.”

- “Ghomeshi’s opinion pieces have been published in the Sunday Washington Post, The National Post, The International Herald Tribune.”

and provides no citations to any of these so-called "opinion/editorial" pieces that he wrote for The Guardian, The Washington Post or The International Herald Tribune. In the case of The Guardian, the "editorial" he is purported to have written turns out to be the transcript of an interview he did on air with Leonard Cohen.

Allan Sorensen (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Allan Sorensen


 * Wow... no one has taken action on this. --Pdedecker (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That is considered a reliable source. If it was written by him or someone he knows it would be a much better artcile. Think about it. 31jetjet (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)31jetjet

Edit Request 10/26/14 - Suing CBC
It is now reported that Jian is suing CBC for $50 million for breach of confidence and bad faith. [1 ] 31jetjet (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 31jetjet
 * You should be able to add this information yourself. The level of edit protection that I applied to the article only blocks IPs and newly-registered users, but your edit history suggests you've been around for at least a year and shouldn't be affected by it at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Already added. Expecting this to be a fast-moving story Natty10000 | Natter  21:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I've already seen quite a bit of online speculation about it, including some as-yet-unsourced allegations about criminal activity of some kind, which is why I opted for the partial page protection — for obvious reasons, we have to be extremely careful about what we publish in a situation like this, and cannot allow our article to become a haven for unsourced rumours. Just to clarify, for the time being I've only locked out anonymous IPs and brand new usernames, and only for one week — virtually all established editors can still edit the article. However, the level of protection, and/or the length, can and will be upped at a later date if further problems do arise. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a sensible approach. Natty10000 | Natter  22:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And it's starting to break on social media now that he's officially released his own statement about the matter — and unfortunately, it's exactly the kind of sensitive, potentially prurient matter that tends to lead to a soapboxing swarm of drive-by IP assassination on Wikipedia. So unfortunately it looks we're all going to have to be on high alert over the next few days or weeks for potential WP:BLP violations. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The page currently says he sued on October 26, a Sunday, when the courts are closed. The source sited says he has instructed his lawyers to file on October 27th, a Monday, when the courts open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.71.127 (talk)
 * I've changed the wording of the sentence in question. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

A petition requesting an apology from CBC for violating Jian Ghomeshi's Charter right to "freedom of association" and requesting that he get his job back has been created: https://www.change.org/p/canadian-broadcasting-corporation-cbc-apologize-to-jian-ghomeshi-for-violating-his-charter-rights-and-re-instate-him-in-his-job-as-host-of-q As I understand it, there is another petition asking for his job back as well, but without mention of the charter right violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.53.47.42 (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not Wikipedia's role to help promote petitions. Bearcat (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Article presents a strongly one-sided view of allegations of violence
Please add a reference to Jian's own words on the matter, perhaps with a note that he claims that "CBC execs confirmed that the information provided showed that there was consent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.235.36 (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, not primary ones. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SELFPUB says Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I think a statement that CBC execs believed his claims about whether there was consent can only be considered self-serving, as they are in a legal dispute over that very question. The Facebook post should be used with incredible care, as it hasn't been demonstrated to be vetted by any secondary source for factual accuracy. It represents Gomeshi's opinions at this point, self-published, and in this specific case, unduly self-serving. __ E L A Q U E A T E  18:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's appropriate for us to provide a brief summary of his statement, sourced to secondary coverage of it rather than to the Facebook post itself — but as written, the article is already doing that in the first paragraph of the section. It's not appropriate for us to post long verbatim quotes from the Facebook post, sourced only to the post itself — for one thing, the Facebook post is a public relations manoeuvre which does fail "unduly self-serving". Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 October 2014
Hours after being fired, Ghomeshi posted a lengthy statement on Facebook.

OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Half done, half not — this required only the addition of two words, "on Facebook", to a sentence that was otherwise already in the article, and used to have the words "on Facebook" in it as it is (I have no idea when they disappeared). It didn't require a new sentence or a new source. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegations of violence meet BLP rules because they come from a major newspaper, the Toronto Star
This section all comes from an article in the Toronto Star, a Reliable source: The Toronto Star had "detailed interviews" with a different group of "three women, who said they experienced violence from Ghomeshi without consent"; the women were initially "his fans." "In one woman’s case, she visited Ghomeshi at his Toronto home and alleges as soon as she walked into his house he suddenly struck her hard with his open hand, then continued to hit her and choked her. The woman alleges Ghomeshi repeatedly beat her about the head and choked her." "Another woman said "...he attacked me. Choked me. Hit me like I didn’t know men hit women.” "OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Allegations of violence might meet BLP rules because it's found in a reliable source but I question whether including quotes from that source, which is in turn quoting anonymous sources, meets BLP rules. Those quotes are allegations and there's no criminal charges or record associated with them. Moreover, no one knows whether or not the CBC fired him because of those specific allegations or something else. (as an aside, it's very likely that they fired him because of something related to those allegations but until that all comes out in court, we're only speculating.) Ca2james (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ca2james on this one. It's appropriate to acknowledge that the women made allegations of non-consensual abuse, certainly — but given the anonymous nature of the complaints, it's not appropriate at this time for us to include exact quotes detailing the precise nature of the alleged abuse. The amount of detail here is excessive and unnecessarily prurient — it's possible to acknowledge that several women alleged non-consensual abuse without having to be quite this graphic about the minutest details of it all. Even if the details are sourceable, WP:BLP still requires us to exercise some caution and discretion in how we portray the situation — I can think of at least two other somewhat comparable past situations I've been directly involved in sorting out, where even though really lurid and prurient details of a sex scandal were easily locatable in reliable sources if you were really determined to know them, our BLP rules required us to refrain from going into even a fraction of the same level of intimate detail on here. Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that prurient and intimate details should be removed. Just saying "allegedly non-consensual sex acts" or similar should be sufficient. The fact that they may have been involved in the kink scene is completely irrelevant here too. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Since there is a source that confirms that no charges have been presented, and keeping in mind that the primary source is anonymous postings from Facebook I would remove the last paragraph. Only if new and more reliable sources are available it should be added back. I will wait a few days before removing it, pending discussion and developments.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This part of your comment is incorrect keeping in mind that the primary source is anonymous postings from Facebook. The allegations are from direct interviews with investigative journalists published in an RS, not Facebook.__ E L A Q U E A T E  16:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake, you are correct and as stated above the primary source of those interviews in the valid RS is anonymous.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are new sources, and at least one of them is not anonymous, so I think the text should stay, I would however eliminate the chronological events (first 3 then 5, etc..) and just include the claims and the total number of women making them including Lucy.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Protection
Well, the back and forth on this has gotten to the point that the page protection has now been upped to "administrators only" for the time being. As per our policy in matters of dispute, the text has been frozen on the least contentious version — edits and other changes may certainly be proposed for discussion here, but must have a consensus established behind them before they can be added to the article.

I would remind everybody that any additions to the article must be consistent with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the reason for the "admin only" level of protection. There was some normal WP:BRD sequences taking place, with users like me proposing quotes from Reliable Sources, and then this content being removed. I will go back and check, but I don't recall edit warring, by repeatedly placing the same content in the article.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You called content like this prurient and designed to stack the POV. I disagree, it is part of JG's own lawsuit, as reported on by a secondary source: "The lawsuit claims that "...CBC was making a moral judgment about the appropriateness of BDSM," which the lawsuit asserts "is part of the normal continuum of human sexual behaviours, and it is increasingly common that engaging in BDSM would not be seen as either shocking or scandalous to informed North Americans..." OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That description is, in and of itself, an unverifiable POV assumption about the CBC's motivations, not a neutral or verifiable fact of the matter. It's not necessary content in our article. The existing text already acknowledges Ghomeshi's claim that it was consensual sex; we do not need to keep hammering that same point over and over again. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a little concerned that the rather drastic step of protecting an article on a current event as admin-only was taken by a WP:INVOLVED admin with little or no prior discussion. This should have been discussed and the decision made by someone neutral, as the end result is one person WP:OWNing the page. K7L (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is a non-negotiable policy which administrators are required to enforce, by any means necessary up to and including page protection and editor blocks if needed, even if the administrator in question has been directly "involved". The end result here is not "one person owning the page", as Wikipedia has dozens of administrators, editors can still request proposed edits on the talk page, and protection is a temporary state. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 October 2014 (3)
In the sentence, "Actress Lucy Decoutere was the first accuser ...", I propose changing the word "accuser" to "woman" to maintain a neutral point of view. "Accuser" implies a POV that Ghomeshi is the victim in this scenario, and whatever each one of us thinks about the allegations, it's not neutral for us to say that here. Ivanvector (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

suggested edit
I propose removing the Scotiabank Giller Prize paragraph from the October 2014 allegations and lawsuit section. Presumably he's done other prize-givings in the past, but they're not mentioned in the article so only mentioning it here is undue. It also helps keep the section strongly focused on the allegations and lawsuit. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not wedded to it, but to me the relevance is the fact that he was dropped as host of the ceremony, which makes it different from an award ceremony that he hosted without incident. What it demonstrates, ultimately, is that the CBC was not the only organization to back off from him in the wake of the allegations. I'm more than willing to concede if there's a consensus that it's not relevant or valuable, but just wanted to clarify my rationale for adding it — the context for it is different from other awards shows he might have hosted in the past. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's relevant, as it was done in the wake of everything. Having said that the whole section is written very choppy. Current event articles tend to be initially written in proseline, so it looks out of place where it sits now.  I think it could be moved to the end of the first paragraph, as it is more in the order of how it happened. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the source does not exactly frame this as Ghomeshi having been dropped from hosting as a result of the allegations. It's more like CBC decides who hosts, Ghomeshi is no longer their employee, so they picked someone else. The source does talk about the allegations in the same article but stops short of saying that was the reason he is no longer hosting. The way the sentence reads in the article now seems to suggest that he was dropped because of the allegations. I don't feel strongly about removing the paragraph, but it should be worded in a way that follows the POV of the source. Ivanvector (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, the statement that the CBC chooses the host wasn't in the article when I originally read it, and appears to have been a later update. On that basis, you're correct that it no longer warrants mention — I had been under the impression that the Giller Prize committee, not the CBC, had control of who hosted the ceremony. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 October 2014


OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have closed this edit request, since it is being discussed below. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 October 2014
I would like to cite the following source to support the sentence "Actress Lucy Decoutere was the first accuser to agree to the publication of her name in conjunction with the allegations."

This source contains a primary source, a CBC Radio interview with Lucy Decoutere in which she describes an encounter with Mr. Ghomeshi.

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2014/10/30/from-smooching-to-slapping-there-was-no-build-up---actor-lucy-decoutere-speaks-out/

Geordie.birch (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been sourced using a secondary source (National Post). --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 October 2014 (4)
I propose removing the external link to "Profile for Q CBC" as it is no longer his profile; it now redirects to the home page for the show. Not necessary to replace it with a link to the show's homepage since Q (radio show) is already wikilinked in the article.

Sorry, this seems like a really silly request to spend the admins' time on, but protection is protection. Ivanvector (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Done, thanks for the catch. (It wouldn't even have occurred to me to check for that.) Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 October 2014
http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/6077454  Reva Seth, a woman author and lawyer alleges JG assaulted her

OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request
Obviously, this citation is incorrect: "Why I Can't Remain Silent About What Jian Did to Me". Huffington Post, October 20, 2013. Cahpcc (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * True, it should be Ivanvector (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Obvious simple typo. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

PR companies dropped Ghomeshi as client
Hi, could someone add this to the article?

Here's the source: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/30/jian_ghomeshi_issues_statement_on_allegations.html

--Guat6 (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is being discussed above. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Missed that, thanks. Guat6 (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggested edit
It seems odd that the article mentions that he "was born to" his father, without mentioning his mother who is readily identified as Azar (Sara) Ghomeshi (e.g., in his father's obituary http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/thestar/obituary.aspx?pid=172715753 and JG's thesis paper http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/thestar/obituary.aspx?pid=172715753).

Chris Tyler (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ thanks --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 October 2014
http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/10/30/carleton-university-looking-into-allegations-against-ex-cbc-host-jian-ghomeshi I think this info should be included in some way (I don't have any particular wording in mind): Carleton University is investigating abuse allegations made toward Ghomeshi though they "have no information at this time that any of our students have been victims." Ottawa Police also say they have received no complaints about him. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is about "BigEarsTeddy" again, and I'll echo the same concerns I posted above. Ivanvector (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * On second thought, it seems worth noting that Carlton has decided to investigate. Suggestion below (incorporating suggestion above):

Ivanvector (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That looks good to me. Thanks. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 October 2014
The National Post is reporting that he was accused of sexual violence via Twitter earlier this year. If this wasn't being reported by reputable media I would say it has no place in the article, but because it is being reported I think we should mention the report. http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/30/jian-ghomeshi-was-accused-of-sexual-violence-in-twitter-account-named-after-his-teddy-bear-six-months-ago/ Tchaliburton (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's also reported in the Toronto Sun: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/30/big-ears-played-really-important-role-in-life-jian-ghomeshi-told-crowd

Tchaliburton (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This request seems to have escaped notice. Could someone address it? Tchaliburton (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you say specifically how you think it should be included, i.e. what specific edit you would make? I'm struggling with this one. I'm worried that the "BigEarsTeddy" Twitter is effectively an attack site - its purpose seems to be nothing more than to denigrate and to draw negative attention to the subject, at least from the way the source describes it. We'd be treading dangerously close to tabloid territory by including it, I think, and it would be really easy to give this undue weight in the whole thing. Ivanvector (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think something along the lines of "In October 2014 it was reported that an anonymous Twitter user claiming to be a Carleton University grad had made abuse allegations toward Ghomeshi that previous May." It's probably also worth mentioning that Carleton is investigating but can't confirm the allegation at this point and that the Ottawa Police do not have an investigation open (as mentioned in the reference I mentioned below). Tchaliburton (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Will respond below. Ivanvector (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Deactivating edit request, was added per a section below. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 October 2014
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/cbc-hiring-outside-investigator-to-probe-jian-ghomeshi-allegations/article21386358/ There are a few pieces of info worth including from this article: Tchaliburton (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The CBC is now saying that they are "currently in the process of selecting a third-party company who will conduct a rigorous, independent investigation beyond what’s already done."
 * Police Chief Bill Blair confirmed again that there is still no investigation as of today's date but he has said "we have heard the media reports, and we want to make sure that anyone who has experienced that and believes they are the victim of a sexual assault or any form of assault, to come forward and report it."
 * Ghomeshi's PR firm, Navigator, has dropped him, saying "the circumstances of our engagement have changed and we are no longer able to continue."
 * My take:
 * Point 1: I agree, but would need to think of wording before I would add it, rather than just adding a direct quote.✅
 * Point 2: ✅
 * Point 3: I don't think that is something we would include in an encyclopedia article. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because that source wasn't being used for any other statemetns, I removed it. If there is something else it can source, it can be added again.
 * The source was: . --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Point 1: As a proposal: "As of 30 October 2014, Ghomeshi is not under police investigation relating to the allegations,[24] however the CBC announced that an investigation will be conducted by a third party.[source] "
 * Point 3: I agree. We didn't mention Navigator before, we don't need to now.
 * Ivanvector (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not just Navigator; from "Crisis communications firm Navigator and PR agency rock-it promotions both announced they had dropped Jian Ghomeshi as a client on Thursday afternoon." K7L (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm, I didn't see that in the source that was posted here earlier. Neither one of these explicitly says that he was dropped from the promotions firm as a result of the allegations, so maybe we should put at the end of "radio and television": "On October 30, Ghomeshi's PR agency rock-it promotions announced they had dropped him." As for Navigator I'm still not sure it's important. Ivanvector (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's now being reported that Navigator dropped him because he allegedly lied to them. I think that is significant. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/30/jian_ghomeshi_dumped_by_pr_firm_over_lies_sources_say.html Tchaliburton (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * From the same piece, "Ghomeshi’s profile vanished from the websites of two Canadian speakers bureaus, Keynote Speakers Canada and Speakers’ Spotlight." Looks like the rats are abandoning a sinking ship? K7L (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 October 2014
In this sentence near the end of the article: "A fifth woman gave an interview to CBC Radio's As It Happens on October 29, also alleging that Ghomeshi physically abused her without her consent on their very first date." Can we remove the word very? It could be construed as implying that physical abuse would've been more acceptable on a second date, which is needless to say, WP:EDITORIALIZING among other problems. I think the statement speaks for itself without the word. Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ~ Also it is is factually inaccurate. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There are now eight women who have come forwards with allegations of assault. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/29/jian_ghomeshi_8_women_accuse_former_cbc_host_of_violence_sexual_abuse_or_harassment.html23.16.255.231 (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Make that nine. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/30/jian_ghomeshi_dumped_by_pr_firm_over_lies_sources_say.html K7L (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 October 2014
"In light of the disturbing allegations against former CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair is encouraging victims of sexual abuse to come forward to police." http://o.canada.com/news/jian-ghomeshi-allegations-toronto-police-chief-encourages-victims-to-come-forward The National Post Published: October 30, 2014, 4:2

OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: "As of October 30, 2014, Ghomeshi is not under police investigation relating to the allegations, however Toronto Police have encouraged victims to come forward, and the CBC announced that they would hire a third party to conduct an investigation.[24] [source] " Ivanvector (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm marking this answered, per the edit request directly below. Feel free to reactivate if you disagree. Ivanvector (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 October 2014
Two parts:
 * 1) Add the year to the first date in the allegations section: "On October 26, 2014, the CBC announced ..." as this is the first date mentioned in this section. Likewise, remove the year from the date in the third paragraph.
 * 2) Update the number of women involved: "By October 30, nine women ... allegations against Ghomeshi.[23] [source] " - Reva Seth is the ninth, according to source:
 * Ivanvector (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added the year to the first paragraph, however the third paragraph utilizes a template that flags for potentially dated information, so the year cannot be removed without replacing the template with text. I haven't done the second yet. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't notice that, but you could use to produce the desired result. Ivanvector (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, didn't know about that option.--kelapstick(bainuu) 17:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

New Globe and Mail source


This is a long and quite detailed investigative report on what exactly happened at the CBC. I don't have time to go through it right now, so posting here for other interested editors. Ivanvector (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Jian Ghomeshi alleged sexual abuse scandal
I spun this off as its own article (Jian Ghomeshi alleged sexual abuse scandal) because I thought this section would get large and overshadow the main article. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Astonishingly the article is not blocked from creation ("salted"). Nevertheless, I wonder if there are WP guidelines (POV forking) that would make a single issue article like this problematic.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted at AfD pretty quickly, you can have a look at the reasoning there. A good-faith effort, but probably too soon. Ivanvector (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I should have sought a consensus before doing that. My bad. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it was a fair move, per WP:BOLD. Community disagreed. That's how it goes. Ivanvector (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There would be no reason to salt the article title if it was not recreated against community consensus. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that as the section on the 2014 allegations gets longer, it will get to the point where such a section would constitute WP:UNDUE weight on a few days of news articles in October 2014. For example, if the 2014 allegations section gets longer than the entire "Radio and television" career section, IMHO, this would look like WP:UNDUE. The policy says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Here, I think the undue weight would be due to depth of detail and quantity of text. As a result, this makes the creation of an article like "2014 allegations about Jian Ghomeshi" seem desirable. (I have read through the AfD discussion) Thoughts? OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We don't (and shouldn't) list every bit of detail that comes out in the next little while, but evaluate each new revelation for its appropriate weight within this article, by condensing the existing information. At some point it won't be appropriate to list what specifically happened on each day since last Thursday, it will just be one continuous event which we can summarize. Ivanvector (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. First, as has already been mentioned, not every detail needs to be included in the section - in other words, a specific play by play of what happened is not needed or desireable. Think about reading the article in 20 years' time: a summary of events with references to a more detailed description is likely all that will be needed. If the whole situation is notable enough for its own article after the dust has settled and the allegations proven in court, a separate article can be written at that time. Second, creating an article whose primary content is unproven allegations is a BLP violation: from WP:BLP, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. At the moment, all we have are allegations and giving those allegations prominence by writing a separate article on them - even if "alleged" is included in the title - appears to be more tabloidish and less encyclopaedic. Ca2james (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well spoken! Good points you raised there. I was just focusing on WP:UNDUE and not at the bigger pictureOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Police Investigation
Reports now (Oct 31) that two women have gone to police and an investigation has been launched: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/31/jian_ghomeshi_showed_cbc_video_of_bondage_beating_sources.html
 * I made a request to include that below. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 November 2014
Please make a wikilink to the Reva Seth Wikipedia article where her name appears in this article...it's two thirds of a way down this paragraph:

The Toronto Star published the allegations of three women who said that they experienced violence from Ghomeshi without consent, as well as a former CBC colleague who alleged that Ghomeshi had sexually harassed her in the workplace. A fifth woman gave an interview to CBC Radio's As It Happens on October 29, also alleging that Ghomeshi physically abused her without her consent on their first date. By October 30, nine women had approached media outlets with abuse allegations against Ghomeshi. Actress Lucy DeCoutere was the first woman to agree to the publication of her name in conjunction with the allegations, followed by Huffington Post blogger and lawyer Reva Seth who went on the record with abuse allegations against Ghomeshi. On October 30, Carleton University announced that it would investigate allegations made in April 2014 against Ghomeshi by an anonymous Twitter account.

OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A completely different matter
Why is the JG article categorized as a "Low importance radio article". He is a household name and has been very important to Canadian radio in the last half-decade.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask WikiProject Radio. Their criteria is "". You could request a reassessment there, but the project seems to be inactive. Ivanvector (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Using several sentences from this article in a new WP article
The newly-created article about the Canadian blogger, lawyer, and author of two books, Reva Seth, uses a few sentences from the Jian Ghomeshi article. I acknowledge using this material on the talk page of Reva Seth and in my edit summary. To ensure openness regarding this sensitive BLP matter, I wanted to note what I used from the JG article (modified a bit):

Seth was one of nine women who went to the media in October 2014 to make allegations of abuse from former CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi. Seth went on the record with abuse allegations against Ghomeshi. , Ghomeshi is not under police investigation relating to the allegations, however the CBC announced that they would hire a third party to conduct an investigation. Ghomeshi's lawyer has said his client "does not engage in non-consensual role play or sex and any suggestion of the contrary is defamatory." OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As of October 31, Toronto police are investigating. Let's stop making excuses? K7L (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've done some tidying work on the new Reva Seth article (refs and cats mainly) and also asked for semi protection. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the allegations section in the new article considerably. All those quotes alleging abuse are unproven and including them is a BLP violation. Also, neither the police nor the CBC are investigating her claims in particular so I removed them, too. I'm also not in love with the section title - 2014 allegations - but I couldn't think of a better heading so I left it. Ca2james (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 November 2014
From the last paragraph, delete the words: "As of October 30, Ghomeshi is not under police investigation relating to the allegations, however"

The claim that he was not under police investigation on the 30th is a misleading half-truth if an investigation was opened the very next day, Oct 31. See http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto-police-investigating-jian-ghomeshi-allegations-1.2820337 K7L (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, although I would prefer a non-CBC reference, to include as well. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Will Ted Rogers do? http://www.macleans.ca/news/need-to-know/police-now-probing-3-complaints-in-ghomeshi-investigation/ K7L (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, will update, it also includes a third. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Palmer invites, then uninvites Jian, for her book tour show in Toronto
See Talk:Amanda_Palmer for references. Factoring into the cancellation was that at least nine women have come forward accusing Jian of sexual abuse. — Lentower (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)