Talk:Jian Ghomeshi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Protected edit request on 31 October 2014

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/31/jian_ghomeshi_showed_cbc_video_of_bondage_beating_sources.html I think the "BigEarsTeddy" Tweet merits more detailed mention at this point. It's now being reported that it was what set off initial concerns. The TorStar is reporting that Ghomeshi spotted it back in April and became concerned. At this point Navigator was hired to represent both the CBC and Ghomeshi. Jesse Brown also spotted the Tweet at this point and began investigating -- which set everything rolling to get us where we are today. (Obviously this isn't the wording I'm requesting, but I think these are the relevant facts to include.)

This article also says that the CBC fired Ghomeshi after viewing a video of him engaged in BDSM activities which he claimed were consensual. I'm not sure if this merits inclusion at this point, but I'd like to hear what others think. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Just adding on another piece of info that should be included: "Two women have come forward to Toronto Police about Jian Ghomeshi and an investigation has begun, police spokesman Mark Pugash said." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/two-women-come-forward-to-police-about-ghomeshi/article21416903/ Tchaliburton (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yet another new piece of info: Lights has dropped him as a manager. The section that mentions him managing her should be updated accordingly. http://www.blogto.com/arts/2014/10/jian_ghomeshi_dumped_by_agent/ http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/31/lights-jian-ghomeshi_n_6085248.html Tchaliburton (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

They may well have seen one or more video recordings "of him engaged in BDSM activities" etc, but that wording would suggest that it was because of seeing them that they fired him. The articles make clear that wasn't the case. Lovingboth (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say that. He was, in fact, fired due to the video: "In a staff memo sent Friday afternoon, the CBC’s executive vice-president of English services, Heather Conway, confirmed that the CBC saw on Oct. 23 'for the first time, graphic evidence that Jian had caused physical injury to a woman.' Conway’s memo says that after viewing the evidence, the CBC 'determined that Jian’s conduct was a fundamental breach of CBC’s standard of acceptable conduct for any employee.'" Tchaliburton (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

(Sees full text of memo.) Ah yes, they fired him on the basis of that - and would probably have had trouble justifying it in terms of his employment - but subsequent events have shown that what he showed them (which presumably was clearly consensual BDSM, unless he's been very badly advised) wasn't the whole story. Lovingboth (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Penguin Books, which had published his 2012 memoir, has also dropped him [1] abandoning plans to publish his second book. K7L (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sam ^Sing! 23:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Date format

Kelapstick pointed out in one of their edit summaries that this article uses US dates. I've noticed we're going back and forth between dmy and mdy. We should pick one and stick to it. I've been through this debate a few times on Wikipedia, and in my experience there is no consensus for which date format to use for Canada articles, as there is no standard date format (sources differ on this). Our date and time notation in Canada article deals almost exclusively with how Microsoft Windows handles Canadian dates, which I've often found to be wrong, and the article has had a factual accuracy debate going for some time. I've always found it best to just use whichever date format is already in use most commonly, which in this case seems to be mdy, or the US format. There are a few dmy dates in use here that should be reversed. Ivanvector (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

My experience is that for every day use, English Canada almost exclusively uses MDY and that is how the text of this article should be written. For the references, I usually use YYYY-MM-DD irrespective of how the text looks, but given the referencing format that already exists in this article, they should be standardized to MDY. Resolute 15:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In general, preference in Canadian articles use dmy (although that is not to say that the majority are in that format). Typically the MOS in these matters (spelling and dates) says use whatever it was started in (although for Canadian articles we would always use Canadian spelling, for example). Specifically MOS:DATE TIES says:

Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the United States, this is month before day; for most others, it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.

Since the majority are in mdy format, maybe we should stick with that, despite it being contrary to my personal preference. Accessdates when I add references are automatically done in dmy as that is what my preference is set to, I simply have not been changing them. I have been begrudgingly forcing my self to use mdy in text. With limited success. Really it is a matter of pick one and stick with it.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters so long as it's consistent. kelapstick's suggestion seems reasonable and pragmatic. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Consistency either way is what matters so I wouldn't really object if the article went DMY, but to be honest, the MOS as it relates to date formatting on Canadian does not reflect real world usage in the slightest. Also of note, the article was created using Day-Month format if we are going to default to first use. Resolute 18:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I prefer DMY for Canadian articles which don't already have an established precedent. Here, the precedent seems to be for MDY, so let's be consistent and use that. Ivanvector (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 November 2014

A few little typos: a "for" that should be "by", a misspelling of "according" and a misspelling of "Ghomeshi"

On October 26, 2014 the CBC announced the end of Ghomeshi's tenure as host,[18] with a CBC spokesman saying "information came to our attention recently that in CBC's judgment precludes us from continuing our relationship with Jian."[18] Later that day, Ghomeshi announced plans to launch a $50 million lawsuit against the CBC "claiming general and punitive damages for among other things, breach of confidence and bad faith".[19] Ghomeshi subsequently released a statement on Facebook saying his dismissal was motivated by fear of an alleged smear campaign by an ex-girlfriend that according to Ghomeshi could release private details about his sexual life.[20]

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.[21] 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.[22] By October 30, nine women had approached media outlets with abuse allegations against Ghomeshi.[23] Actress Lucy DeCoutere was the first woman to agree to the publication of her name in conjunction with the allegations,[24] followed by Huffington Post blogger and lawyer Reva Seth who went on the record with abuse allegations against Ghomeshi.[25] On October 30, Carleton University announced that it would investigate allegations made in April 2014 against Ghomeshi by an anonymous Twitter account.[26] Toronto Police began an investigation into Ghomeshi following police complaints by three women, including DeCoutere.[27] The CBC announced that they would hire a third party to conduct an investigation.[28] 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."[21] OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Done (non-admin close?) - I consider this uncontroversial and the article is no longer goldlocked. Please comment here if you revert. Ivanvector (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 October 2014

I sent a wholesome, noncontroversial edit request earlier, it is a photo of JG being interviewed. It is from Wikimedia Commons. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought, but that picture has another human being in it. (She's listed as Suanne Kelman, apparently a chair of Journalism at the university). It might be a bit awkward to add a picture of her smiling at Jian to the page, in the middle of a public scandal she presumably has exactly nothing to do with. I don't think the picture is horrible, but the adding it now might, at the very least, give some slight but avoidable embarrassment to an otherwise completely unrelated person. Are there any pictures that might be more representative of his biography? __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Elaquate on this one. At this particular juncture, it might create the false impression that Suanne Kelman is actually involved in the scandal. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In general I don't have an issue with another picture being taken, even one with another person. Having said that, if this was taken on the 27th, as the date on it says, on the licencing information, it would have to go after the radio career section. In this case I would agree with Bearcat and Elaquate. If it was not, and we could put a caption explaining the context (what he was being interviewed about, and the date) it could go in the radio section. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The picture is from 27 January 2010, Left to right: Suanne Kelman and Jian Ghomeshi. If the caption says its from 27 Jan 2010, this doesn't implicate Ms. Kelman in any embarrassing scandal. I think the picture should be put in the radio section.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there any policy on images that contain logos/watermarks, as this one does? __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:WATERMARK, although I don't think the watermark precludes it from being freely used, the image use policy says it should be free of watermarks. Since the file is on Commons it would have to be dealt with over there. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Suanne Kelman posted at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Jian_Ghomeshi, and says she is not concerned about the use of the photo on the article. --GRuban (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that this crotch-shot photo adds anything of encyclopedic value. It's not a pic of the subject in the studio, it doesn't seem to represent a particularly significant event, and it's still watermarked against policy. (As a separate issue, I suppose it's not even certain that Suanne Kelman is necessarily the person who made that comment). __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking about that too, although I don't see it being a BLP vio by just including the picture anyway, so maybe we don't need to ask the user to confirm. But I'm in agreement that we shouldn't use a watermarked image, and it isn't a particularly elegant image of the article subject anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I just uploaded and added File:Brent Butt interviewed on Q by Jian Ghomeshi February 18, 2010.jpg to the radio section. In this shot he is actually conducting a radio interview for Q, so I found it pertinent to the section. I am also trying to get one from the Moxy Fruvous days to add to the music section. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems like an acceptable compromise. @OnBeyondZebrax: can we close this edit request? Ivanvector (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That's better. Directly showing him doing one of the things that made him notable has encyclopedic value.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 November 2014

Please add the bolded text. Lights has cut her ties with JG http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/31/toronto-police-launch-criminal-investigation-into-jian-ghomeshi-after-two-women-come-forward/

Having managed musician Martina Sorbara (now of the band Dragonette) and produced for Dar Williams through his production company, Jian Ghomeshi Productions Inc., he managed the Juno Award winning artist, Lights, from 2007 to 2014. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Y Partly done (non-admin close?) - I have added this but I changed the wording because I thought it was awkward, and I used a source that covered her announcement more directly. Please post here if you disagree with my edit. Ivanvector (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 November 2014

Under the "Early Life" section, please modify the description of Mr. Ghomeshi's studies at York University, which currently indicates he graduated with degrees in political science and history. According to an article in the National Post, he also minored in women's studies.

"Cute and awkward in equal measure, the book reads like a pick-up line in 12 chapters, and creates the impression of a mop-haired New Wave David Bowie fanatic, a theatre geek who minored in women’s studies, introspective and sensitive, ambitious and talented, reflecting on his suburban immigrant childhood from his throne atop Canada’s public broadcaster."

"By the time he was at York University, studying politics, history and women’s studies, he was an activist on left-wing causes and was elected president of the student government."

I propose this modification because there have been numerous seemingly incorrect claims made on social media that Mr. Ghomeshi "majored in" women's studies, and it would be helpful to include on his Wikipedia page a source for the accurate statement that he studied and minored in women's studies.

References

TrulyTessa (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The section currently reads that he graduated with degrees in politics and history, which I assume were his majors. When one minors in a subject, do they earn a degree? Ivanvector (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that 'minor' in this context is a north-americanism. Other parts of the world don't sue the term, is there a phrasing of this that can be made globally understood? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That's what I meant to ask. How would we phrase this? Browsing through some other personalities with similar careers to Ghomeshi, I'm seeing that a person's minor studies are often not mentioned, and in this case it feels a bit like we're forcing it in simply because of the recent allegations. The best I can come up with is: "graduating with degrees in political science and history with a minor in women's studies." Sourced per TrulyTessa. Ivanvector (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A degree with a major (or minor) concentration in one subject and a major (or minor) concentration in another is still one degree, not two. We shouldn't speak of "degrees" (plural) to refer to a single degree with a concentration in more than one subject. Ã common example would be a schoolmaster, who needs to hold a four-year BA/BSc with a major concentration in each of two teachable subjects; a budding science teacher may pick up the required number of credits in physics (likely at least five, don't remember) and a corresponding number of credits in chemistry (so both of these are "major concentrations" based on the number of courses taken). They get one BSc with major concentrations in those two teachable subjects, chemistry and physics, then head to teacher's college for a BEd. That's not the same as "a degree in chemistry" and "a degree in physics" as two separate BSc's, at four years each, which would be twice as much study. It's one degree with a minimum number of credits in each of two subjects. K7L (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, but how do we word it here? The source says he has degrees (plural) in poli sci and history, and minored in women's studies. Maybe it's not specific enough for us to use? Ivanvector (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I just looked through the sources cited here, and they don't say he has multiple degrees, just a single Bachelor of Arts. Am I mistaken or are you reading a source not listed here? __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought I read it in the National Post source the OP gave, but it's not there now. The article was updated yesterday so maybe their fact-checkers got to it. Ivanvector (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The detailed description of his BA is from an intern-written piece here calls it a combined BA in History and Political Science from York University, with a minor in women studies. This description is roughly close to that given by Ghomeshi himself, here, who calls it a political science major/history minor with women’s studies as a minor as well. No matter what, it's only a single degree, basically a PoliSci B.A. with a couple of minor areas of study listed. Minors contribute to a degree, but aren't degrees themselves. If we want to modify the article, it should just match the wording in an actual source, without implying he has more than one degree. He says himself that he only ended up with one actual major. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm closing this edit request because the corrected information has been added to the article already. Any editor may revert, of course. Ivanvector (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

police investigating Ghomeshi

Please update. Toronto Star reports they have launched investigation into Jian Ghomeshi. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/31/jian_ghomeshi_showed_cbc_video_of_bondage_beating_sources.html

Ryan Van Horne (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested edits need to contain word-for-word the information to be removed and the information to be added, as per the template text. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT applies here. Suggestion: replace third paragraph with:

In response to DeCoutere's report along with one of the anonymous women, Toronto Police launched a investigation on October 31. The CBC announced that they would hire a third party to conduct an internal 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."

References

Ivanvector (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be made clear that DeCoutere and the anonymous woman came forward to police. The way it's worded it might sound like the police were acting on media reports. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There are now three women who have approached police. Here is my suggestion:

As of November 1 DeCoutere and two women who have not been publicly named have complained to Toronto Police. Toronto Police launched a investigation on October 31. Ghomeshi has not been charged As of November 1. Police have said he will be asked to come in to discuss the allegations though they are not aware of his location. The CBC announced that they would hire a third party to conduct an internal investigation. Toronto Police have said they will be reaching out to the CBC in regards to "graphic evidence" that resulted in his firing. Ghomeshi's lawyer has previously said his client "does not engage in non-consensual role play or sex and any suggestion of the contrary is defamatory."

References

Tchaliburton (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposing a slightly more conservative version of your section. I'm concerned that stating that he hasn't been charged implies that he will be, and we would need sources making that link in order to include it. It's also possible this request is stale because of new information, in which case I suggest we mark this section closed for the sake of organizing the requests here.

Toronto Police launched a investigation on October 31 after receiving complaints from three women, including DeCoutere. Police have said he will be asked to come in to discuss the allegations though they are not aware of his location. The CBC announced that they would hire a third party to conduct an internal investigation. Toronto Police have said they will be reaching out to the CBC in regards to "graphic evidence" that resulted in his firing. Ghomeshi's lawyer has previously said his client "does not engage in non-consensual role play or sex and any suggestion of the contrary is defamatory."

Ivanvector (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually this is redundant to K7L's request below, which has already been implemented. Ryan Van Horne Tchaliburton can we mark this request closed? Ivanvector (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hearing no opposition, I have deactivated this as redundant to subsequent edits. Ivanvector (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing info

A few points which either are already cited to WP:RS on this talk page (but are not in the article) or were removed from the article:

• Crisis PR firm "Navigator Inc." and promotional firm "Rock-it" have severed ties (cited above, in one of the edit-protected requests, with source)
• A pair of speakers bureaux have severed their ties to Ghomeshi (also as cited above)
• Q's executive producer has taken "a few days off while the CBC investigates" an allegation that a 2010 union attempt to raise the issue with management accomplished nothing. [2]

Is this info that should be in the article? It's widely covered in mainstream sources. K7L (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to add that his crisis navigation firm, promotions firm, publisher, agent, and speakers bureaus dropped him and that Lights also dropped him as manager. However, if I remember rightly, none of the official reasons given for dropping him had anything to do with the scandal: each party published a statement saying that it would no longer represent him. Therefore, we can only say that each company terminated their relationship with Ghomeshi after the nine women spoke to the media.

With respect to the Q executive producer, I don't think his leave should be mentioned in this article because it isnt about Ghomeshi or the scandal. If this tidbit goes anywhere, it should be in the Q article, not this one. Once again, we have to be careful not to assume that any specidic part of the scandal caused this leave. In particular, all we know is that “He decided to take some time while we get more clarity around this situation,” Thompson said according to the National Post. We cannot say that he's taking time off while the allegations are investigated because to do so is WP:SYNTH and misrepresents the situation: it implies that he's taking leave because of those allegations and we have no proof of that. Ca2james (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I proposed wording for Rock-it before the discussion went stale. I'll try to find that and pull it back. As for Navigator and the speakers orgs, (and let's get Amanda Palmer out of the way), if we start to list off every performer, tour and organization that drops him as a client, the section will start to get very large indeed and present an undue weight problem. I suggest we only include orgs which he had a notable relationship with before the scandal broke (e.g. Lights, Rock-it seems to qualify, not sure about others), or alternatively to summarize them all by saying something like "several performers and organizations" have "ended their relationships" or "distanced themselves", etc. Ivanvector (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:DUE requires that coverage of the allegations needs to be kept in proportion to the rest of the article. I have no problems with adding all of this detail, provided that rest of the article is bulked up in proportion. Otherwise we need to keep things very tightly focused on the subject and the specific allegations relating to him. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Billy Bob Thornton - tour cancellation

Re: this edit

@Tchaliburton: the source given (MTV) mentions that Thornton's band dropped out of the tour the day after being jeered at their performance in Toronto, when the crowd booed them specifically in reference to his interview on Q. However it doesn't say anything about a band member having the flu - it might have been removed from the source in a subsequent update, the online sources do that sometimes. Can I suggest we mention it this way: "... many fans chanted "Here comes the gravy!"^[25] The next day, Nelson announced that the Boxmasters had dropped off the tour.^{[MTV source]}" Ivanvector (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That's implying that they cancelled the tour due to the fallout from the interview. That might be true but we have no way of knowing, so I'd be hesitant to mention it. As it is I think the entire section is drifting away from anything about Ghomeshi and focusing on Thornton. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The Billy Bob page covers it. The interview itself is relevant to Ghomeshi, but that section is still larger than all other other career sections. It could probably even lose the bit about the Thornton performance, unless we connect Ghomeshi to it by adding how Ghomeshi was mentioned there. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't directly relate to Ghomeshi. I removed it. It's covered on the Thornton page, which is appropriate. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2014

Near the end of the last section, add one line:

On October 30, 2014, publicity firm Rock-it Promotions, crisis PR firm Navigator and speakers bureaux Keynote Speakers Canada and Speakers’ Spotlight severed ties with Ghomeshi.

2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:45F (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

References

 Done seems uncontroversial Mfhiller

@Mfhiller: This wasn't uncontroversial. It was being discussed two sections above when you answered this. Ivanvector (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Sorry. Missed that. If you or others think the addition is unnecessary or otherwise problematic then, well, remove it. Mfhiller (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)mfhiller

2014 allegations and lawsuit section

This section is getting too long again, it's now about a third of the article and the content is creeping into other sections. It needs to be shortened by tightening wording, removing non-core details or careful summarisation. Please read WP:BALASPS before adding any new content related to the allegations and lawsuit. Feel free to add details of Jians' life prior to 2014. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

My attempts to trim standard legal posturing have been reverted by User:Tchaliburton with the edit message This is factual. Please discuss this on the talk page if you think it should not be here which I thought I'd done above. I feel content still needs to be trimmed from this section, but I'm not going to edit war. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:SIZE, "content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length." To balance the article I think it's only fair to mention the CBC's response to the suit. It might be better to rewrite it in someone else's words rather than quoting the CBC directly. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not the correct guideline. Content shouldn't be removed just because an article is too large, but per WP:BALASPS and WP:RECENT we should not have too much information on one aspect of a topic, factual or not, which unbalances the article. That information should not have been added in the first place; removing it is valid copy-editing. This section is definitely getting too large and should be better summarized, and I agree with removing the standard legal manoeuvring. The lawyers' back-and-forth is just what happens in these cases, there's no need for us to mention it. Ivanvector (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I cut it back to simply state "On November 5 the CBC asked the court to dismiss Ghomeshi's suit." I think it's a relevant fact but we don't need to explain the CBC's legal argument or include an extended quote. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a fair compromise for now, although frankly I don't think we need to include it at all. The lawyers asking for the suit to be dismissed is just the next step in the lawsuit process - it's to be expected. There won't be much of note to say about it until it goes to trial or is resolved or settled or whatever, or if he's actually charged. It's like reporting that he didn't go to work the day after he was terminated - I'm sure we could find a source for that. Ivanvector (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"This section is getting too long again?" That would be an accurate reflection of the sources, which are covering this extensively, so "it's now about a third of the article" is not WP:UNDUE. I strongly disagree with removing validly-sourced but embarrassing info just for the sake of doing so; this isn't a puff piece. K7L (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

To be clear: relevant embarrassing info absolutely needs to be included. What needs to be removed is standard legal stuff (lawyers asked suits to be thrown out, etc), standard celebrity disaster stuff (PR firms dropping the celebrity when it turn out the celebrity lied to them; vaguely connected celebrities weighting in) and blow-by-blow details of how it came to light. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. I agree that blow-by-blow details aren't required and are WP:UNDUE. At the same time, we shouldn't be giving too much weight on relevant embarrassing info. Of course it can be included provided it meets BLP policy but we're not a tabloid and excessive detail isn't appropriate. With respect to him being dropped by the various firms, it may be standard celebrity disaster stuff but since that has been covered by reliable sources, it's appropriate to include a brief mention in the article. There's no need to include much detail - a brief mention that several companies with which he was associated severed their ties with him after the allegations were made is all that's needed. Finally, even though it may also be standard legal posturing for the CBC to attempt to have the lawsuit dropped, not everyone may know that, it's part of the case, and it's been covered in reliable sources so again a brief mention should be included. All the article needs for this right now is a brief statement that Ghomeshi filed the lawsuit and the CBC motioned for it to be dropped. Ca2james (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically, I agree with this. The problem that happens here in these situations is that new content continuously gets added to the end of the section when new news comes out (see WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS) so that the section gets longer and longer and longer, and that's not appropriate. What we should be doing instead is re-summarizing so that each new bit fits into the properly-weighted summary of the key facts, which will mean reconsidering the weight and purpose of older information so that the section doesn't just grow exponentially until the article is just about the scandal. As a side note, here is a source for Ghomeshi's preference for goat cheese, but I'm not suggesting we add it to the article. Ivanvector (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I see what you mean. It's easy to just keep adding a new sentence for each minor event but that approach leads to a really long, improperly-weighted article. It's important to carefully incorporate each new tidbit. Ca2james (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't be afraid to call out to WP:BLP/N, where there are a lot of editors who've never heard of Jian but who have experience dealing with BLPs and who have the distance to make these kinds of calls. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I've just had a crack at some of this. I've also added some wikilinks which were already on the page, but in different sections. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

October 23

The statement On October 23, the CBC claimed it viewed.. is incorrect, the way the article reads is they made the claim on October 23, they did not. They saw the video on October 23 but did not make any statement until well after Ghomeshi was fired. As far as I can tell the CBC did not say they saw the video until their October 31 memo (here). I had changed the wording, but it seems to have been reverted back. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

website down

So http://www.jian.ca/ is down. Do we link to the archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20141027011439/http://www.jian.ca ? It still works and there's lots of content there. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't so much that the site is down as all content has been removed. However, it's still his site and it's still technically functional so we should keep his site link as-is. If the domain is given up and the site actually no longer exists, then it makes sense to put the archive link in. Ca2james (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of external links is to provide more info to the reader. If there's no content on the site, it serves no purpose. Remove the link until the site has content. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's premature to delete the site from the infobox on the page. The domain and site are still his and the site is still viable.The fact that the site has no content right now is irrelevant because it is not up to us to judge the content on the page (provided it doesn't break any laws, of course). Readers want to know where his site is and it is appropriated to provide them with the link even if there's no content there right now. If he drops the domain then it would make sense to remove the link but we're not anywhere neae that point. Ca2james (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there is no content is not irrelevant. When including official links like this, one criteria is that "the linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." (WP:ELOFFICIAL) This link fails the criteria and can't be used as an official link. Also, per WP:EXT, we should ask "is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?" It's not functional, so it should not be included. Finally, according to WP:LINKSTOAVOID, we should avoid linking to "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." If the site ever has content again then we should add the link, but for now it doesn't meet the external link guidelines. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "domain and site are still his and the site is still viable" -- actually we don't know this. Conceivably the site has had so much traffic in the last month (normal and/or malicious) that the ISP has taken it down, potentially with out Ghomeshi's consent. Most ISPs have wording in their contracts about sustained usage peeks. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to add when (and if) it's ever functional. Sending today's readers to an empty page creates momentary confusions for no clear purpose, encyclopedic or otherwise, when those frustrations are completely avoidable. Is it just to call attention to the fact that he doesn't have a working site? It's an external link, not a citation for article material. Just add it later. Simple.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A link to an empty page provides nothing of value to the reader. The information in the archive is relevant and useful. There's no encyclopaedic value in linking to the empty site instead of the archived version. K7L (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that if the choice is between removing the link and linking to an archived version as his site, it's better to remove the link altogether. The archive link is a snapshot of his site at a particular time; it isn't the site itself. Also per WP:ELOFFICIAL, an official site (like his website) must be controlled by the article subject. Since a previous cached version cannot be changed or maintained by him, it isn't his official website. Ca2james (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile to put a {{dead link}} tag on this for now? I agree we shouldn't link to the archive. It looks as though the ISP hasn't taken it down - the site is functional but there is nothing on it, which means it's been intentionally blanked. Linking to an archive would be misrepresenting the current site. Ivanvector (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Still, why? The article is accurate without it, and odd with it. It seems like editorializing to pointedly call readers attention to the existence of a dead site. If he doesn't want or is able to have an official site now, that's fine. We can just add a new link when one exists. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there's no point calling the reader's attention to a blanked site. Also, the site isn't a dead link. It's been intentionally blanked, and to give it a dead link tag misrepresents the situation. It's better to remove the link than to misrepresent anything. My preference is to leave the link as-is but this doesn't provide value to the reader so I'm comfortable removing the link entirely. Ca2james (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If the site is blank, it should be removed for the time being. We can always readd it later if any substantive content is ever actually put back up — but in the meantime it serves no substantive purpose to offer readers a convenience link to a blank domain. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Good points, all. Let's take it out unless anything comes back up. Ivanvector (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2014

Under Career/Music:

CHANGE: Privately, Ghomeshi was disparaging of his audiences, suggesting on a 1996 video tape released in 2014 that people paying to see the band's shows were "losers" and "fucking idiots". TO: Some interpreted a 1996 video of a Simpsons parody song as Ghomeshi privately speaking of his disdain for his audience. SOURCE: http://www.edge.ca/2014/11/04/jian-simpsons/

96.227.77.71 (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reliable a source that is. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if the source is reliable (which it is not), the claim about a Simpsons parody is stated as a mere conjecture. Mfhiller (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)mfhiller

Agreed. This is a radio station blog, and they're guessing. We would need much better sourcing. Ivanvector (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The key problem here, more than the source itself, is the fact that it's speculating about a possible alternative explanation of the comments. If Ghomeshi ever goes on the record as explaining that their interpretation is correct, then we could certainly mention that — but as long as it's entirely unverified speculation about what he might have been doing, it's not appropriate for inclusion here. CFNY-FM can certainly be a valid source for Wikipedia content in some contexts, but this isn't one of them. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Born: Jean Ghomeshi

Jean was his name before he changed it to Jian, plus lots more details that can be gleamed from this thorough Maclean's article: http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-how-he-got-away-with-it/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Shishkoff (talk • contribs) 06:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand, he went by Jean when with Moxy Fruvus, but his name was Jian. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That's my understanding also. The Maclean's piece doesn't say he was born Jean, only "he still went by Jean." Tchaliburton (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Kelapstick and Tchaliburton on this one. My understanding is that Jian was always the actual spelling of his legal name, and he went by Jean on the earliest Moxy Fruvous recordings only because it was less "exotic" and less likely to be mispronounced — but later on he shifted back to using Jian. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed trimming

I still think the article as a whole is too focused on recent allegations. I'd like to make three independent suggestions. I'll put them into separate subsections, for easier discussion. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That's cool. I'll add some first thoughts. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove penguin paragraph

I see no evidence that Penguin intended to publish his second book. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be reflecting the source, which says Ghomeshi released a memoir in 2012 but on Friday his publisher announced it would not be publishing his next book.

The actual substance of Stuartyeates' point is that we have no firm information as to whether they contracted to publish it and then backed out, or just declined to pick up a book they had never actually committed to in the first place (which wouldn't be worth noting in our article at all.) Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

He was definitely under contract, according to this story that came out just before they cancelled the contract... Penguin Random House Canada confirmed Mr. Ghomeshi is under contract to write his second book. and it's after this that Publisher's Weekly says Penguin Random House canceled Ghomeshi's forthcoming book. As a top CBC host, it would have been much stranger if a book wasn't in the works. It's actually pretty interesting they cancelled; other publishers who had a scandal-inflicted celebrity under book contract would be tempted to hold onto the option in case they could capitalize on it with a confessional or somesuch. He's probably now more likely to sue PRH in another broken contract suit than his former crisis management team.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The article should be clearer on the cancellation. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove first to paras of controversy section

The paras "In the spring of 2014..." and "On October 23, the CBC..." are based on he-said, she-said stories released after the fact when the releasing parties already had a vested interest. That makes them gossip, PR spin or worse. Some is also sourced to primary sources (i.e. the CBC saying hat the CBC did). It also contains weasel words: "behaviour MAY have crossed". Stuartyeates (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This looks like it's based on material agreed on by all sides. Ghomeshi's lawsuit agrees that he showed a video containing sexual violence on that date. There is agreement from all parties that a reporter was investigating Ghomeshi, that the reporter was alleging possible bad behavior on Ghomeshi's part, and that Ghomeshi approached his employer about this before the story broke publicly. They disagree about what the video meant and that's why we have both CBC's view (being an RS for their own view) and Ghomeshi's statement that he denies the allegations for balance and context. No one is debating whether the video was shown on the date we have in the article. It's appeared in multiple RS, confirmed by the subject themselves. The article doesn't state that Ghomeshi's behavior crossed into the workplace; we're explaining the basic allegation that Ghomeshi and the CBC have both said they were dealing with. We aren't reporting the allegation as fact per WP:PUBLICFIGURE.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it's agreed by all sides doesn't make prohibit it from being gossip, PR spin or worse. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources, plus the subject's himself and legal filings by the subject's lawyers, reported by multiple RS, all agree that Ghomeshi was worried about someone trying to discredit him with allegations about his sexual life, that he approached the CBC, that they watched a video together that had sexual activity with some physical violence, and that CBC terminated his employment after deciding the video was too much. That much detail about those events is universally agreed on by everyone involved and widely published in multiple RS. Sources have also treated these events as significant to this BLP, and have reported this basic chronology of the context and circumstances of him losing his show. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove the the 'Personal life' section

This appears to be based largely on the content of a stand-up routine. Stand-up routines are a divorced from reality, this is not a reliable source, even if repeated in the press as truth. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Ghomeshi has never been a stand-up comedian and this wasn't a stand-up routine. This was a serious forum with public speakers. The source shows that Ghomeshi's was a serious talk that contained moments of humorous anecdotes, and not presented as a fictional entertainment. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The image in the article clearly shows him standing at the microphone. The text describes the show as "engaging and frequently hilarious." The program for the event describes it as "Drawing on his savvy interviews with today’s culture mavens, the popular CBC host and raconteur Jian Ghomeshi concludes that everyone, including himself, is neurotic." Sounds pretty close to standup to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be strange to promote his non-fictional autobiography with material "divorced from reality" and sources don't say that he did. No source has described or characterized the forum talk as stand-up comedy, despite the admitted presence of a microphone. I also don't think Margaret Atwood's discussions of Shakespeare, or Camille Paglia's lectures given within that long-term speaking series would be characterized as comedy routines, although I'm sure there were points where the audiences laughed. We aren't citing the talk directly, we're citing Toronto Life, and the Beacon Herald, which says the talk was based on the theme of "The Chaos of Creativity: An exploration of the relationship between madness, genius and art." Clearly not taken as a comedy skit. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No need to delete this section - rather I added info about his bear featuring in the allegations. The bear has been prominently featured in the media accounts. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Arrested

I made an edit today to condense the allegations section; posting my rationale here because I removed some properly sourced stuff. I split the paragraph announcing the various investigations, and moved his quote through his lawyer to the paragraph mentioning the filing and dropping of the lawsuit, because it seemed to make sense there. I think there's enough in there already about the CBC investigation, and the Carleton investigation doesn't seem to have resulted in anything or at least no more news about it, so I just took it out. The Toronto Police investigation resulted in charges, so I don't think we need to say that they started investigating any more. So in effect I removed that entire paragraph.

I'm not going to object to anyone reverting the edit, it was quite bold, but please discuss here. Ivanvector (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks good and sufficiently chronological. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The lawyer part may be WP:SYNTH at this point though. He hired the lawyer weeks ago, and it's possible she was only retained for fighting his employment dismissal. She hasn't been directly mentioned in connection to the criminal charges of today in any of the sources so far. That could change in hours, of course, and it's probable that she's on this, but right now we're linking material that doesn't directly say what we have in the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was in the CBC source. She's a criminal lawyer so it makes sense to me that she's still representing him, but maybe that should come out if it's not in the source. Ivanvector (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

She's been mentioned in a number of the stories today. Here's one for example. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. She wasn't confirmed in the earlier stories we cited, but is now, so it's not an issue any more.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems Tchaliburton added back all of the material I removed. Can we establish a consensus here? Ivanvector (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I added that Carelton and the CBC have launched their own investigations. Just because the results are not known does not make them irrelevant. And there's been a fair amount reported on the CBC investigation. I also added the part about CBC requesting a dismissal to the suit because I think it's important to the chronology of the lawsuit. Also, I just tacked on the date that the criminal investigation started to make the chronology clear. I think these are all relevant but I've tried to be concise. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-consensual rough sex

"In the spring of 2014 Ghomeshi advised his employers at the CBC that the Toronto Star was looking into allegations by an ex-girlfriend that he had engaged in non-consensual rough sex." There's a word for "non-consensual rough sex". Shouldn't the article use it? Or at least "sexual assault." "Non-consensual rough sex" just sounds like someone trying to avoid saying the word 'rape' in front of a child. 123.3.123.204 (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

We use the source's words, per WP:NPOV. We have used "sexual assault" elsewhere in the article where the context is supported by the sources. So far as I've read, no sources are using "rape". Ivanvector (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. With unfounded accusations we need to be very careful to follow the sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Not apparently unfounded, but unconfirmed at this point. Or something. Ivanvector (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)