Jump to content

Talk:Jian Ghomeshi/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Balance (again)

The proportion of the article related to recent events and based on recent sources is creeping up again. While recent events need to be covered in some detail they can't be allowed to overwhelm the article. I'd suggest material to be trimmed, but I've tried that in the past and it hasn't worked. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I would caution against hastily trimming the article just to avoid too much recent content. WP:RECENTISM says, "Any encyclopedia goes through rough drafts; new Wikipedia articles are immediately published in what might be considered draft form: They can be—and are—improved in real time; these rapidly developing drafts may appear to be a clutter of news links and half-developed thoughts, but later, as the big picture emerges, the least relevant content ought to be—and often is—eliminated." So I do think the irrelevant content should be removed at some point, but I think it will be a while yet before the big picture emerges. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance that doesn't apply to biographies of living people. See also WP:BLPCRIME. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
If the information is valid, reliably sourced and notable it should be here. We shouldn't be deleting valid content just because of length. If the scandal needs to be spun off or spun out into an article of its own, so be it. K7L (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not about length, it's about the balance of coverage of revelations of the last couple of months compared to the rest of his career in the public eye. Take a look at Adolf Hitler for good example of a balanced bio of a publicly-vilified person (although BLP doesn't even apply there). Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a bit of a stretch to use Hitler as a comparison, since proper coverage necessitated the creation of numerous spin off forks. This article may or may not end up needing such a fork to cover this, but I doubt it. Right now building content is important, and we can pare it down and replace it with better sources as the full picture forms. We don't yet know what the final picture will look like, and too much paring now would be a form of editorial original research based on some idealized idea of what the final picture should look like. Each detail we can document is important at this phase. We must let the picture develop as it will. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
If people are concerned about balance they should also consider building up the sections not related to the criminal charges. The fact that other sections aren't as developed as they can be should not be an excuse to delete relevant content. Tchaliburton (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the arrest information from the lead of the article, as it is explained in detail in the proper section. Since it is not a mayor defining piece of information needed to understand the BLP's subject it should not be in the lead. If he were to be convicted, then inclusion in the lead would be justified.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I undid your edit. According to MOS:LEAD, the lede "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (emphasis mine). Furthermore, "when writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves." So we shouldn't suppress information but we should state the facts without editorializing. Tchaliburton (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
His arrest, does not define the topic, and does not explain why he is notable, therefore is not an important point of the article (including prominent controversies). A conviction would be an important point of the article. an accusation or even resisting arrest is not. quoting WP:BLPCRIME, "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.".
Since the subject is not relatively unknown, the information should be included in the article, but it clearly does not belong in the lead until a conviction is secured. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree at all. Short mention belongs in the lead. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, you guys. We've done well up to now discussing changes and coming to agreement without this happening, don't fall off the wagon now. I read this last night and thought that the allegations creeping into other parts of the article was getting out of hand, but I'm glad to see that's been toned down as of this morning. For balance, please try to keep the allegations out of other sections of the article. The section which currently implies that Lights dropped him as a result of the allegations should be trimmed, I don't think the link is reliably sourced, and it doesn't need to be mentioned there anyway. It used to just simply say that he is no longer managing her - we should go back to that. The same for Penguin not publishing his second book. The reason is that even if it is true and can be reliably sourced, we are editorializing and making the entire article about the recent allegations, and we shouldn't do that. As for the criminal charges, I'm fine with mentioning this in the lede, it's supposed to be a summary of the article and it is a significant point. The actual section on the investigations and charges has turned into a play-by-play again and needs to be condensed. Let's talk about that. And stop reverting each other. Ivanvector (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree it should be mentioned in the lead at this point. The subject is currently more broadly noted for his present predicament (amongst strong and reliable sources) than anything else he's done up to this point. This is being given mature coverage in non-tabloid sources internationally, and not being treated as trivial or as an isolated instance. All we have to do is reflect the best sources, of which there are many. WP:PUBLICFIGURE is clearly more directly applicable here than WP:BLPCRIME. The lead should have a mention of the prominent controversy, as it's undeniably prominent. It's obviously going to be the subject's full-time job for the medium-term future. Other subjects that had career-altering events have them listed in the lead to give the reader a sense of career-context (e.g Pee-wee Herman) I don't think it's undue weight to think of it as the most profound controversy of his career so far. Would anyone disagree with that? We aren't writing a frozen-in-time biography as if he's still where he was three months ago.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
And I think the book mention should stay in, as it's been mentioned multiple times in both industry-specific news sources like Publisher's Weekly and general sources, and it has a direct and source-noted impact his writing career. If we didn't have a separate section devoted to his writing, I might think it was peripheral, but we do, and it's significant development there. Authors are not usually publicly denounced by their own publishers, and we make note of it in articles if our sources do (e.g. James Frey). It's a public career event of some weight. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with all of this. Penguin did say outright that they cancelled the book because of the scandal. We probably don't need the "police investigating" source at that point in the article. As for Lights, she supported him at first but then retracted, but didn't say outright that it was because of the scandal. Ivanvector (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty clear in Lights' statement that she was backtracking on her support for Ghomeshi. This is what she actually said: "I posted comments about Jian Ghomeshi the day after he was dismissed by the CBC where I rushed to defend my manager of 12 years. I am now aware that my comments appear insensitive to those impacted and for that I am deeply sorry." I added part of the quote to give context. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Using a photo of Lights is appropriate

In the section on the artists JG managed, a photo of Lights, who he managed from 2007 to 2014, was included. Recently, it was deleted.

Lights performing in May, 2010

. Lights is discussed in the section, so it follows the image use policy. I believe that we should put the photo back.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

At the time the picture was added, I thought it was unfortunate for Lights, as it has editorial implications in the context of recent events beyond neutrally illustrating the section. This article never had a picture of Lights before, and this one was only added after she publicly said Ghomeshi wasn't going to be her manager anymore. Are we in danger of linking Lights more strongly with post-accusations Ghomeshi in readers' minds, beyond the weight of what sources have done? We could decide to either use or not use the picture, as I don't think policy disallows it, but I think using it right now could be read by some in a bit of a distasteful way. (I'm sure the editors involved are acting with the best intent.) As an analogy, it feels like if someone is in the news for something discreditable, and only then there's a rush to add all the pictures of his friends and family. Anyway, it's probably policy allowed, but I think it probably diminishes the article about as much as it arguably adds to it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
My only real concern is whether adding the image of Lights would give the impression that she is one of the women Ghomeshi is alleged to have abused. Even accounting for the fact that it would have been placed in a different section. Resolute 15:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the photo should be kept out, not just because it could be concluded that she was one of his accusers, but because he's no longer her manager. It would have made sense to include the photo when he managed her (and apparently it wasn't in the article at that point) but now that this relationship has ended, the photo isn't needed. Ca2james (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I am the editor who removed the photo. I don't necessarily object to a photo of Lights in the article, but only if it's related to Ghomeshi in a more direct way. For example, a photo of Lights with Ghomeshi when he was her manager would make sense and add understanding to the article. Images are included in articles to increase the reader's understanding of the subject. I don't think this image adds anything. I think that a more appropriate photo would be one that shows Ghomeshi in his Fruvous days -- if such an image is available. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

past tense

Why is the article written in the past tense? He is (still) a musician, author etc... and as far as I know, he hasn't died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.148.60 (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Along those same lines, the word should be "pleaded" not "pled". I'm not sure of the proper way of making the change, e.g. how the change should be tracked so I figured I'd leave it for someone knowledgeable to make the change. -ubrgeek 3/24/16

Jian Ghomeshi's middle name

What is Jian Ghomeshi's middle name? Does he even have a middle name? I cannot find it anywhere. Most other entries like this list the person's full name. Samuel Stringman (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Samuel, Wikipedia is not a publication but standard usage should apply: one full first name or two initials (for those few of us who have initials but no names). I think the average reader is savvy enough to know that, if there are two persons with the same name their birthdates would be sufficient to distinguish them.23:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.126.155 (talk)
We include middle names if we can find a source for them, and not if we don't. It's not required information that any biographical article has to include — it's valid information if we can source it properly, sure, but it's by no means a core requirement that all articles must contain. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
York University would not give me his middle name. I will email the CBC to see what I can get. Samuel Stringman (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
A possible middle name is not the kind of thing that needs original research. Even if you track down something about the subject in real life, it's not something we can add to the article anyway. (It's not unusual for people to not even have middle names.) Unless it's in a reliable, published source, that kind of thing can't go in the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I am well aware that original research is ineligible for submission to Wikipedia articles. I would find a published source that could be used as a citation. I am sure it is on a public file somewhere. Samuel Stringman -Sam's talk page
Pretty much the only acceptable sourcing for his middle name would be its publication in media coverage of him. Due to WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns, we're not allowed to dig into "files" (birth/death/marriage records, court records, bankruptcy filings, etc.), "public" or otherwise, to track down information that hasn't already been published by a secondary source. Nor are we allowed to privately contact the CBC or York University (or even Ghomeshi himself) to ask for it — because even if one of them did somehow give it to you, "was given to me in a private e-mail" doesn't count for sourcing either if that e-mail hasn't been published somewhere for verification. The only alternative that exists to secondary media coverage would be if the copyrights page in a copy of 1982 explicitly listed his author credit as "Ghomeshi, Jian ________", in which case we could source it to the book itself — but absent that, it's "name has already been put on the record in media coverage" or nothing, and you're already skating on very thin ice in your efforts to track it down. If you can't find it in a published secondary source, then you need to let it go. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I was just going to mention WP:BLPPRIMARY. And the whole thing is probably a weird dead end quest, as Persian and Arabic cultured names most often don't have a middle name in any sense you're looking for here. The most likely scenario is that he doesn't have one. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Most European countries, for example, people do not have a middle name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4950:AB0C:EDA1:FBFD:E076:4EFF (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The book (as listed on torontopubliclibrary and amazon) does not show any middle name. K7L (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I like the list of dated people

The following text was deleted by Elaquette on the grounds that the relationships were not that serious. I think a list of women Ghomeshi dated is interesting, even if they just went out a few times on dates. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A list of past romantic entanglements with named living women, on an article about a person with unresolved criminal charges regarding sexual assault and anonymous women, is undeniably interesting. I think a lot of people would be profoundly interested.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, "interesting" is not a reason to include these women in this article. Adding names that can't not be read as those of either potential accusers or potential victims is not fair to Ghomeshi, as it could give the gossipy implication he's assaulted these specific women, and its not fair to the women, as this connection only seems to be coming from an unnamed CBC employee in a single source. Adding a list of people he might have briefly dated is just a bad idea, especially with only a single source to back up something that might be considered radioactively contentious to all the people involved. This would probably be true about a list of "dates" even without the charges. But I would concede that his "little black book" is probably very interesting, to a lot of people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikipedia is not TMZ. A list of random people an article subject dated is not encyclopedic information. Resolute 01:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
There is some point at which point a relationship would become pertinent, but who could say what that is? 6 months? A year?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I generally only consider it in the case of marriage, child or a notable incident. I've never believed arbitrary times are what we should go by.
I agree that the list of women he's dated is probably interesting. However, those names don't belong in the article. Aside from the issues related to his recent scandal, it's gossipy. I'd support including names only if, as Resolute says, he was married or living with her, they had a child, or some other notable event occurred. These events must also have better sourcing than an unnamed single source. Ca2james (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that a list of any individuals a person dated is indiscriminate and gossipy. For example, if the person goes to lunch twice with woman X, are those "dates"? Speculative, not worthy of inclusion. But I think that setting the bar at marriage or child together is setting the bar too high. IMHO, living together for a year or being publicly identified as a couple for a good amount of time (~2 years) would seem fair.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about undue weight

I am concerned that the article may be placing WP:UNDUE weight on recent events relating to the allegations and criminal trial. The reason Ghomeshi is WP:N-notable- in the first place is due to his accomplishments as a musician and radio broadcaster. What do other editors think about spinning off a new article, with a neutral title, such as 2016 Jian Ghomeshi trial? Then all the details of the allegations and trial could go there, with just the key points kept in this article.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Really it just needs to be trimmed down, this has happened before. As news comes in, it just gets added, and the past sections not rewritten. I don't think that the trial needs a separate article (my opinion). --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree. This section needs to be trimmed down to perhaps 3-4 sentences to include: the charges, the evidence, and the verdict. A new article could be written with the full trial details. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:Be bold is a Wikipedia policy. Since now two of us concur, I will create a new article with a neutral title: 2016 Jian Ghomeshi trial.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 01:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with trimming and making a new article. I'd prefer it be titled Jian Ghomeshi sexual assault allegations or Jian Ghomeshi scandal since there will be two 2016 trials and at the moment the new article focuses on the entire scope of the scandal rather than just the trial(s).LM2000 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello User:LM2000,
I agree with User:OnBeyondZebrax's wording of the new article, as it includes neutral language. The term sexual assault allegations would have only made sense pre-trial. The term scandal would only have made sense if a guilty verdict was issued.
Also, I believe more content should be transferred to the new trial article. 4 paragraphs is still too long on this page. This article should stick to the main points, and all of the small details should be transferred to the trial article. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that more content should be move to the other article. At this point in his career, Ghomeshi is best known for this case, so it's not undue weight to have a significant amount of content. Four paragraphs is reasonable. As for the claim that it's only a scandal if he was found guilty, that's not true. The allegations, his firing and the court cases are all a scandal no matter the court outcome. Even the judge used the term scandal ("The publicity surrounding what I will call the 'Ghomeshi Scandal' in 2014 is the context in which the complainants in this case came forward with reports of sexual assaults that they say occurred in 2002 and 2003." http://www.ontariocourts.ca/en/24Mar16.pdf) T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 02:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
At this point in his career ...—you mean, within days of the verdict? Sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't work this way. The man has had a quarter-century-long career, yet fully half of the lead is devoted to the case. If you don't see how that's way over the top, then you should probably step far away from the article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean at this particular moment. That was poor wording. I meant that across his long career, most of the coverage he has received is about his alleged assaults and his trial. I wasn't talking about the lede though. I was talking about the body. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 04:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
An encyclopaedia article isn't a numbers game—there are a lot of articles out there, but it would be silly to turn this article into an enumeration of the minutiae of this case. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the article should reflect the coverage. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 01:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello all, I went ahead and cleaned up the header of the article as more of a summary than a direct account of events. Feel free to make additional changes in this manner. Ergzay (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

fully protected indefinetely

It is so unfair for a page to be fully protected indefinitely due to reasons other than edit warring. There will be masses of edit requests in the talk page and the page's quality won't increase. If the page wants to be edited, use LV2 pending revision protection. 86.22.8.235 (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Indefinite is not infinite, it only means that there is no automatic expiry. There is no consensus for the use of PC2 protection. If you have an edit to suggest, please use the {{edit protected}} template to make a request. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about libel of a living person

Hello all, in the Criminal Trial section of the Ghomeshi article, there is a notation of a public accusation of Mr. Ghomeshi's guilt by Kathryn Borel, referring to allegations which were withdrawn based on his signature of a peace bond. The re-assertion of his guilt by Borell, and citation within the article of that assertion seems to be at cross purpose to the Wikipedia policy on articles about living persons "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." If statements of this nature by Mrs. Borel are to be retained on Wikipedia, possibly they can be moved to Kathryn Borel's personal Wikipedia article.

Curmudgeon_prime August 19 2016 (PST)

What you're talking about is not a violation of our BLP rules. BLP precludes the making of unsourced allegations in our article, such that we're effectively the originating publisher of the claims; it does not preclude properly sourcing the fact that a third party has made allegations in the public sphere. Had somebody been using our article to originate the propagation of claims about Ghomeshi's behaviour, because those claims hadn't been reported in the media at all, then that would have been a violation of our BLP policies — but it is not a violation of BLP to document the existence of allegations that have been reported in real media, so long as we don't express our own editorial opinion about whether they're true or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed about BLP policy and libel, assuming the sources are good and claims are clearly attributed. Especially considering there’s a separate article about the trial, though, adding a lot of detail to the section here could be perceived as WP:UNDUE.—Odysseus1479 23:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What about his new Podcast?

There are reports that Ghomeshi has a podcast, started in 2016. Shouldn't there be a link to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.113.136 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Article assessment

It amazed me just now to see that this article is rated "start-class" by all of the listed WikiProjects. I investigated, and I see that the original assessment for WikiProject Biography was carried out on 30 June 2007, and would have been based on this revision. That, indeed, was start-class, but the article has improved greatly in the intervening nine and a half years. I'd like to suggest that this should be rated B-class. I don't think this would pass a good article review at this point because it's not very stable (it's one of only a handful of indefinitely full-protected pages, that's usually an automatic GA killer). Any objections? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The Ideation Project Addition

@World's Lamest Critic: I totally agree with your argument normally, but this seems to have been a major issue and was covered significantly enough in the media to warrant inclusion. See: https://globalnews.ca/news/3368180/jian-ghomeshi-new-project-podcast/. Contqul (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure this isn't your intention, Contqui, but the reference to a specific online "reputation management" company looks promotional to me. There's no disputing the fact that the company was hired by Ghomeshi, but it's really a trivial detail to include in this article. Besides, the project seems to have stalled some months ago. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jian Ghomeshi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Please add his birthday. It is June 9.2605:6000:1526:450B:2982:D9F7:CD8:41FA (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC) https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancitybuzz-chats-with-jian-ghomeshi https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3416416 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1526:450B:2982:D9F7:CD8:41FA (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2021

Other aspects of his racial or ethnic is included, why is his Jewishness ignored? This is a blemish on this biography.

X: Jian Ghomeshi (Persian: ژیان قمیشی‎) is a Persian-Canadian[3] broadcaster, Y: Jian Ghomeshi is a Jewish-Canadian[3] broadcaster, 2607:FEA8:2A64:FE00:A47A:7F1A:D181:B247 (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  •  Not done Do you have a reliable source for his purported Jewishness? I've certainly never seen any sources about him ever call him anything but a secular/non-religious Muslim, so we can't just assert that he's Jewish here without sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

The phrase “Judge […] accused” in "Criminal charges and trial" section explicitly contravenes MOS:ACCUSED. It should be neutered to something like ’Judge […] stated’ followed immediately by the quoted-phrased repurposed. 103.163.124.73 (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I changed this to match the source, which didn't have the text quoted originally. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thanks, a-gain. —103.163.124.73 (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC) Edited 14:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC) Edited #2 14:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

The first reference link is dead and has been removed by Macleans. 2605:B100:740:57A1:FD94:53DC:E2A9:B384 (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I am confused, the link is still active. Heart (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jian_Ghomeshi/Archive_3&oldid=1251123271"