Talk:Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases

Merge

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

---

Weinstein effect should be merged here; at this point Weinstein effect is a buzzphrase describing some outfall of the Weinstein sexual allegations rather than a well source separate phenomena. NE Ent 18:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The Weinstein effect is about a far broader phenomenon. It is very badly titled, but that’s a different issue. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bmclaughlin9. That title does indeed need improvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It's independently notable.LM2000 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The allegations concerning Weinstein are distinct. The effect is about the impact of those allegations on society at large. It is a subtopic, but it's notable in its own right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

And as for the term Weinstein effect, well, it is the WP:Common name. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Like others have said, the impact is notable enough to warrant an independent article of its own. -- ChamithN (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree too that the Weinstein effect is about a far broader phenomenon, which has acquired a life of its own.--Lubiesque (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

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

occasionally off-topic

At least two sentences seem off-topic. Firstly "Peter Jackson said that Miramax convinced him to not cast Mira Sorvino and Ashley Judd, who did not comply with Weinstein, in The Lord of the Rings." The source used does not have Jackson imply that Weinstein's reasons were in any way connected to the two actresses' refusal to 'comply', he says he doesn't know. It DOES have Jackson say that both Weinsteins were 'not nice guys', but that isn't the subject of the article.

The text "One Miramax executive reported being harassed by Weinstein after being promoted and praised by him; she and other employees allegedly found that the HR department protected Weinstein more than his employees." Does not say that she was sexually harassed, the source may do so, but I cannot read it (££). Again it is off-topic if the exec is just saying Weinstein was a bully - which few in the business seem to disagree with.

There may be others, but in a quick read, I noticed these as possible SYNTHy off-topic. Pincrete (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pincrete: yes there has been some dubious quoting on this article. I will delete this offending text, if it hasn't already been cut. Nice catch! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pincrete: The second cite does mention sexual harassment. I'll undo @Jtbobwaysf:'s deletion (which was too broad, as he should not have taken out the cite itself as it covered the earlier text too). Ylee (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with Pincrete's argument here.

For sexual harassment topics, I don't think the allowability of this type of testimony should hinge on whether the testifying party was actual privy to this being a retaliatory act. How likely is it Jackson would have been told the favor was being asked for bcz Ashley jilted Harvey? --Kiyoweap (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

My post was two years ago, so memory is a bit rusty as to the full circumstances here. But, whatever the topic - especially such a 'hot' topic, which can immeasurably harm the lives of alleged victim or alleged perpetrator - we have a duty to be cautious. If Jackson has not explicitly said why he thought someone was/was not cast, we have no business even considering the material for inclusion IMO. He had not. There are plenty of other places where inference is the prime currency.Pincrete (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Rename the article to "Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse".

The word allege is stupid, because it makes people think that something never happened. Accuse and argue are obnoxious because of that same reason. Look at what all these three a-words have in common: Denial, lies, victim-blaming, hatred, confusion, anger, fear, etc. What is going on here? 24.10.16.165 (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

And the Harveygate scandal is worse than Pizzagate. I feel that it is inhumanely dangerous to the trust the news even after 2016 because the impact of Pizzagate was so large, that it comes to effect here. The news is still ungodly guilty of heavily using words like "allege", "claim", "conspiracy theory", "argue", etc., and the Harveygate news articles are so bad for that sin. Simply because the word "allege" makes someone sense that people are crediting someone for actually creating crimes does not mean what it seems. Harvey Weinstein is a terrible being. Weinstein sexually abused everyone in the entertainment industry, and yet everyone is not willing to give up saying "allege" to deny it. Someday, no single person will do stuff like the news these days, but for now this is chaotic. Why no one brought this up? The answer is conformity with the news. 24.10.16.165 (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The word allege doesn't mean that "something never happened". It means that "someone said that something had happened". I admit that I'd be prepared to bet two kidneys that Harvey Weinstein has committed sexual offences against multiple women. The credibility and sheer volume of the allegations means that Mr Weinstein is already guilty in the court of public opinion. However, they should still be described as allegations instead of being treated as outright true, unless/until they are proven in court or by indisputable evidence. This is Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living persons and it's the same policy that is used by reliable media sources. The purpose of it is to protect public figures from libel. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:BLP we dont operate a court of law here at wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Excessive content tag

@Emir of Wikipedia: you tagged the page here [1] saying the list of victims was excessive. I support the content and find it encyclopedic. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It just seems like it an excessive list to me as it just a list of people both notable enough to have their own article and people not notable enough to have their own article, with no context on their individual cases. A reader probably won't know who a non-notable person is, and they only gain the knowledge that someone has made an accusation from that 90 entry list. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the list is not about the notability of the people on the list. Rather it is a list of victims, which is really quite encyclopedic. It is in my opinion the real beauty of wikipedia how this information can be crowdsourced from WP:RS and presented in a cohesive way. I think if it is truly too long, then a list of victims article should be made and the info shipped there. But until that exists, it should be left on the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you think about WP:BLPNAME with regards the victims who are not notable? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I recall we discussed the issue of privacy of victims before on this article's talk page, and we found that the vast majority of the victims had come forward (meaning they announced they were victims). Initially I was previously on your side of the argument, but eventually, I started to agree with the list of names in general. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I also disagree with the tag and have removed it. These are not "examples", this is a list of alleged victims, which aims to be exhaustive. It illustrates and makes understandable the scope of the case. As mentioned above, the identified women have come forward of their own accord and privacy is therefore not an issue. Sandstein 21:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Weinstein found guilty on two counts

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/nyregion/harvey-weinstein-verdict.html This is a major update that should be put in the article immediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.146.1 (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• As per WP:BLPCRIME a conviction in a court of law which is both necessary and sufficient to describe the person as a criminal in an article. This article, reflecting the required pre-conviction balance, is passive about how it describes Weinstein. This can and should now be changed. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Weinstein was acquitted on one rape charge

Please include that his convictions were only third degree rape and one count of first degree criminal sex act.https://www.thedailybeast.com/weinstein-jury-movie-mogul-guilty-of-rape-criminal-sex-act He was in fact acquitted of first degree rape.2601:447:4100:C120:F1AF:CD72:B07F:3287 (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The list of accusers is misleading

There are so many accusers, and each have a different story. Let's not gather them all into one list that broadly defines "sexual harassment or assault." Owynhart 19:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Confused why not. The might be different, but they share common claims. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Because it's vague and equalizes them. Owynhart 05:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Owynhart's assessment, there's now been a highly-publicised trial, The People of New York v. Harvey Weinstein and he has been found guilty of felonies. We should at least demarcate this conviction from the other #MeToo accusations. SITH (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Grammar error?

In paragraph two, the comma after "Weinstein," should not be there. 198.70.2.200 (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, that was my mistake. I've fixed it. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Brafman or Weinstein?

Regarding this paragraph:

Weinstein was initially represented by Benjamin Brafman, but parted ways with Brafman in January 2019,[137][138] and hired Donna Rotunno as his defense counsel.[139] Weinstein was tried in February 2020 in Manhattan Supreme Court. At the trial, six women testified that Weinstein had sexually assaulted them; the charges themselves rested on the complaints of two women, a production assistant and a former actress, who gave the jury accounts from 2006 and 2013, respectively.[140] On February 24, 2020, the jury found Weinstein guilty of rape in the third degree and a criminal sexual act, and not guilty on three counts including two more serious charges of predatory sexual assault.[2] After the verdict, Brafman was remanded to jail to await sentencing on March 11, 2020; Weinstein faces a sentence of between 5 and 29 years.[140]

Is the statement, "Brafman was remanded to jail..." supposed to be "Weinstein was remanded to jail..."? Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Anti Semitism against Harvey Weinstein

I tried adding this but the article is protected...

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/02/26/wein-f26-1.html

The vile and abhorrent Anti-Semitism being portrayed by a popular media outlet is filthy. We need to add this into the article so that the world knows 49.185.10.210 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think those images look anything alike. I don't believe we view wsws.org as a reliable source. Anyway, it seems to just be one opinion that that image is anti-semetic. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi are you Jewish?? I think not. If you were, you would understand how painful images like these are to us. You have absolutely no idea what it means to be an oppressed minority. Remove your comment and apologise 49.185.10.210 (talk) 04:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Emanuela Postacchini, actress, could be added to Accusers#Sexual harassment or assault. source: [2], [3] 112.171.89.101 (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

More accusations in October 2020. source 183.89.146.251 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2020 (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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

FORMER production assistant Therealslimsadie (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Therealslimsadie thank you. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2022

Weinstein has appealed his sentence and his appeal case is currently ongoing. During arguments in the cases three of the five appellate judges expressed concerns about the prejudicial evidence used in the trial.

Weinstein's conviction has been upheld by the New York Court of Appeals. Please include this in the article.

Weinstein has appealed his sentence and his appeal case is currently ongoing. During arguments in the cases three of the five appellate judges expressed concerns about the prejudicial evidence used in the trial. On June 2, 2022, the five judge panel of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Judicial Department would reject Weinstein's bid to overturn his 2020 sexual assault conviction in the state of New York.2601:447:4000:220:F1D9:182C:503C:CC04 (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done, more or less; feel free to make another request if there's anything you'd like changed. Thank you for your contribution! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Numbering of accusers and order they are listed in

Why are they numbered instead of bullet-pointed, gives the appearance they are in some sort of chronologic order. Is this the case? SecretName101 (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2023

Please hyperlink the first mention of "rape" to the Wikipedia page on rape. SaltyBeans (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Gwyneth Paltrow said on Late Show with David Letterman that Weinstein "will coerce you to do a thing or two"

The quote is an example of Weinstein's coercive manner. In context it is not about Weinstein's sexual abuse. Letterman gives amusing anecdotes about Weinstein's alleged affiliations with the mob, and how he puts pressure on Letterman to talk about his films, etc. In context the coercion Paltrow is talking about is in response to Letterman's discussion on this aspect of Weinstein's character, and is about Weinstein putting pressure on her to do promotions for films, such as appear on the Letterman show. [4]. While it is useful information to show Weinstein's coercive manner, it is possibly misleading to put it in this article as an early example of public disclosure or awareness of Weinstein's sexual abuse. In this article the placement of the quote makes it appear that Paltrow is implying that the "thing or two" is sex, while in context in the interview it is clear that the "thing or two" is unpaid promotional work. As such it may be better to remove it, but I thought I should bring the matter here first. SilkTork (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but generally we follow secondary sources in our interpretation of primary sources (such as quotes ), and this quote is attributed to a secondary source that does present the quote as referring to Weinstein's sexual misconduct. The source gives the following context: "Gwyneth Paltrow, who came forward saying she was sexually harassed by Weinstein when she was 22, said on the Letterman Show that Weinstein "will coerce you to do a thing or two."" I therefore think that we should not omit the quote. Sandstein 14:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)