Talk:Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases/Archive 1

A Women's Issue-Put this page back under Weinstein
This appears to be a decoy page. When I posted about Weinstein's harrassment on his page I was told by an editor to move to this page, but this page  is slated for deletion so all the work to document the decades of harrassment will not be saved. This is a women's issue which the mostly male editors of Wikipedia may not have as a concern, but there is no reason to move the harassment information away from his main page unless a desire to draw posts here and then delete this page. Kmccook (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Right now, that article is leaning heavily towards being kept; 9 keeps with 2 people also voting merge as second option and nobody supporting deletion except the nominator. In other words, this article is very likely safe. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. It's likely to be here for ages. Gene2010 (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * am I the only one really offended by Kmccooks suggestion that all other men are not bothered about a serial rapist (as seems) because we are men??? And that we want to hide and delete all mention of the subject's crimes? That is a despicable opinion to have, and to push on us all merely because we are male?Simply-the-truth (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While her comments didn't assume good faith, Wikipedia is not social media like other sites, and the community clearly voted to keep it, so it's of little consequence.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 09:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I want the page saved, that was not my point. My point was kmccook branding all us "males" as trying to hide this mans claims. This is disgusting and the editor, if she had any morals, should apologise?Simply-the-truth (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Kmccook you need to apologise for the disgusting sexist remarks you made above?Simply-the-truth (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I notice that you've also carried your complaints onto her talk page, but you're flogging a dead horse. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Simply-the-truth Calm down, the only thing she said is that it's a women's issue and therefore that men aren't concerned as much, which is true. You being offended by that remark is simply ridiculous. DrNanard (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I Agree strongly with DrNanard & also with the keep decision. If prosecuted -- ie "alleged" is sustained -- merging is also likely the way to go. Diceypoo (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I was never looking for an argument at any time. I truly was greatly offended by the wording of @Kmccook remarks. The things that man has been accused off are terribile, so to be painted as the same by poor wording was not nice at all. I now accept that this was all that it was, slightly poor wording and my wrong take on what @Kmccok was saying. So no apology needed at all, and I apologise if I upset you as well, never my intention. Have a great rest of the week! Simply-the-truth (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting this. Anywikiuser (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

NBC's involvement
I've discovered some reports we can use for NBC's involvement and subsequent criticism from it:


 * How Did NBC Miss Out on a Harvey Weinstein Exposé? - Report from The New York Times
 * NBC slammed for passing on Harvey Weinstein sex harassment exposé - Report from Fox News

With regard to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, and most especially WP:BLP, would it be necessary to include it in the article at this stage or should we add it in later? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We could perhaps have a subsection about the wider topic of how Weinstein allegedly used his money and influence to keep the rumors about his behavior quiet. The NBC angle could be part of that. I'm not sure we have enough reliable sources for that, though.  Sandstein   08:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I see. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Vũ Thu Phuong
I read the Facebook post of Vũ Thu Phuong and she stated that Harvey Weinstein sexually harassing her after having a cameo appearance in a 2010 movie 'Shanghai', which is distributed by The Weinstein Company.

If you want to know the reliable sources is, here's the Vietnamese article.

http://m.dantri.com.vn/van-hoa/cuu-nguoi-mau-vu-thu-phuong-chia-se-tung-bi-harvey-westein-quay-roi-20171013104700577.htm

And her Facebook post. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1557792064302007&id=100002136856677

- Thao

P. S. If you don't speak Vietnamese, then I understand and hope you'll translating Vietnamese to English.


 * More information is needed, like the imdb of the movie or her imdb. A reliable source is also needed.Hofhof (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I tried to searching her on IMDb, but she don't have it. Here's the her biography that I find https://vietceleb.blogspot.com/search/label/Vu%20Thu%20Phuong?m=0 and there's the reliable source that you want to need this https://m.vietnambreakingnews.com/2017/10/vietnamese-actress-joins-growing-voices-against-hollywood-producer-harvey-weinstein/

I think they're needed to included her on Alleged Victims. - Thao

Matt Damon and Russell Crowe cover up
Sharon Waxman alleges that Matt Damon and Russell Crowe covered this up in 2004. Will this be in the article? Mobile mundo (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Source?  Sandstein   18:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Source. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing substantial there about Damon and Crowe. There is the allegation that Weinstein pressured the NYT in 2004, but it's still a bit thin. I figure out that there will be better reporting in the coming days about who may have hushed up what when.  Sandstein   20:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Seth Macfarlane --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I just hope this article won't turn into a witch hunt of who knew what. Because everybody knew something, including the media. The rumors are everywhere. But considering how powerful Weinstein used to be, very little can be done until victims come forward and say something on the record. Gene2010 (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make a general point rather than address Waxman's allegations specifically, as I haven't read the article. I agree with Gene2010. There is a risk that we'll start giving an overly broad definition of the phrase "cover up" to cover any case where someone knew of an allegation or rumour and didn't disclose it. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
Here: Articles for deletion/Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations. Isn't the "result" (KEEP) of the deletion discussion supposed to be posted somewhere on this Talk Page? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I got distracted by real-life stuff. Done now. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved  Dr Strauss   talk   08:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations → Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations – An editor above expressed the concern that the mild-sounding "misconduct" conveys the impression that we don't consider the allegations all that serious. Sexual abuse seems to be a more adequate and somewhat established umbrella term for conduct such as the one at issue here, which allegedly ranges from requests to trade sex for career advancement, to groping and rape.  Sandstein  14:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Isn't he also being accused of sexual harassment? Not sure that falls under the categorty of sexual abuse, but it does fall under sexual misconduct. AdA&D  14:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we need to look at what the sources call it. Even if it "mild-sounding" we should not have our WP:OR in the title. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of the cited links use the wording "sexual assault". Cristiklein (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Reaper7 (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the move because most sources are indeed referring to the allegations as sexual abuse. NY Times "sexual abuse scandal", Guardian "sexual abuse allegations", People "sexual abuse allegations", Telegraph "sexual abuse allegations", CNN "growing number of sexual harassment and abuse accusations", Fox News "multiple allegations of sexual abuse" 333cale (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Sexual misconduct is a more ambiguous term that often includes legal or consensual sexual activity, like adultery. As mentioned above, "sexual abuse" and "sexual assault" are the primary accusations, and also more accurately distinguish the nature of the allegations from other Wikipedia subjects who've committed improprieties that are "victimless."--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 09:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Sexual misconduct sounds like it's a moral judgment.Hofhof (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support While both are "technically" correct, misconduct underplays the alleged assaults and rapes.--Carwil (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Emir of Wikipedia's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support More accurate term, per 333cale and Esprit15d. Gap9551 (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support These allegations are closer in nature to Bill Cosby (whose article is Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations) than Trump and Clinton (Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations).LM2000 (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I agree on "sexual abuse allegations" since it also covers sexual harassment. Gene2010 (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to sexual assault, mainly because I think it's a more neutral term and more used by RS. I've seen many cases of "harassment" and "assault" in RS, and less cases of the "abuse" wording. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I think that "abuse allegations" is more fitting than "misconduct allegations". Itsquietuptown (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Misconduct is a more neutral term. Also the allegations are being investigated by police forces in two different countries, so we should wait for these, and any possible criminal procedings, to be concluded first. This is Paul (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I think it more closely defines the crime committed. This isn't jaywalking, folks. CsikosLo (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Per 333cale - we should follow the sources, otherwise we'd be drifting towards OR. ReidE96 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – there's a lot more to his misconduct than sexual abuse. The current title seems appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – "sexual misconduct" is a broader term. Anywikiuser (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - The lead paragraph states;... of sexual harassment, sexual assault or rape..... All that to me is sexual abuse and not merely misconduct. We have known victims here and misconduct sounds like a generality that would otherwise be investigated by some tribunal and not law enforcement. User:333cale has also posted sources that call it as such. Kagundu  Talk To Me  08:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The proper title is "Allegations of Sexual Harrasment and Assault against Weinstein." The terms "sexual misconduct" and "sexual abuse" do not fully elaborate the allegations against Weinstein.  The term "sexual misconduct" implies mere infractions that may not rise to a very high level or involve victims.  The term "sexual abuse" leaves out or does not accurately describe the sexual harassment allegations which are about Weinstein inappropriately propositioning business associates and implying or directly offering a quid pro quo.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.136.100 (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral. If we're going to be pedantic about it, sexual misconduct is more likely the proper terminology. But in the interest of people actually searching for the article they might be more likely to type "sexual abuse".Trillfendi (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support "Abuse" is far more commonly utilized than "misconduct" in referring to these allegations. Coretheapple (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:NPV on WP:BLP Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm not convinced with the nominator's argument that we should change the name in case people think we're taking the allegations lightly. It's not our place to make a judgement on them one way or the other, per WP:OR, WP:NPOV etc. etc. However, has actually gone out and looked at what the 3rd party reliable sources are calling it (apparently the only responder to do so), and has found that "sexual abuse" is indeed the commonly used term out there, so that's what we should be calling it too. I think that "abuse" is an adequate term to cover the harrassment claims too, and apparently so do the sources mentioned.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Me too (hashtag) article
Any thoughts on the recently created Me too (hashtag) article? Seems that most of it is already covered here, and there's no stand-alone notabilty. I'd support a merge/redirect if there's a consensus for it. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support a merge as well, for the reasons you've stated.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 09:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I and other editor on its Talk page also agree with a merge.
 * I think the list of users should be removed though. --Hofhof (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion at Talk:Me too (hashtag). --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, this should be selectively merged here, minus the list of users.  Sandstein   12:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The merger discussion is the one at the other article not the discussion here, but if they both have the same consensus it doesn't really matter. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted too much because I somehow skipped this reply chain: You're right, and merge is opposed.
 * Yes, agree as well. This should definitely be merged as it was a consequence of the allegations. We can have a section about it in this article with a redirect. This is Paul (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Against. The real creator of the hashtag, a black woman named Tarana Burke, started it in 2007, therefore it's completely and categorically unrelated to Harvey Weinstein. Just because a few actresses co-opted the hashtag to speak about sexual harassment this week doesn't mean they created it!Trillfendi (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge Article lacks notability except its connection to Weinstein. It doesn't matter that some non-notable person came up with it first, it was not a notable event until this Weinstein event. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge: hashtags generally don't meet standalone notability criteria (e.g. #PrayForParis).   Dr Strauss   talk   13:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Opposed (for now; see discussion and decision to not merge in Talk:Me too (hashtag) -- PS: AfD??). I think #meToo might have some notability; even at the risk of adding to its witchhunt facet, maybe is of value in the times of alternative facts. Also merging might make it necessary to later re-edit the list of users (and/or supporters, notable voices) when the thing goes to trial and people actually come forward. Not saying it will be a surprisingly high or low fraction of the initial individuals, but rather that the basis should be online to make the claim: seen in the light of the likely upcoming new page "Trail against Weinstein", is it the media uproar or is it the allegations by themselves that were precursory to it? Legally surely the latter, true, but (on a tangent) isn't it really the whole attention that's clearly important here, that social media pressure that is in other cases so elusive that it becomes mere and laughable "fb-activism"? Further tangent: articles similar to Egyptian_revolution_of_2011 might include criticism, but I'd bet that after a merge criticism of metoo (regardless of content) will be prone to be shorter and all-together worse off if not a standalone page. Diceypoo (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Resignation
Now it's been confirmed that Weinstein has resigned from TWC altogether. Should we mention it in the lead and in the body of the article if it's necessary? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Body yes, lead probably not.  Sandstein   18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Lede and body both, yes Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Tom Hanks
When this article says that Weinstein's conduct has been "denounced by prominent persons" it could mention that Tom Hanks declared it as a watershed moment. Vorbee (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead section
The article will experience further expansion over the next few days. As such, should we expand the lead into three paragraphs? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Drug problems
Should we incorporate Weinstein's drug problems into the article if it's necessary? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not on the basis of unreliable, tabloid sourcing. Besides, this has nothing to do with the allegations against him.  Sandstein   06:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Weinstein and David Boies and Boies, Schiller & Flexner
Removal of link to breach of professional standards by Boies's law firm may lose the circle of Hollywood and law but I will add elsewhere.Kmccook (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Tarantino NPV issues
you reverted my edit with your edit to re-add the quote that Director Quentin Tarantino said in 2017 that he had known about Weinstein's misconduct "for decades." Please show the source of this quote, as I can't find it in the source. I see that the NYT asserts he knew about it for years, but I don't see the quote where Tarantino says it. The current text says he said that quote (to my understanding), and I think this is a violation of policies including WP:BLP. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The NYT article begins as follows: "Quentin Tarantino, the Hollywood director most closely tied to Harvey Weinstein, has known for decades about the producer’s alleged misconduct toward women and now feels ashamed he did not take a stronger stand and stop working with him, he said in an interview." This makes it clear enough, I think, that Tarantino did say that he knew for decades.  Sandstein   16:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your assumption that Tarantino said it is WP:OR. Unless NYT quotes him, why would you think it is ok to make up a quote? These quotes need to be removed, or you can change the sentence to say that NYT said it, and quote NYT (but that will have WP:UNDUE issues. But you cant make up a quote out of thin air and attribute it to Tarantino, this is a clear no-no. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed the quote marks before you started this thread, as the source does not put "for decades" in quotes. But it is clearly accurate as Tarantino was told in 1995 about Weinstein harassing Mira Sorvino. TwoTwoHello (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal of the quote marks around "for decades", because otherwise it's unclear whether we're qouting Tarantino or the NYT.  Sandstein   17:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

First misquote seems to have been solved, but another popped up along the way saying Tarantino was ashamed he didnt do anything. That content fails verification, as the article states that Tarantino did in fact take action. This is WP:BLP violation as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. Nowhere in the source does Tarantino say that he confronted Weinstein or did anything else.  Sandstein   07:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You reverted my edit here and you said "Nowhere in the source does Tarantino say that he confronted Weinstein or did anything else.)" You and me are apparently not reading the same source it appears.
 * "I Knew Enough to Do More Than I Did" is the title of the nyt piece and also a direct quote from Tarantino. He says "more than I did", which is him saying he did something. He clearly doesn't say 'I knew enough to do more than nothing.'
 * "In the hourlong conversation, Mr. Tarantino, 54, apologized for not doing more while also explaining why"- Quote also says Tarantino apologized for not doing more, he didn't apologize for doing nothing.
 * "Over the years, he learned of other accounts. Another actress friend told him a troubling story of unwanted advances by Mr. Weinstein in a hotel room. Mr. Tarantino confronted Mr. Weinstein, who offered the woman what the director described as a weak apology. (She confirmed the account to The Times but declined to be identified.)" A third statment in the article states very clearly that Tarantino confronted Weinstein, and that the NYT also confirmed this with a 3rd party. Confront is a verb see.
 * There are three very clear statements above that are all direct quotes from the nyt piece, and all reference Tarantino taking action and directly contradict your WP:OR that Tarantino did nothing. This treatment is a clear WP:AVOIDVICTIM violation. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Legacy
Surprised there's no Legacy section already, on how the fallout and #metoo led to all sorts of public backlash and exposure of previously hushed sexual harassment, including circumstances for Kevin Spacey, Benjamin Genocchio, Westminster, etc. Legacy section would be the place to do it—there's plenty of coverage on the specific connection between Weinstein and those cases, starting with the NYT (not watching, please ping) czar  18:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Leon Wieseltier, New Republic; Knight Landesman, Artforum; Michael Oreskes, National Public Radio; commedian, Louis CK--it goes on and sadly on. Kmccook (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Might add Charlie Sheen too. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Was just about to state that there should be a section in the article on "The Harvey Weinstein effect". Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Created summary style split at Farm-Fresh eye.png Weinstein effect and summarized here in #Legacy. It's a tricky topic and I think I handled it evenly, but ping me if you have suggestions. Anyway, to the birds now czar  21:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Subpoena?
Should we mention the subpoena from TWC inside the article if it's necessary? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a whole section here The_Weinstein_Company is it really necessary on this page too? I thought Harvey was no longer with TWC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Question about photo line-up
Many of the alleged victim's names are already listed on this page, with links to blp's, if they have one. Is there really a need for a second listing of (some of) them via photo array? Does adding their photos here add any value to this article? Discuss. - the WOLF  child  23:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree the photos are not needed Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The photos are there to give a face, as it were, to the alleged victims, and to make sure that the alleged perpetrator is not the only person pictured.  Sandstein   09:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't quite see the necessity. Why do the victims "need a face" here? Are you saying this is for them then? That these women want their photos posted up as rape victims? And if it's to somehow offset the photo of Weinstein, again... why is that necessary? (do we even need his photo?) What about the ones who's photos aren't listed? Are they not as important? Are they somehow... "less than"? Isn't having links to the current blp's, most of which have photos, sufficient? I still don't see the value of posting these women's photos and basically creating a repeat and redundant list of victims. - the WOLF  child  16:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * btw- is the use of these images permitted by WP's image use policy? And I noticed that it was you, Sandstein, that added these images, beginning on Oct 31. Did you just arbitrarily decide to do so, or did you seek consensus for such a significant addition? Just a couple of questions I'm curious about. Thanks. - the WOLF  child  16:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thewolfchild, editors do not need to seek anyone's permission or consensus to add content to articles. See WP:BOLD.  Sandstein   18:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can show us where I wrote that "permission" or consensus was "needed"...? I simply asked if you decided to add the images on your own. I'm sure I've heard somewhere that it doesn't hurt to seek consensus before making major changes/adding significant content? But you're right... per WP:BRD, you can Boldly add those images if you like. (as long as they don't violate WP image use policy). But then, of course, I can Revert/remove those same images, (which I have now done) at which point, a Discussion is required and if you and I can't agree on keeping or removing them, then we seek consensus. Look, I'm not trying to get in your face or stir up shit. I really do not see the need or value to adding the faces of alleged rape victims to this article. And if your only reason is to off-set having Weinstein's mug up at the top, then why not just remove that as well? Is it necessary for this article? Peronally, I don't think so. He has a linked BLP with a photo for all to see. Another point I'd like to raise is, if we look at other articles where a crime involving numerous victims occurred, such as the Sutherland Springs church shooting, the Charleston church shooting or another mass-sexual asssault incident like the Tailhook scandal, while they contain lists of victims, there are no photos. I believe that's because they add no value to those articles and they simply aren't needed to aid in any understanding of the incident. All that said, I would like to see what others may have to say on the matter. - the WOLF  child  19:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My view is that this issue is not only about Weinstein, but also about the women he allegedly abused. We regularly illustrate articles with the people who are relevant to it. As the policy you linked to says: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." We don't normally depict crime victims because they are not public figures and we do not have free images of them. But these women are notable actresses, for the most part. Their images are relevant. By removing the images of the women connected to this scandal from the article, you convey the impression that Wikipedia does not consider them important.  Sandstein   19:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I clearly and repeatly stated why I don't feel these images need to be in the article, and at no time did I say that I consider these victims as unimportant. I don't see how you equate not having their images as Wikipedia somehow diminishing their importance either. I asked what, if any value they give to the article. You have not answered that. You have said that they are there to offet having Weinsteins image there as well. I don't see that as a sufficient reason, especially when posing the question: is his image necessary? But that aside, how does posting their images lend in any way to understanding of the content of this article? Did he injure or scar them? Do the images show these injuries or scars? Can someone read the article without the images, and then only after seeing them, have a better understanding of what this article is about? Do we normally post images of rape victims? Because these particular victims are notable enough to have images due to their accomplishmemts, do they now deserve to have their pictures posted on a 'rape victim list' simply because they were unfortunate enough to be victims? That is... notable victims? Maybe you'll answer those questions, but if you don't, then let's stick with your very own quote; " The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". HoW do these images increase the reader's understanding of the subject matter? Thanks. - the WOLF  child  20:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

LOL.. No reply. No discussion. No consensus either way. No decisions or agreememts made. But go ahead and revert anyway (at least partially). So much for rules, huh? But, ok... "victims" or not, how does having photos of Paltrow amd Love "increase the readers understanding of the article's subject matter? This is an article about sexual abuse, on a massive scale, by Weinstein on the women of Hollywood. Do their photos help people understand this? Could their photos inadvertantly and incorrectly lead readers to believe that these two women were also rape victims? (having their faces so prominently displayed in an article about sexual assault and all...) Stil waiting for an answer from before as well. No rush though, I'm just looking for a collegial way to settle this. Cheers - the WOLF  child  18:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * These people are mentioned in the article. They are of some significance to the topic. Therefore we illustrate the article with their photos. If that's not enough for you, you might as well delete most image of people from most articles.  Sandstein   20:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no need to get snippy. That's basically a non-amswer. I don"t think those images are needed for this article, but I'm not going to get into an edit-war with you over it. If you don't have anything else to add, I guess we'll just leave it at that. Have a nice day. - the WOLF  child  01:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sandstein's editing (repeated reverts of wide range of content) and talk page responses look like WP:OWNERSHIP. I think unless there is a good reason for the photos they are probably not fair use and should be deleted under WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree, and have already removed them once, but he reinserted them (Paltrow and Love) back into the article again, despite the rules. If you wish to remove them again, you would have my support (and also Weinstein's wife... why is her photo needed?), but I would also urge caution. His attitide has not been particularly cooperative here and he is an admin. While many admins are good Wikipedians, some have been known to abuse their tools. I don't know Sandstein so I can't say which category he falls into. Cheers - the WOLF  child  \
 * I removed the wife photo again, it is clearly inappropriate under WP:AVOIDVICTIM. I left the others for now, maybe Sandstein will reply with a reasonable justification for why they should remain (somehow he thinks that it shouldn't only be Harvey's photo, but I don't see how anyone else is truly involved in this incident besides Harvey and his victims). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've started a RfC about this issue, below.  Sandstein   10:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Red Links
There is a long list of WP:RED (wikilinks linking to non-notable actresses). Policy states: "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name." Certainly they are not going to be notable just because Harvey groped them. Comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The actresses may well already be, or become, notable independent of this scandal. And dismissively referring to the alleged offenses as "groping" and to the alleged perpetrator familiarly as "Harvey" is in poor taste at best.  Sandstein   09:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree the 'groping comment' was not cool, but I"m curious about why some victims are red-linked and some are not (just normal black text instead). How is it determined who is red and who is black? - the WOLF  child  17:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Harvey denotes we are not talking about Bob, in this case it seems useful. I am just editing wikipedia and I have no position as to any of the allegations against anyone, nor am I here to make any judgements. I just read the sources and input it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the harm in using his first name, if it's just simply to refer to him. This is only a talk page, not aricle space. But, again, does anyone know how it was decided that some victims are red-linked while others are just noted in plain text? Anyone? - the WOLF  child  19:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the logic either of why some are black and many are red. For example Juls Bindi, massage therapist, this person has zero notability outside of this incident that I see. Is a massage therapist notable because Weinstein allegedly masterbated in front of her? Seems like he might have had a pattern of this, so how is this incident in any way remarkable? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Do any of the following have any sign of notability?:

Amber Anderson, actress[25] -seems like it passes

Zoë Brock, model[28] -no sign of notability

Juls Bindi, massage therapist[29] -no sign of notability

Juliana De Paula, model[36] -no sign of notability

Lacey Dorn, actress and filmmaker[30] -no sign of notability

Dawn Dunning, actress[38] -no sign of notability

Laura Madden, Weinstein employee[31] -no sign of notability

Sarah Ann Masse, actress, comedian, and writer[31] -no sign of notability

Ashley Matthau, actress[30] -no sign of notability

Vu Thu Phuong, actress and businesswoman[67] -this one has a vietnamese wikipedia page, so likely passes.

Comments on above? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Feel free to boldly de-link any red-linked names that don't appear to have any notability, and at the same, add a red-link to tbose in plain text that might. - the WOLF  child  14:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the links. I noticed when removing many were from a single source called gabler, I guess that article must have named everyone which might be just a passing mention. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Whose photographs should be included in this article?
As can be seen in the thread above, there is disagreement about whose photographs we should illustrate this article with. Relevant policies include: The purpose of this RfC is to form consensus about which photographs, if any, to include.  Sandstein  10:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:IUP: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article."
 * WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Survey
Is the inclusion of the following photographs appropriate?

Harvey Weinstein

 * Yes, as the person whose alleged conduct triggered this scandal.  Sandstein   10:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes per above Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No opinion either way. Just to be clear. - the WOLF  child  13:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - Obviously. NickCT (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, since this scandal involves Weinstein and his alleged abuse. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - this one's actually controversial?  Volunteer Marek   05:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - Summoned by bot. Since he is the subject of the page. Meatsgains (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes since he is he subject. Pincrete (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Gwyneth Paltrow and Courtney Love
(photos removed - no longer needed for discussion. they can't go into the article, they don't need to be on the talk page either)
 * Yes, as the persons who first publicly warned about Weinstein's conduct (as discussed in the article).  Sandstein   10:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No - I don't see how their images lend to the reader's understanding of the article's content. At a glance, they could easily be confused as rape victims. They both have linked BLPs with images if people need to know what heu look like. - the WOLF  child  13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - I just don't buy the WP:AVOIDVICTIM rationale. The argument that presenting these womens' images somehow "prolongs their victimization" seems tenuous. And, for an other stuff exists argument; we probably have 100's of examples of pages related to crimes where we are displaying the images of crime victims. Are those making the AVOIDVICTIM argument saying that we ought to scrub all images of victims from all articles about crimes and/sexual assuaults? That could get tricky... If we really want to go that route, there ought to be a policy discussion. NickCT (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It seems there might be a short list of people who took some action to out or confont Weinstein, maybe Brad Pitt, Courtney Love, Gweneth Paltrow, Tarantino & Seth McFarlane (and thus all their pictures could be included as the are part of the story in a somewhat non-victim way). But if other editors are against this, note I am a week keep on this, just offering my $0.02. Note I am still totally against the victims and wife photo lineup below, my comments in this section are relating soley to (maybe) active participants in the story should not be misconstrued otherwise.. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No Adds nothing to understanding the topic. Sure, these are high profile individuals, therefore it may not be "prolonging victimhood", but equally speaking, knowing what they look(ed) like adds nothing to the topic. Links are there to remind anyone who needs reminding who they are. Pincrete (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Alleged victims (a selection)
(photos removed - no longer needed for discussion. they can't go into the article, they don't need to be on the talk page either)


 * Yes, at least a selection, as the persons directly affected by Weinstein's alleged actions. Those who we have images of are all notable public figures and have volunteered their experiences as Weinstein's victims to the media (including with photos or video), and we therefore do not victimize them further by depicting them here.  Sandstein   10:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No to all a clear and obvious WP:BLP violation, specifically WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and clearly BLP trumps whatever wikipedia utility (albiet small) might be argued under WP:IUP. Sanstein, do really think these actresses want their photos on this guy's page like some sort of porn conquest lineup? I am surprised common sense cant resolve this issue. Your statement that this lineup doesn't victimize them further is your own WP:OR and you have no basis to make that assertion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No - there is already a list of the victims names. Notable ones are linked to BLPs with images. Having their images posted here does not in any way lend to the reader's understanding of the article's content. - the WOLF  child  13:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - Per rationale given above. And per  Sandstein  , only a selection. NickCT (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No This one does run afoul of WP:AVOIDVICTIM, even if the one above doesn't.  Volunteer Marek   05:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No Adds nothing to understanding the topic. Seeing them as a gallery convinces me of what a bad idea this is, it's borderline 'eye candy' time! Pincrete (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No as per reasonings by VM and Jtbobwaysf. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Georgina Chapman, Weinstein's wife
(photo removed - no longer needed)


 * Yes, by analogy to what I said about the victims above.  Sandstein   10:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:AVOIDVICTIM & my comments above. This one is even a more blatent violation as she clearly had no choice but to make some sort of statement when she filed for divorce, and by nature of the fact that she was married to this guy, imagine her horror when this blew up... Maybe an unwilling participant in this whole charade is a better way to explain it, and now an unwilling participant in your experiment to drag others into this news event. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No - Again, her inmge does not lend to the reader's understanding of the article's content. At a glance, she could be confused as a rape victim. She is the accused wife. She was not a part of the reporting of the allegations, nor does she claim to be a victim. She is only noted in the article, briefly, as she announced she was filing for divorce. (No surprise there). - the WOLF  child  13:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - If her role in the controversy is notable enough to be mentioned in the article, then I don't know why we wouldn't include her image. NickCT (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No - her only "role" in the controversy is to have announced she's divorcing him. So actually, no way.  Volunteer Marek   05:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No way per V Marek. Pincrete (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No as per the relevant policy at Biographies of living persons. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
My intent when adding the images of the various women discussed above was to make sure that the article adequately represents, including visually, the women whose experiences form an integral part of this scandal and who have shown considerable courage to make their experiences public. To omit their images, and leave only Weinstein's, as other editors have advocated, would make this article (at least visually) an entirely male-dominated narrative, which I find very unfortunate especially given the subject matter.  Sandstein  10:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding women's photos does not create a female narrative, really strange idea. Seems there is some weird WP:NPOV issue coming out here.
 * Next, the tone of Sandstein's edits on this page are that of WP:OWNERSHIP, reverting obvious policy violations (see Tarantino issue above now resolved in which here reverted changes that were obvious to anyone reading the sources). Another editor and I above have been baffled by this WP:TENDENTIOUS approach to create a larger more dramatic issue/page. I am not referring to this RfC, I think a RfC is great, I am referring to the large number of reverts of many different users seeking to add content to this page, so in that sense my comments in this section might be slightly off topic, other than they attempt to shed some light surrounding this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, these images do not lend to the reader's understanding of the arricle's content. The RfC proposer doesn't even argue that they do, rather he has only put forward a very questionable need to "off-set the image of Weinstein", further stating that his image alone "creates a male dominated narrative"(?!). He goes on to say that not having their images somehow "diminishes" these victims(??). A total misplay of the misogyny card, imho. The images, whether in the article or not, have no impact on the narrative. There is nothing in the article content that can only be clarified by these images. They have no 'before and after" effect nor do they demonstrate what, if any, impact their alleged experiences with the accused have had on them. This is nothing but a glorified "rape line-up". If anything, it demeans these women as some kind trophy parade for the accused. This is why in many juristictions, photos and even names of rape victims are not permitted to be published by law. I'm not claiming that to be the case here on WP, but there is sound reasoning to be found behind those laws. While WP is not censored, nor is it a tabloid, here to sensationalize the trauma inflicted on these women. They don't deserve to have their faces splashed across a rape article simply because we happen to have access to some of their photos. We only have use of their photos due to their notability as actresses, not rape victims. Their names are already listed, with many of them linked to BLP's (with images). That is sufficient. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  13:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You are the other users who have contributed substantial content to this article. Your perspectives on this issue would be welcome.  Sandstein  15:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, I wouldn't include photos of anyone who hasn't been discussed at length in the prose. Weinstein is obviously the subject of the article, so a free use image makes an appropriate visual anchor, but unless any of the claimants are discussed at length at the prose, I think we would both give that individual undue weight within the article and "prolong the victimization" by calling attention to their face. As a general rule, if the subject of the image isn't discussed at length in the article, the image is decorative in nature. (not watching, please ping) czar  15:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Quick sidenote here to clarify some of my comments above; I realize there's a slightly tabloid feel to displaying images like this, and I think it's great that User:Thewolfchild & User:Jtbobwaysf are asking the question about whether this represents victimization. Ultimately though, we're sometimes a little to sensitive about these kinds of issues and concerns about censorship outweigh the remote possibility that we might be offending or hurting someone. NickCT (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy does not support the tabloid feel you acknowledge. I also don't think we are talking about censorship, are we? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - You're talking about censoring certain images, yes. On the privacy thing, we should absolutely be conservative, but that doesn't mean we can't write or show anything. We're here to deliver neutral and verifiable information to people. Well illustrated information if possible. If BLP rules get in the way of that, then we should IAR. Plus, another aspect is that these are celebrities. I might have a little more sympathy with your position if these were random Joes, but we're talking about folks who have dozens of photos taken and published on a daily basis. Seems odd to think they'd be hurt by what we're doing here. NickCT (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - As an afterthought; I'd like to reiterate that I'm glad you've asked the question even if I disagree with your answer. NickCT (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - perhaps you can answer these questions then; How does the inclusion of these photos increase the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter? Do they add any value to the article? Thanks - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  20:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to admit my opinions on this are of the weak delete type, and somewhat agree with your comments. But I just don't see another policy that would allow us to treat the celebs less like Living Persons just because they are celebs. Seems like a slipperly slope if we allowed each article to have a different policy based on the person's notability. If there are some celebs that had a larger role (such as went on TV and made a statement), I think a case could be made for their use of the picture, and that is why I haven't voted yet on those two. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to admit my opinions on this are of the weak delete type, and somewhat agree with your comments. But I just don't see another policy that would allow us to treat the celebs less like Living Persons just because they are celebs. Seems like a slipperly slope if we allowed each article to have a different policy based on the person's notability. If there are some celebs that had a larger role (such as went on TV and made a statement), I think a case could be made for their use of the picture, and that is why I haven't voted yet on those two. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about Sandstein's description of the photo line-up as a "selection of photos"... as if there was so many others to choose from. The fact is we don't have photos of all 77 (so far) alleged victims, simply because some of them aren't notable enough to have BLP's and therefore no free use. Some probably don't have any photos to found anywhere, whethere they could be used or not. The point is, just because some of these women are noted in a very, very looonng list possible rape victims, we shouldn't be trying to slip some of the photos that we do have in the back door, simply to decorate the page. The article isn't primarily about them, or the women who complained about Weinstein in the past, or even the woman who's now divorcing him. The article is about Weinstein and, albeit alleged, his atrocious behaviour and treatment of young, vulnerable, actresses and models trying to come up in the business. Posting their photos in this context does no service to them or the article and is not the reason we have usage of their photos in the first place. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  07:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to close RFC
might be a good idea to close the above RFC so the bot doesn't keep bringing more people, looks like there is a clear consensus on the above issues. I am not clear on who/when an RFC is to be closed, but my hunch is this is about time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As proposer, I can't close this, but you can ask at WP:AN.  Sandstein   09:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, did as you suggested here Administrators%27_noticeboard I was wondering if I was allowed to close it as I voted, I guess a brain fart as since you participated you would also be in the same situation as me (not being able to close). Thanks! :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (disinterested drive-by comment) - In other words, "Hurry, let's close this before the usual 30 days, before editors who don't have an intense interest in the subject come in and spoil our consensus!" Sorry, that just doesn't sound right to me. The whole point of the RfC process, as opposed to a simple local discussion, is to solicit the views and perspectives of a broad range of editors. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, i didn't realize there was a 30 day norm, pardon my request, pls. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Partial close
A clear consensus is shown above to include Weinstein and exclude the selection of other accusers and Weinstein's wife. I'm not sure about Paltrow and Love, so I'll let another admin make that call.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)