Talk:Harvey Weinstein/Archive 1

Archive 1

Purchase by Disney

This page says that Disney purchased Miramax for $80 million, while the Miramax page says it was $70 miilion. Which was it? Nightscream 8.30.05. 8:19am EST

The exact terms of the deal were probably never released to the public so there's a lot of numbers out there, and it probably depends on what you decide to include or not:

• New York Daily News, March 28, 2005, CLOSING BOOK ON MIRAMAX
  • "Disney bought Miramax for $70 million"
• The Guardian, (London), October 1, 2004, "When Disney bought Miramax in 1994..." by Peter Biskind
  • "The deal was signed in the conference room of the Team Disney building. All told, it was worth something over $ 100m to Miramax."
• The Daily Telegraph Mirror, July 8, 1995, "Masters of the Art House"
  • "They bought Miramax for a rumoured $85 million in cash"
• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 21, 1993, MICKEY AND GOOFY MEET THE CRYING GAME
  • "Disney is said to have paid close to the asking price ($ 80 million) for Miramax"

(done through Lexis-Nexis)

Jjjjjjjjjj 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't you find it on some government website? Like the SEC or the IRS? Since Disney is a publicly traded company, they should have disclosed it somewhere... 68.238.118.253 (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If not, the the material can simply quote the high and low ends of those figures, with something like "Sources place the purchase at somewhere between $70 and $100 million..." Nightscream (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Proportionality

Weinstein has his detractors - that's for sure. But he is someone with considerable achievements just in terms of Oscar wins and nominations - and financial success. Yet the "criticism" section is larger than the details of his successful career. That is disproportionate in an encyclopedia article. He is clearly a volatile personality who has had several clashes with people - and those may be referenced - but this should be kept in proportion to his successes - otherwise the article will just become a place for detractors to list their complaints. Every successful executive in the entertainment industry makes enemies in taking decisions. A lot of the criticisms listed are not NPOV. Fans of Asian films that are obscure in the US - may be disappointed that those films were acquired and then delayed in release - but how important is that in the realm of an encyclopedia article? First of all - most US distributors completely ignored those films. Does THAT warrant criticism of those studios - and the executives who run those studios? Secondly ALL studios make and/or acquire films with the intention of releasing them and then change their minds and delay the release or cancel the release altogether. Should every single example of such day-to-day decision-making be listed in the article for each studio and the article about the head of each studio? Of course not. That doesn't happen. There is a double-standard being applied in this article that is disproportionate and inappropriate to an encyclopedia article. There needs to be work on this article. Not deleting things because they are not sourced. But deleting things because they are part of the minutiae of every notable entertainment executive and listing such things in massive detail just because it is sourced does not mean that it ALL belongs in this article. Davidpatrick (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, "detractor" definitely seems less neutral than "critic, so I reverted that. The opening passage of that section, in fact (which mirrors that of your post above) seems like an apologist statement or rationalization of some sort. It is only necessary to state what the criticism is. Rationalizing that criticism is leveled at any successful person is clearly POV, and arguably a violation of WP:SYNTH. Similarly inflammatory is the "slob and liar" line, so I removed that, unless it can be sourced to a specific page, passage or quote from the book. Nightscream (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

For both Harvey and Bob, shouldn't we note that it's "wein-steen", not "wein-stine"?[1] I would do the honors but I don't know how. Does anyone know the pronunciation codes? Wikidemon (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

1.129.107.240 (talk)It's pronounced Vainshtain. Similarly, Einstein is pronounced Ainshtain, and Bernstein is pronounced Bernshtain.

"Criticism of Weinstein" section

The material in this section, specifically regarding the criticism about their handling of Asian film is written in an extremely biased manner and is not befitting a Wikipedia entry. It completely understates the criticisms and inaccurately re-frames the issues. Regardless of whether or not you feel these criticisms are fair, they need to be reported accurately.

For example, framing Hero and Shaolin Soccer as "critical successes in Asia but had not been acquired for US distribution by any distributor until Miramax acquired them for US release", or along with the other Asian films that the Weinsteins (either as Miramax or TWC) picked up as "Asian films that were apparently not of interest to other US distributors" is wildly inaccurate.

For starters, both films specifically mentioned were worldwide box office successes, not just "critical successes in Asia", which implies that they are smaller, not commercially successful films. At the time of its release, Stephen Chow's Shaolin Soccer was the highest grossing film of all time at the Hong Kong box office, where it stayed until Chow's next film, Kung Fu Hustle, was released and it took the crown. Hero did $123,684,413 outside of the US. To put this in perspective, films that did similar business worldwide in a similar time period (I used films from 2002 - 2004 that were also box office successes in the US as I assume most reading this will be US based. Hero was released in the US in 2004 but worldwide 2002-2004.) were The Bourne Supremacy ($112M outside the US), The Polar Express ($124M outside the US), Lilo & Stitch ($127M outside the US), Bad Boys 2 ($134M outside the US), Kill Bill Vol. 1 ($110M outside the US), The Aviator ($111M outside the US), Collateral ($117M outside the US), Million Dollar Baby ($116M outside the US), My Big Fat Greek Wedding ($127M outside the US), the US remake of The Ring ($120M outside the US) and Chicago ($136M outside the US and a release that Miramax did $170M of biz with in the US in contrast to Hero which did $54M) not to mention any foreign films I did not include. None of these films are what anyone would consider small critical successes or would be referenced in that manner. This also illustrates Miramax's mishandling of these films, all of the films I compared with Hero were much more successful in the United States, and according to Box Office Mojo, Shaolin Soccer took in 98.9% of it's revenue overseas, which means during its theatrical release, Miramax (who did almost no promotion for the film and was only able to take in about $500K at the box office) only did a little more than 1/100th of what done in the rest of the world, an unusual statistic even for a small foreign arthouse film, let alone an action film with a huge buzz.

Also, there were plenty of other studios interested in these films and to say there weren't is a lie. Anyone logically knows that just because a studio picked up a film does not mean no one else was interested. While that could be true, more often than not, it just means that one studio won the negotiations or simply got there first, so to assume that these are "Asian films that were apparently not of interest to other US distributors" is, at best, quite a stretch. Miramax won the negotiations for these titles, it's as simple as that. At the time, Miramax were chosen largely because the Weinsteins were known for 1) getting good buzz for films, especially regarding awards and 2) paying quite a lot of money (overpaying?) to get what they wanted. Other studios, both major and independent, had interest in Asian films especially in this time period and specifically Hero and Shaolin Soccer, both of which had massive worldwide buzz and success. Sony had a huge hit with Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon two years prior to these films worldwide release (and 3 - 4 years before their American releases), and so the idea that no one was interested in Asian film before Miramax's involvement, which is what is implied by this language, is ridiculous. The filmmakers associated with both of these films now do the US (and worldwide) releases for their films through Sony. If only Miramax was interested in these films, why would Sony pick up Stephen's work despite Shaolin Soccer flopping here in the US and Hero performing under expectations (events that many observers not connected with the Weinstein's blame on their extremely poor handling of the films)?

The producers of Hero were upset by their handling of the film because Miramax was known for getting awards, but when the film was nominated for "Best Foreign Film" at the 2003 Oscars instead of doing the successful and well-known promotion to award voters they usually do to get their films votes, Miramax stopped all promotion for the film and the producers feel that lost them the award. In fact, many observers feel that Miramax's intentional mishandling of Hero and Shaolin Soccer is what stopped not only the individual success of these films, but the success of Asian film in general in US theaters, a trend foretold by the success of Crouching Tiger. Anyone seriously interested in Asian film knows all of this.

Also, framing the cutting and re-dubbing of Shaolin Soccer as "Shaolin Soccer specifically was re-dubbed into English (a very common occurrence for non-English films in the US) and the soundtrack was altered" is a major understatement. In regards to dubbing - it is a common occurrence both here and in the rest of the world, but people were more upset that the dubbing inaccurately told the story than just the simple fact that it was dubbed. But this is all a side issue because the major critique of their handling of the film (along with sitting on it for years and halting the distribution of the Hong Kong DVD in the US, effectively banning US viewers from seeing it) was that they cut actual content from the film, and even worse doing it in ways that made the film make less sense. To illustrate - one specific cut I saw during the US theatrical release of the film (after having already seen the Hong Kong release) was during an action sequence. In the original, Stephen's leg gets trapped by an opponent, then two other men kick his leg, and he cries out in pain. In the US release, they cut out the attack so it appears that he is crying out in pain for apparently no reason. Very disorienting, and it makes a film widely considered to be a great work look like an amateur production.

Moving along from these two films to Princess Mononoke, the language used here is so biased it borders on silly. To say that cutting the film, a film made by a filmmaker considered by people worldwide to be a genius (and this to be one of his best films), would "make it more marketable for the mutual benefit of the studio and the film's makers" is very much debatable. Some would say that having a studio head cut a film made by a master filmmaker would hurt the film and therefore make it less marketable. And for the sake of argument, let us suppose that these cuts would make it more marketable in the US (which unless you are psychic, we cannot know for sure), some would also say that making a great film less great for some possible short term financial gain would be a horrible idea.

Someone pointed out earlier in this talk page that although Harvey has a lot of critics, he has also done a lot of great things. That is very true. I suggest that they create another section for his well deserved accolades, instead of someone gutting the criticism section with incredibly biased language. I plan on updating this section and keeping an eye on it as well as this talk section, and I will eventually be including the recent renewed criticism they are bringing for the treatment of the Asian films released on the Dragon Dynasty label. I will be checking here to see if there are any reasonable objections as well. This has to have an unbiased POV and just state the facts.

Also, is this under Harvey's section and not Miramax and TWC for a reason? Maybe this should be a larger section on those pages,, with a smaller condensed version here and a link to the Miramax/TWC pages? Blashyrkh66 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Everyone can see that the "Criticism" section is as long as the rest of article! Per WP:BLP I put {{unbalanced}} here and unless someone improve his real biography, I will edit (i.e. compress) the criticism section so that we can have a more balanced article. Grenouille vert (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to compress it a bit, and moved some passages that were more appropriate for other sections, but other than that, I don't know how else it can be edited down without removing valid material. Instead of making this section smaller, perhaps it would be a better idea to expanding other sections. The section on The Weinstein Company is tiny. Couldn't someone expand that? Nightscream (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Corky Burger

I grew up in the '70s in Buffalo and remember "Harvey and Corky" radio advertisements. Is "Corky Burger" listed in this article an actual person? Was "Bob Weinstein" also listed in this article also involved in that production? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.55.248 (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Intouchables in China

I read that the studio bought the rights for USA, Scandinavia and China. But I still don't find any information on a China release. Any news ? Late release, canceled ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loup Solitaire 81 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Escape From Planet Earth & Shakespeare In Love

It was in the news today that a lawsuit has been filed against Weinstein over a film in pre-production called "Escape From Planet Earth". And remember, Miramax was sued by four different people who had their scripts stolen to make "Shakespeare In Love". That's right, "Shakespeare In Love" is a composite of several different stolen scripts, all by different writers. And there was the Michael Moore "Fahrenheit 9/11" lawsuit. Perhaps the "Legal Section" should be expanded to especially reflect the legal entanglements of Weinstein in the movie industry. By the way, does anybody know how the copyright lawsuits over "Shakespeare In Love" turned out? Usually, when the plaintiff is awarded his settlement, part of the settlement is not to talk about the settlement. That's why we never hear how these things are eventually resolved. --Francis Walsingham 70.140.218.63 (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• • My understanding is that there was an out-of-court settlement over "Shakespeare In Love" for a treatment called "The Dark Lady"; the folks who wrote "No Bed for Bacon" died; the lawsuit involving "As You Might Like It" (a 5 act stage play ripped off to make "Shakespeare In Love") was being bounced through the courts; and there were a couple other works that were ripped off to make "Shakespeare In Love", don't know what happened with them. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2017

Harvey Weinstein has been fired from TWC. 47.138.77.4 (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 00:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"The board of The Weinstein Company fired him on October 8, 2017 following allegations of Weinstein's sexual misconduct."

There's no referent for "him". (It's not enough to know who is meant.) Please replace this with

"The board of The Weinstein Company fired Harvey Weinstein on October 8, 2017, following allegations of sexual misconduct."

Alternatively, remove this altogether ... his firing is a current event that doesn't need to be repeated several times. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Will someone please update the article to include the fact that Weinstein was fired? I would, but article is locked. Plenty of sources to back this up. Here is one: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/08/business/harvey-weinstein-fired.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImprovGirl (talk • contribs) 06:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Defense of Roman Polanski

if anyone has info, his absurd comments asking for Polanski release should be added.

I will never watch another Miramax film! --Mitch3000 00:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Weinstein's advocacy for Polanski should be included, but some disagree. I've requested Third Opinion. Nightscream (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to give a third opinion but it's difficult without knowing why this information was deleted. On the face of it, it should be included. It seems to be verifiable and notable. Yaris678 (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've checked the reasoning given when it was deleted and here is my third opinion. The reason for deleting seems to be that it is not notable in this context - it should go in an article on Polanski's arrest, if at all. I disagree for the following reasons:

1. Obviously we can't note every comment this guy has ever made but this one would be interesting to some readers interested in Weinstein - not just those interested in Polanski.
2. The quote and associated links allow the reader to connect to the article on Polanski and read more if they want to - this is a big strength of Wikipedia.
3. Weinstein is obviously an influencial figure and this establishes that he is prepared to use that influence - not just that he supports Polanski.

Keep the Polanski reference. Yaris678 (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlike the case for other articles, the amount of criticism Weinstein has drawn, particularly for the "so-called crime" comment, coupled with his professional involvement with the Polanski documentary, probably justify specific mention of the matter in the "criticism" section of the article, or in an independent section. But it needs to be written carefully and to focus on the reaction, not principally on Weinstein's comments while giving no rationale for deeming the matter encyclopedically significant. I've just deleted a badly worked-up paragraph that didn't even mention any responses to Weinstein's comments, for these reasons. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't mention any responses because no sources were provided for it, or even for this "so-called" comment of his. Without that, you can't put it in a "Criticism" section. But if you know of such sources (I was unaware he had even been criticized for it, aside from the decision of the editor who originally added that info to put it in that section), then by all means, add it. But even without material on the reaction to it, the advocacy itself is appropriate for inclusion, as it helps readers understand Weinstein's point of view, his personality/character, etc. Nightscream (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/opinion/harvey-weinstein-lena-dunham-silence-.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/harvey-weinstein-polanski-has-served-his-time-and-must-be-freed-1794699.html

71.182.242.62 (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Weinstein's Lawyer Gave $10,000 To Manhattan DA After He Declined To File Sexual Assault Charges

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/harvey-weinsteins-lawyer-gave-10000-manhattan-da-after-he-declined-file-sexual

71.182.242.62 (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

'Praise and criticism' and 'Other topics' sections

Both of these sections seem a bit atypical, and should be either integrated into other sections and/or reconfigured. I'm not sure how to do it. I'd suggest discussing here. Coretheapple (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The sourcing and content of the "other topics" section needs checking. The passage on the alleged plagiarism and accusation regarding non-payments to Michael Moore needs updating at least, or perhaps cutting if the issues fizzled out. The media depictions passage seem trivial, especially the reference to Malcolm Tucker in The Thick of It, who has a much more widely cited real-life model while the more obviously pertinent Harvey Weingard does not have a good citation to demonstrate notability. Philip Cross (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved part of this issue. In the other topics passage, only the issue of Michael Moore's settlement with the Weinstein brothers amounted to anything, even though it is fairly minor. Philip Cross (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly did some reconfiguration of these sections. If anyone objects, feel free to revert. Also added an "accolades" section to contain honors that didn't seem to have any other place. Coretheapple (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Weinstein defended Roman Polanski after Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl

Roman Polanski sexual abuse case

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/opinion/harvey-weinstein-lena-dunham-silence-.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/harvey-weinstein-polanski-has-served-his-time-and-must-be-freed-1794699.html

71.182.242.62 (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

That has been the article for years. TVGarfield (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Minor question (CBE)

Not the most important issue at the moment, but since Weinstein is American, should "CBE (honorary)" really follow his name in the lead? Trivialist (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I have a feeling it will be removed in time, when his name gets added to this article List of revocations of appointments to orders and awarded decorations and medals of the United Kingdom. TVGarfield (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but barring that, should an honorary British title be listed after the name of an American? Trivialist (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Personal life section

Why is there both an "early life & education" and a "personal life" section? Surely "personal life" covers both.''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a very common split on Wikipedia. If the two sections were merged, as they often are in short articles, it would mean jumping ahead in the chronology, sometimes by many decades for people who have had a long life. Philip Cross (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Make a new Article about sexual harrassment and sexual assault allegations.

With each passing day more and more actresses, assistants, etc. are coming out of the woodwork detailing their allegations that Harvey Weinstein assaulted or harassed them and other people in the media and politicians (even former presidents...) are giving their takes on it. In my opinion it's time to turn this section into it's own page because this is going to keep getting bigger and bigger. Just today two more actresses made allegations about him. And I believe more will come.Trillfendi (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

See discussion above at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harvey_Weinstein#A_separate_main_article_regarding_the_Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_allegation_controversy However, it should be pointed out that any editor can commence such an article at any time, without first seeking consensus or permission here. Coretheapple (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, didn't see that up there. So I guess that means it's time for one of us to make one. I decided to propose it on the talk page first because, well, you know how people get around here.... But here we are today and yet another actress said he jumped her so I'll start that article.Trillfendi (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Good source

[2] Fox News in that link is keeping an updated timeline off all the accusations/allegations as they come out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.14 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

A separate main article regarding the Harvey Weinstein sexual allegation controversy

Would that be possible that a A separate main article regarding the Harvey Weinstein sexual allegation controversy should be established as it would cover a lot of information that would come out? 122.52.71.155 (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Might be a bit premature? It's all sufficiently early that it could end up being a fairly open and shut thing one way or the other, in which case a section on the page would be ample. I'd argue for expanding said section for now, and if it blows up in a meaningful way we can split it out to a fresh article then. ReidE96 (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It might regardless be premature or not but these kind of controversy is really a big issue that is now evolving and really need a separate main article to detailed all of it including condemnations from several actors and actresses. Besides, it may not be able cover all the growing details of this controversy in main article of this page. 112.210.20.72 (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Soft support - this is only getting rolling. There are already enough details and citations that adding them all to the bio would get disorienting. Juno (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that what i consistently stating that a separate main article needs to be in place once new information relating to the current situation becomes available. 112.207.202.99 (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I've created a redirect from Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment allegations, but did so before finding this discussion. It seems like a logical search term anyway given all the publicity so ought to be there as a redirect at least. Also, I know we tend to be reactive rather than proactive here, but can I suggest a semi-protect for the page, in line with the one that's in force here? This is Paul (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Agree that one is warranted, given the significance of the allegations and their impact. I was wondering the same thing and am surprised such an article was not already commenced. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

No Like everything else controversial in the news, this incident blew up overnight and will likely die down soon. If it continues garnering significant and important coverage beyond the original story, like California's statute of limitations for rape allows for charges against Weinstein, there's a trial, a sex ring, crimes were committed, and so on, then I would say yes. Further, the only "impact" right now is Hollywood and politicians covering their asses. These people issuing statements in the days following the breaking of the story doesn't make for an encyclopedia article, it makes for content for a section in an already existing encyclopedia article. Maybe WP:TOOSOON at this point, but my money is on WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkelvi (talk • contribs) 09:50, October 11, 2017 (UTC)

• Support because this meets all the inclusion criteria to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article about the event. The lasting effects have been commented on; the dynamics of his behavior, and the complicity of the film industry. There is fallout related to news reporting and to political endorsement and to The Weinstein Company. The scope is immense; there are dozens and dozens of articles capturing the details and the responses and the actions of parties connected directly or indirectly. Coverage is also in-depth, not just about the behavior itself, but how previous news reporting was suppressed. There is also durable coverage, as the whole situation has been heavily analyzed from multiple angles. It is proper to have the space to bring all these elements together. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Support as this scandal is becoming large in scope and is urgently needed to publish a separate article on these controversy ASAP. 112.210.20.72 (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as Winkelvi says. Per NOTNEWS, the scandal itself will be forgotten within a few years. Writing a standalone article about allegations found in journalism is the equivalent of ambulance-chasing for Wikipedia editors. Go find a Nobel prize winner to write about. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Support as this is now a 7-2 vote in favour of a stand-alone article, is this consensus??Simply-the-truth (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Support as objectively yes as an consensus with this kind of controversy really turns out to be a major issue since the political spectrum such as the Democrats who are benefiting from his donations are being dragged into these conflict and this controversy drew parallels to the same thing that happened to Bill Cosby. 112.210.20.72 (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support because I had the same idea. Everyday another actress, whether famous or not, has a new story about him. I'll commence an article in list form for now.Trillfendi (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Support for it has to include reactions and condemnations in regards to the current events of these controversy. 112.210.20.72 (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support when it gets widespread international coverage. Wumbolo (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Support And here's the article Harvey Weinstein sexual allegation controversy.Hofhof (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Erik's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Sex Abuse Scandal

According to current news reporting, the company is (Oct. 2017) struggling to survive the revelations of Sexual harassment and rape by Harvey Weinstein. (Not to mention the resignation of 3 of its 9 board memebers.) The Board has claimed to have no knowledge of his behavior in official company communications. Earlier today, it was reported that the Board was informed about one or more settlements in 2015, two years before their denial. Given this apparent contradiction, as well as the numerous claims that his abuse was "one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood", I think the names of the Board of Directors should be included here. It seems they might have failed in their duties in a rather spectacular and disgusting way.174.130.70.44 (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This has its own article now. Best discuss there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Weinstein's Wife (Georgiana Chapman) Announced her Separation from Him

I am unable to edit this article, so I am posting this here. Maybe a moderator can do the edit. Anyway, on October 10, 2017, it was announced that Georgiana Chapman (Weinstein's wife) is leaving him. See this article regarding the separation: https://pagesix.com/2017/10/10/harvey-weinsteins-wife-georgina-chapman-is-leaving-him/?utm_source=maropost&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pagesixdaily&utm_content=20171011&mpweb=755-4743858-719148240

It's in the article under personal life. TVGarfield (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It is NOT in the article under "Personal Life". Can you correct this please? 2601:41:4200:3DEC:2026:25F9:6A02:D601 (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

No its not??Simply-the-truth (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It was under personal life but the article has had a lot of revisions. It's now under sexual misconduct where it currently says she left him. TVGarfield (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2017

Add, " Good Will Hunting" to first paragraph. Mcmarge (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: He's not even listed as "producer" for Good Will Hunting. Gene2010 (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

We don't cover all details of the scandal in this article

My contribution about returned donations was edited with the summary, "we don't cover all details of the scandal in this article"--so who is the WE and why don't we cover it? This is how this kind of thing happens "we"--a faceless "we" --decide it's not important.Kmccook (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kmccook: "We" are the community of editors. The scandal is covered at Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations, and the donations repayments are covered there. Per our style guide, WP:SS, "sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles, leaving summaries in their place." This means that what we cover here is a summary of the scandal, not individual tidbits of it, such as one politician returning money.  Sandstein  12:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Sandstein, Does the "we" include women editors? Then I am part of the community of editors. Much more about Weinstein needs to go in this article or we continue to bury his offenses against women in a page that make his predation and harassment look like a sideline when these were the core of his notability. If the "we" includes women editors. Kmccook (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The funny thing is it was moved there for the opposite reason you give. It was to have two articles. I personally never commented but I would have left it here. A separate article however is often done for this situation. TVGarfield (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kmccook: We, the whole wikipedia community, create independent articles for topics who are so prominent that deserve an independent article. Having an independent article about sexual misconduct is not exactly a honor, but quite in contrary, it means the allegations were so prominent that they deserved their own article.

I saw it as appropriate to create the article Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations, but someone thought it should be deleted. I see from your comments in the AfD that you were worried the information would be moved and deleted, but the chances were 0 that this could happen. In worst case, the information would be merged back into this article and that article would be deleted. Hofhof (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism : Controversy

Nothing about the virulent anti-Catholicism in several of Weinstein's films?? I think it certainly sdeserves a mention in the 'Criticism' section. [[3]] D323P (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Weinstein isn't a filmmaker. He is a studio executive and sometimes a producer or executive producer. The company that he co-founded - Miramax - distributed some films that created controversy and raised the ire of some Catholics. Such info certainly belongs in articles about those specific films. If there are sources that indicate that Weinstein himself personally advocated or was a cause of alleged anti-Catholicism in those films - as distinct from the writers and/or directors - or personally made anti-Catholic statements then that would be relevant. The fact that a company he co-ran released films that some people thought were anti-Catholic is not itself relevant in his personal article unless it relates to him personally. Davidpatrick (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It is good that he is known as anti-catholic. Especially now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4980:A021:4583:1D60:D230:4A48 (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This has been covered enough that it may merit mention. I'll see what I can write. Juno (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Observe any Hollywood presentation. Christian symbols are always associated with bad morals and deeds. Who does this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.107.240 ( (talk • contribs) 22:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Strange reaction from American Jewish magazine?

Is it worth mentioning in the article the reaction from Jewish Tablet (magazine), with the oddly titled "The Specifically Jewry Perviness of Harvey Weinstein" article? It almost reads like an extreme caricature of anti-semitism, but for some reason this Jewish magazine is writing this stuff and it has gathered a lot of media attention in regards to the Weinstein case, making it notable. Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The magazine has apologized for the article, but has left it up on their website. The piece was written by one of the senior editors of the magazine. Very interesting. By the way, there is speculation that Weinstein was taken down because he made so many enemies with his anti-Israel views as part of the ongoing conflict between Reform Judaism and traditional/orthodox/Zionist Judaism. Something to keep a watch on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.14 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

or maybe "he was taken down" because he rapped and sexually abused hundreds of young women??Simply-the-truth (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

His name is pronounced Vainshtain, not Winesteen, not Weenstine etc...etc...

German is consistent and phoenetic, like most languages (not English).

P.S. It's Arnold Schvartzen-Egger(the 'ar' is the same a in 'car'). Otherwise, to be consistent, it would be Ornald Schworzenegger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.107.240 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• That's true for German. However, the pronunciation of a surname can change if it gets transplanted into a country that speaks a different language. Anywikiuser (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Harvey Weinstein. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130104021535/http://www.lowellsun.com/movies/ci_14294787 to http://www.lowellsun.com/movies/ci_14294787
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/harvey-weinstein-polanski-has-served-his-time-and-must-be-freed-1794699.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707130539/http://www.ameinfo.com/133996.html to http://www.ameinfo.com/133996.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Does the "we" include women editors?

Sandstein, Does the "we" include women editors? Then I am part of the community of editors. Much more about Weinstein needs to go in this article or we continue to bury his offenses against women in a page that make his predation and harassment look like a sideline when these were the core of his notability. If the "we" includes women editorsKmccook (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure it does. But Wikipedia works by consensus, including the consensus that we should adhere to the style guidelines adopted by the community. You have a point that there could be more in this article about the current scandal. But we should go about it in a way that reflects Wikipedia's standards about how articles are developed. That means, we shouldn't just add random individual facts about the scandal here (such as that a specific politician returned Weinstein's money). Rather, we should expand both this article and the dedicated article about the scandal such that they build upon each other and this article remains a summary of what the other article says. Please do take a moment to read our guideline WP:SS about how this works. Also please read WP:BLP: as of now, the allegations (if eminently persuasive) remain allegations, and we should not write about Weinstein as though he were already a convicted rapist or sexual assaulter, including on this talk page.  Sandstein  14:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the fact that no one has dared writes about him shows how effective he has been at shutting down women or news outlets that are critical of him. Kmccook (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Kmccook, that may have been true in the past, but it's certainly not true now. The floodgates have opened. KalHolmann (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

These are unproven allegations; if any of them are ever tested in a court of law and enough evidence is found to convince a judge or jury, then it can be proven. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper; instead of piling on, we should reflect on what these alleged improprieties are doing to this man's reputation and hold off. History is here forever; but false accusations can ruin a man. If they pass the test of time, then we can add them; until then they should be deleted. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

While we need to abide by WP:BLP the pronouncements of the US legal system are not the final arbiter of truth. Wikipedia has its own policies for verifiability. Ashmoo (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The allegations are newsworthy and notable in and of themselves. WP:NPOV states "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." A plain reading of this would suggest that describing the allegations, as allegations, is consistent with describing the dispute. In terms of the statement "If they pass the test of time, then we can add them; until then they should be deleted.", I believe that would be grossly inconsistent with how this matter is reported otherwise. OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson were both legally acquitted in their trials, and yet the allegations are covered in their biographical entries are are considered notable. Aussielocust (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Would like to point out that Weinstein made extraordinary efforts to hinder any investigations as reported in the Guardian. By being so careful here we fail to describe the full scope of his network of secrecy which discouraged full investigation all these years. Harvey Weinstein had secret hitlist of names to quash sex scandalKmccook (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I am unable to edit this, can you please edit it?

" – just as many times as God, and second only to Steven Spielberg with 43 mentions.[34]"

" – just as many times as God,"

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colombianwriter (talk • contribs) 15:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

Please edit this: " – just as many times as God," you can find this text by ctrl + f it. thanks. Colombianwriter (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2017 (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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Photo of Weinstein and Rula Jebreal

I suggest we remove this picture from the article, or crop it so that it does not show Jebreal. The picture — one of just three in a highly-trafficked article — does not add significant value (Jebreal is not notably associated with Weinstein, and is not otherwise mentioned in the article), and I imagine that being depicted in a friendly embrace with someone who is now credibly alleged to have had a long history of abusing women is not a pleasant experience. All the more so since Jebreal's tweets suggest that she stands with the accusers. --Ori Livneh (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done: No opposition --Ori Livneh (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2018

Harvey Weinstein is an American rapist and former film producer. Oliviamarr (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a change to the first sentence? If so, I think your suggestion is unlikely to achieve consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: WP:BLP. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2018

I think all of his accusers should be listed. The world should know. Oliviamarr (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Your comment probably belongs at Talk:Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: And not likely to be done. See the Biographies of Living Persons policy for more information, particularly the part about using court documents. What one thinks the would "should" know is not the guiding principle in biographical articles. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Court documents aren't needed. Most can be found at reliable secondary sources such as newspapers. Adpete (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2018

The last line of the intro to this article currently states: "The allegations triggered the "#MeToo" social media campaign..."

I propose that this be changed to "The allegations revived the "#MeToo" social media campaign...", as the hashtag was first used in 2006 by Tarana Burke (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/10/19/the-woman-behind-me-too-knew-the-power-of-the-phrase-when-she-created-it-10-years-ago/ and http://justbeinc.wixsite.com/justbeinc/the-me-too-movement-cmml)

Alternately, I feel that ""The allegations caused the "#MeToo" social media campaign to go viral..."

I am proposing this because #MeToo existed long before 2017. 142.207.60.27 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: The links suggest that the first MeToo usage is not the same as the current usage. The web site states that they are "...focused on young women who have endured sexual abuse, assault or exploitation..." while the social media campaign is broader and its connection to the earlier usage is not clear from the sources offered. Just because the hashtag uses the same phrase does not meant that the later users has any connection to, or even awareness of, the earlier campaign and to suggest that there is a connection based on these sources would be impermissible synthesis. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's pronounced Vain-shtain!

German is phoenetic and consistent. Weinstein is pronounced Vain-shtain, not winesteen, weenstine, weensteen or whatever (Wurglesturgle perhaps?).

In Arnold Schwarzen-egger, the 'ar is pronounced the same as in car, not cor. Otherwise, to be consistent, it would be Ornald Schworzen-egger!

German is not like English where Featherstone is pronounced Fanshaw or however one wishes to pronounce something if one does not actually know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.108.147 (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• That pronunciation is true for German. However, when surnames get transplanted into countries that speak a different language, the pronunciation can change.
• Oh, and it's "Featherstonehaugh" that sometimes gets pronounced as "fanshaw". "Featherstone" is "feather-stone". Anywikiuser (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

"an former"

The word "former" starts with a consonant sound, therefore should be "a former American film producer" and not "an former American film producer". Even though "American" starts with a vowel sound, the word following the indefinite article is decisive in these kind of cases. Since the page is protected, I cannot change it myself. 93.106.97.4 (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Done Cavrdg (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

His family was Jewish?

Just noticed this weird phrasing. Did his family stop being Jewish? Because the sentence, section or the article doesn't tell that his family stopped being Jewish. Is it just a mistake?

Should it read "His family is Jewish" instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayMay7 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, correct it to "His family is Jewish". The mistake comes from flow of citing specific people in his family who were Polish immigrants, with past tense indicating they're dead now, whereas Jewish status is infinitive. Thank you for spotting Shushugah (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

If this is the case then could someone nice enough with access to edit the article change that. From "His family was Jewish" to "His family is Jewish". Also I'm not sure if this is relevant but the rest of the sentence implies by saying "his maternal grandparents were Polish immigrants" that his grandparents were Poles. But Poles are a Slavic ethnic group native to Poland and if I'm not mistaken Jewish people and in this case Polish-Jews have always made it very clear that they are separate from ethnic Poles as an ethnic group. Perhaps better format would be "his maternal grandparents were immigrants from Poland" or "his maternal grandparents were Polish-Jewish immigrants". I'm not sure if that's relevant or not but I personally think that it's an easy change that would clarify the sentence as a whole too. What's your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayMay7 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that Polish immigrants has very different ethnic connotation from Jewish immigrants from Poland etc... I need to do more research though which is the case. It's possible he has Christian ethnic Polish grandparents. Likely not, since Judaism is determined by maternal side and they couldn't BOTH be Polish exclusively. If you're certain they were also Jewish, then changing it to "his maternal grandparents were Polish-Jewish immigrants" Shushugah (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

How about "his maternal grandparents were immigrants from Poland"? This would leave the ethnicity part open and just mention the country of origin. As I'm fairly sure there's no 100% sure way to know that if either or both of his grandparents were ethnic Poles or Polish-Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayMay7 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

age and weight

do we have sources for this, plus his height? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.227.56 (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hollywood Reporter profile, childhood

Hi there! I just went to add some of the interesting information available on Weinstein's childhood, regarding his relationship with his Uncle "Shimmy" from Feb 28 The Hollywood Reporter piece, and I noticed the article is protected. I'd love to add the following under Early life:

Weinstein had a close relationship with a salesman neighbor, Sallbarry Greenblatt, whom Weinstein and his childhood friend Peter Adler called "Uncle Shimmy." In seventh grade, inspired by Greenblatt's advice, Weinstein and a friend wore discarded Boy Scout uniforms and sold cookies door to door that they had purchased wholesale, making a profit. EmilyvstheGorn (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

References

The quality and verifiability of that source could be questioned, and depicts Weinstein and his community in a less-than-philanthropic light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.166.182 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Kill-Bill style sword

In 2018, Weinstein recieved a cryptic message sent with a sword. From Japan, victim`s agent sent a message about editing. Something influenced New York circles to go easy on Weinstein and hard on detractors about Weinsteins problematic and inappropriate style.

Surely worth a mention in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.181.195 (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC) 

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2018

He's criminally charged with First-degree rape, third-degree rape and first degree criminal sex act 207.172.180.75 (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2018

He's been charged with a third rape crime and could face life behind bars. Link: https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/weinstein-additional-charges-indictment-1202863199/ 207.172.180.75 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2018 (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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

First line, please change "is an American former film producer." to was an American film producer, to align the tense of the grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.219.96.241 (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2018

please change "Polish immigrants" to "immigrants from Belarus" Footnotes: https://www.geni.com/people/Miriam-Weinstein/6000000025376790093 https://www.geni.com/people/Joseph-Postol/6000000025386966385 https://www.geni.com/people/Sarah-Postol/6000000025386820748 Wallofchina2018 (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2019

I keep losing my password but have been editing wikipedia since around 2012

Harvey Weinsteins wife left him not when he was accused of sexual harassment but when the allegations became rape. She affirmatively stayed with hime until it was rape allegations by multiple women Theresa dowling (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein's death

As it presently reads, this article on Harvey Weinstein gives the impression he is still alive. Yet according to https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-suicide.html "Mr. Epstein hanged himself, and was found at around 6:30 a.m. Saturday at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, officials said". Shouldn't that be mentioned? So far I've only made minor edits, so I don't feel like adding this info myself. Calmansi (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Read the article again. And again. And again. Until you realize that's Jeffrey Epstein who died, not Harvey Weinstein.Crboyer (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Ha. They will be confused for some time... Zezen (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Criminal?

The introduction calls him a criminal and that he left his career following his crimes. I thought he has not been convicted. TahaGhassemi (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I just removed those, hope that's OK. TahaGhassemi (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Splitting Proposal

I feel like Weinstein's filmography has reached the ambiguous limit for splitting away from the article. Therefore, I propose that Harvey Weinstein#Selected filmography be moved into a page called Harvey Weinstein filmography. | abequinn^fourteen 00:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Montage of televised award-show Thank-Yous (and an 'irreverent' joke)

After Ricky Gervais hosted the 77th Golden Globe Awards (televised on NBC) on January 5, 2020, someone posted a video online -- on Facebook, on the "official" [fan] page of Ben Shapiro -- starting out with

• a clip of Gervais telling what could be considered an irreverent joke (quote: "[...] a movie where people survive by acting like they don't see a thing ... sorta like working for Harvey Weinstein")

and including

• a montage of video excerpts of award winners thanking Harvey Weinstein ... [probably] during televised award shows.

Would it be OK for the above information to be included in the article? If it is OK, then ... what section does it belong in? Probably not under "Awards and honors", (right?) Perhaps under "Popular culture"?

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

References

He was not found guilty on all of the New York offenses

In fact, he was acquited the three more serious sex abuse charges.[4] His lawyer even stated they would accept a split verdict,https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/nyregion/weinstein-verdict.html This makes me doubt the ongoing media hype surrounding the two guilty verdicts.2601:447:4100:C120:F1AF:CD72:B07F:3287 (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020

Weinstein was later released after $1 million bail was posted on his behalf. He later surrendered his passport and was required to wear an ankle monitor, with travel being restricted to New York and Connecticut. His lawyer Benjamin Brafman said Weinstein would plead not guilty. A trial date was set for January 6, 2020. On that date, Weinstein was also charged in Los Angeles with raping one woman and sexually assaulting another in 2013.

He was both convicted and acquitted. Please include this and the charges he was convicted and acquitted of

Weinstein was later released after $1 million bail was posted on his behalf. He later surrendered his passport and was required to wear an ankle monitor, with travel being restricted to New York and Connecticut. His lawyer Benjamin Brafman said Weinstein would plead not guilty. A trial date was set for January 6, 2020. On that date, Weinstein was also charged in Los Angeles with raping one woman and sexually assaulting another in 2013. On February 24, a New York jury found Weinstein guilty of third degree rape and one count of criminal sex and acquitted of two more serious sexual predator assault charges and first degree rape. 2601:447:4100:C120:F1AF:CD72:B07F:3287 (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Harvey Weinstein was found guilty Monday of committing a criminal sex act in the first degree involving one woman and rape in the third degree involving another woman.

The disgraced movie mogul faces a minimum of five years and a maximum of 29 years in prison. He was handcuffed and taken into custody after the verdict. Human discondition (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Mgasparin (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020

On February 24, 2020, news outlets reported that a jury, after deliberating for five days, had convicted Weinstein of two of the five criminal charges he'd been facing, one count of criminal sexual assault in the first degree and once count of rape in the third degree; The jury, however, found him not guilty regarding predatory sexual assault, which could have led to a life sentence.

He was immediately sent to jail. Please include this.

On February 24, 2020, news outlets reported that a jury, after deliberating for five days, had convicted Weinstein of two of the five criminal charges he'd been facing, one count of criminal sexual assault in the first degree and once count of rape in the third degree; The jury, however, found him not guilty regarding predatory sexual assault, which could have led to a life sentence. Weinstein was then ordered to immediately go to jail.https://wgem.com/2020/02/24/judge-orders-harvey-weinstein-to-jail-immediately-after-sexual-assault-conviction/ 2601:447:4100:C120:F1AF:CD72:B07F:3287 (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

References

 Already done Mgasparin (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020

Please change Harvey Weinstein's conviction of sex offender to convicted rapist.

He was just found guilty of rape and his conviction listing should reflect that. Human discondition (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mgasparin (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Bad Picture

Please change the pic, this one is better and newer.[5] Ty --MrGarfield23 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mgasparin (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"serial rapist"?

"is an American former film producer and convicted serial rapist"

As of feb 24. he'a been convicted on one count of rape, so the "serial" should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halldorh (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. No hurry, but accuracy is important.Createangelos (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Createangelos (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2020

after deliberating for five days, a jury convicted Weinstein on February 24, 2020 of two of five criminal charges: one count of criminal sexual assault in the first degree and once count of rape in the third degree. "once count" is the wrong grammar. GhinkyGhink (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done please read the article, or the two (same issue) edit request above. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that. FlightTime, there was a typo. Mgasparin (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

University at Buffalo should be changed to State University of New York at Buffalo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.2.2 (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done It's common name is actually the University at Buffalo, but I changed it to its full name for those who don't live in NY State.Mgasparin (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

CBE

Harvey hasn't been stripped of his CBE. Why has this been removed? Not very factual to do so.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.26.105 (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done I added it back. Thanks for noticing that. Mgasparin (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It should be removed because his CBE is honorary, therefore he isn't entitled to a post-nominal title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anvib (talk • contribs) 08:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

New York, New York

Other than poetical or comic effect, I'd say there is no need to state New York City, New York in the infobox; per WP:OVERLINK just New York City is perfectly adequate to describe the subject's birthplace. It's not like there are loads of other New York Cities that it can be confused with, and those of our readers curious about the state can access it from the city article. --The Huhsz (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done - by another DarthFlappy (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Request to add to Harvey Weinstein Section

Can we please remove "As of February 2020, Weinstein was awaiting sentencing, though he said through his attorneys that he would appeal the verdict.[11]" and add to the Harvey Weinstein section "On February 25, 2020 Judge ordered Harvey Weistein jailed for his conviction on two felony sex counts." with a citation of <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/nyregion/harvey-weinstein-jail.html>

Jane.fosburg (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done I added the statement about his jailing to the appeal sentence, but did not remove his proposed appeal. Mgasparin (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Change "is an American former film producer..." to "is a former American film producer." JMSDAD (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Why was a << ("still unanswered") question >> section archived?

Why was this:

Talk:Harvey_Weinstein/Archive_1#Montage of televised award-show Thank-Yous (and an 'irreverent' joke)

section archived?

Is the answer to the original question "no" ... ? ...and if so, then is the negativity of that answer * * * so obvious, * * * that the question does not even deserve to be answered?

Or, is (perhaps) the number of readers, who read the question but did not answer it, SO LOW, that none of them knew the answer? (Was that number ZERO? ... maybe?)

Was that section perhaps archived without anyone making an "informed decision" about whether or not the question deserved to be answered?

THANKS for your patience, if there was some other way (besides asking here, on this "Talk:" page) that I could have found answers to the above questions, -- or [I could have] "found out how to find out" how to do so -- without asking the above questions here.

...and, please forgive me if some (or all) of the above questions ... [OR even that original question, that has now gotten "archived"] have answers that are (or "should be") find-able by someone like me ... without having to ask.

Any advice? Thanks for listening. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

"3102000153" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 3102000153. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Sex offender or Rapist?

In the lead, should Weinstein be described as a sex offender or rapist? I made a WP:BOLD change in the lead from "sex offender" to "rapist" as he had been convicted of rape, seen here. Later, Frisky0234 changed it back to sex offender, seen here (no edit summary provided). This is an important distinction that deserves discussion as each wording has certain connotations. Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

He has a conviction for rape. I looked at the entries at Category:People_convicted_of_rape and of the three or so I sampled, all said rape/rapist in the lede. Therefore rapist. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of rape, therefore he is a convicted rapist. He is not a 'disgraced movie mogul, a hollywood 'god' fallen, he is a fucking rapist who was found guilty of rape because he fucking raped someone. Harvey Weinsten is a convicted rapist.

The proper terming is convicted sex offender. Phrasing of "convicted rapist" is a derogatory term, used simply in spite. There is no such charge as being a convicted rapist. Rape is one of many various sexual offenses. If he was convicted of attempted rape, would you phrase in the opening that Harvey Weinestein is a convicted attempted rapist? The article for Jeffrey Epstein is a clear precedent for this discussion, as the article opens that he is a "convicted sex offender." The Epstein article doesn't start by saying that he was a "convicted child molester." It is not necessary to put the details of the offenses in the opening sentences of an article. Keep the article as an encyclopedia, not a place to vent negative feelings towards a person. Frisky0324 (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If he has a conviction for rape as of 2/20 then it should be noted that he is a convicted rapist. Anything less is an attempt to downplay the facts and constitutes double speak. The term {convicted rapist] is not a derogatory term, used simply in spite, it is a statement of exactly what kind of sexual crime was committed. It is a statement of precise, transparent truth. It is factual. Vagueness helps people who commit sexual crimes. Vagueness and the blurring of the lines of what constitutes right and wrong are great tools that sexual predators use. Details were what those women shared. Details were what they suffered. Details that they were forced to lay out and expose to the entire world and were cross examined on. You do them a monumental injustice here when you cover up those details and try to say that such a coverup is in the interest of adhering to the facts and preventing the venting of negative feelings.We are truly looking into the abyss of rape culture when we come face to face with those who refuse to call a rape a rape and a convicted rapist a convicted rapist. End of. Human discondition (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ted Bundy lede: "... an American serial killer who kidnapped, raped, and murdered numerous young women ..." John Wayne Gacy lede: "... an American serial killer who raped, tortured and murdered at least 33 teenage boys and young men ..." Angelo Buono Jr. lede: " ... an American serial killer, kidnapper and rapist ..." Larry Nassar lede: " ... convicted American serial child molester ..." Albert Fish lede: " ... an American serial killer, child rapist and cannibal." I don't think anyone here is wanting to throw the word "rapist" (or "rape") at someone who wasn't convicted of rape. But Wikipedia has not shied away from using that word (or "child molester") in the lede before. Similarly I would disagree with "serial rapist" since he's been convicted of a single rape. Though if he's found guilty in LA, of course that would change, just like we'd change "convicted murderer" to "convicted serial killer" if someone was found guilty of additional charges of murder. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be only be appropriate if the Weinstein lede opened with "sex offender convicted of rape." To call him a rapist is going too far at this point. It is simply a reflection of society's negative feelings towards the guy. Rapist implies there is a pattern or long history. That has not been shown in court. That way, the lede reports the currently known facts, that he was convicted of rape. Those other examples Mr. Vernon gave all had multiple victims, and to use the word rapist on Harvey Weinstein is convicting him in the mind of American society. Frisky0324 (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Why? Someone only needs to be convicted of a single murder to be a murderer. Bevan Spencer von Einem says "a convicted child murderer" in the lede, and that is for one murder. Richard Hauptmann says "...convicted of the abduction and murder...", again for a single murder. Sex offender can be for a wide range of crimes - from rape, to incest, to child molesting. Rape was not even the most serious charge in the most recent trial. Why not be specific if he's been convicted of a specific crime? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I know many want to label him a rapist but that term is just that, a label. It is more appropriate to have the article lead state convicted sex offender. That states the facts, not one's opinion of him as a person. Lisajudy (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems more appropriate to label him a sex offender than a rapist. Bill Cosby was a rapist but he's labeled a sex offender on his Wikipedia page. Michael14375 (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The home page of Wikipedia states "Former film producer Harvey Weinstein is convicted of two felony sex crimes." It doesn't state he is a rapist. That makes it clear how the lede of the article should read. Society in general might be considering him a rapist, but it is in Wikipedia standards to report societal feelings or the facts on the case? 65.29.210.144 (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It would probably be most appropriate if it read "sex offender convicted of rape". Being convicted of even "only" a single rape is qualifier enough for someone to be labled a "rapist", but what I wrote ought to be a good compromise that states the facts clearly, while also not downplaying his conviction. "Sex offender" is simply not enough, as it is too ambiguous - besides rape, you can become a sex offender for a large variety of different acts, including public urination. The point of the lead should be to provide clear, conscise and accurate information to readers, without either exaggerating or downplaying his conviction. Goodposts (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, just thinking it should probably be 'convicted rapist amd former film producer'rather than putting 'film producer' first. Katamarang22 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Film producer" or "Sex offender": which should come first in the lead?

Several people have put the "sex offender" label before "film producer" in the lead, it's clearly an attempt to emphasize that (obviously dreadful) crime. But that doesn't sit right with me and I've been reverting it for these reasons: 1) the social shaming intent is too obvious and doesn't feel very "encyclopedic". 2) it doesn't represent the actual chronology of events, nor how those events are presented in the article. 3) I'm skeptical of the claim that he is more famous for being a sex offender than a filmmaker. The only reason HW has an article here is bc he is a successful filmmaker. And it was largely because of the power and influence gained by his successful career that he was able to commit those crimes. There are lots of sex offenders that aren't notable, if HW had committed those rapes without being a famous filmmaker, he most likely wouldn't be notable enough to have an article here solely bc of that.

Opinions? -- Daveout ^(talk) 07:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It is complicated. He is notable for being a sex offender, but was able to commit those sex offensives as a result of his notable role as a film producer. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"...an American former film producer and convicted sex offender." This would made correct by this simple revision, validated by the content in the same paragraph. "...an American former film and theatrical producer and convicted sex offender." ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry11565 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC) IF I KNEW how to sign this, I would. WP use is arcane.

Oh FFS, you type 4 tildes (~). Press SHIFT, then tilde 4 TIMES. Mgasparin (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

Harvey Weinstein convicted sex offender and film producer etc... For the first line of the page. Jgoaman (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2020

Criminal status: (IN Custody) Harvey Weinstein is currently incarcerated in Wende correctional Facility Inmate ID:20B0584 serving 23 years, earliest released date: 11/09/2039 / source NYSDOCCS inmate Lookup Romanlthomas (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Already in article (the precise facility is not relevant). Has there been an update about "awaiting second trial"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

The first line currently read: "Harvey Weinstein CBE (/ˈwaɪnstiːn/; born March 19, 1952) is an American convicted sex offender and former film producer." accuracy would be improved by replacing "sex offender" for either "rapist" or, better, "rapist and sex offender".

The use of "sex offender" here appears to be politically motivated.

Kindest regards Egsmithone (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

See the discussion on this here above – Thjarkur (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Although moot but for clarification, he is a convicted sex offender who if released will have to register as a sex offender. So sex offender is not political, it is accurate. With respect to saying rapist, he was convicted of rape so that too would be accurate but overly wordy for the opening imo although I wouldn't say it's out of line. SailedtheSeas (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

First sentence of lede (July 2021)

Resolved

The first sentence of the lede seems to be somewhat of a contested edit. As of 21:09, 4 July 2021 the sentence‎ reads:

Harvey Weinstein is a convicted sex offender and former American film producer.

The proposed wording is as follows:

Harvey Weinstein is an American former film producer and convicted sex offender.

I support presenting the sex offender fact prior to the film producer fact simply because Weinstein will always be a sex offender (see life-long registry) and is currently not a film producer. It is more notable and timely to present it this way, although I think debating the placement of two words in an entire article is trivial. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 03:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein became notable as a film producer. Then, he became a convicted sex offender. Lead sentence should go in that order. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 21:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you kidding?

I literally just clicked on this buttnuggets wiki, and then saw that it wasn't first that he was a sex offender, and that that entire section wasn't listed first.

Are you kidding?

And then looking in the discussions about how the wording needs to be different, where sex offender needs to come after the accomplishments he's made?

Are you kidding?

And it's semi-locked due to "vandalism".

Are you kidding?

Really? Are the people making these edits and changes human? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedenface (talk • contribs) 02:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2022

I request that the wording of the first line is to be: “Harvey Weinstein sex offender and former American film producer and actor.”

Just so that the best writing to describe this man is short and easy to understand.

Thank you very much 2A02:AA7:400F:6F19:F03A:B7F:B34B:175F (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Your proposed change is not grammatical and is less understandable. casualdejekyll 23:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Introduction of H.W. order of info

I just bumped into this page and I have a comment. The first line goes like this: "Harvey Weinstein is an American convicted sex offender and former film producer.". I noticed there has been a discussion around this. I'm not American, so I don't really care about H.W., but to me it seems rather ridiculous, that the line about sex offender is the first thing you get to read. In my opinion the line should be that he is a film producer and convicted sex offender. To me, the current form looks like it was edited by some hot-tempered person, who didn't really think about it. I checked other languages and they support my opinion too. Besides I didn't really see any reasoning behind why the line was edited into "Harvey Weinstein is an American convicted sex offender and former film producer.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.250.237 (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Weinstein73.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Weinstein73.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)