Jump to content

Talk:Weinstein effect/Archive 1

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

Notability

This topic should be considered a summary style expansion of Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations#Impact, as discussed on its talk page. The vast majority of the events included in this topic's scope exceed the scope of the Weinstein allegations article, and there is enough reliable, secondary sourcing to address the far-reaching fallout of the Weinstein reports and Me Too campaign if given the room. In any event, please discuss here if you disagree before going to AfD. czar 21:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Moved from user:czar § Weinstein effect

Hello. While I do appreciate your work on the Weinstein effect article, I'm concerned about some links which might be considered easter egg links even though specifics aren't needed for general readers in some articles. Rather than get involved in an edit war, I thought I would discuss the matter here. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably would be better suited for the article's talk page for posterity. I wouldn't consider those Easter egg links because they link precisely to what they describe. For the sake of the prose, though, and especially in an article that can easily become a barrage of names, it's important to preserve the overarching point for a general reader rather than a list of specifics. The name of Weinstein's company, the CEO of Uber (unrelated event) would be examples of specifics not vital to the point. Note that the Easter egg link examples refer to jarring surprises, links without any textual context czar 07:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Following a discussion on czar's talk page regarding the potential easter egg link problems, I'm opening a discussion here.

Per WP:EASTEREGG, "Keep piped links as transparent as possible. Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links, that require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on. Wikipedia is not an Advent calendar. Also remember there are people who print the articles."

I think possible easter egg links may cause situation for unfamiliar readers. I also want to ask uninvolved editors for their thoughts on the matter here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Metastatic dateline

I highly recommend reverting all dateline additions of new accusations ("on X, Y alleged Z") in the interests of:

  1. scope – The coverage is expansive enough that we should be using overview sources for almost all of the details. We're a generalist encyclopedia and we are not archiving every claim, especially as each claim is made, but we summarize the secondary source reviews of the claims. For instance, as a tertiary source, we're better at summarizing the Associated Press's aggregate of claims (and their fallout) than at determining which individual reports deserve highlighting.
  2. BLP issues – We minimize harm of victimization by focusing less on breaking reports of claims and more on reliable reviews of claims.
  3. good writing – "on X, Y alleged Z" makes for boring reading and disjointed prose. If we use sources that reference, for example, several unrelated politicians accused of sexual harassment or assault in the same paragraph, we can instead generalize to "multiple politicians" in lieu of repetitive, prose lists of politicians.

The recent edits are too much of a mess for me to edit myself right now, but if I had the heart, I'd look at reverting them wholesale to return to a structure that focuses on overview instead of lists in paragraph form. czar 03:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

== Come on.... ==

This page reads like a fucking tabloid. I suppose you could fix that by making a table of accused, number of accusers and other details about each alleged abuse. Perhaps that's even tackier. Get to work.That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible rename?

So I was wondering. I'm noticing this article centers Weinstein, a horrific serial sexual abuser, calling it the "Weinstein effect" I'm wondering if there are any ramifications of continuing to center him. (Does this center him?) Granted I am not a survivor of sexual abuse, assault, harassment, domestic violence, stalking or rape and am male, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I'm wondering, what if we called this the "#MeToo Effect"? I think that would center survivors. Granted I think having the name "Weinstein" in there continues outrage and outrage is important for action, but I wasn't sure over whether putting his name up there could further traumatize his survivors and survivors in general. Does anyone have feedback on this? Is this what the media has been calling this? Opinions from survivors would be especially appreciated, but if you don't feel comfortable identifying yourself, that is ok, too. Your safety and mental health is important and I don't want to be pressuring anyone into sharing.

Thanks and have a good day,

-TenorTwelve (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This article isn't about Weinstein but rather how a flood of people finally felt they that society would listen to them when they discussed their victimization. This article should probably be merged to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_Too_(hashtag) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I would like to support a rename proposal, but can't think of anything better immediately. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The "MeToo" Effect. I've already renamed the Aftermath section of the MeToo article as such.70.112.229.80 (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to merge to #MeToo article

The Aftermath section in the #MeToo article basically accomplishes what this article does. We can use some of the intro text as the intro to the Aftermath section. Otherwise, the list that we've been maintaining over there serves a better function than word salad paragraphs here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Just re-read the article. I think the two paragraphs in the "Background" section can be copied-and-pasted to the Aftermath section of the #MeToo article. The remaining text can be deleted because the list over there is fairly comprehensive.70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No one seems to object to my proposal that we merge this article to the #MeToo article, where there is a "#MeToo Effect" section. I guess we can get started on this, then?70.112.229.80 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Just so everyone else here is aware: 70.112.229.80 is simultaneously running roughly the same proposal at Talk:Me Too (hashtag)#Merging Weinstein effect article to this article?, and a discussion (including my detailed objection) is happening there, which 70.112.229.80 is participating in. Also, the phrase "#Me Too effect" is not a thing — it was a made-up WP:NEOLOGISM in #Possible rename? above, then used to change a section in Me Too (hashtag) that used to be called "Aftermath". I split it to two sensible section titles, and explained it on the talk page of that article, and this 2-week-old anonymous IP reverted it anyway as "vandalism". See the discussion over at the other talk page to see more of what this anonymous IP thinks of Wikipedia policies like WP:BLP and WP:RS. Or, for that matter, see User talk:70.112.229.80. --Closeapple (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

1) You just showed up weeks after these articles have long been created/written/edited, trampled through content as if you know what has transpired, and pass judgment on everyone, including the victims. 2) Wikipedia's policies acknowledge that there's a need for flexibility.70.112.229.80 (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Bullets

Please turn the paragraphs into bullets. One for each person. Will be much easier to follow.2604:2000:E016:A700:2D82:D677:B8CF:793C (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Just see here instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_Too_(hashtag)

Kirt Webster

Is he sufficiently notable to pass GNG?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

He's no Lacie Haines, that's for sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Who?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Lacey Haines. My bad. Now that Webster's persona non grata, her honourable mention is the closest we have to a Publicist of the Year. If she's not notable for almost winning it, he's not for losing it. And if he wasn't notable for years of work with top artists, he shouldn't be for hours of recent allegations. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Why "Weinstein"?

Why is this article called the "Weinstein" effect? I thought it started with Ailes. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I am also concerned about the name. It is dismissive of the actual subject matter, makes it slant such that the perpetrators of sexual harassment are the real victims.


This article should probably be merged to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_Too_(hashtag) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It's titled this because the preponderance of reliable sources call it this and are clear that the effect began after the Weinstein scandal. Also see WP:Common name. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
This actually started with Donald Trump. Isn't that right?Ernio48 (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
If you start walking back in time, the recent focus on harassment/sexual misconduct was re-sparked by Cosby imo. But I think Weinstein is the obvious "corner" where things started rapidly accelerating. "Trump effect" or somewhat is quite inappropriate I think. Although there is a theory (quite plausible imo) that this shift in attitude is a reaction to Trump, and may be trying to correct the standard, so that the new standard can be used against him in 2020 (or earlier), both are a lot more conjectural/opinionated. there are MANY rs direclty linking all of these scandals to weinstein, much fewer link to Trump (although some wonder why Trump has not faced consequences), and I have seen none that go to Cosby or Ailes) ResultingConstant (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, I say we should still blame Jimmy Savile, even though he was British instead of technically entertaining. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@ResultingConstant and Ernio48:, speaking of "Trump effect", the term is already assigned to aggressiveness, and we have an AfD discussion left from it. Ꞷumbolo 18:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Integrate

with 2017 sexual harassment scandals, Me Too, and others, similar. -Booksnarky (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not a single-year phenomenon but a multi-year "wave" of scandals occurring after the Access Hollywood tapes were released, (source, source) arriving in waves each bigger than the last. There's no established name for it, each wave gets its own name the first big wave was 'Weintein effect', the next wave was "#MeToo", but they are all the same phenomenon. Confusingly spread around Wikipedia without synthesis. -- GreenC 02:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Although I have opposed attempts to merge, delete or rename this page, I think there needs to be some agreement or clarity on what the article should be about. There appear to be two definitions of the Weinstein effect:
  • The specific wave of allegations and scandals in the last two months, which was obviously set off by Weinstein's downfall.
  • The general tendency for scandals like this to encourage other victims to come forward. In addition to the examples above, there was the "Yewtree effect" in the UK.
I'm more inclined to support the latter definition, as long as we can find reliable sources that support it. The events of the last two months are merely an escalation of events that have happened before. The intro would read something like this: "The Weinstein effect is when allegations of sexual misconduct against famous and powerful men encourage other accusers to come forward. The term was coined to describe an unprecedented wave of these cases in late 2017, which were triggered by the reporting of sexual abuse allegations against American producer Harvey Weinstein on October 5." Anywikiuser (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of McCarthyism

Should we include accusations that some aspects of the Weinstein effect are similar to 1950s McCarthyism?

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/disgraced-al-franken-victim-sexual-mccarthyism-article-1.3681965 https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/sexual-abuse-mccarthyism/ https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/11/30/mn-rips-mpr-decision-to-drop-keillor-amid-misconduct

Thoughts? 70.44.154.16 (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I support that. This whole thing definitely has the characteristics of McCarthyism to it in my opinion. Letters to the editor (like the middle link) are probably not reliable sources though. Multiple well-established news outlets' editorial articles might be sufficient to show a pattern of concern, and straight journalism reports of people's concerns would be even better. --Closeapple (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 December 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: not moved per WP:COMMONNAME and per WP:NPOV concerns raised. (closed by non-admin page mover) Kostas20142 (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Weinstein effect → 2017 sexual harassment scandals – "Weinstein effect" is media jargon, and unfairly singles out individual person as iconic for a much larger wave of person on person crime. Solution is to use formal descriptive term for the general wave of events. Booksnarky (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment The one problem with the proposed name is that it is year (2017) dependent while the phenomenon may continue well into 2018 or even later so I'm not sure that renaming it to this name will be the best option. Sakura CarteletTalk 05:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment — Title is much improved, although both when this started and when it will end is not clear. One could argue that this started with Bill Cosby in November 2014. — Kjerish (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Or Jimmy Saville in October 2012. Before then, bygones were generally treated as bygones. Stars tend to fall in the fall, in any case. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Sexual harassment isn't broad enough. Some people were outright assaulted or raped. Others faced gender discrimination (such as being denied promotions or jobs due to being male or female).70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Sexual harassment is the minimum sufficient requirement to warrant the type of response this page describes. Assault is a form of harassment, but not all of the accused reached such a level & legal or professional discrimination is for another page. — Kjerish (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I know what you mean, but the proper umbrella term for all of this behavior is "sexual misconduct and gender discrimination", not harassment.70.112.229.80 (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Disagreement The eponymous Weinstein effect is apt. While the Cosby and Spacey sexual abuse scandals were important precursors, Weinstein's overwhelming importance as a Hollywood producer, and the comprehensiveness of what the NYT Times termed his complicity machine, has put him right at the nexus of this sociological tipping point. kencf0618 (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm against moving this article better yet deleting it cause, as many of you know, the term has been used by several well-known publications, including USA Today (1), The Boston Globe (2), Newsweek (3), and CBS News (4)--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the WP:COMMONNAME used by WP:RS.LM2000 (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per the WP:Common name policy, and because of the following: "2017 sexual harassment scandals" is vague, the effect has been specifically attributed to being a result of the Weinstein scandal, and the topic will undoubtedly extend beyond 2017. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose per WP:Common name. This is mainly about how the Weinstein allegations that set off a trail of falling dominoes. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NPOV which says "all encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This title changer request, however, amounts to editorial bias, because it tones down the title and hides the root cause of the butterfly effect that article elaborates. 46.143.99.171 (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposed name, because it's an attempt to change the subject of the article, and also won't hold up 20 days from now. There seems to be a lot of attempts to conflate or merge related topics in the last month or so, perhaps because there is no parent topic yet. As I mentioned at Talk:Me Too (hashtag)#Merging Weinstein effect article to this article?, there are lots of inter-related topics with articles, but the overall topic doesn't seem to have an article or name yet:
    1. An overall awareness topic that has no article and no good name because society hasn't figured out a good way to word it yet: It's about the general increase in sexual interaction concerns and reckoning that probably first became possible with the Bill Cosby scandal exploding around 2014–2015, then reached the breaking point with Donald Trump running for president, then broke wide open with Weinstein. Within that there are lots of subtopics:
    2. some major 2013–2015 sex scandals (not a separate Wikipedia topic), which gave the public impression that even powerful people with "too much to lose" by committing outrageous abuse were still willing to do it just for its own sake:
      1. New York v. Strauss-Kahn and other parts of Dominique Strauss-Kahn#New York v. Strauss-Kahn and later allegations
      2. Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations
    3. Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, which was what probably brought this whole sexual abuse topic to a head, when it became apparent that someone with a history of allegations like that was able to still attract political support in 2016.
      1. Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording
      2. subtopics like the 2017 Women's March and "Tiny Hands"
    4. The Weinstein effect, in which people have been very quickly removed from positions of power since October 2017 to avoid the appearance of complicity
      1. Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations, which broke on October 5, 2017, and which is certainly the direct trigger for the Weinstein effect — though (in my opinion) the Donald Trump thing probably made it ripe to quit putting up with scumbags, and the first truly awful one was going to trigger a cascade.
      2. 2017 United States political sexual scandals, which is probably a specific subset of the Weinstein effect.
      3. 2017 Westminster sexual scandals, which is probably a specific subset of the Weinstein effect.
      4. Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations, which is undoubtedly from the Weinstein effect.
    5. Me Too (hashtag), a hashtag so that people who feel they've been subjected to abuse can signal that abuse is common, without pressure to go over details again. Though it went massive on October 15, 2017, possibly triggered by the Weinstein thing 10 days earlier, it had been around since 2006 and is a different focus than the Weinstein effect — #MeToo is about general awareness: It does not even require naming specific people in public.
    I mention all of these to demonstrate that topic #1 doesn't really have an article yet, and this article is only a subtopic, and I don't know how one would be arranged properly: It would have to have multiple reliable sources that can speak authoritatively about this whole thing since 2015 has come about — not just cultural observers with no credentials filling the "content" quota for a website, or people with echo-chamber credentials jamming everything into their worldview. --Closeapple (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is common name. My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. ArniDagur (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am now open to the idea of creating a separate article to discuss the general domino effect of sexual harassment scandals, but what would we call it? Anywikiuser (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Check sub-categories and pages in the Category:Sex crimes. My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
If your article ends up being largely redundant to this one, then it will be a WP:Redundant fork and/or WP:POVFORK. So make sure that it's not mostly about the Weinstein effect (meaning cases that are attributed to the Weinstein effect). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Something about "reckoning" Common enough in the mainstream, and broad enough to catch 'em all. Spacey, Lauer and Trump are each far more famous than Weinstein, and there's quite a lot of plain old rape here. Calling that "harassment", "misconduct" or "impropriety" is a bit rude. And yeah, this'll last into 2018. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @InedibleHulk: there's quite a lot of plain old rape here. Calling that "harassment", "misconduct" or "impropriety" is a bit rude. What about WP:NPOV? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The lead can simply be altered to mention rape. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Mention whatever you want in the lead, I'm just saying I'm Opposed to titling it "harassment". It is a kind of harassment, literally, but so is breaking your neck technically a boo-boo. Not sure what you're getting at, Mr. Guye. What about NPOV? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:03, 15 December 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.

Difference between Weinstein effect and #metoo

This article was used to be about the fallout (effect) of substantial sexual misconduct allegations (usually with some investigative reporting). Now, it's about the same as #metoo with a list of people facing all sorts of accusations (verifiable or not, substantial or not). I wonder if it's still about the Weinstein effect or just a list of accused people to satisfy our curiosity. Gene2010 (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

There has been an earlier proposal to merge/redirect this article to #metoo. Sounds like a reasonable idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The list from #metoo was removed because of blp concerns. A lot of the allegations listed here don't seem to have any connection to somebody who used the hashtag. However, I think that inconsequential allegations (where accused just deny the claims and nothing else happens) can be removed. 128.187.112.0 (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

To list or not to list

This might be one of the few cases where a bulleted list would present the information more cleanly than prose. It's still worth summarizing the circumstances in prose, but the most egregious cases appear risk overpowering the volume of single-accuser allegations, and we still need to make room for resolutions of and responses to allegations. The issues would be whether it makes sense to duplicate information both in prose and bulleted list (tradeoff: list completeness vs. redundancy) and what kind of inclusion cutoff we'd set for the list. But I think we can at least hold off until the number of accusations overwhelms our prose weight capacity. czar 18:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I expected there to be a list somewhere on here. I tried going through the people categories and the list of lists of people with no luck, so I eventually used Google and it turns out lots of news sites have such lists ([1], [2], [3], [4]) but Wikipedia doesn't. Actually, instead of a bulleted list, a table might work well. We could have columns for accused, date of accusation, accusers, accused's response, etc. – PointyOintment (talk · contribs) 10:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and as far as inclusion criteria go, what I've usually seen used is whether they have a Wikipedia article or not. That way we can just reuse the notability decision that's already been made. – PointyOintment (talk · contribs) 10:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
And I've just noticed that there's already a list at Me Too (hashtag)#Aftermath. I still think it would be better as a table, though, and it might fit better in this article, but I'm not at all sure about that. – PointyOintment (talk · contribs) 10:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The list is heavily debated on the Me Too talk page. I think the prose is sufficient for now. Tables and bulleted lists are especially prone to passing IPs adding minor cases—the unverified (or poorly verified) information grows like weeds and becomes a WP:BLP issue for sensitive claims. Though I'm not opposed to a list eventually, once we have a better sense of the scope. For what it's worth, I think the Associated Press list (cited in article) does more justice than a table would. czar 05:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem with a lot of lists published by news organizations is that they don't include women who have been accused of harassment/assault/abuse/etc. The MeToo Aftermath list does. Women can be perpetrators, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Some users feel that the Aftermath list might be growing beyond the scope of #MeToo, in which case the list would be more suited to appear on this page. Would that be okay with everyone, if we somehow changed it to a table with categories such as (using one example):

Name | Accuser(s) | Alleged Activity/(ies) | Dates | Acknowledged/Denied | Outcome (Resigned/Fired/Lawsuit/etc.)

Louis C.K. | numerous | inappropriate exposure | - | Acknowledged | Projects withheld from release/canceled, contracts terminated by agents/managers/reps 70.112.229.80 (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to add (in case an administrator looks) -- the lists compiled by news outlets are very selective. Even The New York Times largely limits itself to sporadic updates mentioning people in the entertainment industry. This leaves out people in politics, business, fashion, etc. The scale of the Weinstein effect is much bigger than 20/30 names.70.112.229.80 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we need a category? Kmccook (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

We could list the accused people's profession (as is currently done in the #MeToo Aftermath section), but I don't think it's productive to divide them into categories. What's important to remember is that people in positions of power or privilege are taking advantage of and bullying others.70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Just counted the names on the Aftermath list, and including names that've been deleted by a vandal, more than 160 people face allegations of sexual misconduct, gender discrimination, or other wrongful action for raising allegations in the first place. The 20/30 names on The New York Times list barely scratches the surface.70.112.229.80 (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I WP:BOLDly imported the list from Me Too. Does anyone have thoughts on this? The Tortfeasor (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I would support not just importing, but moving the lists completely. It's too much work to maintain two apparently identical lists of people in two different articles, not to mention the issues of WP:BLP or WP:WEIGHT. FallingGravity 06:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
You mean deleting it from that page? Have you proposed just moving it here over there? Or do you mean a stand-alone article (just a list)? The Tortfeasor (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The list from #metoo is certainly not suitable for this entry, because they are not the same thing. #Metoo can be all sorts of accusations (verifiable or not), while the Weinstein effect is about substantial allegations, and therefore serious consequences. The effect is about the fallout. And a list is almost always a lazy practice. Gene2010 (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
While I agree with you in general and in principle, this particular article would become unwieldy if we devoted 3-6 sentences for each person accused of sexual misconduct or gender discrimination. There are more than 160 names covered by the #MeToo article. Someone will write a book about the Weinstein effect one day. We don't need to do that here.70.112.229.80 (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There has been quite a few scandals in academia that have surfaced. These should be included. I'll try to post links here. Microtubules (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC) https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08235-z https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/nyregion/columbia-student-sexual-harassment-lawsuit.html http://www.newsweek.com/sexual-harassment-science-just-hollywood-everyone-knows-who-weinstein-684732 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/there-culture-denial-around-sexual-misconduct-academia https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/10/31/after-metoo-a-facebook-list-names-south-asian-academics-some-say-its-a-step-too-far/ Microtubules (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC) https://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Complete-Culture-of/242040/ Microtubules (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Revisited

The point of this article is to describe the broad public reckoning towards public figures accused of sexual abuse/misconduct in the wake of the Weinstein allegations. For clarity, view this entire article as a summary style expansion of the "Legacy" section of the Weinstein allegations article. This page isn't meant to house primary source announcements of sexual abuse, but to summarize the secondary sources that describe how the allegations in aggregate have affected entire industries, politics, and cultures. In addition to the BLP issues (read: Wikipedia has special protections for biographies of living people) of brazenly listing all allegations, this reason of scope is why the #MeToo list should not have been imported here. I recommend reverting the lists and dateline (bad writing) to the last solid version of prose (here were my original edits) and proceeding in that style. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 15:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

So...

...from now on every time someone is accused of or fired for sexual harassment it will be ascribed to Harvey W., and listed here? And the sourcing need only say "sexual harassment", without mention of ole Harvey? What a strange situation. And you want us to discuss this before taking it to AfD why? Drmies (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh what? --Closeapple (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd imagine future allegations that that aren't treated as a result of the Harvey Weinstein scandal shouldn't be included. I'm guessing this will happen when the current stream of allegations start to temper down. FallingGravity 08:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The current stream already includes these future sort. Nothing about Harvey here or here, and this pussy grabbing accusation is explicitly tied to Trump's scandal instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
If none of the sources (not just the ones you cherry-picked) connect it to the aftermath of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, then it probably could be removed. FallingGravity 02:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't my cherrypicking, those were the ones already used for the article. Knepper's entry had one more and a bit about a man named Weiner, but neither was close to Weinstein. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
It probably should be mentioned the "Weinstein effect" goes beyond the Harvey Weinstein scandal. I've re-added Peter Martins with a reference which connects it to "The recent streak of sexual-harassment and misconduct claims made against powerful men" aka the Weinstein effect. FallingGravity 21:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
That's a stretch. "Powerful men" is no synonym for Weinstein. If this is how it's going to be, we need a new title. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Try reading the first sentence of this article. It gives a pretty good definition of the "Weinstein effect". The attached reference is also useful, and there's more to back it up: [5][6][7]. FallingGravity 23:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't need a new AfD, just needs a new title to match the new scope, like the old AfD suggested. Or yeah, we could whittle it down to Weinstein-related accusations, but that seems like the harder way. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, a new title. The phenomenon is a spate of reporting of and responses to instances/charges of sexual harassment. Much remains to be written about exactly how and why this opened the floodgates. Also on Trump's apparent immunity. Sorry I don’t have a good suggestion. How to title a social/cultural moment? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
We just had a move discussion: #Requested move 9 December 2017. I understand that some editors don't like the "Weinstein effect" title, but it is the WP:Common name. And it will assuredly be the name that academics use. Check Google Books in a year or two, and this term will be there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
It may be the common name for cases related or tied to Weinstein, but so long as we're listing other cases alongside those, it doesn't really work. It'd be like adding various 2014 stuff to 2012 phenomenon, and claiming it's still cool. Should either narrow the content to fit the title, or broaden the title to fit the content. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
As stated above, the sources should specifically pertain to the Weinstein effect, as in mention that reporting on the case and/or what is happening regarding the case is because of the Weinstein effect. If not, the content/sources should be removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the three I noted above. It was fun. More left for everyone! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I've restored the three you just removed with more sources. So much fun! FallingGravity 22:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Levine's still doesn't tie it to Weinstein in particular, just compares it to "Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, Charlie Rose, and countless other powerful men". Foolish to focus on one of them over the others. Sexual misconduct allegations works better, as do countless other titles. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Flyer, "common name" doesn't mean anything here. Pussygrabbers get fired because of their behavior, not because Weinstein was fired for sexual harassment. And what if a newspaper says "Person X is the umpteenth one since Harvey Weinstein"? Is that this ephemeral "Weinstein effect"? And what is this effect? If I get fired because of the Weinstein effect, was it not because I sexually harassed someone, but because...what, exactly? Are we not suggesting that if Weinstein hadn't gotten the sack none of these sleezeballs, sorry alleged sleezeballs would have gotten fired? Sorry, but this is a ridiculous article with an arbitrary list. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • And when is this over? Will every single public case of sexual harassment until the end of times be classified as the result of this effect? Or just as long as some source out there on the internet connects it to Weinstein? How much Weinsteining needs to be done in order for it to count? For Takei, the only thing you all have is "Brunton's reasoning changed after the Harvey Weinstein scandal, and specifically when Takei spoke out regarding allegations leveled against Kevin Spacey." Needless to say the word "effect" isn't mentioned in that article: it is OR that makes this into a result of this alleged effect, which in this case is complicated by the fact that Takei himself, apparently, applied some Weinsteining and thus opened himself up to a Weinsteinian boomerang. It's a Weinstein that bit himself on the ass, if you will. This is all just really silly, and a complete waste of time. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Common name means everything here, per what I and others stated in the aforementioned move request, and per it being guaranteed that this will be the name that academics will use. We follow the sources, whether we like it or not. It's not up to us to try to define what the effect is. There will be ample scholarly sources on the matter soon enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Until then, I've removed five more. Six hundred or so of these accusers weren't even accusing anyone, just fed up with the general sexual harassment effect in their non-film industries. "Several" more supported a lawsuit that predated the Weinstein scandal; this sort of backward rippling isn't theoretically impossible, but prohibitively hard to explain or understand. Most sociology scholars won't bother, and we shouldn't either. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
You mean most sociology scholars won't bother to work backwards? As for this bit, I didn't yet look to see if the sources tie it to Weinstein, but if the sources say that more attention was brought to the matter because of the Weinstein scandal, it might be worth including. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
As for this redirect you just created, it should be "Effects of sexual harassment" or "Sexual harassment effects." Sexual harassment effect (singular) isn't really a term. But, hey, WP:Redirects are cheap. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
They sure are. I'll make one for the plural, too. Not touching the "of" version, too wordy. Working backward to find the cause of an effect is likely and fine; working backward to find the effect of a cause is not. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Tom Cruise and Nazanin Boniadi story

Just reading what's in the article, I don't quite understand why this is listed on this page. Is Cruise being accused of sexual assault? Rape? Was/is Boniadi under age? Needs a lot more clarification. It seems like Ortega just added that in (and described himself as a journalist) just to get a shot in at the Church of Scientology. Charges may be true, but do they belong here? --Suomi13 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact the entire section suffered from this same problem. I have deleted it. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Before it was removed altogether, I moved most of the content to the article on Nazanin Boniadi. I'm open to having a 'precursors' section, because it does seem that there was an uptick in the number of these scandals in the 14 months before the Weinstein story broke. But we can't simply declare that; the assertion needs to be backed up. 2.100.198.43 (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Meryl Streep's slapping comment about Hoffman

Should we add Streep's recent thoughts about how Dustin Hoffman overstepped when he slapped her during the filming of Kramer vs. Kramer in the section about the accusations Hoffman is facing? Does it fit with the article? [8] And1987 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This article's about dirty secrets, but this non-sex scene has been in the public eye since 1979. The art of slapping a genuine reaction out of a young and naive actress who might not've otherwise sold it so well dates back another century or so. It's not fun, especially the first time, but is a legitimate way to advance a career and good for the industry. Perhaps it can stop now that post-production computing has eliminated the need for capturing anything real on camera, but it was a different time then, when films were film.
I find this man not guilty in the court of public opinion. On this charge, at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
No. It may be inappropriate, but it happened on set, with witnesses, was not sexual, was not quid pro quo, etc. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This article, has so many sentences, that run on and on, separated by commas.

I tried to correct some of it, but I have determined that the article needs to be edited by somebody at a higher pay-grade than me (this is provided as an analogy, I am not being paid - I mean someone who understand English better needs to restructure many of the sentances). I feel like I already butchered the original meaning somewhat. I believe that this article is a higher traffic article and should have better sentence structuring 134.186.234.108 (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I just learned about copyediting: Should {{copy edit|for=grammar|date=January 2018}} be added to the top of this article? The commas and run on in the introduction are horrendous. 134.186.234.108 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Sexual misconduct"

Shouldn't we use the word alleged before "sexual misconduct"? In this scenario, many of the cases are not actually breaches of the law (which would be sexual assault or sexual abuse) but covers a broad array of things from some guy touching a woman's knee, to actual sexual assaults and alleged rapes. "Misconduct" is a very broad and completely subjective category, when divorced from legal concepts. To say that a man sexually propositioning a woman is "misconduct" is completely subjective. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This article needs a formal title, one that does not use net jargon

This article needs a formal title, one that does not use net jargon, one that does not violate several principles of journalism, and one that does not smear a single individual as the mascot for a large wave of similar abuses and behaviors. -Inowen (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Inowen, see Talk:Weinstein effect/Archive 1#Requested move 9 December 2017. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for showing me that. Is there a way to file a case with the Arbitration Committee, to make a ruling that is higher level than that of some random editors, naturally proponents, because I think this constitutes a kind of slander. -Inowen (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Inowen, I don't think that WP:ArbCom would take this case. You can take your concerns to Wikipedia talk:Article titles, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Inowen (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Re. "You can take your concerns to Wikipedia talk:Article titles" – bad advice: that page is not a noticeboard where such issues are hashed out, certainly not if presented as a behavioural issue: that page is for suggestions regarding the improvement of the WP:AT policy (which is style and/or content guidance, not behavioural guidance), not for deciding on individual article titles (for which there is the WP:RM system). If Inowen thinks that there is a reasonable chance that WP:CCC since the December page move proposal, then they can launch a new WP:RM. If they want to educate their fellow editors on some point or another, they need to at least drop the attitude of assuming they know best, and take it to a more general noticeboard (WP:VPPR comes to mind). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Francis Schonken, no, it wasn't bad advice since the editor has a problem with the policy and wants a change. When editors have a problem with a guideline or policy and want it changed, they usually go to the talk page of that guideline or policy page and ask about it and/or propose a change. You know that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Add: If Inowen was just looking to complain about the title of this page, that is different. But Inowen seemed confused to me, even after being pointed to the move discussion that repeatedly cited WP:Common name. It seemed to me that Inowen wanted to query the protocol. And this talk page is not the place to ask about article title protocol. Wikipedia talk:Article titles is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Inowen, Is that what the preponderance of reliable sources are calling it? See Streisand effect. Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen: - I agree the current title isn't great, but without a suggestion of a better title, there is nothing that can be done. "2017 sexual harassment scandals" was problematic, both because it would need to be 2017-18, and because it goes beyond sexual harassment to sexual assault. If you do have a better title, you can file a requested move, but I'd suggest discussing it here first. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Since these are still a collection of sexual misconduct allegations, I still see no problem with Sexual misconduct allegations. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
That title is WAY too broad. Henry VIII cheated on his wife, does discussing that belong in this article? Weinstein effect is flawed, but I think it is the least flawed title of those available/proposed. It meets WP:COMMONNAME, there are plenty of RS using it. [9] [10][11][12][13][14][15] ResultingConstant (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Broad or not, there are plenty of reliable sources using my title to refer to this wave and very few historically (hence the availability). I won't pick and choose any to link, but Google it and check for yourself. "Misconduct" is a post-2017 expression and is thriving even as "Weinsten" fades away. The longer we wait, the dumber we look. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Nah, we should stick with the common name. And like I noted before, this will be the name that scholars use. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
And like Mathglot pointed out when referencing the Streisand effect at the WP:Article titles talk page, this is not the first time that an effect has been named after a public figure. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

italian branch

Giuseppe Tornatore was accused but he denied; Fausto Brizzi was accused and was confirmed his guilt in sexual assaults — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.54.222.64 (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Far too many examples

There are far too many examples (see WP:EXAMPLEFARM) on this page for an encyclopaedic coverage of the topic. Wikipedia WP:ISNOT a directory or repository for all examples of a phenomenon. Those can go into a "List of..." page or into a category. Tayste (edits) 02:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

As I express in my user page, I dislike the use of tagging. I equate it to vandalism and the height of laziness. We are editors. If you don't like something, edit, or discuss. If the listing is not appropriate to this article, then there should be a list article to contain these examples. You are welcome to create such an article. Trackinfo (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Dan Schneider info

I removed the mention of Dan Schneider, as any rumblings about abusive behaviour are sketchy and unsourced at best (unless someone can show me something more tangible that would warrant it being put on Wikipedia), and the provided source was quite weak. Feel free to follow up with me if anyone has concerns. StewdioMACK (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing.

Some text in the edit section of this wiki needs to be spaced out a little bit to make it easier to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parttime18 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

RE: Chloe Dykstra

*On June 14, 2018, actress Chloe Dykstra wrote an essay on Medium accusing her ex-boyfriend, whom she dated from 2012-14, of inflicting 'long-term' emotional and sexual abuse.[1] Although she didn't name the ex-boyfriend in the essay, key details and evidence by Heavy.com suggest that the man she was referring to was actor and comedian Chris Hardwick.[2] Within hours of the report, Legendary Entertainment removed Hardwick from Nerdist, a podcasting company in which he co-founded and was the CEO for at the time.[3]

EXCUSE ME -- Isn't the wording "Although she didn't name the ex-boyfriend in the essay, key details and evidence by Heavy.com suggest that the man she was referring to was actor and comedian Chris Hardwick" almost the textbook definition of WP:SYNTHESIS? Did Gloria Allred and Catharine MacKinnon buy controlling interest in Wikimedia? This is disgraceful and should be removed as pure SYNTHESIS! Quis separabit? 20:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Todd Abedrabbo -- please discuss here before restoring synthetic and questionable text. Quis separabit? 20:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Rose-Colored Glasses: A Confession". Medium. Retrieved June 15, 2018.
  2. ^ "Chloe Dykstra, Chris Hardwick's Ex-Girlfriend: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know". Heavy.com. Retrieved June 15, 2018.
  3. ^ "Nerdist Removes Chris Hardwick References From Site Amid Chloe Dykstra's Abuse Claim". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved June 15, 2018.
It doesn't belong. Not only because he wasn't named in the piece, which is enough on its own. But its tough to capture the nuance of this one.Bangabandhu (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Example farm

At present, this article is dominated by a list of purported examples. It is likely that many of the events are connected with the rise in consciousness arising from the Weinstein accusations. It is equally likely that many of the examples are wholly or mostly unrelated and are merely contemporary. Sexual assault, reporting, investigation and fallout all happened before the Weinstein accusations. We do a disservice to all involved to assume that all such reporting and fallout is in some way the result of one watershed event.

In an earlier discussion (above), another editor expresses distaste for "tagging", saying they "equate it to vandalism and the height of laziness." It is clearly not vandalism to identify and mark a problem. If you feel the tag is somehow indicative of being lazy, that's your issue, not mine.

In that same discussion, the same editor states that if the list does not belong here, "there should be a list article to contain these examples". The second does not follow the first. The first question is whether the list should exist here at all. If so, the question would be where to put it.

To that end, we clearly cannot simply coble together a list of every example of allegations of sexual misconduct in the world after whatever date and add it to a Frankensteined list we've headed "Weinstein effect". For one thing, the list would be massive -- far larger than the list here. More to the point, the list would be mistitled and indiscriminate.

I see two distinct possibilities:

1) A sourced list following objective selection criteria.

2) No list at all.

Under option 1, the question would be what the selection criteria would be. WP:CSC basically gives us one possibility, with some question of interpretation. Notability would be part of the criteria. For events, that would typically be events that have their own articles. Most of the allegations, whether they have gone beyond that or not, do not clear that hurdle (I'm not sure any of them do). That would leave us with notability of the people involved. Well-sourced examples of allegations against a blue-link notable individual would be the first part. Next would be an independent reliable source tying the allegations to the titular effect. This would leave out allegations against any individual who does not have an article and any allegations which do not tie them to the Weinstein effect. I suspect this will shorten the list substantially. It raises the possibility that the list should not exist at all. It is equally possible that we will find common ground with Me Too movement.

Comments? - SummerPhDv2.0 20:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

At present, this is an indiscriminate list of incidents.
That people are more willing to come forward with allegations since the Weinstein case went public is clearly notable and this article should exist. The assumption that a random selection of allegations since then are all related to this is nonsense.
As no one seems to have anything to say about this, I am going to boldly remove the list. Anyone who wishes to restore the entire list, restore part of it or spin it off into a new article is welcome to discuss the issue. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I support efforts to improve this unweildly catchall, but wholesale deletion is like taking an axe to remove a pimple. There are better ways. Please self-revert. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
What would you suggest as inclusion criteria for this "pimple"? - SummerPhDv2.0 23:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Does James Gunn Count?

He wasn't accused by anyone, he was caught by someone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.180.75 (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say no, because no one has actually come forward with any accusations of sexual conduct against him. Golfsco (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Umm, he was fired, dudes. Quis separabit? 03:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
That's true, but it's not due to any accusations. It's only a "Weinstein effect" if there are sexual harassment allegations; in the case of Gunn, however, there are none, so he shouldn't be listed as an example. Golfsco (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
he was fired -- yes, so? -- Jibal (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is this article called "Weinstein Effect"?

Honestly, I don't think I've ever read or seen that phrase anywhere but this Wikipedia article. Why isn't it just called something like "2017-18 celebrity sexual misconduct scandals"? It doesn't need some smart and quippy headline that makes the page harder to find. It also doesn't have to be associated with Weinstein himself. Granted, the deluge of allegations did come after reports of his misconduct, but the allegations against Bill Cosby preceded that, and the allegations against Woody Allen preceded that. --67.240.208.165 (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative title? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The Weinstein effect definitely exists as a term, see here, here or here. The charges against Cosby, Polanski, Allen, etc. that preceded Weinstein were from a different cultural moment than this one. They shouldn't be in this entry. Bangabandhu (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
What you personally have read or seen is not relevant to Wikipedia. -- Jibal (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
So there are three citations given from the media that supposedly verify the existence of this effect--as if without it these cases would never have come to light. And so every single case since W. is now lumped together in this article, 253k worth, as long as (I suppose) the Weinstein name is mentioned in a reference? I think the whole thing is ridiculous: you can have an article with this name, but what you cannot have is fetishize this to include all these cases. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Your comment has no relevance to mine. -- Jibal (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Are you talking to me? Cause I wasn't talking to you. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Asia Argento Recently Accused

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/us/asia-argento-assault-jimmy-bennett.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.180.75 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

And the source should explicitly call it a Weinstein effect if it is to be added. This is why I have crossed out the addition until it is sourced in such a way. But then again, not every case needs to be in this article. This is not a list article. Or it shouldn't be. Also see below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Cases that are not a cited as a Weinstein effect

Per previous cleanup by InedibleHulk and this edit by Drmies and what Drmies stated above, I added this hidden note throughout the article about sticking only to cases that are explicitly identified as a Weinstein effect by one or more reliable sources. But like I stated above, this is not a list article. Or it shouldn't be. All it needs is some examples. The rest of the article should be about what the topic is, analyses and similar. Of course, we have to wait for academic sources on this topic to build an even better article, but the academic sources will eventually be available. Todd Abedrabbo, since you have recently added a lot of material to the article, I ask that you also keep what I've stated in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you Flyer22 Reborn. As you know I am usually very formal and measured in my language and approach, I'm diplomacy personified, but this has gotten so out of hand that I find it hard to restrain myself. And I do this, I believe, based on policy: in many of these cases it's just pure OR. In many others it's an incidental mention ("since Weinstein"). In the end, this serves only to inflate this Weinstein effect, which is really just an occurrence that's given a man's name in a much broader societal development, and we risk pinning the entire development on this one man's "effect". How powerful that man must have been! If I may speak as a student of literature, we're fetishizing this supposed effect, thereby possibly fetishizing the man and his name. "Me too" at least places the agency where it belongs: with the courageous women (and some men) who defied various standards and spoke up. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should get too hung up on whether an article contains the words "Weinstein effect". On the flip-side, an instance of sexual misconduct shouldn't automatically be included if a source mentions Harvey Weinstein. The lede contains a working definition of the Weinstein effect ("a global trend in which people come forward to accuse famous or powerful men of sexual misconduct."). If a source places a case of sexual misconduct within this trend (starting with the Weinstein accusations), then it should be included. FallingGravity 01:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
This article still exists?!? Shouldn't MeToo have absorbed it by now? Anyway, yeah, of course we still only want "Weinstein effect" stuff for a Weinsten effect story. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

FallingGravity, you stated, "I don't think we should get too hung up on whether an article contains the words "Weinstein effect." But you also stated, "If a source places a case of sexual misconduct within this trend (starting with the Weinstein accusations), then it should be included." I'm not sure how you are defining inclusion. If the source does not state "Weinstein effect," how do we know if the source "places a case of sexual misconduct within this trend"? Are you suggesting that as long as the source compares an allegation to the trend or to the Weinstein accusations, it should be included? I don't think that most sources would state "trend" without specifying "Weinstein effect." And a case being compared to the Weinstein accusations doesn't mean it's a Weinstein effect. For example, the Bill Cosby accusations have been compared. Either way, I still feel that we should only stick to listings that are specifically identified as a Weinstein effect, and that this article should not be a list article (the examples should be significantly downsized). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: For example, this article doesn't contain the words "trend" or "Weinstein effect", but does say "The recent streak of sexual-harassment and misconduct claims made against powerful men", which fits the definition of the Weinstein effect. FallingGravity 17:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
FallingGravity, if we go by "recent streak of sexual-harassment and misconduct claims made against powerful men" for sourcing, that could apply to any time frame down the line. Yes, we personally know that the source is referring to the Weinstein effect because we are in that recent era. Let's think of this with WP:Recentism in mind. It can also be argued that per WP:Synthesis, if we are to include a case, we should be sticking to cases that are explicitly identified as a Weinstein effect. From what I can tell, Drmies agrees. And it's clear that InedibleHulk does. On a side note: Since this article is on my watclist, there is no need to ping me to this talk page. I won't ping you to this talk page either if you find it unnecessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Any time frame? The article clearly has a publication date. FallingGravity 18:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
And that doesn't change what I stated in the least. "Recent" can apply to any time frame down the line. It is why WP:Dated exists. Regardless, content like this and this is problematic for the article. And like I noted below, I will be significantly cutting all of this unrelated stuff. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Landingdude13, regarding additions like these, make sure that sources tie them to the Weinstein effect before adding them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's arbitrary whether or not an article happens to mention Harvey Weinstein specifically. As Falling Gravity points out, the Weinstein effect can be referenced through other terms without his name in particular. Yes, that makes for an unwieldy article. Maybe there should be multiple ones, one for the Weinstein effect in media, in arts, in politics, etc... Bangabandhu (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
How is applying Wikipedia's rules arbitrary? Are you suggesting that every sexual abuse allegation in this day and age be added to this article? We are to assume that it's all an aspect of the Weinstein effect? Have you not taken anything that Drmies or I stated into consideration? At least FallingGravity's criteria allows for a restriction. Do you want this to remain some unwieldy and significantly unencyclopedic article? I see no need for multiple articles because I see no need for this to be a list article and to have "by country" articles on the topic. InedibleHulk and Drmies, any comments on FallingGravity and Bangabandhu's thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Not particularly on them, but moving the damn thing to sexual misconduct allegations already would still make business a whole lot easier. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
As seen at Talk:Weinstein effect/Archive 1#This article needs a formal title, one that does not use net jargon, we discussed that before. That title is too broad and is not what this topic is about. This topic is specifically about a global trend as a result of the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations, not any and all sexual misconduct allegations. The media dubbed the trend the "Weinstein effect." I know that you don't like that term, but it is a term/concept notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, which is why that article exists now. What would a Sexual misconduct allegations article even be like? A list article like this one that is even broader? That is not a solution. We already have the Sexual misconduct, Sexual assault and Sexual harassment articles. Those are enough to deal with the topic of sexual misconduct allegations in general, without the articles turning into lists about celebrities. The Weinstein effect article needs to be significantly cut to focus on what sources state about the term/concept and include only some examples. In fact, at some point in the future, I am likely to be WP:Bold and do just that. If reverted, I can take the matter to a WP:RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Aye, it was a foolishly narrow buzzword to centre a nebulous topic on then, and more of us are seeing why now. What's done is done, though. All we can hope and pray for now is that editors remember to wait a year before creating an Amazon effect article. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying applying WP's rules is arbitrary. I am saying that its arbitrary if the determination is on the basis of whether the author or source happens to mention the "Weinstein effect" in the article. Its like if the entirety of the "sexual assualt" entry were limited to those specific words and excluded things like "rape" or "coercion" just because they didn't specifically mention sexual assault. Synonyms are ok, which is the point fallinggravity is making. And I realize the implications for the breadth of this entry. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Who is to judge what is a synonym for "Weinstein effect"? And what about sexual assault allegations years down the line, like I stated above? Are you expecting us to include every sexual assault allegation since the fall of Weinstein? Are you expecting this to be some never-ending sexual assault allegation list? In my opinion, you are suggesting that we disregard the WP:Verifiability policy and engage in WP:OR. And, yes, material in the Sexual assault article (another article that I watch) should be about sexual assault. And how do we judge that? Based on whether or not the sources categorize the topic as a sexual assault topic. Yes, some child sexual abuse material in the article does not use the word sexual assault, but there are sources in the article that are clear that child sexual abuse falls under the definition. Per above, I disagree with what you are stating, and I'm certain that most other Wikipedia editors would as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Bangabandhu's remark, "I think it's arbitrary whether or not an article happens to mention Harvey Weinstein specifically", is really the heart of WP:OR. Drmies (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Look, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that just anything should go in the article. But if the article clearly connects the incident to the phenomenon that has emerged after Harvey Weinstein, it shouldn't have to specifically say the words, "Harvey Weinstein". Lots of DC media no longer use the term "Redskins" to refer to the DC football team. Should that coverage be excluded from the wikipedia entry just because they're using a different term? Bangabandhu (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
With regard to inclusion based on terms, no one is stating what you are stating. Rape, for example, is obviously a form of sexual assault, which is why some material on it belongs in the Sexual assault article. We are going by what the sources explicitly state on matters such as forms or aspects of something. That doesn't mean that all rape material we add to the Sexual assault article will use the term sexual assault. What it does mean is that the literature has already identified rape as a form of sexual assault. Anyway, after this, I will indeed be significantly downsizing this article, and the rules are on my side to do so. The Me Too movement article is mostly in WP:Prose form (which is the form Wikipedia prefers for its articles), and this section of the article is tagged as an example farm. Well, the Weinstein effect article is one huge example farm, with a number of examples that are not even identified as a Weinstein effect, and (like I stated) that will be changing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, I made the cut here, with a new hidden note. Editors like Todd Abedrabbo and IPs invested in adding any man accused of sexual assault or other sexual misconduct to the article might attempt to re-add the never-ending lists. If that happens, I will likely revert once before taking the matter to an RfC. In the "Impact" section, I left detail on Leslie Moonves there because "Moonves was one of Hollywood's most prominent supporters of the MeToo Movement and a founding member of the 'Commission on Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace', formed in late 2017 to 'tackle the broad culture of abuse and power disparity.'" But maybe it should be downsized, or his name should simply be an addition to the examples above that listing. After all, the detail I left on him there might encourage people to add other cases with as much detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Flyer22 Reborn, I respect your edit, and your willingness to take this on. Without going into detail about every part of your comprehensive edits, I certainly support the general principle, which I believe is grounded in policy and in common sense. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Followup edits here and here. Cut some of the Moonves material. Re-added mention of Asia Argento, but not as an example of the effect. Just as one of the faces of the MeToo Movement who were accused. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I've renamed the "impact" section "notable cases" and done some text rearranging. I'm open to alternative section titles, but "Impact" here would generally refer to the longer-term effects of the Weinstein effect, not individual cases of the Weinstein effect itself. FallingGravity 00:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with the "Notable cases" heading. Like I stated when reverting, "notable cases" is subjective and would only attract listings. Most assuredly, it would. I understand what you mean regarding "impact," but there is nothing wrong with "impact" in this case since we mean "the impact of the effect"...and it is not like this was an incident and is now over. It is ongoing. So it's flawed reasoning for anyone to expect that "impact" equates to "now that it's over" for this topic. Also, at the moment, we have no long-term effects information. We can deal with that when it's available years down the line. As for rearranging, I restored mention of the MeToo Movement text to the lead because it is a significant aspect of the effect and, per WP:LEAD, the lead is meant to summarize the article. Like you, I thought about moving the New York Times and USA Today material to the "Analysis" section, but I think that those two short comments fit best in the "Impact" section for context. I did move the names out of the lead, though, since the MeToo Movement paragraph summarizes that matter without mentioning names. We can discuss here on the talk page different layout ideas for the article, if you want. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I still feel like there's a better title for that section. What I was thinking with "Notable cases" was that these cases have generated notable media coverage, as evidenced by the references, and the hidden note already discourages listings. Anyways, I've combined the short "Background" and "Inception" sections because they're both background for this article. FallingGravity 08:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
A title like "Notable cases" is subjective even if we define inclusion as "cases [that] have generated notable media coverage." A number of cases have received a lot of media attention. What criteria would we use to define "notable" and keep editors from adding more and more people? That's what I'm stating. And hidden notes can be helpful, but they are also often ignored, especially by less experienced editors, just like the current one was recently ignored. It would be worse with an inviting title like "Notable cases." I still think "Impact" is fine, and the Me Too movement article also currently uses that title, even though "International response" can also be considered "impact" in that article. I do, however, agree with you merging these two sections. I thought about merging them as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, as expected, Todd Abedrabbo created List of notable people and groups accused of sexual misconduct since the Me Too movement. I'm headed over there to nominate this WP:Content fork for deletion now. Simply moving the content into its own article, with a title that obviously makes it so that it is an indiscriminate list because anyone ever accused since the Me Too movement will be included, helps nothing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:Class assignment

Bricci13, regarding this, will you explain what you all have planned for this article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Bricci13, having looked at User:Bricci13/sandbox, I can see what you have planned. Here are my issues with it: You state the article needs to be "more unbiased and showcase both sides of the story." You also state "Definitely attempt to showcase both sides of the argument, like providing some statistics on how prevalent sexual harassment in the workplace is, for both women and men." I'm not sure what "both sides" is supposed to mean, but I will state that this isn't the article to present sexual accusation rebuttals. It is specifically about the effect. So, no, rebuttals to the accusations do not belong in this article...unless it's a brief "he said these claims aren't true" thing for a few examples. Statistics on how prevalent sexual harassment in the workplace is, for both women and men, also do not belong in this article. Neither do statistics on wrongfully accused CEOs and upper class professionals, unless it is specifically about the Weinstein effect. That stuff belongs in the Sexual harassment, Workplace harassment and Sexual harassment in the workplace in the United States articles. You stated, "Expand on list of victims and perpetuators, give more examples." No, we shouldn't have a list of victims and perpetrators in this article. See the discussion immediately above this one and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable people and groups accused of sexual misconduct since the Me Too movement. If you add such a list, it will be cut. If you add unrelated material, it will be cut. The sources in your sandbox are mostly about the Me Too movement. I suggest you consider adding most of what you plan to add to this article to that one. But the aforementioned sexual harassment material doesn't belong in that article either...unless it is specifically tied to the Me Too movement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, here and here, I see that Bricci13 removed the article from their assignment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weinstein_effect/Archive_1&oldid=1177411983"