Jump to content

Talk:Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ommar365 (talk | contribs) at 06:23, 16 July 2021 (→Requested move 15 July 2021). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I thought there were 5 people who accused him?

I thought there were 5 people who accused him, only 4 are being listed. I think there is undue weight being given to government staff accusers and not enough to the wedding accuser.

"Face cheeks"

What are "face cheeks"? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Rebutted"

What does "was rebutted when she removed them" mean? The verb "rebut" usually refers to something verbal rather than physical. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 March 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: speedy moved back / Reverted undiscussed controversial move. We have a consistent format; the move by User:Bernspeed is against our consistent format of similar page titles. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Cuomo sexual harassment allegations → Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations – Bernspeed moved the article from its original title, claiming, "It's clear it's Andrew Cuomo and not someone else." However, per articles on similar topics such as Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases, Bill Cosby sexual assault cases, and Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations, it's clear the full name is needed, no matter who the person is. Therefore, the article title needs to be changed back. Love of Corey (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Six or eight?

Are there six, or now eight? Source 1 Source 2 173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Editor Clarify the meaning of "for" in his edit?

Article says:

"Bennett went on to say that Cuomo's office director took the state's mandatory sexual harassment training for him, "I was there. I heard [the office director] say, 'I can't believe I'm doing this for you' and making a joke about the fact that she was completing the training for him. And then I heard her at the end ask him to sign the certificate."[12]"

What does "for" mean? How could an office director take a class "for" the governor? Does this mean that the governor was supposed to take a class, but he had a substitute sign up for him, take the class pretending to be Cuomo?" Or does this mean that Cuomo demanded she take the class, so that "for him" means to please him? (FairNPOV (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@FairNPOV: i understood it as the first one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is rebutted the right word?

Article says:

Anna Ruch,..., said that Cuomo put his hands on her back, was rebutted when she removed them, ..."

Rebutted is a strange word in this context. Rebut would imply that Ruch made some assertion which Cuomo answered to deny the accuracy of Ruch's comment. But comment is not the topic. Should the editor improve the diction in the article at this point? (FairNPOV (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@FairNPOV: pretty sure they meant to write rebuffed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can the editor clarify the meaning of "back"?

Article says: ". She said that Cuomo called her into a hotel room and then pulled her back toward his body.[16]"

What does "back" mean? She tried to get out of the room, but he pulled her back (adverb)? Or He pulled her back (not her front) toward his body (noun)? (FairNPOV (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Is dress the correct word? BLP violation?

Article says:

"On March 9, 2021, The Times Union reported an anonymous Executive Mansion aide had accused Cuomo of calling her into his office, reaching under her dress, and fondling her."

I looked at the citations and did not find the word "dress." What I have heard from news reports is the (hearsay) claim that Cuomo put his hand under some woman's shirt. As written it seems to imply an allegation that Cuomo manipulated a woman's sexual organ(s) between her legs. Under the shirt, by using the word fondled, would seem to connote that Cuomo manipulated her breast(s), though all the reports I have heard have not specified that he reached her breasts. Inasmuch as this is hearsay, is it a violation of BLP? Are hearsay accusations a violation of BLP? Should anonymous allegations be put in an article?(FairNPOV (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@FairNPOV: Yes, anonymous allegations are fine in an article as long as there is an inline attribution to a reliable source, and it constitutes due weight. As for dress/shirt, we can make the necessary corrections and ask an administrator for revdel.
I've revised this to "blouse" and added a source to support the allegation. Fences&Windows 23:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

In light of the very high possibility Cuomo will face impeachment, I've created Draft:Impeachment of Andrew Cuomo. I invite all editors to contribute. CaliIndie (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New York Post citation

Dear @Yousef Raz:

Per WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the New York Post is not reliable for statements about politics. Indeed, nothing in Boylan's pair of tweets specifically states that she will not be cooperating with the two investigations. It's likely, but it's not confirmed. I'd ask to refrain from relying on the New York Post for this article, and let readers take their own inferences instead of copying the NY Post's more shaky interpretations. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules the New York Post is reliable. Get the article correct with accurate information.Yousef Raz (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yousef Raz: That is absolutely not the meaning of WP:IAR. It isn't a magical box from which you can pull any statement you'd like. This citation is exactly why the New York Post is unreliable–because they will take any statement and make unclear inferences without surrounding context. Boylan has not sworn off any chance of co-operating with that investigation. Claiming that she has is irresponsible, and I'm going to ping @FairNPOV and Love of Corey just to make sure. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paintspot
That is exactly why Wikipedia:Ignore all rules exists. Make sure the the article correct with correct information. I removed any mention of her not cooperating with the investigation.Yousef Raz (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She's not just criticizing the investigation, she is criticizing Carl Heastie. Would anyone say that the statement "Do not trust @CarlHeastie..." is not negative criticism? Its a statement attacking a very influential NYS politician's credibility.Yousef Raz (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would be a very easy question to answer if a reliable source had covered it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Post is reliable, regardless of what Wikipedia editors determined. Her tweet says it though.Yousef Raz (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how wikipedia works. And no, you can't synthesize that. I'm done arguing, hopefully someone i pinged responds. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need to argue. It is how wikipedia works, its in the spirit of Wikipedia. Get the article correct with good information. If a crappy source has correct information, then it should be included. The NY Post gets a chair in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room. Thats a pretty substantial honor for a news agency. By painting a broad brush across a highly regarded, widely read news agency like the NY Post does not help grow Wikipedia.Yousef Raz (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's the exact opposite of the spirit of Wikipedia. The barrier for inclusion into wikipedia is not truth: it's WP:Verifiability. Since we can't verify that interpretation, it doesn't get included. The New York Post, by consensus, is unreliable. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The consenus is wrong about the Post. Is the story accurate or not? The NY Times is a wonderful news agency too, they make mistakes and they are just as reliable and unreliable. If a NY Times columnist was cited numerous times in a Wikipedia article, then left to the NY Post, that columnist magically become unreliable. That faulty logic. WIkipedia isn't a new outlet. The users don't get to pick winners and losers. Be bold, get the article right thats what important.Yousef Raz (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, that's not how consensus works. Wikipedia users get to decide when and how sources are used. You're free to start an RfC and attempt to change the consensus, but once the decision goes one way or another, it is wikipedia policy to respect that. And again, the point is not getting the article right, it's writing what we can verify.
You're opinion is welcomed and noted. Consensus has a place, but a consensus can change while facts remain the same. Consensus too often is subjective especially when its only from the winners and not from the losers. To get a NPOV, its best to hear from winners and losers, from people we do like and people we don't like.Yousef Raz (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

Is this really still a start-class article? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Anyone can re-assess the article. If you think it should be updated feel free to do so. If you do not feel comfortable doing so, the best way to encourage a reassessment is probably to simply delete the current "Start" assessments above. Projects are more likely to address "Unassessed" articles than to remember to come back to one that had already been assessed in the past. -2pou (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of proper text; introduction of OR into BLP

An editor has deleted proper and RS-supported text, and introduced OR heinous accusations into this article which relates to a BLP, as discussed here.[1] This is a problem. I would urge that the edit be reverted. --2603:7000:2143:8500:245F:81DC:F4FB:745E (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely useless comment the fact that you used the word "heinous" is pretty funny. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor was correct, the edit they note was not supported by the sources. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Andrew_Cuomo_sexual_harassment_allegations. I've edited to match the sources. Fences&Windows 22:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. See the discussion at WP:BLPN, Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations. Atsme 💬 📧 01:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional names of people calling for a resignation

People who have called for Cuomo's resignation or impeachment For "Local Officials," please add Monroe County Executive Adam Bello https://13wham.com/news/local/bello-calls-for-cuomos-resignation-denies-being-pressured-by-vaccine-czar --149.76.0.44 (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 06:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You see that banner on the talk page, a little below the good article nomination? The one that reads "This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism."? That means that this situation is still too in-flux to be stable enough to meet the GA criteria (one of which is stability). Additionally, the editing of the article has been sufficiently unstable that it was given a six-month autoprotection only this week. Please wait at least until the outcome of the impeachment investigation launched two weeks ago (and then preferably a few more weeks to determine the outcome of the outcome) before renominating. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should have figured. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why are Republicans indicated on this list when no other political affiliations are noted?

Requested move 15 July 2021

Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations → Sexual harassment allegations against Andrew Cuomo – The title 'Sexual harassment allegations against Andrew Cuomo' makes more grammatical sense than 'Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations'. We can also change the titles of the articles mentioned in the prior move request- Talk:Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations#Requested move 11 March 2021 to make a grammatical sense and keep titles of such articles in uniform format. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 09:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

*Oppose

In my mind, the major considerations in choosing a title is: 1) order of importance 2) coherency and unambiguity 3) conciseness

Grammatical sense, on the other hand, isn’t nearly as big of a deal. The current format is clear, concise, and allows uniformity. The article subject matter is presented first which makes each article easily distinguishable, as opposed to having dozens of articles that all start with “Sexual harassment allegations against ____” or “Sexual misconduct allegations against ____” or “Sexual abuse allegations against ____”; all of which start with the letter S and look virtually identical until you read their full titles.

The article titles mentioned in the prior request prove that this format isn’t uniform but rather convoluted. For example, “Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases” would become “Cases of sexual abuse involving Harvey Weinstein” or even “Cases of sexual abuse allegedly committed by Harvey Weinstein”.Ommar365 (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC) Ommar365 (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Cuomo_sexual_harassment_allegations&oldid=1033844302"