Talk:Harvey Weinstein

"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)

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)

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. [[1]] 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)

Pronunciation

For both Harvey and Bob, shouldn't we note that it's "wein-steen", not "wein-stine"?[2] 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)

Defense of Roman Polanski

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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'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)

No its not??Simply-the-truth (talk) 10:15, 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)

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)

Good source

[3] Fox News in that link is keeping an updated timeline off all the accusations/allegations as they come out.

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.