Jump to content

Talk:Anthony Weiner

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.67.104.80 (talk) at 20:33, 29 July 2013 (→‎Regarding his relationship to Jon Stewart...: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Summarizing the scandal and resignation

I think all that's needed here is one sentence on each:

  1. The public revelation of the photograph.
  2. AW's denial.
  3. AW's admission and refusal to resign.
  4. Reaction to his refusal to resign.
  5. AW's resignation. patsw (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If there's a problem with Anthony Weiner sexting scandal, improve that article. patsw (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure that all of the above are needed here. All that is really needed is the revelation of improper photos/flirting and AW's resignation, with a link to the other article. However, I think the scandal article needs to be expanded to cover the social and political background of the scandal including constituent opinions, Breitbart, false accounts and the women, not just the timeline and AW's contradictions. If there's to be a separate article on the scandal, then it needs to be definitive. Let's go through the section paragraph by paragraph. The resignation has to stay in. Can we delete the paragraph on political and constituent opinions? It's redundant, already covered in the Sexting article. Pkeets (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's no response and seems little support for keeping in the poll data, I'll go ahead and remove it. Pkeets (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

  • Official portrait
    Official portrait
  • Anthonyweiner.jpg
    Anthonyweiner.jpg

Back in June, there was a consensus that the official portrait is mediocre and that File:Anthonyweiner.jpg is better. The official portrait has found its way back into the article. Any objections to changing it to the above right image?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source for the one on the right? I'm just thinking about the possibility of a fair-use challenge, which wouldn't take place with an official portrait. JTRH (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is from the Congressional Pictorial Directory August 2005 and is PD. Some people want the official portrait because it is newer, but it has poor lighting and the other image is more natural.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. If there's no usage issue, either one is fine with me. JTRH (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In pop culture?

I noticed this section was removed. I don't think it's off mark. I'm an advocate of including scandals about politicians, the more the better; see Talk:John_Fleming_(U.S._politician)#Reversion for on going discussion in which I'm involved. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, it would fit in better in Anthony Weiner sexting scandal. The real problem is that it is classic unsourced WP:TRIVIA at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand; either would be grounds for removal. I think the scandal still resonates, although Weiner may yet run for mayor. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia, especially of scurrilous varieties, makes for bad biographies, alas. In this case, the material was of zero importance to the biography, hence properly removed. Indeed, I suggest that: "Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained." Collect (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "In Popular Culture" section was added in this edit on March 26, 2013. The material is based entirely on an WP:OR assertion that the episode is inspired by the Weiner incident, which is unsatisfactory for a BLP article. In any case, WP:POPCULTURE discourages the addition of this type of material unless it can be sourced and shown to be relevant to a reader's understanding of the topic, otherwise it wanders off into the areas of trivia and listcruft.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Website picture mistake

Hi all, I am not certain why exactly a well referenced edit here from reliable sources (there needs to be more?) was summarily deleted in its entirety. I could go into the whole WP:CENSOR even with BLP and more but I am sure we are all well versed on what wikipedia is and is not. I see "trivial" and "slow news day" cited as the reason to completely delete a section, not to amend or edit? No citations are given on "trivial" or "slow news day" & even with them it is still opinion & doesn't justify a complete deletion. I'm now wondering what else may be up for deletion if all it takes is "slow news day" & an opinion of "trivial"? So yes this needs to be reconsidered and I thank you in advance. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 22:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have alerted User:Fat&Happy's talk page on two occasions within WP:CIVIL & WP:RV and await a response. :-) Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 01:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it is apparent that "we are all well versed on what wikipedia is and is not". It seems that some of the things Wikipedia is not – such as a Twitter feed, a newspaper, a news aggregator like the Drudge Report, or a clipping service charged with accumulating and presenting every minor mention of a client's name – are being overlooked. A third-party vendor used an incorrect photo as the monochromatic background of a web site in development; the error was noticed and produced a flurry of comment on social media, picked up dutifully as part of the 24-hour news cycle; the photo was replaced with an appropriately sited one, seemingly within a day of being first noticed; the third-party vendor issued a mea culpa, saying they had made a mistake. No animals or young children were harmed in the production. Exactly what about this story indicates it has achieved the status of being important to Weiner's overall biography as soon as it occurred? Fat&Happy (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1st thanks for the greater explanation, everything from your "A third-party vendor . . ." to "mistake" would be great for an encyclopedia article about someone that launched his own website in the last month. Especially what the Wall Street Journal, USAToday, Reuters, CNN & The Daily News among others reported about it (which is the only way allowed to contribute to a BLP), however what you refer to as "news aggregator" such as the Drudge Report see here never ran it (are you reading my contribution or making a knee-jerk judgement for WP:RV?). I appreciate the discussion but you sidestepped my point of WP:CENSOR within BLP, and your justifications of slow news and trivial. Applying your logic Wikipedia would need to take down all references (and articles) from the sources above until they can be individually reviewed for the subjective "trivial" or "slow news day"? I can think of several "third party" newsletter/website/speechwriter gaffes on BLPs that are included in biographical articles from reliable sources. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 04:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to compromise on this but a wholesale deletion is unnecessary. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 04:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be no consensus on why a dozen reliable sources should be deleted/excluded, however I'll await any constructive suggestions. The story is now being run by WP:RS internationally [1]. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There also seems to be no consensus that this minor tempest in a teapot has any biographical significance to Anthony Weiner which would make it a worthwhile addition to his encyclopedia article. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a reliable source for the teapot or Drudge references by all means add it to the article. Your opportunities to justify/build consensus on a complete section delete are being squandered on a faulty logic of consensus that implies the deletion of the whole article? What section/article/wiki/reference is safe from a "slow news day"/"trivial" delete? Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 00:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of AGF I removed "controversy" & "gaffe" as you wrote above, also thinned down on the references so no impression of piling on is given, and stated the RS so no appearance of some blog attack. Edits that could have been discussed & made without a complete delete. I do read every single suggestion you and other editors have & may have but it would assist all of us if we stayed on topic without irrelevant "Drudge" and as yet un-cited "teapot" mentions. As stated in the edit, further constructive contributions/edits welcomed, thou a blurb of an editors reasoning here on the Talk Page may be beneficial. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 01:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no evidence that this little episode has any lasting or biographical importance. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then edit by contributing RS that state exactly that instead of wholesale deletions of editors works based on numerous RSs, and you are stretching AGF by repeatedly accusing of "no evidence", the irrelevant "drudgereport" & "teapot" after my very 1st response listed RS along with the now two sections you continue to completely delete. WP:NOTNEWS could justify deletion of much of the article. I should not have to point out that this constitutes a warning. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 02:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WARNING, I want to be as AGF as possible here, I am open to meaningful, constructive edits to address any & all concerns but any sizable deletion I can only see as WP:CENSOR and WP:VANDAL. If you sincerely feel strongly about WP:NOTNEWS then suggest the article be deleted since most if not all of it are based on contemporary news accounts of a former national legislator. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 03:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am responding here to a request for a third opinion made at WP:3O. I had a look at the edit in question and reviewed the reasons for behavior put forth by both of you. First off, a few observations:

  • You both appear to be editing in good faith. WP:CENSOR and WP:VANDAL have been brought up, but I do not think either of these policies really apply as they require an assumption of bad faith editing. Accusing someone of vandalism spuriously is unlikely to bring the discussion to a fruitful conclusion, and censorship is removal of content that is deemed offensive or objectionable to someone (which is not an argument that has been made here).
  • The event in question pretty clearly, verifiably happened. While WP:BLP applies to all edits on this page, it does not appear that we can unambiguously determine if this section should be included based on this policy alone.
  • The article history shows a bit of edit warring. The cycle should be to discuss edits that are reverted, not to immediately restore them and argue in edit summaries.

I think the most applicable policy to this discussion is WP:UNDUE, a subsection on our policy on neutral point of view. To quote:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Note that a reliable source is not needed to determine if a section of an article constitutes undue coverage (one would be needed in order to describe the event as a "tempest in a teapot" in-article, but not to decide if the event is an example of a tempest). This policy also should be balanced with editorial judgement. Does the paragraph in question contribute to an understanding of the subject? My opinion is no. Both WP:UNDUE and editorial judgement point to this content being excluded. It is just too minor of event to merit any mention in this article. VQuakr (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr, first appreciation for your time & expertise. I can see you have given this much thought & analysis but the effects on a GF editor described in WP:RV & the realization through processes such as this (thou to be fair Fat&Happy has been WP:CIVIL in all discussions) that Wikipedia is not the first, second, third or even seventh stop online to get a complete RS, NPOV description of a topic is disheartening in its obsolescence. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 06:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for the time and thought you devoted to your analysis, VQuakr. I'd also like to point out that perspectives can often be modified by the passage of time. What is undue weight a day after it occurred at the beginning of the campaign may well be seen as worthy of a brief, one-sentence mention (I have grave doubts it would ever deserve a separate section) as the introduction to a section on the campaign three months from now, when the election has taken place and other events of the campaign can either balance or accentuate this hiccup at its start. Assuming we remember at that time. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"when the election has taken place" was a chief concern on CENSOR (and the perceived knee-jerk "Drudge" "slow news" etc. accusations), when reading the article NPOV also starts a pattern. Fat&Happy's points are legit, I just see them as selective. NOTNEWS & now UNDUE could legitimately justify an almost total article deletion. Being 1 of 535 years ago with references to YouTube videos & yet to win a mayoral primary I'd think as equally important to editors espousing NOTNEWS. I don't share that deletion view on RS contributions to articles, I just hope those that do aren't selective in vision. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 20:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly boneheaded it may be, I personally see no reason for inclusion. †TE†Talk 21:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaflets in councilman race

I've removed the description of the leaflets which was inflammatory and inappropriate to the the neutral point of view that is required of Wikipedia articles. This is not the place to fight out political battles.Pkeets (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding his relationship to Jon Stewart...

They weren't roomates, but neighbors. In the link in personal life provided to cite his relationship with Stewart, Stewart says "And contrary to the New York Times reporting we were never roomates"

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_Weiner&oldid=566333416"