Talk:Anthony Weiner/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Running poll coverage

The poll results don't belong in this article, they have nothing to do with actual objective developments regarding Weiner. They fit quite well in the sub-article, and we don't need to add every new trivial and tangential development to both. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have quite the opposite impression. They fit quite well in an article that discusses his congressional career. Trivial and tangential? Hardly. Quite the opposite.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Poll results tell us nothing about objective truth or what Weiner himself has actually done. They tell us about the opinions of a questionable sample of inexpert layman unable to do more than say yes or no to questions the actual nature of which we do not even know. If we want to put poll results on a BLP we need to say exactly who was asked exactly what. Not privy to such details, we have no business presenting such things on a BLP as if they were meaniongful, verifiable facts. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I barely know how to begin to respond to that, other than to say that this is not a trial -- you seem to believe that the criteria for evidence to be admitted at a trial is the criteria for notability for this wp article. The polls are verifiable RS reports that are clearly notable in the context of this article. That is the standard.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche you can’t cherry pick polls. If you want to include the Marist poll, then the WABC-TV and SurveyUSA poll here, which shows the opposite results, should be included for balance. Either way neither belongs in the lead – more appropriate under Sexting scandal Grahamboat (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO polls of any nature do not belong anywhere in this bio. Grahamboat (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add all polls -- the most important poll, however, if we only have one is clearly the poll of his constituents, since it is a poll as to whether he should step down from representing those constituents. This is (obviously, I would think) of great importance -- whether the people he represents think he should continue to represent them.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Police investigation of Weiner's tweets to a seventeen year old female

Link. Obviously sensitive issue so I figured I should raise here before including. Kelly ^hi! 23:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops, this discussion belongs at Talk:Anthony Weiner photo scandal. Kelly ^hi! 23:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It is non-notable here, because the text says Weiner's interactions with the Delaware girl "were neither explicit nor indecent" (the girl was 17). It is notable that Weiner sent explicit material to other women without knowing them or establishing their ages.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That is definitely not true. The text says: Weiner claims that the interactions "were neither explicit nor indecent". The police themselves have not made that same claim. And, in fact, the police are investigating it. And ... ummmm ... Weiner has been known to lie in a self-serving way in such matters ... no? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

At the moment, Weiner deserves the benefit of the doubt on this. More of a problem is the alleged leak of the ready.JPG photo by Opie and Anthony in this tweet. The yfrog image has since been removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does he "deserve the benefit of the doubt"? If anything, that violates NPOV. How do we determine who does and does not deserve the benefit of the doubt ... and when exactly such benefit starts and ends? It it's notable and it's reported in reliable sources, then it's "fair game". The "benefit of the doubt" is a slippery slope and is inapplicable here in Wikipedia. That said, I think that this info belongs in Weiner's scandal article, not necessarily in this article. And, by the way, he is a proven (and admitted) self-serving liar. That fact right there should dismiss any "give him the benefit of the doubt" claims. He made that bed for himself to lie in. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

Take it easy with the he made his bed statements - this is a BLP - nothing is being reported about this that is accusatory in any way about the subject - it is not illegal to talk to young people - we need to avoid the partisan titillation that such press reports as this are attempting to assert without any basis in fact. Off2riorob (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So, I see that you didn't respond to any of my questions. Also, no one is claiming that it's illegal to text an underage girl. The incident is notable and reliably sourced. It's notable in the (larger) context of the texting scandal. And, as I said, it belongs in the scandal article ... not necessarily here in his bio. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

The article could mention the Delaware allegations, but they seem to fail WP:UNDUE at the moment. Weiner gave what amounted to a full confession in his June 6 press conference, anything else would need reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it warrants mention. The police are investigating it... so that's sufficient to justify at least a passing reference (I wonder if Weiner's investigator's are investigating it?). Weiner is certainly careful about his phraseology (when he even bothers to tell the truth). He says the weren't "explicit" or "indecent," but doesn't say they were non-sexual or appropriate. I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this one. Enough of the truth has already come out that it has its own momentum. A lot more will be known in the next few days or weeks. John2510 (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Tabloid news sources would love to be able to add that one of the girls was underage. However, even the Daily Mail (which has been hyping this to the max) accepts that there is no evidence that the contact with the 17 year old girl was inappropriate.[1] The big problem remains the alleged Opie and Anthony photo.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agree at the moment w/Ianmacm, but we should keep an eye on it to see if it develops into something more noteworthy.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have concerns about the sentiment "Why does he 'deserve the benefit of the doubt?' if anything that violates NPOV".[2] Statements like that make it hard to assume good faith. Liberal Classic (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

When I said this, it meant that there is no need to hype this part of the story unless evidence emerges that the contact with the 17 year old girl from Delaware was inappropriate/illegal. This seems unlikely to be the case, so there is no need to include it in the article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies IanMacM, I was responding to Joseph above. Perhaps I should take this to Joesph's talk. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I'm also a little concerned about Joseph's statement that Weiner is a "proven self-serving liar" because I feel this borders on libel. In the context of this scandal he admitted to lying, but I think it is different say he is an unqualified liar. Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the thing to avoid here is "guilt by association". Because he sent lewd and salacious photos and text to some women, it does NOT logically follow that his communications with this teenager were inappropriate as well. He did say during his press conference that the *inappropriate* conversations were all with women who he believed to be adults. As reported, this young women did not claim to be older than she was, so there's an implied exclusion. --WriterIN (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Pelosi removed Weiner from working on any House committees" is not an accurate statement.

The last in the paragraph that leads the Wikipedia page for Anthony Weiner reads "Pelosi removed Weiner from working on any House committees." This sentence has no link to any news article and is not factually accurate. Rep. Pelosi has not stripped Rep. Weiner or any committee assignments yet. Rep. Cantor has made a call that Rep. Pelosi should consider stripping Rep. Weiner's committee assignments, but Rep. Weiner remains assigned to the committees he was originally assigned to at the beginning of the legislative session. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.166.102 (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi has relieved Anthony Weiner of his committee responsibilities for the duration of his leave.--WriterIN (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like she granted his request for a short leave of absence. But the indicated sentence sounds like something ... other. If she granted his leave, then that is fine to say, but we shouldn't make it sound as though she took away his ability to serve on committees.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Inordinate amount of information on photo scandal in introduction

The mention of this in the introduction should be reduced to a sentence or two. It really needs its own section. Perhaps something like:

On June 16, 2011, Anthony Weiner announed his resignation from Congress after admittedly sending sexually explicit photographs of himself to several women via social media, and enduring calls from top Democrats in the House, and President Obama, to resign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstrosser (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Huge time-line gap in "Sexting Scandal" section

I noticed under the sexting scandal section that there is a noticeable gap between the time that news of the sexting to a 21 year old college girl first broke on May 27th, and June 6th, when Weiner finally admitted he'd been lying and falsely accusing others. Between those dates, Weiner spent around 10 days screaming at reporters, calling them names like "This jackass here," and claiming he'd been hacked and letting others blame Breitbart, etc. And he continued, during that time, to send text messages to at least one of the women, giving her advice on what to say, etc. Weiner's behaviors during that time should be mentioned to give context, as well as the fact that he finally came forward on June 6th after the other women came forward with explicit photos and text messages. As it reads now, it makes it appear that Weiner was silent during this 10 day interval between May 27th and June 6th, and that he came forward of his own volition to admit what he'd done. That is not accurate and does not reflect what has been reported in reliable sources.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The controversy is believed to have begun at around 10.30 PM New York time on Friday 27 May 2011, when the underpants photo was posted on yfrog. It is notable that Weiner was initially adamant that his account had been hacked [3], which was denied by yfrog. This was the only occasion on which Weiner lied, and for the next ten days, he stonewalled and gave somewhat implausible answers to reporters' questions about why he could not say "with certitude" that the underpants photo was of him. This was classic non-denial denial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Ian, during his whirlwind round of press interviews on Weds, June 1, he lied to representatives of virtually every major news outlet (in his congressional office, which may have implications for the House Ethics Committee investigation), by repeatedly insisting that he did not send the original photo. Between Friday, June 3 and Monday, June 6, reports of a second online relationship and and more graphic photos continued to accumulate[Multiple references. On Friday, June 3, a representative of one of the NYC television stations went to his office to ask him about the new allegations and Weiner's office staff called the police on her. ref {cite news | publisher CBS New York | first No | last Byline | title "Weiner’s Office Calls Police After CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer Asks For An Interview" | url http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/06/02/weiner-says-hes-done-talking-about-twitter-photo-time-to-get-back-to-work/} /ref Under mounting pressure and verifiable evidence that he lied, Weiner held his press conference on June 6 [Multiple refereences]. The "Jackass" comment was made to a television producer on the steps of Congress, June 1. ref {cite news | publisher ABCNews.com | first John R. | last Parkinson | title "Weiner Snaps, Calls Reporter Jackass" | url http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/31/weiner-snaps-calls-reporter-jackass} /ref. I don't have any timeline information on his communications with Ginger Lee where he urged her not to say anything about the two of them, but it certainly occurred between May 27 and June 6. Malke's observation that this period is largely unreported is correct.--WriterIN (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have already said that due to reversion warring and the extraneous mentions of the scandal in multiple sections I would not be providing any more edits. While I'm pleased to see that the extraneous mentions have been removed (and I would never, ever, in a million years say "I told you so") I'm still not comfortable adding text to the article. Someone else might use the preceding paragraph and references as a starting point for a new NPOV entry.--WriterIN (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, the part about which he lied (saying something publicly that he knew full well to be untrue) was that he did not send the yfrog photo. He gave a series of media interviews in which he said this, but was vague and implausible about whether the person in boxer briefs was him. Weiner's initial strategy was to tough it out and hope that the media attention died down, but when the Breitbart photos emerged he had no choice but to admit to what had happened. The problem for this article is how much detail to include. The deletion debate for Anthony Weiner sexting scandal is ongoing, and that article can afford to go into more detail, but a long section in his BLP would be undue weight.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Ian. Within the context of THIS article, I agree.--WriterIN (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop showing us your weiner please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.207.245 (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Where the hell did the parking ticket story info go? I found it, and it's not good.

On June 7, 2011 at 7:26 AM User Abrazame removed two subsections from the article without gaining consensus. His notes in this discussion page on the deletions that one was duplicative (Treatment of staffers) and I partially agree, but disagree on NPOV.

He also removed the Parking Ticket subsection, with which I emphatically disagree. This was an issue affecting many Memebers of Congress, but Weiner was among, if not THE most egregious offenders. He handled it with class, actually paying for the tickets rather than claiming congressional priveledge, and made a notable statement at the time. This is a perfect example of NPOV, i.e., he did bad by not displaying proper ID on his vehicle, but he did good by paying up. This subhead belongs in the article. Before reverting, please discuss so we can have consensus. The original section read as follows:

===Parking tickets===

- On March 29, 2010, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported that Weiner had racked up $2,180 in parking tickets in Washington, D.C. between 2007 and 2010 and that all but one had yet to be paid before the release of the story. Some tickets included instances in which he appeared to have incurred multiple violations at the same time, such as failing to display current tags while parked in a taxi stand zone. A spokesman for his office stated that all the parking tickets had since, "been paid. He is pleased to have helped decrease the D.C. budget deficit." Weiner has criticized United Nations diplomats for failing to pay parking tickets in New York City, claiming foreign nations owed $18,000,000 to the city.

Additionally, there is a significant difference between the current edit on Treatment of Staffers and the edit Abrazame removed. This subsection needs to be integrated, old and new to provide NPOV. The current edit reads like a puff piece and the old one reads like a hatchet job. The new one reads as follows:

Weiner is known to be one of the most intense and demanding members of Congress. He often works long hours with his staff fact-checking documents, resulting in one of the highest staff turn-over rates of any member of Congress, including, at one point, three chiefs of staff in 18 months. Weiner admitted, "I push people pretty hard... I have nothing but love for people who endured it, even if they endured it for a short period of time."[18]

The old one reads as follows:

- ===Treatment of staffers===

- In July 2008, The New York Times printed a front page story on Weiner's demanding treatment of his staffers. The piece reported that Weiner frequently resorted to verbally abusing his staffers when he believed they had failed to perform their duties adequately, in addition to physically abusing his office furniture when upset. As a result of Weiner's demanding and intense nature, the Times reported that a "sizable number" of his staff members had resigned following "abbreviated stints." According to Congressional data at the time, Weiner had "presided over more turnover than any other member of the New York House delegation in the last six years." Additionally, at the time of the report, about half of Weiner’s staff had been his employee for less than a year and since early 2007, he had gone through three chiefs of staff.

I suggest that both edits be present, with the old edit directly preceding the new one.--WriterIN (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Please restore this information -- it should never have been removed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think its fine to reflect, if that is the consensus, but should probably be both tightened and combined into an existing or new section -- not noteworthy enough to have full sections on these ($400 in parking tickets a year? ... actually, I change my mind on that one ... I don't think its notable).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

But it was not the consensus, and SPA User:WriterIN (and User:PlotSpoiler, and others) have the idea of how Wikipedia works entirely backward. They also mischaracterize my edit. The detail about working his assistants hard was already in the article, in the Congressional section. Some pointy POV editor(s) had added a two-paragraph section with its own subhead, and moved it into a "Controversies" section. I didn't simply remove the two paragraphs, I added two details in one and a half sentences to the earlier mention, doubling it in size, from

Weiner is known to be one of the most intense and demanding members of Congress. He often works long hours with his staff fact-checking documents, resulting in one of the highest staff turn-over rates of any member of Congress"

to

Weiner is known to be one of the most intense and demanding members of Congress. He often works long hours with his staff fact-checking documents, resulting in one of the highest staff turn-over rates of any member of Congress, including, at one point, three chiefs of staff in eighteen months. Weiner admitted, "I push people pretty hard... I have nothing but love for people who endured it, even if they endured it for a short period of time."

Particularly ironic to me is that both the original material and the new section were sourced to the same single source. So if anybody wanted to know more about this, they could then as now just click on the link and read the whole bloody article.

And if they had, they'd find that all these recent editors' treatments of the issue are highly biased. "Frequently resorted to verbally abusing" is not an accurate reading of the source. "Resorted" is an odd choice, and no variant of the word "abuse" appears in the source, a two-page article, neither in relation to staffers nor furniture. WriterIN uses the phrase twice in a single sentence, not only inaccurate but inartful and a cherry-picking bias against the subject. The man is said to slam the phone down at the end of some frustrating calls, to bang the desk with his fist for emphasis, both fairly common to Type-A Italians from Brooklyn in highly contentious jobs; and to kicking a chair, which may be out of the ordinary for many of us, but no, is not appropriate to single out and isolate on top of what's already here in a bio of this size. Similarly the piece notes his voice is louder and more animated than most in general so slightly elevated for him is yelling to a more subdued type. In short, it's a mitigated and somewhat balanced source despite its perspective on this one somewhat critical aspect, yet none of the recent editors choose a single bit of the praise, humor, and other mitigatory context in the source. But it's almost silly to, considering how unnecessary it is to elaborate on the thing to begin with. This goes to one aspect of his personality on the job, and to his administrative style, so I made the editorial judgement that a greater degree of inclusion was appropriate as biographical color. The editors who added it to begin with thought its inclusion was appropriate in its own subheaded section in a "Controversies" section.

The traffic ticket thing was similar — not exactly praise in that one, but mitigation. I still remember the source, Fox News, hardly a pro-Weiner organization, who volunteered the fact that all members of Congress are exempt from tickets received in the course of their government service.

I gave edit summaries for my edits, and then I posted a numbered, point-by-point rundown of the editorial justifications. That section was there for 10 days without a single disagreement, during which time these editors visited these pages and made other edits but completely ignored my thread. Today, the day the thread is archived, they raise this. In the future, WriterIN, if an editor reverts your work, take a look at the talk page and its archive to see if they gave a good reason — or said anything — before starting your own section as if you're bringing it up for the first time, rather than making the effort to respond to sound editorial judgement. Looking forward to your response this time around, 10:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should do a little research before making inaccurate statements, Abrazame (talk). First of all, I did not provide *either* edit. I simply noted that they were missing and contradictory in tone, and properly belonged in the article in some merged NPOV form. As to making the edit then inviting discussion, I'll stand my ground here. That is NOT the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Only NEW text should be added without discussion. To delete or modify existing items without consensus is firing Round One of a 3RR, and I've already indicated I'll not play that partisan game. The only thing I'll agree with you on is that this should be a subsection under his congressional career section, but I reiterate, it belongs there, as well as the parking ticket issue. In fact, the parking ticket issue needs to be updated with the fact that he paid those tickets because his license plates were a) expired and b) belonged on another vehicle, not for his stated reason at the time.--WriterIN (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is my proposed edit. If you (generalized you) like it, please go ahead and post.

=Treatment of Staffers=

In July 2008, The New York Times printed a front page story on Weiner's demanding treatment of his staffers. The piece reported that Weiner was known for yelling at his staffers when he believed they had failed to perform their duties adequately and physically abusing his office furniture when upset. As a result of Weiner's demanding nature, the Times reported that a "sizable number" of his staff members had resigned following "abbreviated stints." According to Congressional data at the time, Weiner had "presided over more turnover than any other member of the New York House delegation in the last six years.". At the time of the report, about half of Weiner’s staff had been his employees for less than a year and since early 2007, he had gone through three chiefs of staff.. He often works long hours with his staff. Weiner admitted, "I push people pretty hard... I have nothing but love for people who endured it, even if they endured it for a short period of time."[Needs Ref]

=Parking Tickets and Vehicle Registration Issue=

On March 29, 2010, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported that Weiner had accumulated $2,180 in parking tickets in Washington, D.C. between 2007 and 2010 and that all but one had yet to be paid (before the release of the story). Some tickets included instances in which he appeared to have incurred multiple violations at the same time, such as failing to display current tags while parked in a taxi stand zone. A spokesman for his office stated that all the parking tickets had since "been paid. He is pleased to have helped decrease the D.C. budget deficit." While the parking tickets had been paid, on June 13, 2011 The New York Daily News reported that Rep. Weiner's license plates on his 20 year old Nissan Pathfinder had expired in 2006 and were not registered to that vehicle, but rather to another vehicle he owned at the time.

--WriterIN (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Since no-one else wants to provide the edit, I've broken my own rule and did it myself. There is a new sub-head within the U.S. Congressman heading entitled "Issues while in office". I have placed the "Treatment of staffers" edit above as well as the "Parking Tickets" edit. I also took it upon my self to move the "Sexting Scandal" into this newly created subhead area, where (to me at least), it makes greater contextual sense.--WriterIN (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"junk"-mail is not what he will resign for it is the licence plate scandal

"junk"-mail is not what he will resign for it is the licence plate scandal - a stolen licence plate and yet no where in the article do i see it mentioned?!--70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner Now Busted for Unregistered Car and Expired License Plate--70.162.171.210 (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

NY Daily News Has New Shocking Claim Against Rep. Weiner: His Car Isn’t Registered--70.162.171.210 (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I just removed this opinionated comment - it at least requires discussion - sourced to one of the most scandalous publications for a big city that I have ever come across. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"plate"-gate

"junk"-mail is not what he will resign for it is the licence plate scandal - a stolen licence plate.

• http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/anthony_weiner_17.php
• http://www.mediaite.com/print/ny-daily-news-has-new-shocking-claim-against-rep-weiner-his-car-isnt-registered

that the souce is from two tabloids = nothing since both his office AND the DMV are addressing the issue publically = therefore it is real!--70.162.171.210 (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is ever a real story worthy of encyclopedic repeating (a charge etc) we can add it then. Off2riorob (talk)

a charge is not required to get into wiki all that is required is that it is common knowledge which it is - everyone "knows" the sun will come up tomarrow - i dont need a charge to write it into wiki--70.162.171.210 (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

i will thou concede that it might need to be worded differently - but to remove it is obvious democratic party censorship --70.162.171.210 (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I was more considering policy and guidelines - the trivia of partisan politics is meaningless drivel to me. Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, this is significant and ties directtly into the since-removed parking ticket scandal(?)/story(?)/incident(?). It now appears he paid those tickets himself BECAUSE those plates were a) expired and b) belonged on another vehicle. Needs to be re-inserted and updated.--WriterIN (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC) I left the part about paying the tickets because of the tag issue out in the proposed edit above as too POV and needing reference.--WriterIN (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how something that is merely a summary offense would be, according to the anonymous entry on this talk page would result in a resignation. In most states, having an incorrect license tag on a vehicle is only a summary offense. The maximum that could be upgraded from it would be to a misdemeanor. Still not a high crime or infamous offense! Wzrd1 (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I just doubled checked sources. He had the highest amount of unpaid tickets by some margin, and racked them up using license plates that didn't even belong on the vehicle over a 6 year period. If this weren't overshadowed by the sexting scandal, it would certainly have been a subject for another House ethics inquiry and a minor scandal on its own. My own opinion, but fairly well-informed.--WriterIN (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviated scandal reference in lede after resignation

To whoever edited the lede to reduce the scandal reference to a single line: Bravo! Perfectly done. Concise, essential, NPOV. My metaphorical hat goes off to you.--WriterIN (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Ok, A couple of lines. But still excellent.--WriterIN (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Can we get a picture of the genitalia under the controversy section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnar123abc (talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There could be a straw poll on this but it seems unlikely. The image would need to meet WP:NFCC as it is non-free. It is easily available on Google, so there is no pressing need to add it. Also, adding the image could be seen as hyping up the controversy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The same should be said about the article headshot. We shouldn't be posing a poorly-lit off-color image of Weiner with a fake grimace when we have a perfectly nice foto of him. It reminds me of Time Magazine's treatment of O.J. Simpson. We don't need to make the man look ugly just because we think he may be guilty.μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This comment is in bad form and I wonder if you would consider self-reverting it. You're referring to a photo sourced to a government website that is apparently an official photo, and you are without any sincere editorial intent opining that you think he is grimacing, looks ugly, and that "we think he may be guilty". I think that's in exceptionally poor taste and would not be in violation were I to remove it myself as WP:FORUM. Comparing someone caught sexting outside of his marriage with someone convicted of double murder is another completely unnecessary and defamatory indulgence. We get that you don't like the congressman. A WP:BLP WP:TALK page is not for random insults about its subject. Abrazame (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Weiner's official portrait on Commons (Anthony Weiner, official portrait, 112th Congress.jpg) is not the best image. The current infobox image (anthonyweiner.jpg) is the one that should be used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

See how Ian is able to say that without mentioning Hitler or Jack the Ripper? For the record, I agree with your choice of photos. Abrazame (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to understand why anyone would prefer the official portrait. It is poorly lit and Weiner is grimacing. It would be used if it was the only free image available, but since anthonyweiner.jpg avoids these faults, it should be used in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. Using the new picture amounts to an attack, an attempt to make the man look bad. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There was, and is no attempt to deface his character by adding the new picture, I'll assure you that. AGF? Connormah (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Weiner and wiener jokes

A question about Congressman Weiner. The American slang "wiener," meaning a penis, comes from the sausage called a wiener, meaning a person or thing from Wien or Vienna, and it is spelt IE and pronounced VEENER. In German EI is pronounced "eye", so the Congressman's name Weiner (which is a fairly common German-Jewish name meaning a dealer in wine) should be pronounced WINE-ER, not WEENER. Why does he chose to pronounce it WEENER and leave himself open to silly penis jokes? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of violating "notaforum", your analysis of German pronunciation is accurate.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If this is correct, why do so many people with names like Goldstein insist on it being pronounced like Gold-steen ?Eregli bob (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

POV attacks on Breitbart; Edit warring; What the RSs say

I have to strongly object to this edit [4] changing the description of Andrew Breitbart from conservative commentator and internet mogul to "blogger". The man owns several websites, writes for the Washington Times, worked fro Drudge and helped establish the the Huffington Post. Calling him a blogger is an obvious attempt to belittle and discredit him. Please revert the edit. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that simply refering to him as "blogger" does not accurately describe him, however on the other side "Internet Mogul" seems a bit of a peacock term. Borrowing from the Andrew Breitbart article I would suggest: publisher and conservative commentator.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No immediate objections so I'll try adding that to the article.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a much better way of describing him. Let people determine relevant facts about him in other places. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• The RSs overwhelmingly refer to him as "Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbert", when reporting on him relative to this matter. See The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, ABC News, CBS, The Boston Herald, The Boston Globe, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Forbes, The Hill, The Daily Mail, The Toronto Star, Salon, WPIX ... etc. Whatever μηδείς's POV, that is not reason to stray from following the RSs -- that is how we stay away from POV editing on wp. Saying that the description used by Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes (among others) is meant to discredit him seems less than credible.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am seeing some that do include publisher.CNN, Fox. You are correct though, it does seem like most articles are using 'conservative blogger' as a stand alone description.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look, Cube. Yes -- before I inserted the phrase, I first looked at what the media used, to see if there was a consensus description (as you point out, we never see unanimous descriptions). Here we have an overwhelming consensus (if not unanimity), and it does not appear to be affected by the political bent of the publications.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that "blogger" doesn't really fully encompass what he does, if the vast majority of reliable sources use the term, we need to go with it, in my view. Kansan (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is absurd to say that we cannot explain he is a publisher and commentator because he also has a blog. Nothing requires us to use a vague shorthand term when accurate and well sourced specific and relevant descriptions are available. When it is necessary, those publications which may refer to him as a blogger do describe the fact that Brietbart is a published author, a conservative activist and commentator, and the owner of several financially successful websites. And those are the facts that are relevant here. Our readers need to know that this is an influential person with an agenda and the means to carry it out, not just someone with a free google blogspot account. No one contests the descriptions of him as a commentator, activist and internet publisher. No source argues he is not these things. Nor is there any lack of space for this material in this article. Removing the information serves no purpose, and no wikipedia rationale has been provided for this purposeful vagueness. This is a comprehensive encyclopedia Please provide one reason why our readers should not be told the profession and agenda of the man who revealed the scandal? μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We follow the RSs. That's how we avoid inserting our own POV. If you dislike the way that the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and Fox News (as well as other RSs, overwhelmingly) describe him in relation to this matter, that is more an issue for you to raise with them than here, perhaps.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC: What might be the mostest NPOV shorthand designation-of-profession for Andy Breitbart?

Both poles of the inherent "Either/Or" here would be less than optimum per wp:NPOV, in my opinion... although I should probably explain that the afore-mentioned Either applies to "WP's terming the um gentleman over-complimentarily," while the afore-menioned Or applies to "WP's damning Mr. Breitbart with overly faint praise." To explain: seemingly, either one of the following two randomly chosen designations would work just fine. In my opinion.

A) blogger

B) political expose author

--Nonetheless, choice (A), blogger, would slightly damn with faint praise whereas choice (B), political expose author, would slightly err too much on the side of overly complimentaryness. In my opinion. In any case, I've not come up with something off the top of my head that would achieve the perfect kind of balance, if that target is even possible to hit. Any suggestions? or do I worry too much about minutiae?

ps - This edit seems NOT particularly UNreasonable...and certainly not an obvious "vandalism." In my opinion.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• We've already discussed this here (where, at the end of the day, Medeis had zero support for his view ... and yet he still to this day is editing against consensus). And here. And here. And Medeis has been warned (as reflected in part there, in part on his talk page, and in part elsewhere) to stop edit warring and editing against consensus, but instead seems to think that simply keeping under 3 RRs per day allows him to continue making hte same edit warring changes, despite the existing reaction that he has received ... even Cube, who initially agreed with him, looked at the RSs and changed his mind. Still, even now, Medeis persists with this disruptive behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, Epeefleche, I've moved this section up to consolidate the thread...and I've also converted it to an RfC.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)d

It appears that the above section argues for well-sourced designations, yet you delete the description and source user Medeis provided. Was his edit not the kind of particular compromise you were looking for, Epeefleche? and, if so, why not? (Or am I missing something in my analysis here?)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This[5] Google News query demonstrates my sense that "conservative blogger" is appropriate. I cannot agree that this label represents a POV attack against Breitbart. I find it neutral, descriptive, and consice. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservative blogger is fine. The issue may be moot if Weiner resigns- see Weiner has not resigned yet. Grahamboat (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree w/Liberal Classic, Grahamboat, Cube Lurker, and Kansan. And the multitude of RSs that use this description -- it appears (after a duly diligent search) to be the RS description of choice. The consensus among editors is manifest. Yet Medeis keeps up his slow edit war against this consensus. And just left an innappropriate 3RR warning on my page for my respecting consensus here. This follows his having brought a baseless 3RR complaint against me, which was unanimously dismissed.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I added "journalist and" to "conservative blogger" after reading this discussion. The sense that I got from the conversation was that "conservative blogger" was felt by some to be a derogatory term (or at least semanticaly negative). It occured to me that what he does is, in fact, journalism, albeit at more of a Geraldo Rivera level than a Walter Kronkite level, but journalism nontheless. When I made the change it felt to me that I had successfully balanced mild negative semantic content with mild positive semantic content and improved accuracy. Someone reveeted it, which is fine, but niow you need to back up your reversion with a cogent argument for doing so.--WriterIN (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That is at odds with the consensus views, as expressed by Liberal Classic, Grahamboat, Cube Lurker, Kansan, and me above.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Does "conservative blogger" have negative connotations I am unaware of? In the context of the scandal, Breitbart's involvement was posting a leaked image to his political blog. Liberal Classic (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with leaving things where they are, but "blogger" has mild negative semantic content compared to "journalist", say. In this case what Brietbart did *was* journalism. He developed a source and wrote a story. The only real difference was that it was self-published, hence "blogger". Since many (if not most) blogs are more op-ed than news, it reduces the journalistic nature of what he did. I'm aware that in the past he has manipulated news for his own purposes, but this time he played it straight. The "conservative" part is also mildly problematic as it implies that he had an ulterior motive for publishing the story. If we turn the situation around 180 degrees, we would then assume that a "liberal blogger" would have an ulterior motive to bury the story (neither of which are true). Puts me in kind of a quandary. Yes, the guy is a self-aggrandizing tool, but like I said before, this time he actually acted like a journalist.

Great illustration of Peter and the Wolf Syndrome. He's spent so much time crying Wolf that when he actually landed a hot story, people's (both conservative and liberal) initial reaction were to disbelieve it as just another play for attention.--WriterIN (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Two points:

  - First, per basic guidelines about the use of editing rationales and discussions of content, the argument or rationale of "This version has consensus" is virtually meaningless and does absolutely nothing but uselessly move metaphorical soundwaves through the air. Any current version in mainspace on Wikipedia is due to current consensus. However, when RfC's are posted, they are designed to talk about the issues at hand, citing policies and principles, not continue on with discussing any editors conduct (which, for those new to Wikipedia, are not to be discussed on article talkpages in any case but at, eg, wp:ANI). Let's all agree, that different editors may honestly disagree about what is the most NPOV. This present case is difficult to ajudicate, I believe, but we can probably come to some kind of reasonable compromise if no side insists on their version completely holding the day (unless, of course, a vast majority of editors agree with that particular version by way of citing guidelines while not relying on personal preference, not making the discussion about editors' conduct, and not merely citing "This is censensus; arrrggghhh."

  - OK, with that throat-clearing: Not to cite wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but only as a possible help to think through these issues: note that (Mister B's comrade in arms) James O'Keefe's blp has this as the first sentence of its lede: "James E. O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is a conservative American activist who has produced videos of public figures that were shot undercover." And the last sentence of the lede reads, "He has been called a guerrilla documentarian, a gonzo journalist and a conservative provocateur." That is pretty long-wided but apparently was the best they could do over there. Here is the talkpage discussion there: here and here (etc.) Hope this helps--well, if anyone should wanna scan the gist of those threads, I suppose.....--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• OK, this excercise is probably just for myself, but I went ahead and looked up introctory descriptive phrase pertaining to Breitbart in whatever places I first surfed to for both conservative and (it's hoped) neutral sources. Here goes:

Conservative

1. National Review: Profile: "publisher, columnist, and blogger, Andrew Breitbart is the founder of Breitbart.com, Breitbart.tv, Big Government, Big Hollywood, Big Journalism, and Big Peace."
2. [Jul 14, 2008 Weekly Standard]: "Andrew Breitbart, author of "Hollywood Interrupted," Drudge Report contributor and founding magnate of the Breitbart-dot-empire"
3. June 17, 2011 WSJ newsblog: "conservative online publisher Andrew Breitbart"
4. Oct 16, 2009 WSJ print: "Although Mr. Breitbart practices a form of journalism, as an independent operator he moves freely across boundaries that would constrain a traditional newsman."
5. 3 Sep 2010 Dallas Morning News (like the WSJ, known to have a somewhat conservative editorial bent): "conservative website operator Andrew Breitbart"
6. Jan 6, 2010, (N.H.) Union Leader: "Andrew Breitbart, publisher of Breitbart.com and Breitbart.tv"
7. July29, 2010, Union Leader: Roger Simon: "...when a conservative 'journalist' by the name of Breitbart explicitly lies to the public in the service of his ideology"

Libertarian

1. Oct 7, 2009 Reason magazine "Andrew Breitbart (a friend of mine) is nobody's Pauline Kael, yet he produces bits of real-world journalism that eventually The New York Timeses of the world have to catch up to."

Neutral (or unknown political slant)

1. June 7, 2011 Columbia Journalism Review: "Perhaps I have been swayed in a conversation I recently had with Breitbart. He is a silver tongue extraordinaire and a savvy new media prophet. I spoke to him earlier this year for a magazine profile I am working on and we got to discussing the kind of reporting he does, why he does it, and why he is brazen about the ideology behind it. I did not challenge him on much—the subject of the interview was not Breitbart or his methods—but some of what he told me says much about his approach to news. "
2. 5.31.2011 Rawstory.com: "Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart"
3. June 8, 2011 TheWrap.com: "Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart"
4. Feb 3, 2010 Poyter.org: "conservative blogger"

Probably an iffy conclusion, since it was reached due to a fairly random search, but it looks like merely mentioning "blogger" seems to be the "default" way not-specifically conservative sources tend to reference Mr. Breitbart. Should Wikipedia improve on this? I'm unsure. "Blogger" has the benefit of being very short, after all. And on Wikipedia, the term is bluelinked, so a reader can easily find out his other bonefides. However, I'm more than open to be convinced in some other direction. (Self-disclosure: Although I try to edit WP as neutrally as possible, I happen myself to be to the left of Obama, politically. So, read what you want to into that.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Follow up - Due to Mr. Breitbart's current tome, The New York Times (not known to be a conservative newspaper) currently calls him "the conservative author and blogger." Since authorship is just as prestigious as journalism, I offer this short phrase as a compromise. See[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Weiner&diff=436533784&oldid=436468031 diff].--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sample quote from NYT piece: "If you agree with [Breitbart], you think what he does is citizen journalism. If you don’t, his work is little more than crowd-sourced political sabotage that freely distorts the facts."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The overwhelmingly most common construct from what I've seen (as is largely reflected above, this includes by conservative publications) is -- relative to this story -- to describe him as a conservative blogger. There is not consensus to vary from that construct in this discussion, from what I can see.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, be that as it may, I agree with the Wikipedia essay "Don't revert due to 'no consensus'."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Weiner has not resigned yet

Anthony Weiner has not resigned yet. A press conference is scheduled at Brooklyn after 1pm as per CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castor t (talk • contribs) 15:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The conference is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. EDT. News leaks indicate that Weiner intends to resign today. If that happens, I believe we should eliminate the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal page and have an abridged version of the details on the Main page.Grahamboat (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Politician steps down and is replaced by another politician... big issue indeed. It could be perhaps nominated for a comment in the In the news section Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming Weiner resigns, the news hype will fade. All the details of who said what need not be in the article. One sentence covering initial reports and denial, another covering admission, and another covering calls for resignation and the resignation itself would be sufficient. We need to write this article for the long-term. Look at the Chris lee article for guidelines. Grahamboat (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Washington will soon be Weiner-less.173.60.95.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

Now that it’s official, I stand by my comments above. Grahamboat (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting a bit before proposing a deletion of the other article. Past history suggests that you would have a better shot in a month or so, after the hubbub dies down and everybody moves onto the next scandal. That may or may not be consistent with Wikipedia "policies" and "guidelines" but it seems to be the way things work in practice. Neutron (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The Chris Lee article isn't a good reference point. He was caught and he fell on his sword within hours, that was it. Weiner didn't follow the same path. Too many datapoints in the storyline to condense it to that level. I do wonder whether the poll information is germane, though.--WriterIN (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not "officially" resigned

I think it is premature to use phrases like "former Representative" as Rep. Weiner has not officially resigned, i.e. his letter of resignation has not been received by the House. Until that happens he remains the duly elected Representative from New York's 9th congressional district. Sources: [6] [7] 70.191.203.30 (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this page, maintained by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, be regarded as definitive? When a Representative resigns, the House has to reset the 'whole number' of the House in order for the various vote thresholds to be accurate, and no such determination was made at the sitting on 16 June. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The resignation letter was issued today, June 20. His resignation is effective at midnight June 21. JTRH (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

First Paragraph, Grammar

"He was an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of New York City in the 2005 election, and had begun to amass a campaign fund to run again for mayor in 2013."

This sentence presupposes the reader is familiar with Mr Weiner's scandal. It would read better as:

"He was an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of New York City in the 2005 election, and had begun to amass a campaign fund to run again for mayor in 2013 when a scandal led to his resignation from the House of Representatives, ending his political career." Or some such thing as that.

or, It should not allude to his perceived political failure at all:

"He was an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of New York City in the 2005 election, and has begun amassing a campaign fund to run again for mayor in 2013." Or some such thing as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFordization (talk • contribs) 04:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The second being the less biased, as it does not presuppose (however likely) the results of future events.

Abbreviated Scandal Reference is a Whitewash

The new "summary" is deliberately slanted to make Weiner sound like a victim and to omit confirmed, negative information. First, the 46-year-old Weiner admitted to having direct online contact with an underaged girl without her parents' knowledge (and they were upset about it), during the course of which he used a vulgar word for excretion. Second, the claim that he was allegedly "stalked" by fake accounts is not supported by the cited article, and the claim is utterly irrelevant insofar as Weiner never contacted, or was contacted by, the allegedly fake individuals. It is also well-documented that the very same "fake" individuals provided public statements to exonerate Weiner, so the insinuation that the the accounts were operated by adversaries of Weiner's who were "stalking" him is utterly unsubstantiated.

I would further suggest that citing the New York Times for any proposition in this article be prohibited. In the early stages of the scandal they ran a puff piece defending Weiner and his completely fictitous claim of hacking. They are a verifiably unreliable and prejudiced source for this particular subject matter. NeutralityPersonified (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Earlier in the development of the scandal, I removed a number of problematic WP:RS such as HuffPo or Kos, particularly speculations about the EXIF tags of the images. Do you have specific suggestions to improve the article? Liberal Classic (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The contact with the 17 year old girl in Delaware is not mentioned because there is no indication that there was anything inappropriate in it. Had the underpants incident not occurred, it would have passed by unnoticed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There was some discussion of tweets to a 17 year old in Delaware here[8]. Liberal Classic (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-RS-covered material

We generally don't cover raw data that is not covered in turn by RSs. But someone has input just that, writing "According to the non-partisan GovTrack web site, between 1999 and 2011 Representative Weiner had been the primary sponsor of 191 bills, none of which have been enacted. During the same period he was a co-sponsor of 1,909 bills or Resolutions.[26]". That is akin to cherry-picking data for a baseball player such as "in year x pitcher y had a 3.33 ERA". We generally don't include that unless as RS has reported it in an article. This stat is particularly confusing, as without context we don't know how common or uncommon that record is ... did he sponsor more or fewer bills than most reps, and is that zero percentage rate as primary sponsor highly unusual? My suggestion is that we delete it, unless and until it is covered by an RS, rather than a site that simply spits out statistics.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done I agree with Epee and will remove the sentence. Using the raw data like this is also WP:OR. KeptSouth (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I misunderstood the nature of WP:RS in this context. as described by EpeeFleche, he's right, this doesn't belong in the story. His question is in interesting one. After a little research, I found that from 1974 forward, 65% of elected representatives had NO bills enacted during their tenure. Scary.--WriterIN (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Weiner monitored by conservative group

An article in the NY Times presented evidence that Weiner was monitored by a conservative group and that he received overtures from false accounts. WP:POV directs that information on events should be presented, and this is relevant to Weiner's actions and what went on during the months leading up to the scandal. The source is highly respected and reliable. However, there appears to be some disagreement about how to include it. I have reverted the revision that removed the passage below, but perhaps we need a discussion on where to include it and how to word it?

At the tail end of the scandal, evidence surfaced that a group of self-described conservatives had monitored Weiner's Twitter communications with women for at least three months and that two false identities of underage girls had been created in an attempt to get information to use against Weiner.[54] Pkeets (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Though some minor rephrasing might be in order, I agree completely with the restoration of this material, and agree that its removal as "unimportant" and the removal of the New York Times source was unsupported POV. Another reason for keeping the material here in his bio is there is still some mention in the media that Weiner had improper communications with young girls, and of course, unfounded accusations have a way of persisting and sometimes being accepted as truth. The self-described conservatives stalking his account posing as young girls, and declaring he had communications with them is a source of the false rumors, and a brief mention of these facts - as reported in the NYT - neither "whitewashes" his behavior nor does it imply he had these communications. In fact, it adds factual balance and insight and helps to explain biographical information about Weiner.-- KeptSouth (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is fascinating. The logical next question is whether there was a cover-up BEFORE the scandal broke on May 27, or was it simply coincidental that someone was trying to entrap him while he was doing a great job of entrapping himself? I hope to see other RS material that "fleshes out" (no pun intended) the story. The only comment I would make about the material already in the wiki is that it should probably be placed as the last para of the sexting scandal section, since at this time there is no concrete linkage to the remainder of the storyline.

Also, I think the poll information needs context, such as "Weiner continued to have the support of much of his constituency throughout the unfolding scandal." and then the actual poll results. Either that or pull the poll information entirely as TMI.--WriterIN (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

WriterIN: I don't see why there is a logical question about a cover-up before the scandal erupted. Do you have a RS that says Weiner was attempting a cover-up before Breitbart's posts? IMO, it is an interesting biographical fact that he persisted in his behavior, knowing that he was being monitored by political opponents. --Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

For all we know, the false accounts could have been the FBI trying to entrap everyone concerned. Posters at the side article have reported concerns that the wording can suggest it was the conservative group that created the false accounts. Does that answer your question? I thought it best to consider possible objections to the wording in this discussion. Pkeets (talk)

What I'm wondering is if there were already rumors or known facts about his real online relationships known to these persons, who then tried to create false persona to document his proclivities. I hate to say it as I've actually been a proponent of Brietbart having done the right thing this time, but that sort of maneuvering is similar to his previous escapades. I've been watching the RS's diligently, but there's been nothing whatsoever since the Times' initial article on July 17. And you're right about his continuing to participate. He's a poster child for Narcissistic Personality Disorder.--WriterIN (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that there is no evidence linking the conservative group to the false accounts at this time. Should the passage be reworded to clarify this? There is also a similar discussion taking place at the sub-article on the scandal here, if anyone would like to comment. Pkeets (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been reported on by a reliable source, the New York Times, and no conservative group is named here, so I do not understand your objection about no evidence. Can you clarify what you mean?

I've read the discussion on the WP scandal article, and I think an argument can be made that the fact that conservatives were monitoring his communications with females and trying to entrap him is ultimately not relevant to the scandal itself because he confessed to having inappropriate communications with actual women, and not the fake personna. However I think it's relevant as a biographical item for the reasons I discussed above. --Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There are objections at the side article that the wording of the passage suggests it's the conservative group that created the false accounts, so I thought we should address that before inserting a passage in this article. Does that answer your question? Pkeets (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised this even came up in the biographical article. I discuss this on the talk page in the sexting article Talk:Anthony Weiner sexting scandal#Material re "conservative group" patsw (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In what way is "monitoring" public communications of politicians or celebrities on Twitter and Facebook extraordinary, ominous, or encyclopedic? patsw (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It was the solicitation by false accounts, combined with the monitoring, that was interesting. Pkeets (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• I wrote this over a week ago on Talk:Anthony Weiner sexting scandal: "I'm waiting for someone to make the case that those 8 days of transient speculation in media accounts regarding hackers and entrapment between May 30 and June 6 is long-term relevant".
• There's monitoring and we agree this is not extraordinary, ominous, or encyclopedic with respect to Twitter and Facebook. Apparently, even Weiner himself was aware that the public communications of politicians and celebrities on Twitter and Facebook are observed by people who don't agree with the subject's politics. Weiner, like everyone else, is monitored by political supporters and by political opponents.
• And then there is hacking and entrapment which are not part of this story on July 5, 2011 as I write this, because the real Weiner posted real tweets to real women, at least one of which was intended to be a direct message and by Weiner's own error became a public message, which he admitted to. Weiner was not hacked. Weiner was not entrapped. patsw (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

However, there is a recorded attempt to entrap him with a false account. It may be just me, but that shifted my perceptions of the whole affair. It means I now distrust everything I read about it. I'd prefer to see all the facts listed in the article here so readers can draw their own conclusions. Pkeets (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What facts? People with false identities made claims about other people with false identities who they claim were trying to entrap Weiner - who actually wasn't entrapped by Twitter users with false identities. The reporting admits to its speculative nature and even on this level it is ludicrously unverifiable. As part of his admission of lying about hacking, Weiner never made a defense by entrapment. That's a fact. patsw (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I am proposing to strike the sentence linking "hacking" and "entrapment" with "monitoring" rather than rewording it. patsw (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this a POV rant? One of the fake underage accounts solicited a "prom date" with Weiner, which I understood from the Times article was a matter of record, reported by people who had real accounts. I don't see anything in the Wikipedia article about "hacking" or "entrapment." It only says that Weiner was monitored and that false accounts attempted to get information to use against him. Are you objecting to the use of the Times article as a source?

I personally think the sentence about the monitoring should be moved to the end of the section. Reading through the article, my question is where and how Breitbart got his photos. Is there any information available on this? Pkeets (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the photograph which brought the scandal to the attention of the public was a public tweet, it appears that several so-called "monitors" of public tweets were able to present the photograph to Breitbart. Some got their 15 minutes of fame in identifying themselves as archiving a copy of the public photo prior to Weiner's instruction to Twitter to delete it. Details like this were in the breakout sexting article Anthony Weiner sexting scandal, but the consensus there was to reduce the detail, the more detail you have the more contentious the editing becomes.

There were nine days of speculation that Weiner was hacked or entrapped because Weiner didn't tell the truth on May 28. People with false identities made comments about people with false identities which were picked up in media outlets we consider to be reliable sources in this hunt for the perpetrator. I am not disputing that the New York Times is a reliable source. I am disputing the inclusion of material from the June 17 article as already moot on June 17 as Weiner had already admitted to lying about a real Tweet the real Weiner sent to a real woman.

Inclusion of the June 17 article gives undue weight to speculation on the part of the Jennifer Preston, the Times reporter who reported people with false identities informed her that people with false identities were attempting, but failing, to entrap Weiner for defamation, extortion, or blackmail. It is speculation upon speculation. Other reliable sources comment that Preston herself was played here: what's going on here is a prank not a political conspiracy. False identities are routinely created for sending tweets with sexual innuendo to politicians and celebrities and when revealed embarrass them. patsw (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

These appear to be POV arguments. Discussion of the political and social background of the events do not become moot just because Weiner confessed. Wikipedia is here to inform, not to record confessions. Missing details: Breitbart presented photos that Weiner posted privately to the women, correct? Where did he get these? Pkeets (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The POV we are discussing here is Preston's or at least the the POV of the false identities who became her sources. The wider political and social background of interactions on Twitter and Facebook are properly covered in another Wikipedia article not Anthony Weiner's biography. It remains unclear who is behind the fake Twitter accounts, why anyone was trying to pretend to be a 16-year-old high school girl looking to have Wiener as her prom date, or why this fake identity contacted hashtag #bornfreecrew. Can we agree on any of those 3 points? patsw (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is all a bit much to pack into an article meant to be a bio. Perhaps we should cut almost all of the paragraph on the scandal out of this article and refer readers to the Sexting Scandal article? Pkeets (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading through the resignation section, I do think it needs to be cut down considerably. Most of this is excessive detail considering that there is a separate article for the scandal. If no one else is interested, I'd be willing to undertake a revision of both articles to move the details like the blow by blow description and the polls of his supporters to the other article. Pkeets (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still wondering whether the poll information is a) relevant or b) needs to be there in such detail. Seems that, if relevant, It could be reduced to a single sentence like "a number of polls conducted in the New York area showed a majority of ongoing support for Congressman Weiner." or something similar.--71.57.116.194 (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

• More or less, yes. And I think this would suggest that Anthony Weiner sexting scandal is not needed and can be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. If there's a problem with Anthony Weiner sexting scandal, improve that article. patsw (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Infobox image

• 
  Official portrait
• 
  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)

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)

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)

Oh, okay. If there's no usage issue, either one is fine with me. JTRH (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I like his AKA, Carlos Danger! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.52.99 (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am open to compromise on this but a wholesale deletion is unnecessary. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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 [9]. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

There is still no evidence that this little episode has any lasting or biographical importance. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.104.80 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Danny Kedem

Danny Kedem is a woman. Please change him to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.156.17 (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. I was confusing him with Barbara Morgan. Please ignore, nothing to see here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.156.17 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Personal Life

How was Bill Clinton able to officiate at the wedding? Is that legal?Robinrobin (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner was raised Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.48.71.163 (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Weiner attack

re: "show hypocrisy, please explain how is irrelevant before deleting"

"On June 13, 2011, the New York Daily News reported that one of Weiner's vehicles, though it had been issued valid plates, was displaying expired plates that had been issued to another one of his vehicles."

Wikipedia:LibelThis is a vague, unproven & uncharged claim made by a tabloid. License plate switching is a crime, & it can be done by anyone. Without a police report, it's unreliable. . Jgmoneill (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We've got multiple sources for this including roll call magazine and the new york post as well (Yachnin, Jennifer (March 29, 2011). "Members Collect Many Unpaid Tickets". Roll Call. Retrieved March 30, 2011. ^ New York Post (March 29, 2011). "Rep. Anthony Weiner Racks Up $2K in D.C. Parking Tickets". WNYW. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved March 30, 2011.) You can add "according to reports in Roll Call and the New York Post to the article if you like per WP:ATTRIBUTE or file a BLP complaint. But if you simply revert again you'll be facing WP:3RR charges. μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't remove the parking tickets information...parking tickets can be validated. However, repeating a claim made by a tabloid that implies that Weiner switched his plates and putting that in a Living Persons bio is contentious and certainly violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Two claims have been made - one concerns parking tickets. The issue of license plate swapping is unrelated conjecture that serves no purpose but attacking. see Wikipedia:Coatrack ---- Jgmoneill (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there any truth to the rumour that the Anthony Weiner controversy is the inspirational source of the new internet law, or “Weiner's Law”, that reads: "If it feels like a good idea at the time, it's probably a mistake."? I have not been able to confirm this to date. Captain Chipper (talk) 13.59, 14 Sept. 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 12:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Questions about a few facts and their placement

The following sentence: "A second scandal began on July 23, 2013, several months after Weiner returned to politics in the New York City mayoral race.[59] Explicit photos were allegedly sent under the alias 'Carlos Danger' to a 22-year-old woman with whom Weiner had contact as late as April 2013, more than a year after Weiner had left Congress.[59]" seems misplaced under the section headed Resignation from Congress. Shouldn't it go under the section referring to the New York mayoral election? I think maybe the New York Mayoral election section should include Weiner's admission that he sexted at least 3 other women since his New York Magazine and People spreads in July 2012 in which he implied that he was a changed man in the interest of being thorough. Also, perhaps a note about him punctuating his loss of the his New York Mayoral bid by flipping the bird to reporters would be an important bit of data. In fact, I think I'll fill in this last fact myself as my small contribution. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Is he Jewish or...?

The article mentions that he had an "interfaith ceremony" when he married his wife, but their respective faiths are not specified. He is listed under other Jewish people sections on Wikipedia but his own page doesn't seem to specify. Was it removed when he fell out of public grace (frequent occurrence for controversial people on wiki to have their religious or ethnic background purged) or was it never there? I'm pretty sure he is indeed Jewish & born to Jewish parents. In his wife's (Huma Abedin) article it is specified that she is a Muslim or affiliated with Muslims perhaps 10 times. In Anthony's article only a small footnote saying he is on a Jewish people list. I think it should be added to the biographical text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.161.160 (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

We need some reliable references to verify that, and there's not much online about it. An article on politicker.com notes that he presented himself as Jewish while campaigning,[10], and a few articles elsewhere online assert that he is, without substantiation.[11][12][13][14] I'd say better sources are needed before mentioning it in the article. Ruby Murray (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think our "default" position is to mention someone's religion in the text of their bio, regardless of whether it's sourced or not. In any event, the infbox in this article says his religion is Judaism. That's enough, or maybe it's more than enough. Neutron (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/25/rep-weiner-calls-youtube-al-awlakis-videos/ and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/world/05britain.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anthony Weiner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604062920/http://www.nypost.com:80/p/news/regional/item_T6Ik623jgPvLGqcQdgO7mL;jsessionid=609B843752FA84B44BEB70E2CCE58B79 to http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_T6Ik623jgPvLGqcQdgO7mL;jsessionid=609B843752FA84B44BEB70E2CCE58B79

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anthony Weiner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120730093647/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/ny_local/2004/12/17/2004-12-17_wal-mart__bad_neighbor___pla.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/ny_local/2004/12/17/2004-12-17_wal-mart__bad_neighbor___pla.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Sex addiction

This piece [15]claims weiner has a sex addiction. Does it have a place in this article? 92.13.134.77 (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

New York Post

Since when is the NYP not a reliable source? I must have missed the breaking news. I guess CNN and the New York Times, being inherently nonpartisan organs of the mainstream media, are still OK. Especially the NYT with its "oppositional" reporting of Trump (see [16], [17]). Quis separabit? 13:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's not reliable by itself, especially for a BLP. This has been discussed recently. However, this story has since been reported by reliable sources ([18][19][20][21]). The content should include more context on what happened instead of just "The New York Post reported..." ^Falling_Gravity 15:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@FallingGravity -- The New York Post is a reliable source, just for future reference. Your personal opinion is irrelevant. Quis separabit? 00:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: How does the New York Post meet WP:NEWSORG? If you can't provide proof then your opinion, like mine, is irrelevant. ^Falling_Gravity 01:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

How is it NOT a reliable source?? It was owned by News Corporation and now by News Corp. It receives its info from news wire services, such as the Associated Press, etc. It does not rely on questionable sources, self-published sources or User-generated content (except perhaps in its op-eds). When the Washington Post broke the story about Watergate with no other media backup, would that story not have been accepted on Wikipedia (had Wikipedia been around back then)? Why are leftist media sources (New York Times, The Washington Post, Huffington Post) OK but not the New York Post or The Washington Times?? Quis separabit? 02:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@FallingGravity -- All done? Why the radio silence? Quis separabit? 21:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've been busy researching. According to Slate "The New York Post has a terrible record for trustworthiness compared with the New York Times; in the U.K., a similar contrast could be made between the Daily Mail and the Telegraph." Some articles I've found documenting this trustworthiness record: [22][23][24]. I think it's laughable that you appear to compare the NY Post to the Washington Post. However, if the New York Post was the only news outlet that reported Watergate, then it probably wouldn't be accepted on Wikipedia without more coverage. In this case, the story has received coverage from reliable media sources, so I believe it should be included. Note that I'm not arguing that the NY Post ref should be removed, but that it should be backed up with other sources that are more trustworthy and more reliable. ^Falling_Gravity 00:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthony Weiner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613042216/http://www.salon.com:80/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/10/anthony_weiner_mailer/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/10/anthony_weiner_mailer/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2016

In the "Education..." section, it says that Anthony Weiner attended the State University of New York at Plattsburgh (he did) where he played on the hockey team (he DIDN'T) Please remove the hockey reference.

Dmesh (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC) dmesh

References

I removed the whole end of the sentence as none of it was sourced. I also found a story that has a correction where the info may have originally came from. -- GB fan 23:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2016

There is a typo at the end: Wiener should be Weiner (although both fit).

88.133.129.161 (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Thanks for finding that. It's fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2016

Add Alias: Carlos Danger 170.133.200.240 (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

possible criminal charges

I don't see anything about this in the article yet.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecutors-weigh-child-pornography-charges-against-anthony-weiner-1485894771

I can only read the first paragraph due to not being a subscriber. Are there any more accessible articles we could use as a reliable source?

Clearly this needs its own section but I am not sure what to title it or where to place it. Ideas? Ranze (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthony Weiner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090902074938/http://www.weiner.house.gov/about.aspx to http://weiner.house.gov/about.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)