Talk:Anthony Weiner sexting scandals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Anthony Weiner photo scandal)
Jump to: navigation, search

weiner pic?[edit]

The underwear pic he tweeted should be shown here, it is key to the fabric of this article, and in the public domain. There are no copyright issues with it. Benefac (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems unlikely, if he took the photo himself, he would be the copyright holder. The camera used to take the photo is unclear; some people said that it was the BlackBerry Bold 9650 provided by his office, but this remains uncertain.[1] There are privacy issues and the image is easy to find in a Google search.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Two questions - Dan Wolfe & mention of full names[edit]

  1. The article does not clarify at the moment - how did Dan Wolfe receive Weiner's message to the 21-year old woman?
  2. The young ladies Weiner had contact with are not in public interest, so I deem it very problematic and dangerous to post their full names here. Are there objections to remove them and to replace the names by their initials? --KnightMove (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Objection. These are not "young ladies." See below. Pkeets (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The names of the women are in WP:BLPNAME territory and could be removed altogether; articles do not normally give initials, and the names are in the source material.

The tweet with the boxer shorts briefly went out live on Twitter, and it appears that Dan Wolfe (@patriotusa76) saw it and took a screenshot, which he then sent to Breitbart. It does not appear that the image was obtained through hacking, as it was freely available on yfrog for a brief period of time before being deleted.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The incident started on the evening of 27 May 2011 EDT, when Weiner posted the boxer shorts photograph, possibly thinking that it was a direct message (DM) to the woman concerned. In fact, it had appeared as a link on his Twitter public timeline and the image was available on yfrog. Dan Wolfe saw the image and appears to have been the only person to have grabbed it before it was deleted. Wolfe's tweets from this period are here. This is probably the earliest mention of the photo on the web.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Should the women be named?[edit]

I object to deleting the women's names. They were published in the media, and some of the women followed up with public appearances, photo shoots, books, etc. to take advantage of the publicity. Broussard outed herself. Cordova appeared on the cover of the Washington Post. This type activity voids the expectation of privacy. If you want to delete, it should be on a case by case basis after research of the women's behavior. Try a quick Google for photos. Cordova is the only one I see that is questionable, as she continued to refuse interviews. Pkeets (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the names because it does not lead to a significant loss of context in understanding the scandal. At the time, not all media sources gave the names of the women, although they were available, eg this BBC story and CNN story do not name the women. It was mostly the tabloid press that named the women, the cover mentioned above is from the New York Post, which is a tabloid, not a broadsheet. On balance, I think that WP:BLPNAME applies here. Anyone who reads the sourcing can find the names. Meagan Broussard is more suitable than Cordova to be named, as she spoke to the media [2], but Gennette Cordova was contacted by Weiner out of the blue simply because she had followed Weiner on Twitter. She regarded the incident as a nuisance and embarrassment, saying "I'm just collateral damage."[3]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll go with removing Cordova, but Broussard came forward herself, which indicates her interest in being named in the scandal. Pkeets (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
P.S. In case no one has noticed, Lisa Weiss, Ginger Lee and Traci Nobles are named further down in the article. Pkeets (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
All of the women currently named in the article had exchanged social media messages with Weiner and were happy to discuss this with the mainstream media. Gennette Cordova is the exception. She insists that she did nothing to encourage the sending of the boxer shorts photo and was annoyed by the publicity that it caused for her and her family.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed on C.--the name should be redacted here too. μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Mayoral Run[edit]

The subject recently announced a possible run for NYC mayor, which may create pressure to delete this page. Agricola44 (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC).

Further posturing for mayoral bid speculated by The Washington Post here. This article may move into the cross-hairs at some point. Agricola44 (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC).
Weiner has now announced run for mayor, according to USA Today and the LA Times. Agricola44 (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC).


Should this go to Anthony Weiner sexting scandals plural? μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sydney Leathers[edit]

Sydney Leathers appears a lot in conjunction with this story and a wiki page directs to this page but there is no mention of her. Any reason? ClarkF1 (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There was no mention of her by name but she was mentioned. (Someone else just added a sentence about her attempt to crash his primary night party that mentions her by name.) --anon. (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I just read the Guardian article cited for the part about the beginning of the second scandal and it doesn't mention her name, either. Her name must've come out later. --anon. (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There's a policy about not naming people whose only notability is in connection with someone else's acts. But she has been seeking and getting public attention, so some minimal relevant references to her would be justified. μηδείς (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Is the policy against naming such a person (in any Wikipedia article) or is it, more narrowly, against creating an article about such a person? --anon. (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Was your comment ("There's a policy about...") actually intended as a reply to ClarkF1? --anon. (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I was addressing the entire discussion above me, so indented below you. There are two policies, the one you mention, WP:CRIME about not making separate articles about people whose sole notability is in regard to a crime. The second is WP:BLPNAME which holds we should be careful naming private individuals whose only connection is peripheral to a single event. The latter was a concern with the Miami zombie article. Given Leathers has been seeking publicity, being photographed at venues where Weiner was speaking holding up signs advertising her website we don't need to avoid naming her at this point. I would simply name her as the party contacted by Weiner over last summer and add one sentence saying she crashed his concession party and has been promoting her website. There should certainly not be a section about her. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that she can be mentioned by name since she is trying to be as public as she can be. She might rise to the level of notability that'll require its own article. Not yet, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Willing or unwilling audience?[edit]

I looked here to find out whether the women were willing recipients. There are quite a few people who would take that into account when judging this incident. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

2015-2016 sexting incident[edit]

MUST UPDATE — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this refers to the media coverage here and elsewhere. It doesn't seem all that notable per WP:NOTNEWS. Weiner says that the exchange of text messages was "obviously a catfish" (ie he realized that he was being set up).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
There is also this coverage in the New York Post and elsewhere. This has problems with WP:BLPSOURCES at the moment and needs more mainstream coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
"Weiner says that the exchange of text messages was "obviously a catfish" (ie he realized that he was being set up)." -- umm, Weiner can say whatever he likes and be quoted herein but it doesn't negate anything. Quis separabit? 12:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah that doesn't make sense. He says he knows he was catfished, but still sent out a picture with his son in the frame? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
It's gotten more official with most of the rest of the mainstream media picking up and amplifying the story. It is definitely notable, and especially notable since he texted a picture of his erection next to his four year old son, making this entire situation even more distasteful than it previously had been. (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Given that his wife is leaving him, we should include this incident as an update on the original story. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"intended separation" according to the most recent sources I've seen; minor difference, of course, but I clarified that in the article until I can find a more definitive source. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like another sexting scandal has broken out involving Weiner sexting a 15 year old and mentioning "rape fantasies" according to the [New York Post]; with a follow-up article noting a comment by Governor Cuomo that Weiner could be facing time in prison if convicted. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anthony Weiner sexting scandals. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner sexting scandals[edit]

Re: Anthony Weiner sexting scandals and Hillary Clinton email controversy. Anthony Weiner is on the front page of every newspaper of record because of the Clinton email connection. You are being silly. Please stop. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If Weiner is on the front page of every paper, then it should be an easy matter to convey what they are saying about him in this article when you cite those articles. This sentence, which I removed and you restored, tells the reader absolutely nothing about the subject of this article: "On October 28, 2016, FBI Director James Comey advised Congressional leaders that emails which were believed to be found on the devices could contain material relevant to the Hillary Clinton email controversy.". I intend to remove it again unless you can indicate to me in reliable sources why this information belongs in this article instead of the Hillary Clinton email controversy article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
It's unquestionably related to the content of the article, and the connection is obvious unless you are intentionally being obtuse. Don't remove it. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I intend to remove it again unless you can indicate to me in reliable sources why this information belongs in this article instead of the Hillary Clinton email controversy article. Care to take a stab at that? What information does that sentence tell the reader about Anthony Weiner? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay; gave it a week. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)