Talk:Anthony Weiner/Archive 1

Weinerfacts
Although mention of this website MIGHT have merit, it is an anti-Weiner website with little editorial merit. I certainly think it should be the top link on the list of Weiner websites, and would think that a mean spirited website "comedic" website such as that one, that doesn't offer a chance for readers to leave comments to refute their diatribes, is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.245.8 (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That website would be more appropriately mentioned on Glenn Beck's article rather than Weiner's, since the website belongs to Glenn Beck. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, can we not have Glenn Beck's foaming at the mouth diatribes influencing every bit of politics? --Flagg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.151.50 (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought the same, I'm removing it. If its important enough to appear on glenn beck's wiki then those looking over it will add it. The goldline issue is barely on his page anyway. There is no need to have it on a member of congress's page. It's not news, it's punditry. If Weiner ever has a trivia section, then sure.--Tunafizzle (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

House of Representatives
The reference to ''His district is one of the most liberal districts in the country, although George W. Bush received 43% of the vote there in 2004, mainly because of the number of people in the district directly affected by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. [citation needed]'' needs to be sourced. If anything George Bush's activities and behavior pertaining to the September 11th World Trade Center implosion would alienate New Yorkers from supporting him. This is a controversial statement and requires a citation for that extent of assertion... Stevenmitchell 03:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to put on items like the rant on the house floor, you should also add the facts behind the rant and the truth that weiner fails to admit to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.32.16 (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do the owners of this site keep deleteing things legitimately posted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.28.16 (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The neighborhoods listed
Why is there an article for everyone of those neighborhoods listed? I am from New York and a number of those places are not known outside of New York. People outside of New York don't know about Gerritsen Beach. Is this some type of advertising? 96.250.83.177 (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The gentleman will sit
The gentleman is correct in sitting. 70.171.242.139 (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Weiner criticized Obama's ability to negotiate
I wrote:

''In December 2010, Weiner stated that Republicans got the better of Obama in the negotiations to reach agreement on the 2010 tax package, and that Republicans turned out to be "better poker players" than the president. ''

When a member of a president’s own party severely criticizes the president’s abilities (e.g.; ability to negotiate) I believe that statement should be part of the legislator’s biography.

Who objects or supports the above entry in Weiner’s article?--tuco_bad 13:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)


 * That would seem to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Politicians make statements every day.  There's is nothing about this particular one that is notable to his biography and nobody will even remember or care six months from now.  This is an encyclopedia, not a news blog. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Then according to your logic we should remove the following from Weiner's article:


 * In October 2010, Weiner urged YouTube to take down Anwar al-Awlaki's videos from its website, saying that by hosting al-Awlaki's messages, "We are facilitating the recruitment of homegrown terror."


 * Weiner has been a critic of Columbia University's professors who have made anti-Israeli remarks.


 * Weiner went on to claim that Human Rights Watch, the New York Times, and, in particular, Amnesty International are biased against Israel.--tuco_bad 23:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)
 * Arguing that X is good because Y exists is never helpful on Wikipedia (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). One way to look at the situation is that this article is not a suitable place to record every example of the subject's name appearing in the media. Included material must be significant, and should relate to improving an understanding of the subject. The material in question appears to be only incidentally related to the subject, and even then it has low significance. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I add to knowledge and do not undo material of others. If I did, and followed your logic, I would eliminate what Weiner said about Columbia University's professors, or about the New York Times, etc.--tuco_bad 04:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)
 * Please respond to the points raised. You seem to be repeating yourself and ignoring my advice re WP:OTHERSTUFF. That link is written specifically for people discussing whether an article should be deleted, but the procedure is a well established practice: if you want to add some text, you need to focus on why that text is useful (and why it complies with policies); mentioning other text is simply not relevant. Also, you have not addressed what I said about significance. Please see WP:SIGN to learn how to sign your messages (if you always use "Show preview" and look for your signature, you will remind yourself to append the four tildes). Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I use the tildes to sign my post - (example: tuco_bad 04:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC))
 * As far as the significance of Weiner's statement: Don't you think it's significant for a member of the president's own party to criticize the president's capability?  Almost unheard of.  Please think about this.  Thanks. --tuco_bad 17:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)
 * I have replied at your talk page re the signature problem. Re Weiner: The opinion of editors is not relevant here; what counts is whether reliable sources have noted a statement as significant. The article for a politician is not the place to record everything said or done that an editor finds significant, and the source you provided shows a very by the way report of the event. Also, you may be reading too much into the remark (it's more of an observation than a large criticism). Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you really think Weiner's remark is an observation, rather than a SEVERE criticism of Obama?  After all it takes a lot of guts for a member of a president's party to criticize the president.  Almost unheard of; I can think of that happening with Nixon, and once with Clinton.  Can you think of other similar criticism? --Cgersten (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Your two sources are: Source 1 is a very brief news mention of what Weiner said. Thousands of such mentions occur everyday. The only mention of Obama is that he will face certain pressures. That is not the basis for an encyclopedic entry in a biography. Source 2 does not mention Weiner. You cannot blend sources 1 plus 2 to assert that Weiner's statement was somehow significant (see WP:SYNTH). Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) nbcnewyork
 * 2) slate


 * How about? http://img.thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/134191-weiner-gop-played-better-poker-than-obama-on-taxes--Cgersten (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * or? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/DinkSinger/anthony-weiner-tax-cut-deal_n_798132_71084777.html --Cgersten (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mentioned
in the press that he is a Democrat. 217.253.6.155 (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in almost everyone of the news articles used as sources that I checked. GB fan (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia article. Our article clearly states his third party.  Wikipedia has no control over news media reports. --B (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

BigGovernment
"and first published by BigGovernment.com[citation needed], which is run by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart." Is this true? According to DailyKos (not a reliable source), some twitterer named "@patriotusa76" was the first to publish it. --B (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Citation needed"? "Is this true"?  There already was a citation for that; if a ref doesn't appear at the end of a sentence, anybody should presume the sentence is being referenced to the next reference that appears in the article and click on it and read it to determine whether that's so before slapping a tag or removing a statement.  In other words, one doesn't cite each of three sentences three times to the same ref, you write the three sentences and then place the ref once.  And the citation, CBS News, read, "It first was reported Saturday by BigGovernment.com, a website run by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart."  Abrazame (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, I removed the second paragraph out of concern of reliability. I appreciate that Jon Stewart is notable. The content in the second paragraph was backed up by the source. However, I am not sure that Stewart's show should be considered a reliable source in this incident. Firstly, Stewart is a friend to the Congressman and may have bias. Also, Stewart makes reference to claims by Daily Kos, which is not considered WP:RS. I would accept a mainstream news article that quotes a technical expert on the EXIF tag issue, for example. Therefore, the second paragraph lacks verifiability and reliability.  Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I question whether dailycaller.com and freedomlighthouse.net should be considered reliable sources. These sites seem to be pushing the notion that the not reporting this incident to the FBI is notable, leading towards the idea that Weiner has something to hide. Removed as not WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I change the reference to the NY Times. Pretty much every media outlet is noting that he's gone with a hired gun to "look into it," but isn't reporting it to any law enforcement... which would do an independent investigation and probably uncover the truth.  It's pretty much universally considered signficant - as indicating his interest in getting to the truth (or not). John2510 (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree. Mainstream news outlets are reporting that he is treating it as a "prank" and has not reported it to the FBI. That is as far as mainstream news sources go.  Using this as an indication of "his interesting in getting to the truth (or not)" is a notion being pushed by partisan blogs.  The NYT article you cited is considered a reliable source, but it does not support the idea you are presenting here.  Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm saying exactly what you're saying, and what the NYT is saying - that (however he may consider it) he has not reported it to the FBI. I made a point here about what I think that means, but I left it out of the article.  I would opine that the NYT and others consider it noteworthy for the reasons stated - but I haven't included that in the article.  Suffice to say, the media consider it noteworthy.  WP readers should be given the opportunity to draw their own conclusions, from the undisputed truth, as to what his actions may or may not mean.  John2510 (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This article specifically says that Weiner has no intention of having the Capitol police or the FBI investigate the incident. Drrll (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * True. It is enough to say that Weiner is treating it as a prank and has hired a security firm to investigate, instead of treating it as a crime and reporting the incident to the FBI. So far, this isn't a major issue, so we shouldn't give it undue weight. The presentation of this issue as being more important than it really is pushes a non-neutral point of view. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is natural for the reader of this article to wonder if Weiner has referred the matter to law enforcement. We should say that he has no intention of doing this--in a neutral manner--since sources on the incident mention this. Drrll (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, your wording is very leading. "Purported crime" and "alleged hacking" beg the question why isn't Weiner going to the FBI? What does he have to fear? It makes for a non-neutral point of view, and one that is not supported by the NYT and MSNBC articles used as citation. Liberal Classic (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd be okay with dropping "alleged" and would favor dropping "purported" (which wasn't my initial edit). Maybe substitute "possible" for "alleged" ?  John2510 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and made an edit that I think you'll find to be an improvement towards WP:NPOV. John2510 (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks John. Liberal Classic (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

CBS News legal analyst Jack Ford
Does this video justify this edit? The edit says "legal experts state Weiner is attempting to avoid prosecution". I looked at the video. One (not plural) legal expert Jack Ford is speculating on the implications of the photo. Ford does not state that Weiner, by not going to the FBI, is engaging in an attempt to avoid prosecution for lying to police or sending pornography. Ford speculates on why someone might not go immediately to the police (giving Barry Bonds and Martha Stewart as examples) and speculates on Congressional ethics investigations. The interviewer asks Ford "yes or no, laws that appear to have been broken?" to which Ford replies "doesn't look like there are any that would be prosecuted." So, I don't think this edit is supported by the underlying citation. It's very leading. Comments? Liberal Classic (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong feeling about it. I always prefer to let WP readers draw their own conclusions from the facts.  The "expert" is really just expressing an opinion and conclusion - without adding much.  Personally, I think Wiener doesn't want to report it for fear of what they'll find out when they track IP addresses, etc. - but that's just my opinion.  John2510 (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I try to write articles that have notable and verifiable information. I put it that way, because it is possible to confuse by giving facts undue weight, to mislead by misconstruing facts, or even to lie by omission from leaving facts out. I have a strong opinion about that edit, because it says basically the opposite of what the underlying source says. One expert said "nothing would be prosecuted" and it got turned into "experts state Weiner attempts to avoid prosecution". Liberal Classic (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Jon Stewart friendship
During all the editing of the Twitter controversy, the blurb about him being friends with Jon Stewart got wiped from the Personal Life section. If we note that he's friends with Ben Affleck, we should probably mention Jon Stewart too, right? Jon Stewart's article mentions that they are friends and that Weiner is the only recipient of any campaign money from him. Here's what there was before:
 * He has been friends with Jon Stewart since Weiner and some of Stewart's college friends rented a summer house in Dewey Beach, Delaware in the 1980s. Following Weiner's Twitter controversy, Stewart joked that he was conflicted about pursuing obvious jokes about the matter, given their relationship. 

Fnordware (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

He also dated Stewart's roommate at one point according to this interview. So while they were technically never roommates, they did live in close quarters for a period of time. Don't know if it needs to be in Weiner's article, but thought I'd mention it. Fnordware (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't object to that going back into the Personal Life section. I guess it is kind of relevant FNORD to current events. Liberal Classic (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Somebody watch that clip and tell me that this was a reasonable characterization of what went on in that clip. Famous people have famous friends, some who you wouldn't think, but I don't know that this is particularly relevant.  It's certainly not relevant because of the Twitter issue.  It seems absurd to cite a video featuring specific, technical exculpatory claims about the "controversy" in the next section but to prohibit that evidence and instead cite it simply to support the claim of friendship back in the day, but I have no problem noting the two are friends if that's the sort of thing that passes as biographical relevancy.  It's also irresponsible to have this frivolous aside about the Twitter incident here prior to actually addressing the incident.  Abrazame (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Your last sentence makes a good point. I am not sure how relevant it is that he is friends with Brad Pitt, either. They were already in the article, so I guess there was some consensus about his personal life. I've been paying more attention to the Twitter incident than other sections. Liberal Classic (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say one thing that makes the Stewart friendship noteworthy is that Weiner is a politician and Stewart is to some degree a political pundit. So it's more relevant than just random famous people hobnobbing together. They were also friends before either became famous, if that matters. I also think it adds to Weiner's notability. Heck, their relationship is mentioned a lot in the media, so I know I'm not the only one who finds it interesting. I think the Twitter incident should probably be higher up, since it is potentially relevant to his career. Fnordware (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am OK with references to Brad Pitt and Jon Stewart. These are non-controversial, IMO. I am really trying to be cautious about the whole Twitter thing.  If it grows into a scandal the size and scope of which threatens his candidacy, then it should figure more prominently in his biography. Until then, it is a newsy current-event footnote.  Liberal Classic (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any sources that say Weiner is friends with Brad Pitt. Fnordware (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ben Affleck, sorry. :) Liberal Classic (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Image
Does the image in question merit its fair use for the purpose of documenting its memehood as a historical event? --Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes.μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair use or not, it is not suitable for a BLP. Arzel (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Fleshing out the bio
Clearly there are some editors at work at this page who have decided to approach the situation high on the impression they must be getting from the feverishly tabloidesque fun the media is indulging in over the dick-in-a-boxer-brief shot. Aside from all of the mitigating factors suggesting from the very start that it may not even be a photo of the person in this BLP (and that if it is, it was likely misappropriated by someone with the intent to, erm, frame Weiner, and harass the woman in question), there is the question of all the material recently added with squirrely POV misconstruing, misrepresenting, or downright sensationalizing these things.


 * 1) First off, this is not definitively an aspect of Weiner's personal life. NPOV means we do not presume this is a photo of Weiner and as such we do not presume this, erm, arises from, reflects, nor affects, his personal life.  It wouldn't be of interest to Andrew Breitbart if Weiner weren't a Democratic congressman from New York, and the context of Weiner's responses are in his capacity as a public servant, not as a private citizen.  Even if it were to turn out that this is a photo of Weiner, but sent by someone else impersonating him, again, it is likely that was done in an effort to affect his political career, and not his private life.
 * 2) The part about Weiner's joke about the bicycle lanes completely miscasts them as Bloomberg's idea, and that he was sincerely making a campaign pledge or a personal attack at Bloomberg. The NYT piece clearly shows that he meant it as a joke, and that Bloomberg, with a different personality style than Weiner's, rolled his eyes and conceded Weiner's point, indicating that he blamed the transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan.  But that isn't a federal case either.
 * 3) Which brings us to the comments about his not requesting the aid of the FBI or the Capitol Police. He has also not conducted a séance or consulted an astrologer.  The fact that he has stated he views it as a prank (which is something of a synonym for mischief, thereby rendering that additional word and sentence redundant) is the detail that is relevant to the bio at this time, because by definition one does not call the FBI or the Capitol Police to report a prank.  If one believes one's yfrog and Twitter accounts were hacked, I should think one's first instinct is to contact an internet security firm to do what one can to secure his accounts and prevent others who by this story might come to learn how this was done from repeating it at his expense.  The FBI and Capitol Police do not provide this service.
 * 4) Okay, parking tickets? The Fox source for this section reads, "Members of Congress are exempt from tickets while on 'official business'."  Rather than claiming his exemption privilege, he paid the tickets.  Yet the biographical relevance someone chose to view that as is not making this point publicly, but a controversy, which is POV.
 * 5) Which is why Controversy sections are generally frowned upon at Wikipedia.
 * 6) "Treatment of staffers" was already in the article, up in the relevant section about his congressional work. It was added to the "Controversies" section, obviously to justify the heading.  I added a bit more detail from this section to that initial iteration in good faith.  This seems to be a personality trait that he exhibits in the field of his notability and as it was covered in a reliable source and commented on by him, it is an appropriate biographical detail, just not in such excessive coverage, and certainly not as a "controversy" in a "Controversies" section, which is, as is all of this, both WP:POV and WP:Undue weight.
 * 7) Yeah, so I don't suppose I need to address the sentence devoted to introducing the phrase "Weinergate", which was absurd even before you consider it was given its own paragraph.
 * 8) What else, there was some bit about alleged campaign violations. If the statements made about these violations are true, they might not even belong here, because it is not clear the violations were made by Weiner, but rather, by a group of Weiner supporters.  (Trying not to make the joke.)  If the statements are true, i.e. that they were found to be violations and fines were paid, this were not found in the primary sources given, which listed one of the complaints in a section subtitled, "Dismissed - Low Priority".  If someone can bring more clarity to this, by all means bring it up with a reliable source or two and we can discuss whether this has biographical relevancy here.

Editors at this biography who have been adding things like this — and/or who would do so in the future — need to read and understand Wikipedia policies. These guidelines could, if read with an editorially responsible mind and contemplated, save us all a lot of wasted time here. Abrazame (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:POV
 * WP:BLP
 * WP:Undue weight
 * WP:Recentism
 * WP:Not news


 * It is probably not necessary to involve the FBI or Capitol Police over this incident. Recently, South Tyneside council in England successfully took legal action against Twitter in a court in California, which forced Twitter to reveal the details of five user accounts. Weiner could take similar action against yfrog if he is adamant that the account was hacked. This has been discussed widely in the tech blogs, and the consensus is that many third party apps on Twitter have poor security. Had this incident occurred with a less famous person, the media coverage would have been minimal. The incident is notable for the amount of coverage that it has produced, and has gone well beyond being a blog/tabloid conspiracy.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Weinermania looks to be the only W- mania. (See List_of_manias)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Whitewashing valid information
Somehow some editors find it within Wikipedia policy to delete heaps of valid information.

The information on:
 * Weinergate
 * This is a simple fact at this point and people should know what the scandal is colloquially referred to.


 * Unpaid parking tickets
 * Well-sourced in reliable sources. A valid "controversy" to share and written in a NPOV manner.


 * Treatment of staffers
 * A front-page story in The New York Times in July 23, 2008. Weiner's demanding treatment of his staffers has been a point of interest and controversy, particular regarding his future political prospects.

must be reinserted. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss this, the person seems to have already added his rationales in the section above. I would suggest that you discuss it there, instead of creating a separate section for your arguments. Seleucus (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Weinergate
This should actually be added to the end of the "Twitter Controversy" section:

The incident was referred to as 'Weinergate' in common media and print outlets. Many comedians and talk show hosts have also made jokes on on the play of words between 'Weiner' (the congressman's last name) and 'weiner' (a euphemism for a man's penis). On May 31, 2011 Jon Stewart devoted 7 minutes of Comedy Central's 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' program to the controversy with jokes ranging from "distinguished 'member' of Congress" to the observation that in his recollection (see Friendship with Jon Stewart) there was "A lot more Anthony and a lot less Weiner".
 * Absolutely not. Wikipedia is not a news site, and this exceedingly minor scandal will not be given undue coverage. Glass  Cobra  03:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted a reference to that dumb term yesterday and I'll delete it again if I see it pop back up. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a balanced response, this is clear political bias. A dumb term it may be, but it has become integral to the unfolding story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.116.194 (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How is some dumb term "integral" to the story? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If you view the event as a controvery (which it is), the term is integral. The incomplete and unbalanced entry in the main story does not treat it as such and should be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.116.194 (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC) This discussion section should be left in place and unedited until the discussion in the "Twitter Scandal" section has reached consensus.--WriterIN (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The term is not integral, as it is hardly necessary for the completeness of the story. If this "incident" grows into a "scandal" then the consensus will support giving it more weight in the article. Until then term "weinergate" is no more than a humorous neologism. I also argue against the notability of the term, because as of the time of writing no one has yet thought to add it to the list of scandals with the -gate suffix. Now that I've said that, I'm sure someone's going to pop over there right away to add it. But you heard it here first. Liberal Classic (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The term "Weinergate" has been used widely, eg in this Los Angeles Times article. It is a bit of a cliché to dub "gate" on to any controversy, and should probably be avoided in the article. It is also a puzzle why GlassCobra persists in seeing this as "extremely minor" when it has picked up national and international coverage and has made people who had never heard of Weiner three days ago aware of his name.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 09:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weiner and water both start with a 'W' and have two syllables, making for a easy parody on 'watergate'. Add in the double entendre and you have comedy gold. Because of all that the term seems to be growing in popularity. Google returns half a million hits and over 3,000 news articles. Since it remains to be seen how serious this scandal is (if it is really a scandal at all) I don't believe the term belongs in his biographic article (yet). Right now it is a media circus with lots of speculation, but there are relatively few well-established facts. I argue based on WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOT that coverage of this incident should be especially conservative. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

We need a spinoff article, "Anthony Weiner Twitter/Facebook account hacking controversy", after the way the Climategate article was titled for a long time. After all, shouldn't the focus be on tracking down the hacker? Kauffner (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Kauffner, although the Rep's spokesman is said to have originally twittered, etc., an allegation of hacking, subsequently the MC ( "master of ceremonies" "member of US Congress") has described the incident NOT as any fed crime but more as an innocuous prank, implying they now view it shy of his office's previous speculation concerning any hacking.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Given how a large a story this has become, I imagine at this point it merits its own page, not only for how it will effect Weiner's career but also regarding the implications on politicians' use of social media. Thoughts? Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. It merits its own page.  Pages have certainly been created for lesser things here.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC))


 * Disagree, as despite the amount of media coverage, it seems to fail WP:GNG at the moment. The main issue that the article does not currently cover is the Twitter security angle. This incident has shown that many Twitter add-ons have questionable security, and could easily permit this type of incident. Yfrog denied that it had been hacked, but has since changed its system so that only the registered e-mail address can upload images (TwitGoo already does this). There is also some WP:RECENTISM here, maybe in a few weeks' time the issue will have blown over.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This section seems to be missing most of what has caused this to be a continued issue. Namely the fact that he got into a tiff with an NBC reporter, that he has refused to ask for an investigation to clear how the photo was sent and the possible hacking of his account, and that he is only following a small number of people, several who are young attractive woment.  Most of what I have read about this issue has talked about how this would probably not be an issue if not for these aspects, yet they are not being included.  Arzel (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So... I guess we're not mentioning that according to DC police and the FBI, Weiner -one week into the scandal - has yet to report the hacking of his (A US Congressman's) twitter, facebook and yfrog accounts and God knows what else. Amirite? 194.90.37.204 (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's getting interesting out there. Google has apparently censored news stories from appearing on news.google.com's home page. If you Google "Anthony Weiner" under News, some very interesting stories turn up, Including Luke Broadwater of the Baltimore Sun concluding that the congressman sent that tweet himself (after reviewing the facts AND talking to two separate experts on communications, including one expert on non-verbal communication): http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-03/entertainment/bal-communication-experts-agree-weiner-is-lying-20110602_1_anthony-weiner-tweet-twitter-account. Right now, I'm NOT advocating that this reference be put in the article, it's more of a breaking news thing, but I would suspect that this entry will need significant revision by the end of the week. By the way, I started this section (before creating a username) and it's becoming more apparent that the humor aspect will have to be addressed at some point. Steven Colbert spend most of Wednesday tweeting pictures of random items along with the statement "I cannot say with certitude that this is not part of my body": http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-02/entertainment/bal-stephen-colbert-owns-anthony-weiner-on-twitter-20110602_1_twitter-account-anthony-weiner-stephen-colbert (another Broadwater post. It should be noted that, gauging from previous articles, Broadwater leans to the left himself). And before someone points out that blogs aren't considered primary news sources, yes, I know, but I expect a major news outlet will echo the story before the week is out, which brings us back to my original point.--WriterIN (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, news blogs are acceptable sources (per the wp:NEWSBLOG section of wp:V)...nonetheless, "news" itself is a disqualifier unless such current information, within the full scheme of things of a person's life, should be considered important and not-run-of-the-mill enough to merit coverage within that person's a encyclopedia entry (per wp:NOTNEWS, wp:WEIGHT).--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And NOW this section needs to be rewritten AND removed from the Personal Life section into a section of its own. UPDATE: I made the change. I did not change any wording or references, simply moved them to where it made contextual sense.--WriterIN (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't add anything more to this section. Make any comments in "Twitter Photo Scandal", above. Let's consolidate.--WriterIN (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED
Ianmacm has twice reverted the correction of "groin" (the angle where the leg meets the trunk) to the accurate genitals. First he says, admitting he sees it, that "the organ is crlearly not erect" and then, when reference to their arousal is ommited he says "I would prefer crotch". This is obvious euphemism, counter to accuracy and to WP:NOTCENSORED policy. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The photo is of the entire area. A word more general than "genitals" seems appropriate, and is supported by the references. Please keep discussion here related to content; we don't need to focus on how many times other editors reverted. Sancho 20:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase "lewd photo" used in media coverage is vague. It is not that lewd (by the standards of Chatroulette anyway). The organ does not appear to be erect as stated in this edit. I would go with "crotch" in line with the media coverage, this is not a euphemism.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Since we're only seeing the OUTLINE of the penis and not the penis itself, a word that describes the general area (e.g., groin, crotch) would be more accurate. And, I'd like to add, if that's not an erect penis where Ianmacm is from, then I don't ever want to go there. John2510 (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do we need a tape measure:) Partial arousal, difficult to say through the pants.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW... It's clearly a self-taken photo, as some sources have noted. That becomes clearer if you flip the picture, which was clearly the original angle. Maybe that should be noted, to clarify that it doesn't appear to be a picture taken by a third party(?) John2510 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that it is probably self-taken. However, this and the flip would need a reliable source to avoid WP:OR.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The point, Sancho, is that Ianmacm first reverted on the excuse that the penis wasn't erect, then for another reason entirely. As for showing the entire area, it most certainly doesn't show the crotch or groin, it shows the penis and one leg. The fix is simple--assuming we are not just making excuses not to say genitalia--say a picture showing the outline of the genitalia--which it most certainly does. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. It is not easy to describe the photograph in a few words, and a link seems unlikely although it is easy enough to find on Google at the moment. Let's try and find a consensus wording, "genitalia" could imply that the testicles are clearly visible, which they are not.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Groin is sometimes used as a euphemism for the genitals. How about "pubic area"? Liberal Classic (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Things always sound more strange when euphemisms are used, thus I sincerely believe it incumbent an encyclopedia be as straightforward as possible, using whatever term is the most accepted within a culture for what is being discussed. If no accepted proper term for this is found, I nominate use (p.s., see my bold edit here) of the one most common in slang, namely, visible penis line--which, note, is akin the the slang term visible panty line.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Censorship is when an external authority decrees that certain things happen (so WP:NOTCENSORED is totally irrelevant to this discussion which concerns the best encyclopedic treatment of a topic). The issue should be to avoid the use of Wikipedia to amplify and make a permanent memorial to a minor glitch. If reliable secondary sources perform an analysis of the event and conclude that a "penis outline" had a significant (encyclopedic) effect, that term might be appropriate. However, to use it now (with sources that are simply repeating a titillating story) would have Wikipedia make a declaration that maximizes the event's impact. The term "crotch" is standard English for this kind of situation (just like we don't precisely describe what we are going to do when visiting a bathroom). Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You may be right, Johnuniq, and argue your case well.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No, WP:NOTCENSORED is policy, and has nothing to do with external censorship. Read it. It says: "However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."

Using inaccurate bowdlerised terms because self-censoring media won't say "you can see his wiener!" is not a Wikipedia rationale for avoiding an informative, accurate, relevant description. The image wasn't sent because you could see a pubic bone or where the leg joins the trunk. What is relevant is that you can see the outline of his penis. There. I said it. ''Pee. Niss.'' We can say "showing the outline of the genitalia" or "showing the outline of the genitalia" if penis makes us queasy. But "with a crotchal view" is just the silly sort of thing we would expect from the writers of The Simpsons, not a comprehensive encyclopedia. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We need to stay within what reliable sources have reported. Sancho 03:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Hodgson Burnett for the source, but primary sources are fine for their own description and you will note above that absolutely no one denies that the outline of a penis is visible. Ianmacm admits there is a penis, just not erect, and complains that while we see the cock, we do not see the balls. John2510 says we don not see the thing, only its "outline". Liberal classic suggests a euphemism (WP:NOTCENSORED!!!) for what he admits to be "genitals". Lewd has no meaning if there are no naughty bits. Johnuniq admits there is a penis but says we should not make a big thing out of it. It is described by all as "his" crotch, but could we say his without the penis?

What exactly is bulging I can’t say with certitude,” he told NBC News in response to a question about whether he’s the man whose member features prominently in an image sent to a 21-year-old college student.a photo of a man in bulging boxer briefs in bulging underwear? An ego?

Not one single person denies that we see the outlines of a member. The article, to be accurate and uncensored must reflect this. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Member" is an uncommon and vague word which none of the sources above use. Why not just say "penis"?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am quite happy with "penis". :)  Go ahead and make the edit. μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems most of the, erm, pieces, μηδείς Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden is linking to above in such excess, are not actually news items but Op/Eds and blogs. That is generally frowned upon at Wikipedia. Yes, in Op/Eds and blogs, snarky people looking to joke or to appeal to a certain demographic, or to overemphasize for effect use one kind of language. News stories and encyclopedias use another. Notcensored does not say we have to use the most graphic word possible, it says that if a graphic word is called for, then we should not censor that word.

As long as a dozen people are debating what to call it, actually take a look and note that while the angle and aspect call to mind a familiar scene, it is nevertheless not a photo of a penis but a photo of bulging underwear. To all who would cite WP:NOTCENSORED, I would remind you that if we were writing an article about a penis, we would not have an image of something bulging inside of underwear, we would have an image of a penis. Conversely, if we have an image that appears to be bulging underwear, we do not call it a penis.

I have a whole lot of other editorial irresponsibility to discuss, so I won't belabor this point by reminding people how often they have seen close-ups they perceived to be one thing which, when the camera panned out, was actually something entirely different, and that not only might this be as Weiner asserts, not something he Tweeted to anybody, but not only might this be the way the prankster decided to publicize a photo of his own bulge (if not swiped anonymously off the internet), but it could as easily be a dildo or other facsimile, or something else entirely. I don't say it is not what it appears to be, I just point out that when reliable sources are leaping to conclusions that it is clear are not verified, we might decide to use language that indicates the degree of certitude of the source. Abrazame (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that it might be a cucumber?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * La verdad, por favor, Abrazame. I linked to reuters and vanity fair quoting an nbc news piece, not the Rick Santorum blog.  Hardly mere opinion pieces.  Please don't smear me or the sources.  And if your point is to deny that the primary source depicts the visible outline of a penis then please simply say so.  The implication of POV by innuendo is hardley called for hereμηδείς (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologizes for mistaking Hodgson-Burnett's later post above yours for your post. I've apologized at your talk page as well.  Abrazame (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ianmacm, first, per wp:NEWSBLOG:"Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines are subject to the same standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions.[3] Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, attribute the writer (e.g. 'Jane Smith has suggested...')."That said, I remain neutral as to whether Wikipedia should go out of its way to use the words penis or vagina in the blps of living people unless pretty much required to do so by the topic being covered. Does this case require it? I'm not sure. However, one thing I noticed is that all the cute euphemisms actually lend the reporting a less professional or high-toned air, to my ear. (Which sound more inocuous? "Janet Jackson accidentally exposed her nipple" or "suffered a wardrobe malfunction that revealed a part of her chest area"? To me the former--with the straightforward use of nipple--sounds less "embarrasing" or whatever, but that may just be my own "ear.") I do find it interesting that Alex Altman Time and Tommy Christopher of Mediaite both used the selfsame expression of underwear-clad penis. To me this actually sounds better than bulging underwear because it sounds more clinical and less, well, "gossipy"--but again that's probably just me and I would certainly bow to any vocal minority that took great offense to this turn of phrase. (And it's true that the seemingly non-foreskin covered glans outlined in the pic might belong to a "penis" that is in reality a dildo. Which indeed would qualify as a type of "prank" shot. In any event--and I realize that few probably care what my inklings are but--I personally think it's of tight fabric-covered flesh and blood, fwiw.)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For anyone who really wants to see the image, the apparent 800 x 600px original is at . There is an analysis of the EXIF data here which confirms the theory that it is not a standard BlackBerry photo, but does not in itself prove who uploaded it.

Some people are suggesting that Anthony Weiner should apply for a court order, requesting that yfrog hand over the IP address from which the upload occurred. This is similar to what Wikipedia would do in a sockpuppet investigation. However, since Weiner seems keen to drop the matter as quickly as possible, this looks unlikely to happen.

Also, the Vanity Fair cite has a good video of Weiner from the Wall Street Journal, and the text is uncontroversial. If someone could find the original WSJ article with this video, it could be used.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * it's here, ianmacm.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit unclear about a couple of those sources, but the Op/Eds and blogs Hodgson-Burnett Secret Garden is linking to are the following eight out of twelve. 1.) The Baltimore Sun; 2.) The New York Daily News; 6.) The Washington Post; 7.) Time; 8.) Mediaite; 10.) Conde Naste/The New Yorker; 11.) The Wall Street Journal; 12.) The U.S. News & World Report.


 * The Wall Street Journal, in an example of a situation in which even when the medium is not censored, the editorial judgement acknowledges they have a different standard, introduced the subject as "the controversy over a lewd photo of a man’s crotch sent from his Twitter account" even as the point of the piece was its coverage of Jon Stewart's comedy routine at a local function. And that is the whole point in a nutshell, if you will.  As an encyclopedia, we are The Wall Street Journal, covering the biography of Anthony Weiner, not Jon Stewart doing a comedy routine on a dais somewhere.  To Stewart's point, Weiner has stated (in a source we had at one point) that the image was not familiar to him.  Abrazame (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Abrazame, it actually was I who listed those too-many-of-sources--yet I didn't actually select them to advocate for any particular way of expressing the borderline indecent exposure alleged. (Do note, in any case, that wp:NEWSBLOG says that this type of blog with professinal editorial oversight is indeed perfectly legit per wp:R.)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * YOU DICK! (Just kidding, I see from your cucumber comment that you are a good-natured person with a sense of humor.)  Please do note that what we are doing in this particular thread is trying to establish the difference between an encyclopedic term and a colloquial term.  In that respect, Op/Eds, blogs and comedy routines are entirely unhelpful.  But I thank you for pointing out to me my mistake.  And now to eat my, uh, hat.  Abrazame (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To bring this back to what we should call what this is, and to Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden's joke about the cucumber, I do think the joke could be on all of us, and this could turn out not only not to be something the congressman Tweeted, but not him, and maybe (if not the obvious possibility of whatever guy who allegedly hacked Weiner's account in the first place who's having a double laugh, on smearing Weiner with, uh, another guy's penis) not even any body. Which is why we need to follow the example of the more responsible journalism — or even (gasp!) exhibit a higher standard as an encyclopedia — and use language that makes it clear that we are describing what something appears to be, because nobody actually has come forth with first-hand knowledge about what or who it is.  It was certainly intended to be perceived as a lewd photo by whomever the Twitterer was who sent it to the girl, by the Twitterer who sent it to Andrew Breitbart, and by Breitbart himself—as well as all the other media that have used this alleged prank to for the first time ever present a close-up photo of what appears to be the bulging front of a man's underwear.  It may not be that, but it is undeniably a lewd photo insofar as it appears to be that and was used in that manner.  Abrazame (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Re this edit: WP:NOTCENSORED is not an issue here. Please visit Chatroulette to see uncensored male organs in all their glory. Men have been known to put objects into their underpants to impress the ladies, and this cannot be ruled out in the yfrog photo.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The bizarre claim was recently made that information published by a verifiable reliable source was OR, while the theory that the twitter picture might be actually be of a cucumber was made although not one source anywhere says any such thing. What remains is that it was a picture of an erect penis which has aroused all this interest, and we have not one single source arguing that this is not what was seen.

We have

A breakdown of all the lulz and tears trending online this week BY:CBSNews.com staff] "an image of a man in boxer briefs showcasing an obvious erection." A few holes in skeevy skivvy story, June 5, 2011] "Asked that first day if the photo -- of a man's erect penis inside gray briefs -- was of the congressman, his spokesman, David Arnold, said no." 6/2/11] "a photo of his erect penis, concealed by briefs" By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette] "a photo of an erection barely covered by a man's underwear."
 * CBS News [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20068717-10391715.html LulzSec, #weinergate and #ghettospellingbee: Cheezburger's top memes of the week
 * The New York Post [http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/few_holes_in_skeevy_skivvy_story_nUf66IOYmqgN5SCW3Ck23N#ixzz1ORNdvnit
 * New Yorker Magazine [http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/06/anthony_weiners_big_ego.html Anthony Weiner’s Big Ego
 * The Pittsburg Post-Gazette [http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11156/1151175-373-0.stm Weiner's troubling tweetJune 05, 2011

and not one single source arguing otherwise. The is a comprehensive uncensored encyclopedia. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in a separate section. It's an argument that belongs in WP:NOTCENSORED.--WriterIN (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What I was getting at is that it could be a cucumber or dildo and nobody would be any the wiser. Abrazame also made this point, the sourcing is not the issue here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Update - per the intrepid Mr. Breitbart, the identical image (tagged "package.JPG") was sent an additional woman from Weiner's account, followed by another image ("ready.JPG") Breitbart claims "leaves nothing to the imagination."--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If true, Weiner could be spending more time on the golf course. An undoubted challenge for WP:BLP if ready.JPG is published.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

New Republic - WP:RS or not?
The New Republic has posted an analysis by forensic photoanalyst Hany Farid regarding the twitter photograph controversy. I added this to the article earlier, but it was removed by an editor who felt that TNR might not count as a reliable source. I thought that this was a topic that should be discussed in the talk page. To attempt to sum up the points, the New Republic is a relatively mainstream magazine (if small), and it strikes me as extremely unlikely that they would lie about contacting an expert, when that statement could be easily checked. The expert in question seems quite reputable (including having his own Wiki page.) On the other hand, TNR tends to lean liberal (though they were very pro-war and pro-Israel.) They've also had a fair number of of plagiarism/factual inaccuracy/etc. issues. I think this is unlikely to be one of those, given how easily the claim would be verified.

Thoughts? It would be nice if more news groups were actually doing analyses on this (or quoting them); instead, it seems to be mostly a 'he says, she says' affair at the moment. Seleucus (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, that was me. I did have a concern about the reliability of the New Republic, since it is kind of a partisan magazine. Farid does seem to be a technical expert, and there's a Reuters link up there now. This whole incident IMO is still a lot of 'he said she said" conjecture. I am still a little cautious about giving this incident undue weight, especially in light of the John Edwards campaign finance scandal going on. Liberal Classic (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I added the Reuters link too (TNR was more in-depth.) Not sure what this has to do with the Edwards thing, but I'm kind of personally skeptical about it. Seleucus (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just was editorializing. Edwards' affair and indictment is pretty big news. My sense is the twitter incident isn't big news (yet) and I don't think any one really knows if 'weinergate' is going to grow legs. Liberal Classic (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that Weiner has admitted to online relationships, this is now a scandal of greater weight that may impact his political career. I just wanted to say that because I was cautious before about posting speculative statements. Liberal Classic (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Section heads
I am neutral as to whether the section should stand on its own or lie under the Personal Life section. But we should have brief NPOV heads that don't need scare quotes or make lengthy editorial comments. "Weinergate" should be "Twitter Scandal" and "admission"doesn't need to go into selected specifics. μηδείς (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Weiner did not use the word confession which implies crime or sin. I am going to treat such edits pushing POV's as vandalism.-- unsigned


 * Collins: con-fes-sion
 * 1. acknowledgment; avowal; admission: a confession of incompetence.
 * 2. acknowledgment or disclosure of sin or sinfulness, especially to a priest to obtain absolution.
 * --Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is very simple. One admits the truth, one confesses a fault.  One does not confess the truth.  Admission is the more neutral and fully accurate term, given he denied that he abused his office and said that he still has his wife's support.  Sense number two shows that confess is not a neutral term. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am confused. Did he not confess to lying? Am I being too judgmental in saying that lying is, in fact, bad? (especially when by lying, you implicate others in illegal activities) 194.90.37.204 (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you deny he admits to lying? This is about WP policy.  Admit is a more neutral term than confess.  Is that confusing?  And just try looking at google.  "Weiner admits" gets 45,200 hits while Weiner confesses gets 418.  More than 100 to 1. μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Did he "admit fault" or "confess sins"? I think it is appropriate to report that he has owned up to online affairs and lying to his constituency. It may be common sense that having affairs and lying about it is bad. However, passing judgment is something a biographic article in an encyclopedia doesn't do. Liberal Classic (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (To 194.90.37.204) If you are being judgemental 'at all' when considering wording of Wikipedia content, then you are being too judgemental. I support 'admits', since that is definitely true. We can let the action speak for itself. Sancho 23:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See CLAIM. "Said" is always safe.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sancho 02:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that Weiner has come clean, how relevant is the information from Breitbart to Weiner's biography? I am not trying to remove notable and verifiable information, just asking for consensus here. Did Weiner come clean as a result of further pics published by Breitbart? I don't see anything in the articles that would directly support a causal connection. Liberal Classic (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We'll have plenty more sources tomorrow saying how Breitbart forced his hand with the shirtless pics and others. That should be mentioned, but no more than it already is. μηδείς (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Weinergate as a separate page
I will reiterate: I believe that Weinergate merits a separate article. Other far lesser controversies and lesser significant topics have generated articles. Thoughts? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Few men have weiners notable enough to get their own Wikipedia page. It is a rare honor.--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not now. Maybe never.  But at this point the section is so small that it doesn't make sense.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The story isn't even close to over and the House Ethics Committee investigation particularly will add information to the article. In the meanwhile, I'm sure that other members of Congress or the Executive branch will weigh in on the subject, and those statements may be worthy of inclusion. I personally don't think it should be a separate page until the Fat Lady sings the fnal aria--WriterIN (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC).
 * This should clearly have its own page already... fulfills all criteria. Somebody simply has to start it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should this have its own page? It's a one or two paragraph entry at most. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's much more to it than that my friend.
 * 1)How the case unfolded over several days (the story breaking, the lies, the recriminations, etc). This could be multiple paragraphs in and of itself.
 * 2)The role of social media and new media in the scandal.
 * 3)How the incident has effected Weiner's future political aspirations.
 * There are so many facets, this could easily be a very lengthy piece. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please get lives. And on a related note, how does the photo in question merit the description currently on the page of 'sexually explicit'?68.144.172.8 (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, anyone who thinks the underpants photo is "sexually explicit" has led a sheltered life.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I, too, found that phrase misleading.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have started the page: Weinergate. Please feel free to expland it.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC))
 * I think I might nominate it for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do. There was clearly no consensus for it -- very poor form, as this is being discussed and consensus did not support it.  TROUT in order as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I put it up for WP:PROD. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion under A10 seems more appropriate, so I nom'd it for that -- but left it for you to remove your PROD in light of that, if you see fit. A classic A10, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, you're right. I think I went to bed before I saw your reply, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to shield the congressman when I ask if there is really "that much more" to the story than what is already in his biography. In my opinion, how the story broke, the lies, and the recriminations is punditry. It's MOS:OPED. Don't get me wrong: I like punditry and I like editorializing, but the purpose of the encyclopedia is somewhat different. Writing about the role of social media in the scandal is WP:OR, and how the scandal will affect Weiner's career is WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore, this new article doesn't even contain this much. It's just a copy of what we have in his bio. I fear the new article exists to be a POV fork and WP:COATRACK. Liberal Classic (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, at some point in the future this will rate its own page, BUT NOT YET. The unilateraly created Twitter Scandal page currently merely repeats information present in the main article. As PlotSpoiler above pointed out, there's a lot more that COULD be on an independent page, but it's NOT THERE NOW. Until such time as that content is available and properly sourced, the page should be deleted. I agree, it's bad form. We have a responsibility to distill and extract the essence of the situation in an NPOV way. In fact, I question some of the details that are currently on THIS page. It was stated that he had six 'relationships' over three years. Is the detail behind each of those relationships truly neccessary, or is it just piling on?--WriterIN (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The remedy is not to delete the article ... but, rather, to improve it.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC))


 * How do you improve that article without doing original research or looking into a crystal ball? The analysis has to be done elsewhere by primary sources and documented by secondary sources.  That hasn't happened yet. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all ... are you saying that there are no primary and secondary sources on Weinergate? I did a Google on Weinergate, and I got ... quote ... "About 1,810,000 results".  Second of all ... if what you say is true, and if your position has any merit to it ... then the entire section should be deleted from this article, as well.  You can't have it both ways.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC))


 * With all due respect, Weiner just made his admission today. How have any primary sources treated subject of Weiner's scandal in a scholarly fashion, and how have any secondary sources reported on it? There are a lot of duplicates in a raw Google search. I tend to use Google news.  John Edwards was just indicted by a federal grand jury.  His name yields about 9,000 hits in Google news..  Anthony Weiner's name yields about 6,000 hits in Google news.  The term "Weinergate" yields about 600 hits in Google news.  I don't have any objection to the term Weinergate being in his biography in Wikipedia. But it really doesn't rate its own article just yet.  There hasn't been time to see how it will affect his career, whether it will affect how political leaders use the internet and social media.  All the things people are clamoring for is in the context of Wikipedia, either original research or looking into a crystal ball.  I also think the article would be use by editors pushing a certain point of view, whether this is people giving undue weight to his critics or trying to downplay the scandal. It's just too soon to see how it all plays out.  Wikipedia isn't a current events newswire. There are plenty of places to go for up to the minute news, punditry, and editorializing, but Wikipedia isn't it.  Have some patience.  Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete is such an ugly word. Let's use 'defer' instead. Joseph, AT THIS TIME having a separate page serves no useful purpose. In future, with additional information, it will. Right now, our efforts should be, and are, keeping the Twitter Controversy section accurate, succinct and NPOV. Also, as is clearly shown in the discussion, the consensus to start that page now isn't there. I haven't read any disagreement with my statement about holding off other than Plot Spoiler, and even he says that additional information should be present. Hold on, my friend, the page will be come a permanent part of the Wiki record, but let's take our time and do it right.--WriterIN (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I hear your points. However, consensus at that page (Weinergate) differs from consensus at this page.  Why?  Because most Wikipedia readers will type in "Weinergate" ... not "Anthony Weiner (subheading Twitter photo scandal)" ... when looking for that information.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC))

Question
The following page was put up for speedy deletion: Anthony Weiner photo scandal. That page also had a Talk Page (Talk:Anthony Weiner photo scandal), on which editors could object to or support the speedy deletion. When I last read that Talk Page a few moments ago, there were about a dozen people who opposed the speedy deletion ... and perhaps only one person who did not oppose it. Then, an editor named User:Jonny-mt deleted the article. And now, that Talk Page -- and all of its discussion -- is nowhere to be found. Where can I find that Talk Page that was deleted? And, how can he (User:Jonny-mt) delete the page when the opponents to deletion outnumbered the supporters by 12 to 1? What would be the point of having the discussion then, if User:Jonny-mt can ignore and unilaterally override it? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC))

Hi Joseph. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Those who opposed deletion didn't justify their opposition using established guidelines. Read WP:CSD and scroll down to section A10. The section says this:


 * A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic.
 * A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material. It also does not include disambiguation pages. (When the new title is a reasonable term for the subject, converting the new article to a redirect may be preferable to deletion.)

The content of the "Weinergate" article was just a copy and paste from the main article of Weiner's biography. And before you say the article didn't live long enough for people to have expanded on it, the current event just happened. There is not much else that can be said that is verifiable through secondary sources such as news agencies. There's a lot being said in the blogsphere, but these aren't considered reliable sources, as most of them (Breitbart/The Atlantic/etc/etc) are all biased one way or the other. Once the events have unfolded such that the implications are known, then there will be something to say. Until then, most of what is written about Weiner in blogspace can stay there. It's just opinion and speculation.

Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. (1) Where can I get a "copy" of the deleted Talk Page?  (2) Why even have a discussion if one person will simply unilaterally over-rule the contents of the discussion?  (3) The remedy is to improve the page, not delete it.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC))


 * The page is gone. A sysop agreed that the page met the criteria for a speedy deletion. There's no review or discussion. If it meets the qualifications listed at WP:CSD then any sysop may unilaterally delete the page. Articles that meet this criteria are stuff copied from other pages, pages with copyright violations, attack pages, vandalism and hoaxes, etc. These are considered non-controversial to delete.  If it does not meet the speedy criteria, it may meet WP:PROD which is a "proposed delete" tag also for non-controversial deletions. Prod articles is for bands no one has heard of, actors and songs that are non-notable, non-notable biographies, etc.  These stay up for a week, and if they aren't improved any sysop may delete them then. There's a whole process for established articles to be deleted. Read: WP:DELETE.


 * Articles can be undeleted. You can ask an administrator to restore the Weinergate article, and if some sysop thinks there's merit to your argument, they might. Please understand that the sysops are particularly cautious about this article, because it involves a living person's reputation. The standards for biographies of living people is higher than some other subjects because of liability reasons. See: WP:BLP for an explanation.


 * Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I undeleted the history and talk pages per a suggestion on my talk page from another admin, but the redirect is still in place. I've protected it for 6 hours, so please use this time to come to a consensus. I suggest that all participants take a look at WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR before deciding how to move forward. -- jonny - m t  08:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The proper action for a heavily-contested (as indicated per that page's talk page) PROD is taking to AFD to seek community consensus, not unilateral admin protection and merge. I have unprotected and restored the page, while at the same time also nominating it for AFD. —Lowellian (reply) 10:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why destroy work without even saying what is being done?
See, where three hours of incremental improvements are unilaterally discarded for no stated reason. Why? Rot42 (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethical behavior by Wikipedia contributors
Removed by author.--WriterIN (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't delete the essentials
We can pare down the section quite easily without omitting the who what when where and why essentials. Let's not leave the reader thinking this is a story about a man who apologized for wearing grey underpants. μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct, but do not pare it *below* the bare essentials. I had to reinstate the line about six inappropriate relationships over six years as essential information. Without it, the reader is led to expect that there were only two women invloved, counter to Re. Weiner's statement at the press conference. This example should be a guide as to what stays and what goes. Ask youself, "if I remove this, does it have the effect of minimizing the remaining article, or If I add this, is it truly neccessary or is it 'piling on'?"--WriterIN (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

yfrog
Had to smile at this tweet from yfrog. They were initially in trouble over the claim that their photo posting service had been hacked, but it has now emerged that Weiner posted the underpants photo on yfrog himself, even though he thought it was a private message to a follower. This story is probably the largest amount of media coverage that yfrog has ever had, but they could well have done without it. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Last names
The section with "Weiner was born in Brooklyn, New York, to Mort, a neighborhood lawyer, and Fran" is poorly written for a biography. Please add last names of the parents to this for better reading and for information purposes.202.29.57.215 (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think something should be changed, be bold and fix it. Make sure you provide reliable sources for the new information.  GB fan (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Or if you cannot fix it -- as the page is now semi-protected -- list your suggested revision here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Is "Weiner" being pronounced correctly? I do not know if his name has any German origins or not, however, Whyner should be the correct pronounciation if it is. In the German language, "ie" = "ee"; "ei" = "long i"63.3.2.1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC).

Please remove redundant link for Jon Stewart
Please remove redundant link for Jon Stewart in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner#Personal_life 204.210.242.157 (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Second link to him removed. Jim Michael (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Twitter photo scandal
Time for a major re-write. Weinergate is now far and away the most notable thing about anthony weiner and it should be central to this article.24.111.211.207 (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is this not protected yet? 76.250.130.85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC).

Why is this not up. And more importantly why is his page locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.5.91 (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The information on the twitter scandal is not there because when it was added it was not properly sourced. The page is locked because unregistered users were adding the information you are asking about repeadtedly in violation of the biographies of living people policy.  If you can find reliable sources that discuss the scandal and show that he did send the tweets, then use edit semi-protected with the information you want added and the reliable sources that verify the information.  GB fan (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are new to this place, or that is a rhetorical question. Any unpleasant truth about a leftist is immediately and permanently suppressed. If you want the facts, go elsewhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.199 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no suppression of any information. The information was writtten in a neutral blub with reliable sources to verify the information and it has beewn in the article for over a day.  GB fan (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ROTFLOL! Good one!  Thanks. That will keep me laughing the rest of the day. 138.162.128.52 (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why must it be shown that HE sent them? The reality is it is a verified account that HE is known to send personal messages from. Plenty of sources have demonstrated he has a history of conversing people people he folllows on twitter in direct messages. It is rather obvious he meant that crouch shot to be a direct message. Additionally his initial twitter claim was his Facebook account was hack and not his Twitter account. Seems odd and thus the scandal.

BTW there are plenty of reliable source covering it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.5.91 (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So write a neutral blurb that is supported by reliable sources, then use edit semi-protected and ask for it to be inserted into the article. Make sure you specify exactly what you want the blurb to say and you give the reliable sources that support the information.  If you include personal opinions or information not supported by the reliable sources you give it will not be added.  There is also a possibility it won't be added because at this point it might be considered just to be a news item and not encyclopedic.  good luck.  GB fan (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe the to this section are appropriate. They appear to be written in a manner to accuse Weiner of hiding something. There is no requirement for someone to report hacking to police of the FBI. He has repeatedly said that he did not send the pictures. Whether the pictures are actually of him are not material if he did not send them. GB fan (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw some serious bias in there, so I deleted a bit of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Material" to what? That a congressman has a photo of his junk floating around is part of the story, whether he sent it or not.  And... that it exists at all adds supports (in part) to the entire story.  I added back the reference that he didn't report it as a crime.  That also adds creedence.  Previously, the article said he'd hired an investigator to "look into" it - suggesting that he was doing everything he could to "find the real killers."  Obviously, that's not the case - as most of the media have reported.  John2510 (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone hoping for an explicit photograph will be disappointed, so a more accurate description than "lewd photo" was given per WP:NOTCENSORED. It is not possible to cite the yfrog statement as it is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist, but it is at yfrog dot com/message/thread/id/1_76137409431089152 . One consequence of this affair is that e-mail uploading of photographs to yfrog is disabled at the moment. This article takes a look at some of the security issues involved.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what this yfrog reference adds to the article. Among other things, the yfrog statement is somewhat defensive and evasive.  Giving Wiener the benefit of the doubt, I'm not sure it matters whether there was a yfrog security breach, per se, or someone simply guessed his password.  If either of those two things occured, then he's not responsible. John2510 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What has caused the fuss outside the United States is that people are unable to use yfrog e-mail at the moment. Anyone trying to post an image receives an e-mail from is-support@imageshack.us saying: "Email posting to yfrog is currently disabled". To be fair, TwitPic uses a similar system, except that it involves a four digit PIN number. In either case, a person who knew the address would be able to post an image without the user's consent.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * International fuss about yfrog is of no concern at this BLP. The article you link yourself shows how irresponsibly easy yfrog made it for someone simply to guess a user's access code, so your addition of yfrog's self-interested statement that has nothing do do with this incident implies about this incident the exact opposite of the content of the littlegreenfootballs article.  It's a little bit like saying "absolutely nobody broke in" because they merely latched, but not locked, their door.  Abrazame (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming that someone hacked/guessed the e-mail address, this could just as easily have happened at TwitPic or Flickr, which have similar systems for mobile users. This happens all the time with bank ATM machines, it is not a big deal.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * re this edit: The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Please bear this in mind.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Maybe it did start being a photo of mine and now looks something different or maybe it is from another account." This was removed as being undue and missing the point (but has now been restored by another editor).  Whether it's a picture of him or not, and whether he admits it's a picture of him or not, are pretty much THE points here.  This incident will doubtless be a signficant part of Wiener's biography (if not his defining moment), and it's not undue.  John2510 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As a non-US resident, I am not the least bit interested in what Anthony Weiner does with his spare time. However, his choice of words with the underpants photograph looks like classic terminological inexactitude.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The "maybe it did start being a photo of mine" bit is reported in Politico, a top-quality source. Drrll (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The British Member of Parliament Chris Bryant did something similar to this alleged incident in 2003.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Have unilaterally removed the Twitter section, reducing it to one sentence in the Personal Life section. Wikipedia is not a news site. This is an overblown media scandal that will end up as no more than a minor footnote in Weiner's career. See WP:NOT#NEWS as previously linked, and WP:UNDUE. Discuss here before reverting, inclusion is the onus of those wishing to include. Glass  Cobra  03:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I object strenuously to the removal of the Twitter Scandal section. This is an unfolding event that may lead to the termination of the Congressman's career. It needs to be retained; vetted for accuracy and balance; and updated as required. The humor of the situation should be an integral part, I have suggested an addition under "Weinergate", a new discussion section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.116.194 (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a whole lot of WP:CRYSTAL in saying that this "may lead to the termination of [his] career". – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I can accept that. I can also accept that it may not be appropriate as WP:BREAKING NEWS. However, the unilateral edit by GlassCobra is not balanced in that it does not adequately discuss the controvery over the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.116.194 (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC) I should clarify why this is a controversy. Congressman Weiner has not addressed several issues fundamental to the event. 1) Is that a photograph of himself? (This may be irrelevant, but remains an open question) 2) If he believes that his account was hacked, why has he refused to call in law enforcement? 3) Why has he not (as of June 2, 2011) addressed the first two issues? --WriterIN (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weiner has stated that his refusal to open an investigation is because he does not wish to waste public funding. He's treating this as exactly what it is, an extremely minor event worthy of nothing more than one line in his encyclopedia entry. This is not a controversy, and it will not be given any undue coverage here. Glass  Cobra  04:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're drawing a lot of conclusions and applying personal opinion here about it being an "extremelyl minor event," which appear inconsistent with the consensus generally, and (more importantly) here on WP. This isn't properly excluded under WP:NOTNEWS.  It isn't and announcement or other item that would fit the criteria.  We can apply common sense, and not wait for history books to come out before deciding what is a signficant (and WP-worthy) event.  If it wanes in significance, it can be altered as appropriate. John2510 (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That statement is controversial in and of itself and rightfully belongs in the entry. GlassCobra, with respect, you should recuse yourself from the discussion if you cannot be objective. At this juncture you appear (and remember that appearance, while not neccessarily reflective of reality, still demands attention) to be more concerned with protecting the Congressman's reputation than producing a balanced and objective article. His reputation deserves protection, but only to the extent that it *deserves* protection.--WriterIN (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is clearly notable enough for a mention, although it should be brief and simple.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to my most recent comment under "Weinergate". Having two separate discussions about the same thing (three if you count the penis controversy) is proving unwieldy.--WriterIN (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

After much wrestling with the format of the reference line (first time for everything) I added a reference to Nancy Pelosi's opening of a house ethics committee investigation. I also changed the title of this discussion section to match the actual section in the article and removed the unsigned gloating message (ALL IN CAPS, sign of high intelligence there) from the top of this section.--WriterIN (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

They can try and sensor all they want to protect one of their own but his political career is over just like John Edwards and that will be in the first section within days.98.198.238.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

I'm sorry to say that I won't be participating in any further editing of this page. I'm not comfortable with the rather sensationalist treatment of the current scandal. Yes, it's important. Yes it should be covered in its entirety as the story continues to evolve and it should be NPOV as much as that is possible in this situation. What I'm not comfortable with is the tendency to put a reference to it in as many sections as possible, including the lead. Best wishes,--WriterIN (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We just need a clear historical record documenting what Anthony Weiner did, and allow people to make up their own minds. I think the most obvious deriliction is not the act itself (sexting or whatever) but the significant lack of judgement in how he went about it, and then how he covered it up. Makes for a great game, but not for a great congressman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.46.237 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Should the article lead have any mention of the scandal?
There is a disagreement on whether it should. My personal stance is that there should be a brief one or two sentence mention of the scandal in the lead section, as it frankly currently comprises a large portion of what he is known for. The concern was raised (see my talk page, for example) that this might violate WP:UNDUE. I don't agree that it's an issue in this case, but it's certainly a legitimate concern. Let's try to hash this out here, get more input, and avoid edit warring. Kansan (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Kansan, I salute you for opening this item in discussion. That's the way we SHOULD be doing it. You have my enthusiastic permission to copy our discussion on your talk page into this section so everyone can participate.--WriterIN (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Good to see you guys talking – please honor 3RR. Grahamboat (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In general I would say that the details of the scandal do not belong in the lead, however the call for a House Ethics investigation by Nancy Pelosi would be appropriate. See Mark Souder, Chris Lee, and Charlie Rangel articles for similar treatment. Grahamboat (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There should be no doubt that basic information about the scandal, his refusal to resign, calls for him to resign and the ethics investigation are lead material. Per WP:LEAD, "the LEAD should summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." This is a bio of a man who has been a politician his entire adult life and this controversy threatens to ruin his career. Therefore it is very significant in terms of his own life. Furthermore, it is a huge controversy to the media. It has been reported by multiple reliable sources, every day for two weeks. To claim that it is undue emphasis to have 2 or 3 sentences about the twitters and the reactions and ongoing consequences to Weiner's career is basically absurd. Per WP BLP policy -"When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm." Right now it is being completely suppressed. The policy demands objective clinical type writing and letting the "facts speak for themselves". The removed material did just that, so I am restoring it. KeptSouth (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Text of info restored, plain, objective, succinct and referenced: On June 6, 2011, Weiner admitted to sending sexually explicit photographs of himself to several young female "followers" on Twitter, both before and after his marriage. Weiner has said he will not resign his office. House Minority Leader, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, called for an ethics investigation.  --KeptSouth (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "This controversy threatens to ruin his career" is precisely the sort of POV we need to avoid insinuating into this WP:BLP, much less its lead. I agree that at the moment a brief couple of sentences of incontrovertible material about this episode belong in the lead, and have edited it to reflect what I think we can all agree on as being the essential facts relevant to the lead of his bio; as such, we do not need references in the lead.  Anybody interested in the detail will have no trouble finding the section devoted to it in this brief biography, and anybody interested in clicking to the other article (should it survive its current AfD) can do so there.  Abrazame (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are entirely misconstruing what I said. I was explaining a rationale for including the information - I was not proposing to insert that information (that the controversy threatens to ruin Weiner's career) in the lead. No, we cannot all agree that references do not belong in the lead, if only because removing the references will result in quick removal of the text as unreferenced. Also, WP:LEAD specifically provides for referencing: "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, must be carefully sourced as appropriate" --Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not "entirely misconstruing". It's irresponsible to say things like what you have now reiterated even on the talk page.  WP:BLP applies to biography talk pages as well.  The claim that you're not suggesting putting that into the article is all the more reason not to say it, not carte blanche to say it twice.  You are misconstruing what I said, I didn't say we could all agree the references do not belong, I said we can all agree on those two statements as relevant to the lead and I said we do not need references for incontrovertible material referenced elsewhere in the article.  It's not a trick or a ploy, it's saying that when you reference a statement in one place you needn't reference its repetition elsewhere in the same small article, while that article body content should be where someone can expect to find references for everything we declare about the topic.  Abrazame (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am reluctantly responding to rebut your totally unfounded and mistaken assertions. You are apparently claiming I am violating BLP policy on this talk page, yet I have made no absolutely no remarks that violate BLP policy. You are complaining about one phrase, one argument I made about relevancy for the lead --that "this controversy threatens to ruin his career", which is actually so uncontroversial that numerous reliable sources have made identical or very similar statements. Here are three examples, but there are many more. "Anthony Weiner's career likely is ruined by Twitter pic scandal" New York Daily News; "Rep. Anthony Weiner doing his best to let lewd Twitter photo scandal sink his political career" New York Daily News; Political notebook "his political career in extreme jeopardy...", The Boston Globe via The Associated Press. Each of these articles have material are suitable for inclusion in the main Weiner article or the scandal fork, or as external links. Because reliable sources are saying this, per WP:V and WP:BLP and WP:TALK it is not be improper to add such phrases and discuss such views in the body of this article it, and it is most certainly not improper on this talk page discussion.


 * You also seem to want to continue to argue against having references in the lead. I agree that in many instances they are not necessary because the inline references are given farther down in the article. However, this is an article with controversial elements and several removals of relevant information have already been made by several editors. WP policy on LEAD says the lead "must be carefully sourced as appropriate". It's certainly appropriate to provide references in the lead, where as here, the information and its placement have been controversial and have been repeatedly reverted. Removing the inline reference tags is simply asking for further reversions of the content by editors who could rightly say the material is poorly sourced because BLP policy actually requires the immediate removal of poorly sourced or unsourced content. I am amazed that having a few references in the lead under these circumstances is still a point of contention for you, but perhaps my restatement has aided you in your understanding. --Regards--09:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was not "continuing to argue", I was correcting your characterization of what I said. Ref it, don't ref it, whatever, but get the editorial responsibility that Wikipedia is not a place to throw up everything we can cite to an RS, particularly in regards to a living person.  Abrazame (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I support mention of it in the lead, and also think that brief mention to the related poll results should go in the lead as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Related poll results about what? Abrazame (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As to whether New Yorkers think he should resign.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the scandal should have at least a sentence in the lead, since if the now separated Anthony Weiner photo scandal were merged back in in full it would be the largest section of the article.

I still don't think that it belongs in the lead right now...and I compared Weiner's page to Rangel, Souder and Lee. Rangel has a para in the lead for a completed episode, including official action by the House. Souder has a partial sentence mention but only because that's what ended his political career. Lee, interestingly, has no mention in the lead at all. Once all the facts are in, including the results of the House investigation, I fully support a full paragraph or more summarizing the entire affair. But until then it's just duplicative of what's in the proper section. Good luck with it. As I stated above, I won't be making any further edits myself, but I will continue to contribute to the discussion.--WriterIN (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The lede without the scandal material is currently only 8 sentences. Adding 2 sizable sentences about the unresolved scandal seems pretty unnecessary at the current stage of the event. With the current coverage of basic bio information in the lede, the weight of the lede would be pretty badly biased towards the recent event, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * BigKHex took out any mention of what the scandal was about. We should, at the very least, state what the nature of the scandal was, and we might as well if we're going to mention it to begin with. I suggest that the previous version be reinstated. Kansan (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Medeis beat me to it. BigKHex seems to want to sanitize the lead. The consensus here has been to include some of the scandal in the lead.Grahamboat (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The underlying issue here is that this is a comprehensive uncensored encyclopedia. When the subject himself admits the acts there's no point in a summary in the lead which barely manages even to say the "something happened to someone". That being said, we don't need more than a full sentence or two in the lead or mention of the objective facts in the subsection. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the incident is likely to have long term repercussions for Weiner's political career, a brief mention in the WP:LEAD is justified.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a question, if the incident ends up not having long term repercussions. do we then take it back out of the lead? GB fan (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is widely agreed that this incident has wrecked Weiner's chances of running for office in the New York City mayoral election, 2013. Unless voters are very forgiving and have short memories, it is hard to see how this would not become a key issue during the campaign.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice way to avoid the question. GB fan (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not avoid the question. To coin a phrase, I cannot say with certitude what long term impact the incident will have on Weiner's career. It is, though, a defining moment similar to the Lewinsky scandal, which has its own article and is mentioned in the WP:LEAD of Bill Clinton. The brief mention in the lead here is currently sufficient, but it can always be edited at a later date.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well maybe I need to explain what I am asking. You said it belongs in the lead because it is likely to effect his career in the future. Because of that I asked if it doesn't effect his career should it come out of the lead. I did not ask you to predict what willl happen but to continue on with your own statement.  GB fan (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The coverage of the incident is enough for a brief mention in the WP:LEAD. Since there is no rush and consensus can change, the part about Weinergate could be trimmed or removed if other users thought that it was necessary.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

GB fan makes a good point, for several reasons, and I'd like to point out two. Firstly, we are not here to WP:CRYSTAL BALL about the effect of personal life on career or, I think more to the point, to participate in the creation of a self-fulfilling prophecy. That a few wags are suggesting impact on his career the day he came out with his admission is not the sort of thing that gets put into an encyclopedic biography. It's also not something that gets put into the talk page of one. WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. If, like User:ianmacm, your assertion is that what you are saying on this page has nothing to do with why we should have something in the article, then you should bloody well not be saying it here. This is not a blog or a chat room or a water cooler or a bar, it's an editorial discussion, and we need to exercise some self-restraint and responsibility. We've all made some tongue-in-cheek comments about what we should call this, what we should say about that. But we are crossing a line when we are promulgating prognostication about the end of someone's career. The whole point about that is that if and when such a thing were to evidence itself in real historical events, rather than merely someone yammering on CNN or blathering on a blog, then there would be notable people addressing the perceived and actual reasons — actual as in exit polls of people in a primary, or highly notable statements by the powers that be, and actual as it actually had an effect, not merely was supposed to have one.

And as long as this thread has gone there, I will point out that after several allegations of actual affairs, even the Monica Lewinsky scandal didn't end Bill Clinton's career, nor did it prevent him from having a major international influence since leaving office, nor did it hold back his wife's political career. There was an actual naked and erect penis there, too, even if we only heard about it every day for three years and didn't actually have to look at the pixels. Ian, you did avoid the question, and you are avoiding responsibility for littering the page with random, self-contradictory commentary. One minute it's likely to affect his career, the next minute its akin to the actual affairs of Bill Clinton, which did not. We have to exercise some self control and restraint here and remember what we're here to do, which is determine what will appear in the article and how, not spin stream-of-consciousness opinion.

But this is about the lead, so let's stay on point there. To the recent edit, I will point out that nobody has responded to the justification User:BigK HeX used. He wasn't "sanitizing", as someone mischaracterized, he was correcting WP:UNDUE. The way to handle this is to source details of Weiner's notability — his career and impact as a congressman — that belong in the lead. Abrazame (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Abrazame continues to act as a cheerleader for Anthony Weiner. I'll skip over the incivility, but will point out that all Wikipedia articles change with time. I'm not hell bent on mentioning this in the lead, but a brief mention seems justified at the moment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I don't believe Abrazame is cheerleading for the congressman. I believe he has argued for scrupulous adherence to BLP for both the congressman and his paramours. If he's been uncivil, I haven't seen it. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You’re right Abrazame the details of Weiner's notability belong in the lead. Unfortunately, the most notable detail about Weiner’s career is the scandal he admitted creating. Once the matter degenerated into emailing nude images of genitals to women Weiner admitted he did not know, including their ages, it certainly became a major issue. He is not well known outside of NYC Metro and liberal talk shows.


 * In reply to GB fan’s question: it don’t matter how it affects his career, reelection will not mean vindication. The scandal will still be a defining moment of his life; ala Ted Kennedy.


 * Regarding KeptSouth’s assertion that ethics investigations usually don’t go anywhere; where’s the proof? It is very rare when the defendant’s own party initiates the inquiry. The last big case was Charlie Rangel. Therefore Pelosi’s statement belongs in the lead.Grahamboat (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The calls for Weiner’s resignation from Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and Steve Israel plus Weiner’s leave of absence should end any controversy over the scandal material being included in the lead. Grahamboat (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)