Talk:Anthony Weiner sexting scandals

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


 * There was no mention of her by name but she was mentioned. (Someone else just added a sentence about her attempt to crash his primary night party that mentions her by name.) --anon. 71.183.134.249 (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just read the Guardian article cited for the part about the beginning of the second scandal and it doesn't mention her name, either. Her name must've come out later. --anon. 71.183.134.249 (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a policy about not naming people whose only notability is in connection with someone else's acts. But she has been seeking and getting public attention, so some minimal relevant references to her would be justified. μηδείς (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the policy against naming such a person (in any Wikipedia article) or is it, more narrowly, against creating an article about such a person? --anon. 71.183.134.249 (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Was your comment ("There's a policy about...") actually intended as a reply to ClarkF1? --anon. 71.183.134.249 (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I was addressing the entire discussion above me, so indented below you. There are two policies, the one you mention, WP:CRIME about not making separate articles about people whose sole notability is in regard to a crime.  The second is WP:BLPNAME which holds we should be careful naming private individuals whose only connection is peripheral to a single event.  The latter was a concern with the Miami zombie article.  Given Leathers has been seeking publicity, being photographed at venues where Weiner was speaking holding up signs advertising her website we don't need to avoid naming her at this point.  I would simply name her as the party contacted by Weiner over last summer and add one sentence saying she crashed his concession party and has been promoting her website.  There should certainly not be a section about her. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that she can be mentioned by name since she is trying to be as public as she can be. She might rise to the level of notability that'll require its own article. Not yet, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

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

2015-2016 sexting incident
MUST UPDATE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.37.222 (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that this refers to the media coverage here and elsewhere. It doesn't seem all that notable per WP:NOTNEWS. Weiner says that the exchange of text messages was "obviously a catfish" (ie he realized that he was being set up).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is also this coverage in the New York Post and elsewhere. This has problems with WP:BLPSOURCES at the moment and needs more mainstream coverage.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Weiner says that the exchange of text messages was "obviously a catfish" (ie he realized that he was being set up)." -- umm, Weiner can say whatever he likes and be quoted herein but it doesn't negate anything. Quis separabit?  12:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah that doesn't make sense. He says he knows he was catfished, but still sent out a picture with his son in the frame? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's gotten more official with http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/29/anthony-weiner-caught-another-sext-scandal/89526640/ most of the rest of the mainstream media picking up and amplifying the story. It is definitely notable, and especially notable since he texted a picture of his erection next to his four year old son, making this entire situation even more distasteful than it previously had been.  50.39.24.148 (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Given that his wife is leaving him, we should include this incident as an update on the original story. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "intended separation" according to the most recent sources I've seen; minor difference, of course, but I clarified that in the article until I can find a more definitive source. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Anthony Weiner sexting scandals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702002145/http://www.nationaljournal.com/the-man-behind-weiner-s-resignation-20110616 to http://www.nationaljournal.com/the-man-behind-weiner-s-resignation-20110616
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/08/will-rep-weiners-career-survive-the-sexting-scandal
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/16/house-dems-may-boot-weiner-from-committee
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20068717-10391715.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/local/full_transcript_of_weiner_news_conference_JxlqpgCFcbffrWKKcwsyLL
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bitter_tweet_affair_has_co_ed_worn_qCnymOy6zYIBGkdJhLyw1M

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

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

Anthony Weiner sexting scandals
Re: Anthony Weiner sexting scandals and Hillary Clinton email controversy. Anthony Weiner is on the front page of every newspaper of record because of the Clinton email connection. You are being silly. Please stop. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If Weiner is on the front page of every paper, then it should be an easy matter to convey what they are saying about him in this article when you cite those articles. This sentence, which I removed and you restored, tells the reader absolutely nothing about the subject of this article: "On October 28, 2016, FBI Director James Comey advised Congressional leaders that emails which were believed to be found on the devices could contain material relevant to the Hillary Clinton email controversy.".  I intend to remove it again unless you can indicate to me in reliable sources why this information belongs in this article instead of the Hillary Clinton email controversy article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unquestionably related to the content of the article, and the connection is obvious unless you are intentionally being obtuse. Don't remove it. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I intend to remove it again unless you can indicate to me in reliable sources why this information belongs in this article instead of the Hillary Clinton email controversy article. Care to take a stab at that?  What information does that sentence tell the reader about Anthony Weiner? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay; gave it a week. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

"Twittergate" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Twittergate and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 5 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)