Talk:John Weaver (political consultant)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Weaver (political consultant). 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/20081015125651/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/john_weaver_speaks.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/john_weaver_speaks.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Violations of BLP policy
Beginning on 10 January 2021, there were repeated attempts to add accusations of sexual impropriety against the subject of this BLP. All such attempts were duly reverted and led to the page being semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it until 19 January 2021.

Initially the accusations were based on tweets, which violated WP:TWITTER because they involved claims about third parties. Later attempts cited a January 11, 2021, story in The American Conservative, of which Wikipedia's perennial sources page states, There is consensus that The American Conservative is a usable source for attributed opinions [but not for facts]. As TAC is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organization, TAC is considered biased or opinionated. This particular story consists entirely of scurrilous rumormongering and signal boosting tweets that accuse John Weaver of being a sexual predator.

Wikipedia policy prohibits scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libelous or infringe the subject's right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. To further amplify these partisan smears by his political enemies, which mainstream media has not reported much less corroborated, would expose Wikipedia to liability for defamation. Until we can cite better sources, such content must not be restored and similar attempts should be immediately removed. NedFausa (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * So you are whitewashing this page like other Wikipedia editors did with Joe Biden Tara Reade, got it. Please explain how this is rumormongering? Since under your own classification, Harvey Weinstein is an innocent man who fell victim to terrible rumors. Pformenti (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This page is for discussing how to improve our BLP John Weaver (political consultant). Arguments should be based on established Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Whataboutism—such as your mention of Harvey Weinstein—is not persuasive. NedFausa (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Biased and Partisan smears? John Weavers is a longtime Republican and this is written by a fellow conservative. Additionally, I completely disagree that this article “consists entirely of scurrilous rumormongering and signal boosting tweets.” The sources for this article include Scott Stedman who’s an investigative journalist and author whose work has been cited by the Washington Post, CNN, BBC, Reuters, Daily Mail etc. He provided a firsthand account of inappropriate messages from Weaver and provided screenshots of those messages. As such, his firsthand account is a primary source material as it is an account of an event that is written by an eyewitness, and it is not a third-party source that violates WP:TWITTER. OnlyFactsMatter (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Your characterization is disingenuous. Here's how Ryan Girdusky begins his hit piece in The American Conservative: Over the summer, John Weaver, the co-founder of the Never-Trump Republican Lincoln Project, followed me on Twitter. It struck me as odd, given that my account was supportive of the president. Girdusky concludes his story thus: The Lincoln Project is indeed continuing to grow financially…. As they continue to grift and target private citizens who worked for the administration, it's important to point out that one of their founding members was using their organization and the promise of a job in politics to prey on young men. (Emphasis added.) That is not a fellow conservative reporting without bias on a longtime Republican. It's a diehard Trump loyalist attacking someone who dared to co-author an op-ed in The New York Times calling for Trump's defeat in the 2020 election, asserting: The president and his enablers have replaced conservatism with an empty faith led by a bogus prophet. NedFausa (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

My characterization is not disingenuous, however it is disturbing that you just followed up your previous statement that “arguments should be based on established Wikipedia policies and guidelines” with an invalid assumption that being a supporter of the President by default makes him a “diehard Trump loyalist attacking someone.” The author being a Trump supporter does not make him one of the lunatics that attacked the Capitol. Additionally, you did not address the firsthand accusations of Scott Stedman who is huge critic of Trump and has no reason to lie (but I do assume you probably know this). Actual firsthand accounts do meet Wikipedia’s high standards for living people as long as it is noted that these are “accusations.” OnlyFactsMatter (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If only because the sources in use aren't accepted here, it's certain that the coverage of this developing scandal should be minimal at best. I do not believe WP:NOTSCANDAL applies as described, as there is an accusation from a specific, named person. It is certainly not, therefore, something "heard through the grapevine", or "gossip", or a rumor to be rumormongered. Be that as it may, it's clear that Wikipedia does not accept TAC or RedState reporting on the fact of the accusation. When and if other outlets pick this up, some mention may be appropriate, though probably not a 74-word paragraph as OnlyFactsMatter has sought to include. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP has it right. Per WP:RSPS, TAC is only generally suitable for attributed opinions. It's therefore quite far from the sort of source we need to cover accusations against a living person. I didn't see it used but RedState is even worse, not even suitable for opinions and explicitly noted as unsuited for facts. I don't think I need to discuss Twitter. I suggest OnlyFactsMatter reread WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. First hand accounts not covered in reliable secondary sources most definitely do not Wikipedia's BLP's standards, no matter what you say about these accounts. I have no idea WTF is going on with the Trump comments and I don't care. Whether this guy loves Trump and so those his accusers or hates Trump and so do his accusers or loves Biden and so do his accusers or loves Biden and so do his accusers or whatever other combination you can come up with, the accusations do not belong unless at a minimum, they are covered reliable secondary sources sufficient to allay BLP concerns. (To be clear, I'm not saying this means they definitely belong, but rather it's pointless discussing it if that minimum threshold isn't met.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's misleading to call this a "developing scandal." Consider who has reported it:
 * The American Conservative, which Wikipedia has labeled biased and opinionated.
 * RedState, of which we have consensus that it should not be used as a source of facts.
 * RT (formerly Russia Today), where we have consensus that it is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail.
 * Big League Politics, deemed by Wikipedia "a far-right American media website which traffics in conspiracy theories."
 * Clearly, this is not journalism; it's revenge. In 2019, John Weaver wrote, @realDonaldTrump is a racist. On top of that, if it matters, he's the most corrupt man ever to hold the office. He's beyond a misogynist, a predator. He's ignorant, petty, lazy. Trump has no respect for any standard or American aspiration. He's a danger to the nation & the world. And now a handful of eminently unreliable sources are spinning a few licentious tweets to dogpile Weaver using the same word (predator) he applied to their disgraced hero Trump. To add this vendetta to our BLP would violate WP:UNDUE, which directs: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." NedFausa (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we drop the speculation about the intent of particular journalists? It’s not really relevant to the editorial decision we’re making here, which has been decided on the threshold issue of whether a particular source is accepted as reliable for such purposes. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I have just bumped the page protection to full due to the continued edit warring over this content. Please reach consensus through discussion rather than warring over the page content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia, An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. That's not what happened here today. Certainly it was true yesterday with, who for his efforts received not one but two discretionary sanctions alerts from separate administrators at his user talk page, plus being reported by an IP user at ANI. However, today's reversions were of contributions by , who at his user talk page was neither warned of edit warring nor alerted to discretionary sanctions. These two edits were his only contributions to John Weaver (political consultant), and moreover do not appear to have been copied and pasted from previous attempts to add what is essentially the same content—note, for example, that misdated the source as being from a year ago, instead of from this month. There may be sound reasons for increasing page protection to full, but in this instance I don't think edit warring applies. I respectfully ask that you reconsider. NedFausa (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct that a sanction against UncomfortablySmug would be improper given that they have not been warned about edit warring and likely didn't know that there had been a past issue. But page protection is appropriate because the same content with the same questionable source continues to be added without any consensus on this page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I know I haven't been sanctioned, but I'd just like to note the double standard here. Wikipedia assumes that publications like The New York Times are unbiased, which would be fine if it applied a similar standard to publications that are upfront about their agendas. CNN journalists (Cooper, Cuomo, Lemon, Tapper, and the rest) routinely indulge in opinion sharing, but Wikipedia still considers those figures reliable sources who don't have axes to grind. (As for the dating issue, it's January. I'm still getting used to the fact that it's 2021 and not 2020.) UncomfortablySmug (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The reliability of CNN, and its bias, has been discussed at great length and is summarized at WP:RSP. If you believe Wikipedia ought to change its treatment of CNN (or any other source), that's a discussion for WP:RSN, not for one-off talk pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Different source(s)
I don't have strong opinions either way on the possible future inclusion of this content--generally I think NedFausa's actions have been entirely correct, even if I may disagree with his description of the motivations of those reporting on this story--but I do want to link another source that's now reporting on this: a patreon-backed investigative news organization called Forensic News. This org, at the very least, has not already been determined by community consensus to be unreliable and is worth a discussion as more editors continue to add this content. As I said, I don't have strong feelings, but when/if more journalists report on this story I'll link those sources on this talk page. For now, FN is all but a one man operation led by Scott Stedman. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I oppose citing this source for anything related to John Weaver (political consultant). As you point out, Scott Stedman is using his self-published website to report allegations of sexual impropriety in which Stedman himself is one of the alleged victims. As I see it, that completely nullifies whatever independent credibility Forensic News might otherwise claim, making it nothing more than a blog by a direct party to unproven accusations that, when used as references here, constitute grossly defamatory BLP violations. NedFausa (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think those are valid objections. As I said, I'll try to monitor the story as other news orgs do or don't report on it. Alyo  (chat·edits) 17:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Two cents, as the user who brought this to ANI, if only to support the direction of the current discussion. The content in question may eventually be added with more acceptable sources, but not with what's been provided thus far. Given the substance of the content, we should wait until it's confirmed by multiple WP:RELIABLEs. If it's re-added before that time, then I'll request renewed protection and sanctions if appropriate. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reread the BLP practices. Scott Stedman is a professional writer, and Forensic News is a licensed media company in California that has not been determined by community consensus to be unreliable. It is not a blog or any other description that NedFausa would like to pretend it is, and he never identifies as a “victim” in this article. I do understand first hand accounts cannot be used unless covered in a secondary source. Can someone tell me where in the BLP practices it states that the mere mention of a first hand account in an article invalidates the entire article from being used as a source even for the other info that was provided by reliable 3rd party sources and within the rules required for BLP? OnlyFactsMatter (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Lincoln Project appears to have scrubbed John Weaver from its website. Per the archive.org, as recently as Sunday, January 10, 2021, he was listed on the Lincoln Project's Our Team page. That page no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.177.178.110 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to look over the BLP policies. Because BLP's can cause more damage to people's lives, they're held to a higher standard re:sourcing than other types of articles. So I do understand Ned's caution regarding the sources brought up so far. To be clear--I have no reason to doubt that the messages that real. But the fact that Scott is "reporting" about events he was a part of does make it a little hard to view him as an independent source. Other sources will cover this story once they've gone through editorial review--the elements that make them reliable--but that takes a little more time. And now, a couple days later, we have Axios covering this through a statement, which will open up the floodgates. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note my edit request below, which apparently requires consensus before being accepted. NedFausa (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 January 2021
Please add the following.


 * On January 15, 2021, Weaver acknowledged having sent "inappropriate," sexually charged messages to multiple men, for which he said, "I am truly sorry." Speaking to Axios, Weaver declared, "The truth is that I'm gay and that I have a wife and two kids who I love. My inability to reconcile those two truths has led to this agonizing place."

NedFausa (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Leaving this open in case another admin sees it and disagrees, but I think you need to get consensus for this edit in the above section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Endorse Change- Why wouldn't this be included? He just admitted to sending inappropriate messages.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Question If this were added, would the verbatim quote be really warranted? It strikes me as a bit boilerplate (akin to "retired to spend more time with my family"). I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other here, but it seems worth considering. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "The truth is that I'm gay and that I have a wife and two kids who I love." In what tabloid context would that statement be considered boilerplate? NedFausa (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * His coming out obviously isn't boilerplate, but the "I have a wife and two kids who I love" is pretty standard. For now though, it probably suffices to cover his response until there's more reporting on this. Alyo  (chat·edits) 00:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm grown numb to American politics reading like tabloids all the time... It just has the feel of a "I regret the pain that my mistakes have caused my loved ones" speech that I must have heard a dozen times after a dozen scandals. What's he going to do, say that he doesn't love his children? But I'm not taking a strong stand against including it. (Lately, I seem to have been running into a lot of verbatim quotes that really ought to be paraphrased, so I'm probably a bit overly inclined to be wary of them at the moment.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Alternate version: I would change the first sentence so as not to lead with a date. Something like "Weaver left the Lincoln Project in January 2021 after multiple men accused him of sending unsolicited sexually charged messages. He acknowledged sending "inappropriate" messages in a statement to Axios, saying, "The truth is..." I don't think we need to quote him saying sorry. But yeah, by and large I agree with the inclusion of something along these lines, now that Axios has reported on it. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 00:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your substitute "Weaver left the Lincoln Project in January 2021" is unsupported by the cited source, which reports: "Last summer, the political strategist and media adviser took a medical leave of absence from the Lincoln Project." (Emphasis added.) NedFausa (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should include the leave of absence to fill in the chronology? Something like, Weaver took a medial leave of absence from the Project in the summer of 2020. The following January, he... XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's good. I like it—with the proviso that we spell medical correctly. NedFausa (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's fine by me, I was just trying to change up the language from the "on [date], [event happened]" format. Consider this a "support" or whatever to the proposed changes. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 01:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes to proposed changes, with the suggestion that we keep eyes on the article. It's the kind of story that can attract vandalism. 2601:188:180:B8E0:E889:8717:B774:3D3C (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Endorse Change I've been very on the edge about this, however, given the growth in coverage of the incident I think it now seems WP:DUE to add it to the article. This should probably be in a separate "Personal life" section appearing at the end of the article, though, for MOS consistency. Chetsford (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please take a second look. I believe we have consensus to add the following as a new paragraph at the end of subsection 2.4 The Lincoln Project.
 * Weaver took a medical leave of absence from the Project in the summer of 2020. The following January, he acknowledged having sent "inappropriate," sexually charged messages to multiple men, for which he said, "I am truly sorry." Speaking to Axios, Weaver declared, "The truth is that I'm gay and that I have a wife and two kids who I love. My inability to reconcile those two truths has led to this agonizing place."

NedFausa (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * There may need to be a little more discussion about where in the page it belongs, and how much of the quote to use, but since there is at least a rough consensus to include something along these lines I will make the addition and we can go from there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done with minor copyedits: . GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also noting that the full protection of the page has just expired, and I restored the semi-protection that was in place prior to the full protection. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting that in GorillaWarfare. Now that we have the bare bones, I agree with what GW and XOR'easter flagged--I'm not sure it's appropriate weight to have so much of the section be Weaver's quotes. At the very least, I don't see any need to quote his apology. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 17:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources and now partial admission of guilt, time to remove the lock
From the Axios story (posted above) "“While I am taking full responsibility for the inappropriate messages and conversations,” Weaver wrote, “I want to state clearly that the other smears being leveled at me ... are categorically false and outrageous.”" And another article from Mediaite Lincoln Project Quietly Removes Founder From Website Amid Allegations of Impropriety — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusf10 (talk • contribs)

Accusations in Wikipedia's voice
I today reverted contributions by separate editors respectively accusing John Weaver, in Wikipedia's voice, of Sexual harassment and Sexual misconduct with no reliable source to support either of those loaded terms. Please, let's tread carefully here. NedFausa (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"Men" vs. underaged "teens"
An IP has been changing the term, but the source does not back this up. I am not bonded either way except that if the text refers to underaged individuals, it must have a reliable source to back that up. Ifnord (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the report that's just come out that the IP is probably basing it off of. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 19:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a difficult one, that report mentions only one teen and states there was nothing explicit for years until the teen turned 18. The subject's behaviour appears to indicate he was grooming the boy for unwanted sexual attention but the report quoted does not specifically state this. Ifnord (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I absolutely agree that the language that the IP inserted isn't fully accurate. I just wanted to link to the newest source on the Weaver allegations. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 20:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove "Allegations" from "Online Harassment Allegations"
From Weaver corroborates the allegations directly:


 * "In mid-January, after the allegations gained public attention, Mr. Weaver issued a statement acknowledging he had sent 'inappropriate' messages and apologizing 'to the men I made uncomfortable,' while saying he had believed all of his interactions to be consensual."

The title of this section should be renamed to "Online Harassment". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.162.51 (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I support the renaming of this section to "Online Harassment". Grahaml35 (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

John Kasich aide section update
The current text was written before Kasich even declared he was running. I'd link to know what was Weaver's role in Kasich's actual campaign, if he ended up having a role in it at all. Mottezen (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Error report: reading closer I see he was his strategist. Amazing that Weaver thought Jeb! was still a threat in February 2016?! I thought everyone with a brain knew Jeb! wasn't going to be a serious candidate by the end of 2015. With strategists like this, no wonder Kasich's campaign failed! Mottezen (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is irrelevant. The talk page is supposed to be for constructive suggestions on how to improve our John Weaver BLP. (See banner at top of this page.) NedFausa (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I know the policy. This was just a joke-explanation of my edits. Please don't take it too seriously ;) Mottezen (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Heads up
To editors monitoring this page, @yashar broke this earlier today. Article is still semi'd, but this story might get bigger right as that protection ends. Alyo (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 16:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)