Talk:Anthony Weiner sexting scandals/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Creation of page without consensus support

This page was created in the face of lack of support for it at the Anthony Weiner talk page. Very poor form on the part of the creator, as he was apparently aware of that -- having posted to that discussion. In addition to deletion (for the moment, at least), a TROUTING is in order. wp:consensus is a core principle of the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the consensus on this page (below) seems to indicate that this article should not be deleted (that is, that indeed this article should be in Wikipedia). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC))

• Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The consensus I refer to is on the Anthony Weiner talk page. That is the conversation that preceded this article's creation. Which violated wp:consensus.

What we have below is all subsequent to the creation of this page. And largely consists of SPAs. Who -- quite obviously -- don't understand that this is not at all a discussion as to whether the subject should be covered. But where it should be covered. And whether wp's guidelines re splitting pages at 100K (not 1/3 that size) should be adhered to.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know I'm not a WP:SPA. The trouble with your argument is that you're not admitting the possibility that this scandal is noteworthy on its own, just like the other "gates" we have articles on. Consequently, there's no obligation to subordinate this to Weiner's article, at least that seems to be the opinion of several eds here. Agricola44 (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

You are not an SPA. But you pointed to "consensus on this page". And point here to "several eds here". Check it out -- they are replete with SPAs. Whose "arguments" reflect significant understanding of what is at issue here (many think this is about whether to cover the matter -- which of course it is not ... a significant misunderstanding; others w/whom you align yourself and who you point to for your "support" write as their rationale curious things such as "This page should not be speedy deleted because it's about a penis, which is fucking hilarious!"). This all makes the "consensus on this page" and the views of "several eds here" somewhat different than what you are suggesting it is -- we don't give the same weight to the view of an SPA, and we don't give the same weight to an editor who clearly misunderstands what the question is that he is responding to.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because the section in the Anthony Weiner article needs trimming down, while this can be expanded. --Nevard (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The existing section in the AW article certainly does not need trimming. It is 2 paras, plus one sentence. Discussion was had on that talk page as to whether to start this page. There was no consensus for it. This was against consensus. Plus -- the AW page is not so large that it requires a split. It is only 36K. When it hits 100K it is time, per wp standards, to look to split out sections into new articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --68.198.161.216 (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

it was major political news. Major newsworthy events that people are curious about deserve a wikipedia page, end of story. Wikipedia is one of the places I always turn to if I want to be informed, and if a page is not dedicated to this but rather a small paragraph in the Anthony Weiner bio page, I'll feel my knowledge of the subject is insufficient and my confidence in wikipedia thus shaken.

It can at the moment be properly placed, in context, at the existing page on the person. In fact -- it is already there. In its entirety. This is a copy and paste.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --24.101.118.16 (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Deleting this article would lead to a controversy upon its deletion, which would in turn be named "Weinergategate". Nobody wants this to happen.

To be marginally more serious, it seems likely that the term Weinergate may be used as a term in the scandal concerning Representative Weiner, so deleting this page would simply serve to interfere with Wikipedia's coverage of these events.

24.101.118.16 (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. A concerned citizen

A redirect to the AW page would address your concern.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... This will be enduring news and, ultimately, one of those 'gate' scandals that keep popping up in DC.--97.85.189.50 (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The suggestion is not that it not be covered. Just that it is already covered, in precisely the same manner, at the article on the subject, and this is therefore needlessly redundant. At such time as the AW article exceeds 100K, a separate article would be in order.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --60.225.1.217 (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC) A major news event, which is reffered to in the media

See response in above string. The proposal is not to fail to cover it.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

The pressure to resign is building upon Mr Weiner by the day and party allies are now distancing themselves. Seedy though it is, this scandal will be part of permanent political history if it goes much further. As an aside, I found this page because it is currently linked near the very top of GoogleNews, named explicitly as "Weinergate". With this sort of visibility, it will look very bad for WP for readers to see a dead link and the AW article by itself will not help here. Agricola44 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

A redirect would address the concerns you voice.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This is close to being political history, if it is not already. It'll have its own page just like all the other "gates" that involved, and in some sense, overshadowed those involved. Consensus seems pretty solid, judging from all the comments here. Agricola44 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because ... the Wikipedia article entitled List of scandals with "-gate" suffix contains over 100 "-gate scandals". In terms of encyclopedic significance, Weinergate is certainly on par with, or even far exceeds, many of those 100 other articles. Weinergate merits its own page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC))

This can be addressed with a redirect, without creating a new article with redundant content.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because it has historical signifigance - the first time socail media was used in a sex scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.210.111 (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --~~

subject is news — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.8.16 (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --75.63.7.139 (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. its true

Speedy deletion not contested by this editor because

This page should be speedily deleted because it is a recently created article with no relevant page history that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within the Anthony Weiner. Furthermore, the article has the potential to become a WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK. Article may contain MOS:OPED and WP:CRYSTAL. Have a look at John_Edwards_extramarital_affair and tell me that this scandal deserves its own page yet. John Edwards has 10,000 news articles listed in Google News, while Anthony Weiner has about 6000. Weinergate yields about 600. Let's have some sense of proportion as to what is notable and verifiable. Thanks, Liberal Classic (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The remedy is not to delete this article ... but, rather, to improve it. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC))

Also, I did a Google on Weinergate, and I got ... quote ... "About 1,810,000 results". Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC))

Fine. So redirect "Weinergate" to the Anthony Weiner article. Which is still 1/3 of the size at which wp looks to splinter articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of duplicates in a raw Google search. I tend to use Google news when evaluating coverage of a subject by secondary sources. John Edwards was just indicted by a federal grand jury. His name yields about 9,000 hits in Google news.[1]. Anthony Weiner's name yields about 6,000 hits in Google news.[2] The term "Weinergate" yields about 600 hits in Google news.[3] 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. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The term "Weiner Scandal" yields a whopping 3,459 hits in Google News.[4] This is a topic now, not just a regular news piece. This is definitely a stand-alone topic, and separate situation from just the "Anthony Weiner" article, but notable on its own, and deserves its own separate article. Hashem sfarim (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because it's about a penis, which is fucking hilarious!

Contested deletion

Scandals warrant pages. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Eventually. If there is enough text. And if the combined person article and scandal article are large enough in aggregate. That's not the case here. When the aggregate size is large enough, I will support separate pages. At this point, no need to deprive the reader of the context, and no need to have mindlessly redundant material in two articles with this one mirroring the other -- just redirect them to the AW page.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The proper action for a heavily-contested (as indicated per this 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) 10:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Support deletion

As nom. As the guidelines instructs us, "This article may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as a recently created article with no relevant page history that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within the existing article(s) on the subject, Anthony Weiner." This is pretty much the poster child of an A10. A completely identical re-pasting of an existing article. After it failed to garner consensus support on the AW page, to boot.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your vote will be most helpful in the AfD... – Muboshgu (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Support deletion

Unless a lot more happens then it makes no sense for this to have its own section. It is barely longer than the section on Weiner's page. It is just not needed. It was also hastily created without consensus of wikipedia users. --67.142.179.22 (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's much longer now (than the section on Weiner's article). I find this whole argument and contention silly, to be frank. This is so obviously a stand-alone topic, and not just a regular news piece. This situation is separate from just Weiner's life and career, but has clearly developed into an actual distinct situation and topic now, and deserves its own article. (And that is the overall consensus). Hashem sfarim (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This should be merged with Weiner's page

This is hardly longer than the article on Weiner's page and does not deserve to have a section by itself. This also does not meet the quality standards of wikipedia. --Politicsislife (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Please add your vote at the AfD --> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Weiner photo scandal. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I TOTALLY disagree. It's much longer now (than the section on Weiner's article). I find this whole argument and contention silly, to be frank. This is so obviously a stand-alone topic, and not just a regular news piece. This situation is separate from just Weiner's life and career, but has clearly developed into an actual distinct situation and topic now, and deserves its own article. (And that is the overall consensus). Hashem sfarim (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Photo

surely this article needs the photo included under fair use?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the picture.

Denial and subsequent admission

I am sorry, but Denial and subsequent admission is a quite improper subhead--it amounts to saying he lied, and then he reversed himself. We need to stay as neutral as possible. There was an incident. And he did make an admission in a public news conference. But linking the two in one head serves only to portray the man as an degenerate liar. The facts speak for themselves, and the admission came long after the original denials. Any concern for NPOV will have us revert to the subheads in this edit: [5]. μηδείς (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"it amounts to saying he lied, and then he reversed himself." Is anyone disputing that this is exactly what happened? --24.111.211.207 (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. How in the world is the statement "denial and subsequent admission" improper? That is exactly what Weiner did. It seems Weiner's defenders are going to claim that dispassionately telling the truth now somehow constitutes a lack of neutrality. Weiner did lie and then he later admitted he lied, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Political scandal

How does this amount to a political scandal? That makes about as much sense as calling it a Jewish scandal because he happens to be Jewish. There is nothing hinted at anywhere that this has to do with any political wrong doing. μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a political sex scandal; a scandal of a sexual nature involving a politician. Jim Michael (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, Nancy Pelosi has called for Congress to conduct an ethics investigation into the matter. Thus, no matter what the results of the ethics inquiry, this is a political matter. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

If it's not (also) a "political scandal", then why is this something on ALL the political news shows, and why would politicians like Pelosi and others want to formally investigate this? Obviously there's a political angle to it. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Also ... the original poster claims: "There is nothing hinted at anywhere that this has to do with any political wrong doing". An investigation by Congress into a member's behavior is certainly a "hint" that there may be political wrong doing afoot. In fact, it's much more than just a "hint" at it! Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Once we have some actual political impropriety with supporting refs there will be no problem adding that fact. But this is not about bribery, nepotism, insider trading, or other political misdeeds. It is about sexting, obscenity, and infidelity. Those are not political misdeeds. The fact that he happens to be a politician no more makes this a political scandal than the fact that he is a Jew makes this a Jewish scandal. μηδείς (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your statement is ridiculous. Congress is investigating the conduct of one of its members to see if it arises to an ethics violation. "Congress" equals the very definition of "political". Sheesh. Are you for real with your above comment? Do you truly think that an action that involves the official machinations of Congressional oversight over one of its members is not political? That's very difficult to believe. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Furthermore ... you seem to come to a lot of "conclusions" all on your own. Why not notify Congress of all of your "conclusions" ... so that they don't have to bother with their official investigation. Let Congress know that you have concluded that Weiner's actions do not amount to political misdeed. I'm sure they will appreciate your input and conclusions. Perhaps they will forego their own investigation, due to your help. Unreal! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Yes, and many fellow Democrats are avoiding Weiner, and will not do anything with him, and have no plans to stump with him on any political issue, because they veiw Weiner as "politically toxic." Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

How is this a political scandal? Well, he is a politician for one. Secondly, sending unsolicited text messages of a sexual nature and then lying about it goes beyond the asisine "it was just about sex" defense that the left pioneered during the Clinton years. I swear, the steps that Weiner's defenders on this site are taking in order to ensure that this whole episode is whitewashed is as pathetic as it is hilarious. This is a PERFECT example as to why Wikipedia quite simply cannot be taken seriously. It seems that any time a liberal politician does something less than ethical, we get people coming out of the woodwork claiming that a mere statement of the facts is NPOV, or we get people splitting semantic hairs or some similarly ridiculous ruse to get the pertinent information pulled from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's a political scandal, so I don't think you're directly addressing me. As far as what you said about the "left", and Wikipedia, I will say this, some people have tried to have this article deleted or obscured or "merged" or whatever. I personally think they are silly (at best). This is without question a stand-alone topic and notable and overwhelmingly sourced (as a separate subject). But overall MOST people say "keep" this article, as a separate article, and some even question the sanity of those trying to delete and/or obscure it. THE VAST MAJORITY of editors think this article should stay, and also I think most believe that it's both a sex AND a political scandal. Not sure why you're going off this much. Because, to be sure, Wikipedia has its pluses and minuses, and seems to have a lefty bent, or whatever...overall it's a quite useful tool for knowledge and reference. (Also, by the way, when you said: "people coming out of the woodwork claiming that a mere statement of the facts is NPOV," I think you meant "POV", not "NPOV." "NPOV" is NEUTRAL point of view, but in the context of what you were saying I think meant that people were accusing facts of being "POV" (or "point of view".)) Again, though, most people think and know that this is a political as well as sex scandal, and most believe and know that this matter greatly deserves its own article, as a clear and notable stand-alone subject. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Include the photo?

It's kind of silly to have article with "photo scandal" in the title and no actual photo. I think this could be uploaded as work of a federal government employee (or at least fair use). Reminder: Wikipedia is not WP:censored.--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the picture.

Why do you feel that this is the "work of a federal government employee"? Certainly, he did this in his personal capacity ... and not in the course of business as a federal employee. No? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Contested deletion

I have previously said that this page was unnecessary and duplicative of the main Anthony Weiner page. I have to withdraw that opinion. This page is differentiating nicely in that it is providing amplification to base facts in the main page, allowing the base page to remain concise while retaining the importartant points. So far it is very close to NPOV and is continuing to evolve. Credit should be given to those individuals who wanted a separate page AND were willing to contribute information to that page. Without them, the page would not be neccessary or valuable.

Beware bias, though. The page remains useful only so long as it is accurate and truthful. I have seen edits made that indicate a political bias, and I'll remind you of something I said earlier: Congressman Weiner's reputation deserves protection, but ONLY to the extent that it *deserves* protection.--WriterIN (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How?

This article doesn't sufficiently describe the event in the first place. I didn't even know you could send private messages previously. But what was the deal? Did he mean to send a message starting with "D girlimstalking .... www.twitpic...." and accidentally sent "@ girlimstalking .... www.twitpic...."? Why do you think people would read an article on this in the first place? Maybe at least some of them are coming to learn the facts, and there should really be some account of what he sent. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

See also section

I removed the list of "gates" since it is already linked in the lead. If there is a good reason to go against MOS, please make that case here so others can chime in. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

My edit summary stated the reason: "these are appropriate SEE ALSO. People don't necessarily read every word in an article. They check the SEE ALSO for related material". Regardless of an item being linked "above" (within the text of the article), Wikipedia readers often check the "See also" section for related reading material ... they don't necessarily read the entire article word-for-word. That's my reason, as my edit summary indicated. Furthermore, what exactly is your objection to including the List of scandals with "-gate" suffix link ... and the Andrew Breitbart link? They are quite germane to the topic at hand. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Also, how does this "go against MOS"? I don't see the violation of MOS at all. Please explain. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Please see WP:seealso, Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section. There is no need to link/list articles again in the see aslo section. Its also undue weight. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be considered overlinking. See also is usally for related items not mentioned explicitly in the text. I doubt the text refers to the category as such. But the issue seems rather minor and trite. I support adding a category tag rather than a see also link. μηδείς (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It is rather minor/mos issue. As far as categories go, that is a whole different can of worms :). Thanks for chiming in also. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Exact description not needed

With all the cites, I see no reason for, and no consensus for, giving an explicit description of his "erect penis" in the photo description. We should present concise statements of fact in a conservative and neutral manner in any BLP. I also suggest that polls are by their very nature ephemeral in value, and doubt that any belong in this article. Collect (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources all say erection or erect penis, the fact is central to the scandal, we most certainly do not see a photo of "him" (unless you refere to penises as him) and WP:NOTCENSORED. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Collect -- what do you have in mind, instead? (BTW -- if penis stays, I see no reason to maintain "erect", as it is not clear that that is its condition, nor that they media has any more knowledge in that regard than we do ....)--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Move

Please move the title of this page from Anthony Weiner photo scandal to Anthony Weiner photo incident. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? Grahamboat (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Because it's not really a scandal. Is a pseudoscandal. This is more a guy's personal life turned into scandal because he lied. The pictures per se are not the scandal --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscandal? I don’t think so. It’s a real scandal when you have the likes of Nancy Pelosi calling for an ethics investigation. As for the pictures, they haven’t all surfaced. Grahamboat (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

X-rated photo

His X-rated photo has (apparently) been leaked. See this link: Anthony Weiner Penis Photo Released By Opie And Anthony. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Please don't post such nonsense unless you have a reliable source explaining that it is not actually a cucumber.μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is indeed a reliable source. Your comment requiring "proof" that, quote, "it is not actually a cucumber" is simply ridiculous. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

And, by the way, a photo of a penis and a photo of a cucumber will be quite easily distinguishable. No? I don't think that one will be easily confused with the other. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

The reliability of the source is often context dependent. Searching the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, the consensus on HP seems to be that it should be considered a self-published source, in that it reliable as far as the opinions expressed belong to the authors who wrote them. On political matters, one should carefully consider possible bias on the part of the author, and in matters scientific or medical they should not be relied on at all. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To Liberal Classic ... I think that you missed μηδείς's point. He (or she) is claiming that we need a reliable source to "prove" that the photo is of a penis, and not of a cucumber. He (or she) is not advocating that we need a reliable source for the story proper. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Amazing how pretty much every conservative blog ever used as a source is flagged as unreliable, yet we are to believe that The Huffington Post is an unimpeachable source. Give us a break. The Huffington Post is no more reliable than David Horowitz's Frontpage Mag (I use that as an example as it is flagged EVERY SINGLE TIME it is used as a source)or Red State or any other conservative blog that is flagged as unreliable within five seconds of it being used as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

One-sentence para in lede

I have tried to fix the problem of the 1-sentence para in the lede (currently the third/last para in the lede), but have been reverted more than once by the same editor. One-sentence paras are a deprecated practice. I tried simply attaching it to the prior para, but that is what was reverted. I suggest it either be attached to the prior para or -- and perhaps this is the better course -- deleted. While it may be enjoyable to the more juvenile among us, I would think that its coverage in the body is enough ... and that it does not require 1 of the 3 paras in the lede.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No ... not deleted! Moved, maybe ... although, I think it's fine where it is. But, deleted? No. Readers should know that the scandal has been termed "Weinergate". And there are plenty of reliable sources. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

That's an arbitrary standard, and there is no such policy. What defines a paragraph is its topic sentence. There is no need to shoehorn a topic sentence into a separate paragraph with a different topic sentence. Just as one word can make a sentence, sometimes one sentence can satnd as a separate paragraph. μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Spadero may have misunderstood. I was not suggesting that it be deleted from the body. It would be fine in the body, and that would address his concern that readers not be deprived of knowing that some have termed the scandal Weinergate. Whether it must be in the lede is another issue -- and that is the issue at hand. So to speak.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing above indicates why per wp:lede that sentence should be in the lede. I suggest moving it to the body. As to 1-sentence paras being deprecated, there is tons written on this -- see, e.g., here, and the underlying NYT article. In the rare instance when a one-sentence might be used, it would be to highlight something of great importance. Relative to the rest of the lede, that sentence is the least important -- the only reason to highlight it would be to stroke some juvenile desire, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It actually belongs in the lead. The wording "Anthony Weiner photo scandal" is simply a sanitized politically-correct Wikipedia version for the commonly known term of "Weinergate". I feel that the term "Weinergate" belongs in the lead and should not be buried later on, deep within the article. In fact, if anything, the reference should be moved up further in the opening paragraph. The opening line of the article should be: "The Anthony Weiner photo scandal (also known as "Weinergate") ... ", etc. That is the convention used by all other Wikipedia articles, when the subject at hand (name of the article) is referred to by different semantic phrases. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

I see the problem has now been addressed, and we no longer have a one-sentence para in the lede. Tx much.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ex-girlfriend speaks up

Read here: Anthony Weiner's Ex: He Lied to Me 98.118.62.140 (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article. Thanks. I don't think that the word "girlfriend" is the best characterization of their relationship, however. Unless, of course, you qualify her as his "on-line girlfriend". But, the general use of the term "girlfriend" implies something more than that, to most readers. Also, I read the whole story ... and I did not catch this: what was the "lie" that the headline mentions? I was confused on that point. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

Did you even read the article? This woman dated Weiner face to face for 3 months, visited with him face to face (even on some holidays) for YEARS afterwards and was enlisted by him to defend him in the press when the story first broke. It's pretty clear from the article that the "lie" was that he denied to her any involvement, but this was clearly false. He sent her out to defend him in the media - even while withholding the truth from her. Next time, read the article. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I did read the article, word for word. Hence, my confusion ... and, hence, my above posting. I think that when I clicked on the above link, I was sent to a completely different article (for some reason or another). Some computer glitch, I imagine. In any event, the article that I read (after clicking that above link) did not mention any of the details that you cite in your above post, User 98.118.62.140. So, that explains why I was confused ... and why I posted the above questions. The article that I was sent to via that link never mentioned any in-person girlfriend (only an on-line girlfriend) ... and never mentioned any lies. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

The initial link (above) was wrong; I went ahead and fixed it. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

Interesting, perhaps, but full of editorializing as well. I would object to this being added to the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

But of course you would. I have a distinct feeling you would object to any source that portrays Weiner in a negative light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Reflecting the day of the week in each entry in the timeline

Editor Hashem sfarim has twice reverted in good faith those of us (at least two of us) who have deleted the day of the week from the timeline entries (leaving the date in the timeline). As I indicated in my edit summary, while indicating the day of the week may have been material in news articles written the following day, this is an encyclopedia and the day of the week is irrelevant in this context. This is written not to be read the following day, but as with an encyclopedia for a long time. In this context, the fact that person x said y on a Tuesday vs. a Wednesday is non-notable in the extreme, and no showing has been made that it is notable. The dates are indicated, and that is sufficient. The days of the week provide needless clutter. IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree unless there is some reason or notability for including the day of the week. I would think that the editor who wants to include the day of the week should say why and then gain consensus for such. Anyways, just my 2 cents as well...--Threeafterthree (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nine reversions in one day

I have reported Epee Fleche for his edit warring and ownership activity on this article here: [6]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 17:02, 9 June 2011

Your inappropriate report has been declined. None of the three commentators found your report to be appropriate. All you reported as the first sysop indicated were mostly "edits, not reverts." The second commentator saw "TWO actual reverts, widely separated, with explanations in the Edit Summary. What I do not see is any apparent evidence of "edit warring" per se. Rather, Epeefleche is actively and constructively contributing to an article that is developing as a current event unfolds." And the final sysop, in declining your report, wrote "I'm sorry, but this is just petty.... this is no war here. Most of these items are trivial changes to style. Seriously." I would appreciate it if you would stop asserting that people who don't share your POV are edit warring, when that is is clearly not the case. (Apology would be appreciated -- even Weiner gave Breibart one when he was wrong; surely you can do that much ... best).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad, Epeefleche, bad! How dare you try to improve the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Weiner's Weiner

I removed this from the lead since I am not seeing a source that says this is common usgae for this event. Also, no need for the bolding. Anyways --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The newspapers published by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation in Australia, all claim that Weiner is an american euphemism for the male genital organ. Isn't that "Wiener", supposedly a reference to small sausages from Wien ( Vienna, Austria ) ? Is Weiner and Wiener the same word ?Eregli bob (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to know how Mr. Weiner's family surname evolved. If his ancestors came from Vienna (Wien), Austria, then it was most certainly originally spelled "Wiener", just as "Hamburger" is someone who hails from Hamburg, Germany. "Wein" is German for "wine", and is both words are pronounced the same. My best guess is that it started out "Wiener" and the spelling was changed to "Weiner", to facilitate proper pronunciation by Anglophones. — Quicksilver^{T @} 02:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I would contend that "weiner" as a misspelling of "wiener" is close to establishing itself as an alternate spelling of the slang term. Independent of its proper etymology, it can be construed as the point wherein widespread misuse becomes the birth of an authentic word. Second, I would note that from a pronunciation standpoint alone, Weiner arguably is American euphemism for the male procreative organ. And finally, I don't want to speculate, but the homophone aspect of this story might lend future credence to my first contention. 63.146.101.45 (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Timeline issues

I have removed excessive use of boldface, per WP:MOSTEXT. diff Boldface on Wikipedia is used to bold the title in the lead, but in the rest of the article it is to be used "only in special cases", according to WP:MOSTEXT. None of the special cases that the MOS sets out apply to this timeline. They are

• "Table headers and captions
• Definition lists (example: Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States)
• Mathematical objects traditionally written in boldface such as vectors and the rational numbers Q
• Volume numbers of journal articles, in some bibliographic formats"

None of the exceptions apply to boldface being used in 16 instances, or even just once in this section. The closest analogy to this use would be table headers and captions. If the material were in a table, only the header, Date would be in bold, each date would not. Here, the word timeline is emphasized because it is a section header, and that is an adequate substitute for bolding the word date. KeptSouth (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a fine revision to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Should the BigGovernment.com screenshot image be deleted?

The BigGovernment.com screenshot image which is included in the article is nominated for deletion. In my opinion, the image is of importance because that is the primary source which revealed the affair. Do you think it should be deleted? Please express your opinion on the matter here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Article needs to be renamed

Because the scandal is not any longer only about one photo, in my opinion, we need to consider changing the name of the article. The name Anthony Weiner sexting scandal might work better. What do you think? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is no objection by tomorrow I will go ahead and perform this change. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do; that's a much better name. CWC 19:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I object. At this point at least (though I'm open to reconsidering it in time). My reaction at this point -- the scandal related to one photo, and Weiner's failure to be truthful w/regard to the fact that he posted it. What has followed includes a good deal of other matters -- the fact that he sent other photos, etc., the fact that he lied, the fact that he is being investigated for possible mis-use of government resources, etc. But I think that the current name is fine at this point at least, and probably a more recognizable/searched phrase-choice.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In that case, don't you at least think that that name Anthony Weiner photos scandal would be more accurate than the current name? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is no objection by tomorrow I will go ahead and perform this change. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I could go either way on that ... I have no objection to it staying as is, or being changed to the plural.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

To expand on my previous comment, I prefer "Anthony Weiner sexting scandal". (If we went by popularity, I suspect we'd have to pick "Weinergate", which is (1) lexically ugly and (2) less informative.) The scandal arises not from the photos, but from what he did with them: that is, from the sexting. And now I feel a need to wash my hands—CWC 04:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also support a move to "Anthony Weiner sexting scandal". It is a better description. —Lowellian (reply) 12:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made the change. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support The new name is more descriptive and accurate. μηδείς (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

How the initial photo leaked

Currently, the entry states that he sent a link to the gray boxer picture to the Washington Student. But in his press conference, he said that he accidentally sent it to all his twitter followers, realized this, and took it down. Any ideas how to handle this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreystringer (talk • contribs) 12:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. He did send it to the Washington student. But as with most things on Twitter, it was publicly visible. —Lowellian (reply) 12:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Age of Twitter followers

Weiner has admitted that at least one of the girls was a minor. Also, Pelosi is now calling on him to resign. 24.111.211.207 (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I've finished reintegrating any edits which appeared to be unrelated to the copyright violation and got unfortunately intertwined. If you think I left anything out, please let me know and I can work with you to get that edit reintegrated (or you can simply make the edit again). I unfortunately had to delete 28 revisions before I could find a clean version. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Multiple calls for Weiner's resignation

Nancy Pelosi and a gazillion others (important high-ranking officials) have called for Weiner's resignation. I added that into the article. Why was that sourced fact removed? I suppose that's not relevant to the scandal? I suppose that's just "POV"? What a joke you guys are. Seriously. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

Weiner checks into treatment

Weiner checks himself into treatment. I added that into the article. Why was that sourced fact removed? I suppose that's not relevant to the scandal? I suppose that's just "POV"? What a joke you guys are. Seriously. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

I haven't checked the specific entry, but the fact is certainly notable IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

current event template

This is not really needed a current event template. What are the conditions for the template again, has someone got a link that explains how and why the current event template should be beneficial to articles please. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The template should be removed. The template documentation address its use: "the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news." And: "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence." Finally: "it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or so, occasionally several days." For all those reasons, the template can be removed, and I will do so now.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Congressional gym pictures

User: Bielle states “Source states confirmed by others but provides no evidence; "uses" al;egedly for venue; not good enough for BLP).” I respectfully disagree. This news article has been released by all major media. I changed the wording and added several sources. The pictures are real, the setting has been verified. They were released into the public domain since TMZ has them. Grahamboat (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23 what copyright vio of the NYT are you referring to and what do you mean by among other problems? Grahamboat (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is what you added to the article:

On Sunday, the entertainment Web site TMZ released 11 photographs of Mr. Weiner, taken from what it said was the House gym, raising new questions about his use of Congressional facilities during his online exchanges. One photograph showed Mr. Weiner posing with a towel covering his crotch. Another photo shows him in a blue tank-top posing on the gym floor. TMZ said the photos — some of which were taken by Mr. Weiner with a BlackBerry in a locker room — had been sent online to at least one woman.

Here is what the NYT wrote([7]):

On Sunday, the entertainment Web site TMZ released 11 photographs of Mr. Weiner, taken from what it said was the House gym, raising new questions about his use of Congressional facilities during his online exchanges. One photograph showed Mr. Weiner posing with a towel covering his crotch. Another photo shows him in a blue tank-top posing on the gym floor. TMZ said the photos — some of which were taken by Mr. Weiner with a BlackBerry in a locker room — had been sent online to at least one woman.

The "other problems" are discussed above in the locker room pictures section, but I don't have time to go into it now because I need to go out to dinner. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Why in the world should this be deleted? Some rogue Liberal or Democrat must have put that up. Hold tight, this page will become official. S51438 (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi S51438, please try to assume good faith and not assume what somebodies political tendencies are based on if they think an article should stay or go on the project. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)ps, you need more user boxes ;) j/k...--Threeafterthree (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen any calls for the information to be deleted. I'm seeing calls for it to be merged with AW's page. So far I would tend to agree as I'm not sure this really rises to the level of a Mark Foley or Larry Craig scandal (those certainly did require their own page). In the fullness of time I think this page will stay if AW eventually steps down because of picture. If he makes it through this without any violations of law or losing his house seat then this page will probably go away. For now everyone might want to consider calming down. 68.161.70.248 (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with that. The scandal is notable for two reasons that leap to mind: One, This is the first known use of social networking media for sexual purposes by a public official, and Two, the national discussion over what rises to the level of an offense requiring resignation or expulsion. It's totally WP:CRYSTAL at this point, but I see this controversy affecting the course of the next national elections by introducing ethical behavior issues into campaign strategies.--WriterIN (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming that this is a Left-, center- or Right-wing Jewish media bias against one of the jewish-heritage person in designing and lawyering pertinent, topical, societal, non-biased views, especially he was considered to run for NY governorship. I predict this behavior to have occured in the past, and it must be brought to fore since these kind of trustees in the government we have now -- not all, but many in the hidden due to power status they have. To all ladies, gentlemen, LGBT community, post your affairs with ANY governmental power holder (congress, senate, WH, Supreme Court and other branches). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.64.213 (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I thought I could read English. Bielle (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course this article should NOT be deleted. It's an important event meriting separate discusion from the bio of Mr. Weiner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.136.1 (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Media criticism

Are there any more sources criticising this media stampede? One of the more general analysises of how this "scandal" is handled:

• Media Criticism-10 stories more important than Weinergate, salon.com.--91.39.86.72 (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Give us a break. There were a lot of things more important than the scandals involving, for example, Eliot Spitzer or Larry Craig or any other politician yet they were still newsworthy. As I mention in an above comment, it seems Weiner's defenders will use any asinine ploy they can to whitewash this entire affair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking for sources not for your POV. The overall tenor of european media is that this is totally out of proportions. It might be usefull to have serious non-US commentary sources included in the article since there is plenty of international press about it. The Guardian, Le Figaro or Der Spiegel are totaly noteworthy and often not half as biased as US sources.--87.178.97.213 (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Referencing style

I've never seen the referencing style used in the article before. Is it common? Acceptable? I just had to remove a couple of references because someone else removed the citations in the body. Kind of cumbersome. Should we change it to be more "normal"?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have come across it and it is annoying but a small number of users seem to like it - It is not easy to move to the other method and takes a fair little work, Which I have done on another article only to be reverted. Its the open reflist and all the citations in the section requiring only the named ref in the body of the article in relation to {{reflist}} - with the full citations in the body of the article. The change in format was made two days ago by User:KeptSouth in this edit with the edit summary (list defined refs for ease in editing) - personally I find that style more troublesome. If you are considering replacing the refs throughout the body of the text, let me warn you its not an easy task. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I appreciate the warning, but I kinda figured it would take time to do. I was hoping someone else would do it. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. As I removed such text, you likely were tidying up after me. I had no idea that some articles did not use a style where, when the text is removed, so are the refs. Apologies for making more work. Bielle (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

One way I have seen this style used is that when content is added and removed the refs are kept for possible future use but hidden with those little dashed arrows - leaving them available for content additions later. Off2riorob (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

But in some cases I wouldn't want others to find the references again. Too easy to reinsert material that shouldn't be there in the first place. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Neologistic portmanteau in the article's name

"Sexting" is a neologistic portmanteau, not a real word. I think this article needs to be renamed and have it removed. I would simply suggest "Anthony Weiner scandal", no further disambiguation is needed. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 00:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would be ok with that.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Me also - I am not at all in favor of the current name. What about Anthony Weiner twitter pictures - I would really like to get something in about what is imo the actual scandal - the denial, that is imo the worst thing he has done. Imo there is no sex scandal because there is no sex at all. Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think something about the nature of the scandal needs to be in the title, lest we be in a situation where Weiner is involved in another scandal. I agree "sexting" is no good. I'd go with "Anthony Weiner twitter scandal". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• That's fine by me, but I think "Twitter" would be capitalized. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 00:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree. As we even have an article on Sexting, and it appears all over the news stories, I think it is here to stay. If you take "sexting" out of the header (and I would hate to give Twitter a plug), you make the events bigger than they are. I can't believe anyone cares about this, aside from the man's family, the recipients of the messages and, possibly, his constituents. Bielle (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Neologisms_and_new_compounds is relevant here... just because two words can be combined by the media and sound corny doesn't mean Wikipedia should use them in article titles. Obviously "sexting" is a notable enough term to have its own article, but I don't think we should be using the word for article titles in a general sense. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 00:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think "Twitter" or "Sexting" would be accurate in the title, because it started there, but the scandal involves other things, his denial is as big a part of the scandal as the activities on twitter (I may be wrong on that part, but that's what it seems from what I've seen). I think Anthony Weiner scandal or Anthony Weiner 2011 scandal woult be more appropriate, as they are not overly specific. I think they would be more appropriate, but I see where it would be confusing if it he had another scandal. However, I think that if another were to occur, the articles could be adjusted from there. - SudoGhost™ 00:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd favor Anthony Weiner twitter scandal, since that is how it originated, even if, as often happens, it was the lies and denial that really got him. Our article on sexting says it is the sending of sexually explicit photographs. None of the photos that have drawn high profile in this scandal have been sexually explicit, unless you count the tiny bit of press about the grainy picture of a picture on Breitbart's iPhone.--Chaser (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason I would avoid "Twitter scandal" is because his messages were sent also using Facebook and cell phone. WP:NAME doesn't mention "neologistic portmanteaus." -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the guideline says if he wasn't sexting.--Chaser (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Read up here, I think this particular section in the MOS is specific in discouraging the use of "sexting": Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Neologisms_and_new_compounds. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 04:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't exactly familiar with neologisms, but good to know! Would support renaming then. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The media seems to be simply reporting this as the Anthony Weiner scandal,[8][9][10][11] WP:COMMONNAME says the article title should be the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. I think for that reason Anthony Weiner scandal should be the article's title, as it doesn't give weight to one part of the scandal over another (i.e. twitter, sexting) and seems to be what most people would type in, if Gnews hits is any indication. - SudoGhost™ 04:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Messages with Delaware girl

Police investigated Weiner's tweets with 17-year-old female and found nothing untoward

Link. Obviously sensitive issue so I figured I should raise here before including. Kelly ^hi! 23:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There are over 37 different news stories regarding this new part of this ongoing news event, from multiple different reliable sources, including the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. That being said we should be careful how it is worded in this article, as not to appear to be advancing a rumor.

Lets stick to the facts. A police department in the State of Deleware has talked to a minor regarding online communications with the Representative that occurred in April 2011. It is not known if further communication occurred, or the nature of communications between the minor and the Representative. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. See WP:Recentism and item 2 in WP:NOTNEWS. News reports published while things are still being investigated are problematic in an encyclopedia. We can and should wait for the facts to become clear before mentioning this in the article. Cheers, CWC 05:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This is no longer speculative. Weiner himself has admitted contact with the underage girl, as reported in many reliable news sources, including the The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and Reuters, and thus the contact should be mentioned in the article. —Lowellian (reply) 12:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You are allowed to talk to children it is not illegal. Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And you are also allowed to sext adults, which is not illegal either, but what this entire article is about. Just because something is not illegal does not make it irrelevant to the article. News sources about this scandal are now discussing the contact with the underage girl. It is being widely reported in the news, and removing the information---especially when it is presented neutrally, with a careful note that Weiner denies any inappropriate content within the contact---amounts to censorship. —Lowellian (reply) 13:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The police are searching all his twitter posts and clearly he will have tweeted to a lot of people and they will interview many if not all of them. The fact that he exchanged five tweets to a child and there is no claim of any impropriety is not worthy of reporting at least not in a NPOV way - if anything changes report it ten - for the time being although it has been reported , there is nothing worthy of repeating here. Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue with the underage girl is clearly notable, relevant, and important, since Weiner chose to specifically address it in a press conference. By your argument, the entire article should be blanked, since sexting adults is not illegal either. And no, police are not interviewing everyone he tweeted; they are interviewing the underage girl specifically. —Lowellian (reply) 13:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree you are allowed to sext adults, the scandal is not that he did it but that he lied about it and that position suggests to me a name change - Anthony Weiner sexting incident? The police will interview as many people as they see fit. The mere fact that they interview someone does not make it noteworthy if there is nothing to report about it. Its closer to trivia than notable - police interviewed a girl - she said nothing untoward happened. Weiner also said nothing happened. (nothing happened) - nothing at all to do with the title of the article. The police, "who are taking it seriously" (the police take everything seriously) found no impropriety. If anything changes and something worthy of reporting occurs we can revisit and add it then. Off2riorob (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly: the police will interview as many people as they see fit: and they chose to interview the teenage girl but not the other women, thus indicating her importance. The girl is important enough that Weiner felt the need to specifically address her to the media. The girl is every bit as relevant as any other detail of the overall scandal, which is why so many news organizations are reporting on her. —Lowellian (reply) 18:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly notable. It has been reported by numerous reliable sources. And Weiner himself has responded to the matter. It's notable and should be included in the article. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

Whats notable about it? Just because it was hot on the press for a few hours doesn't mean we have to include it when it soon was clearly nothing but partisan and tittilation, what happened - nothing of long term note - get back to me when there is actually a worthwhile long term incident - jonny spoke to a child on the Internet the police were told by partisan opponents of the person that the subject had spoken to a child on the internet and the police investigated and found that the subject had spoken to a child on the internet which is allowed does not qualify. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's notable and relevant in the context of this entire article. This entire article is about Weiner's inappropriate (i.e., scandalous) texting. Have you read the article? His texting a minor — while not illegal — is factual, notable, and reliably sourced. Readers can make whatever conclusions they want to about it, in context of the broader scandal. It violates NPOV to not mention it. And, PS, you seem to have an "agenda" here. No one is claiming that this conduct is illegal. Its legality or illegality, however, is irrelevant. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

The fact that Weiner has contacted the girl is by his own admission and thus not in dispute. Furthermore, in his original press conference on June 6, Weiner took care to specifically state that to the best of his knowledge, none of the women were underage. He himself opened the door to this line of questioning by that statement in his original press conference. News organizations and police began investigating the girl. Then later, in the June 10 statement, he addressed the specific teenage girl in question. If (1) Weiner himself (2) news organizations AND (3) the police all consider the girl to be relevant, then the article would be incomplete without a mention of her. Virtually every newly-published story by reliable sources (The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, Reuters, etc., as already shown above) on the scandal is now mentioning the teenager. Weiner contacting the girl is an established fact, as is the police investigation. Pretending the contact and investigation did not happen is POV censorship of facts. —Lowellian (reply) 19:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a growing consensus among active editors in this discussion that the matter should be included in the article in some form. My chief concern is that it should be written in a neutral manor, with only verified content, and not be to large (at this moment due to the limited amount of coverage of this portion of the subject of this article) per WP:DUE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be mentioned in the timeline section, with only a sentence or two for now? If this investigation finds anything it can be expanded in the main body of the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I added [12] just such a comment to the timeline:

* June 10: authorities in Delaware visit the home of a 17-year-old female high school student who had exchanged private Twitter messages with Weiner. Weiner confirms having communicated with the minor, describing their interactions as "neither explicit nor indecent".

But Abrazame removed it as being "not part of the scandal", which I find an absurd assertion, as if the police would have visited had there been no such scandal. I did agree with Abrazame's deletion of this section head [13] as to suggestive. But Abrazame's edit summary assertion that " police confirm harmlessness" strikes me both in need of support, and very worthy of inclusion in the article on its own right if true. I asked for confirmation of exoneration by the police on Abrazame's talk page. His response below about how dispicable we are acting makes it appear he has no such reference to provide. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you people be acting like this if we were talking about letters across snail mail between constituents and aspiring young politicians? Either he did something inappropriate in regard to this girl or he didn't. And reliable sourcing says that he didn't, not just according to his own statement as the article noted, but according to the girl, her family, and police who investigated the situation — the latter three somehow missing from the section or the subsequent reinsertion by Medeis.

It is hard to assume good faith when people are arguing that even though they know this was not a part of the scandal that they want it in the article anyway.

Kissing babies and serving as a role model for young people (yes, I know, all of the adulterous ones and the divorced ones and the fascists and the socialists and the milquetoasts and the numbskulls and the ones who are on the grift or in the pockets of industry and the hypocrites are role models as well, though, with no less irony) are all part and parcel of being an elected representative. I have not undertaken any editing of this page as I am arguing for its deletion at the AfD, but this is beyond the pale talking about, much less heading a section with the suggestive "Contact with..." as if this is part of his inappropriate activity, or as if the fact that his statement was confirmed by the girl, her family, and police, was immaterial.

Whether he and his penis actually had an affair (as dozens of current representatives on both sides of the aisle) or posed naked for thousands of women in Playgirl magazine (as a current Republican senator, Scott Brown), it has no bearing on other activities that are not illicit, and presenting material here that is not illicit, even with the exculpatory evidence, but especially without it, is conflating this harmless thing with the rest of it, in the implication that there is some relevance, or some question. This is an encyclopedia, not a news ticker or a blog. When news comes out that is not material to the subject, we don't pretend it could be and hey, let's leave it up to the reader to decide if our placing the fact that this guy kissed a baby or texted a teenager in this context and making this association and conflation for them, makes them think it is now suddenly grounds for suspicion and revulsion. It is not, and we should not be leading them to suppose the opposite, barring any evidence thereof. Abrazame (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Please be clear, Abrazame. Do you or do you not have a reference for a statement from the police saying that nothing untoward was found, or Weiner was exhonerated? μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I find the willful ignorance and the refusal to take editorial responsibility fascinating.

Did you and User:Joseph A. Spadaro and the other editors at this page actually read the source that editors at this page were already using for that section?

Do you and User:Joseph A. Spadaro and the other editors at this page or do you not acknowledge that the source editors at this page were already using stated that the girl and her family confirmed Weiner's claim?

Do you et al not acknowledge that if the girl and her family did not confirm this to police, that we would already be reading about that — or, we could bloody well wait until we did read about it in reliable sources to determine that this had any business being a part of this scandal article?

Do you and the other editors at this page not acknowledge that a current Senator posed naked in Playgirl magazine?

Do you et al not acknowledge that there is always communication between adulterous public figures and those with whom they have affairs, and that this alone is not news?

Do you et al not acknowledge that a naked, erect penis is a part of any of these affairs (possible lesbian elements notwithstanding)?

Do you et al not acknowledge that all of these men with naked, erect penises at the time of these affairs and communications also has above-board, non-illicit contact with all manner of people of all sexes and ages, from their own children to constituents?

Did you, or anybody else who supported this being added or re-added here, read more than one article to see whether Weiner's claims were confirmed or contradicted by the Delaware police visit?

Do you and the others here think it's not your editorial responsibility to find the most complete coverage about such a libelous statement before you added it to an article that, even though it is not a biography, is still about a living person and so is governed by WP:BLP?

Do you et al consider that you can not only go ahead and publish this as if it has relevance to this scandal, but omit that exculpatory detail from your treatment, which is essentially a libelous POV in its implication that we have nothing to go on but the claim of the man himself in the context of his prior denial?

Do you and Joseph honestly not see, or it is your considered editorial opinion that it doesn't matter, whether an implication is with or without merit, nor whether our mention should note that it is without merit, much less that one does not raise recentist issues without merit as if the mere suggestion of a disproved accusation is not itself the perpetuation of the accusation? Abrazame (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Help me

{{adminhelp}}

I'd like an administrator to intervene. A user named Abrazame is constantly reverting my edits on the article of Anthony Weiner sexting scandal. Also, a user named Off2riorob is harassing me — and not Abrazame — by "threatening" me by posting a 3RR revert warning on my Talk Page. Furthermore, Off2riorob is deliberately interfering with my "Admin Help" request ... by making unwanted, unwarranted, and unwelcome edits on my Talk Page. I added information into the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal article. Consensus on the Talk Page of that article (see above) approved such. And Abrazame keeps stating his own personal opinion that "this is not part of the scandal". All of the information that I added was true, factual, relevant, NPOV, and fully (reliably) sourced. Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

There is no intervention necessary here. He is correct that you both have reached 3RR and should avoid further warring. You both were warned of that fact. Nothing else has been said. There is obviously still contention; I suggest you try to talk it over more before proceeding. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Intervention is indeed necessary. Another user (DD2K) just reverted the info with the edit summary of: "Right now, this is a BLP violation by innuendo. No source has stated any illicit messages, the opposite in f". There is no "innuendo". And, the section did not state that the messages were illicit. In fact, the statement section affirmatively indicated that Weiner claimed that the messages were NOT illicit. The entire section is sourced, factual, relevant, and NPOV. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

Right now, it's a BLP violation to insinuate that Weiner's contact with the minor Delaware girl is part of this 'sexting' scandal. There are no reliable sources that have stated there were any illicit messages between the two. Even if we think it's 'icky' or unseemly, to include that in this article seems to be a case of jumping the gun and a BLP violation. Dave Dial (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Where did it state that the messages were illicit? In fact, it said the exact opposite. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

Isn't it by innuendo by placing it in this article? If there is nothing illicit, then why include it in a 'sexting scandal' article? If there turns out to be something there, then it should be added. Until then, Wikipedia is not the news and there is no reason to include it here, in this article. Dave Dial (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a part of the scandal, overall, because it is the catalyst / impetus that prompted massive calls for his resignation from top-ranking officials in Congress. Whether the contact with the minor was true or untrue, legal or illegal, advised or ill-advised ... it is what caused many Congressmen to push hard for his resignation. Hence, it's a HUGE part of the scandal. Sheesh! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

That's exactly what I've been saying too. Not sure why Davey and others have such a hard time understanding or appreciating that simple fact. The "Delaware 17 year old girl" thing was the TIPPING POINT of what caused many Dems now to call for his resignation, whereas just days ago they were not yet. This June 10th Delaware matter, whether "mundane and not illegal" (and I agree that it's "mundane" but it doesn't matter), is very well-sourced, and VERY RELEVANT. And suppressing or hiding that information, on Wikipedia, because it doesn't suit the tastes of some editors, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to honest or complete. See my other comments below, on this point. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) So you need to bring those people into the discussion. Administrators are not here to take sides. If anything happens, the page is going to be locked down and people blocked, and nobody is going to like that. Try resolving it peacefully first. (As you are doing now.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So, while we are trying to "resolve it" ... why does their version (with my edits remaining deleted) get to stay? As opposed to my version (which they all deleted)? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

I may be wrong, but the first paragraph of the removed section also seems to be a copyvio of the source. - SudoGhost™ 23:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be correct (and now I have a bigger mess to look at...) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:WRONG and (more seriously) WP:PREFER --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe you can ask that question, Joseph. You really think it's more important to have a skewed presentation of contested material in the article during a discussion rather than out of it? That's your take on editorial responsibility? Demanding the revert back in rather than participating in the discussion above or reading a couple more sources on the topic of the girl, or for that matter on the topic of BLP violations, to better understand the relative issues? I was trying to help you, by pointing out what was wrong with what you were putting into an article and starting a discussion thereof. Abrazame (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested edit

This is the exact quote (below) of the edit in question. Where does it state that the messages were illicit? In fact, it states the exact opposite! The edit is factual, NPOV, relevant, and sourced. So, why is it not allowed to be added into the article? Please advise. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

• Communications with underage female: During Weiner’s June 6 press conference, a reporter asked him if all of his sexting partners were of age. "I only know what they published on social media," he said. "They’re all adults." A reporter yelled out that he could hardly know this for sure, but in the hubbub of being peppered with questions, Weiner either didn't hear or didn't care to respond. On June 10, however, authorities in Delaware visited the home of a 17-year-old female high school student who had exchanged private Twitter messages with Weiner. [Reference Cited] Weiner subsequently admitted to communicating with the minor, although he claimed that their interactions "were neither explicit nor indecent".

(1): It is a copyright violation of the given source. (2) It suggests that he had communicated with the girl inappropriately (Sexting partners...of age...however...claimed) which appears to be a violation of WP:BLP. (3) It doesn't seem to be relevant to the article. (4)It is a copyright violation of the given source. - SudoGhost™ 02:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Give me a break, will ya? You change a few words around (i.e., "semantics") ... and it's not a copyright issue anymore. Problem solved. You are a joke ... really. Am I supposed to take your reply seriously? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

Well, considering that individuals that continuously ignore Wikipedia's rules on copyright violations find themselves blocked, for your sake I hope you do take it seriously. It is not up to me to "give you a break", but changing a few words around may solve the problem of a copyright violation, but then it becomes plagiarism. Also, you now have quite a few links on your talk page to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I suggest you read them. - SudoGhost™ 04:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of Weiner's communications with minor female

This (below) is why mention of Weiner's communications with the minor girl (from Delaware) is relevant to this article. That fact was a huge catalyst in high-ranking members of Congress calling for Weiner's resignation. Thus, it is a huge part of this story. Thus, it is relevant and should be included in this article. Here is a direct quote from a reliable source:

According to several well-placed Democratic sources on the Hill, the situation changed on Friday night, when it was reported that police were investigating direct online communications between Weiner and a 17-year-old girl. The nature of those conversations wasn't known. The congressman's office insisted that they were "neither explicit nor indecent". But House members were clearly bothered by the newest revelations. And with lawmakers returning to Washington, D.C., after a recess, the decision was made to have a coordinated call for Weiner's resignation. "The pressure was building," said one top Democratic aide, "with the Sunday shows tomorrow and members coming back on Monday ... the [17-year-old] story was the last straw." (Source: Anthony Weiner Seeks Treatment, Requests Leave Of Absence As Top Democrats Call For Resignation)

So, let's get consensus on whether or not this issue is relevant and should be placed into the article. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/11/debbie-wasserman-schultz-anthony-weiner_n_875402.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing6|dl1|sec1_lnk2|70108 -

- "According to several (unnamed) but well-placed Democratic sources on the Hill" ..."The pressure was building," said one (unnamed)top Democratic aide, " ... another (again unnamed) aide said ... Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Off2. I'm guessing (but just wanted to check) that you are wondering whether we should have RS coverage attributable to something other than un-named aides?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if it is correct that someone wants the subject to resign for talking to a seventeen year old girl on twitter, if such without any allegations of impropriety at all is to someone notable the final straw they will say it them selves and we can cite them. Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And why is it that we cannot we cite The Huffington Post? Is not The Huffington Post a reliable source? Or is there a "sliding scale" where we can raise/lower the bar (of what constitutes a reliable source), depending on if we agree/disagree with what that source says? Please advise. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict) I confess I'm confused by the comments here by everyone. However, I have two comments. First, The Huffington Post is a reliable source. Second, we shouldn't report on something this sensitive based on "several well-placed democratic sources" and unnamed aides. If one of the congresspersons wants to go on record commenting on the Twitter with the minor, fine. Otherwise, it should not be included, as worded, in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, then, your comments have me confused. The H. P. is a reliable source or it's not. Or can we simply "pick and choose" from what they say? That's a pretty slippery slope. We at Wikipedia don't "screen" or judge (or evaluate) the reporting of reliable sources, do we? I thought that we (as a tertiary source) report whatever reliable sources report. Verifiability, not truth. Am I mistaken? If that is not the case, then we can simply "pick and choose" the pieces that we like/dislike from the reliable source reporting. And, obviously, that opens up all sorts of NPOV concerns. No? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

Bbb23's position strikes me as reasonable, on both counts.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I read / interpret Bbb23's comment, in paraphrase, as: "The HP is a reliable source, but we cannot use it in this case." Do I have that correct? I am confused here! If it's a reliable source, why exactly can we not use it? That seems to raise NPOV concerns. Meaning ... if I agree with what a reliable sources says, then we can use it; if I don't agree with what a reliable source says, then we can't use it. That seems like an arbitrary standard. And a slippery slope. To have a "sliding scale" of what is/is not a reliable source. No? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

I think it's becoming clear that the POV here is that (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) believes that the report that police were investigating this was what led for Congresspeople to call for Weiner's resignation. So even though he does not place that synthesis into the article, he places into the article only the fact of the investigation and Weiner's denial, and wants no part of the editorial responsibility to present the fact that his very own source presents the girl and her family's confirmation that there was nothing untoward in their communication. And this is why he is so demanding of restoring this skewed presentation into the article, rather than discussing it with the material out. Because (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) wants to amplify this misconception that this minimal and mundane correspondence with a young person interested in politics was part of a sex scandal.

Flip it around: the editorially responsible and objective thing would be, if you actually believed that a misperception was causing powerful people to call for the resignation of a popularly elected official, that you would take pains to source the exculpatory part of the story, so that you were clearing up that this wasn't part of the scandal. That's editorial objectivity, regardless of how raunchy and reckless you view Weiner's behavior in these other instances.

To do anything less is to subvert our Democracy.

If people want an elected official out of office for actual violations, that should be their considered opinion based on the facts, not something they're scared and railroaded into by a concerted effort to imply this is something more than it is. And if it comes out in the future that it's more than we now know it to be, then is when we would cite that as part of the scandal, not before.

I'm frankly shocked that while editors have upheld my revert of this material, nobody is making any effort to point out to (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) that he and I are not equal offenders of the 3RR, or the myriad aspects of encyclopedic responsibility he is in violation of. Abrazame (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Joseph, your paraphrase/conclusion of what I said is correct. However, you don't cite my reasoning. And, yes, just because something is a reliable source doesn't mean we can use anything the source reports. We make judgment calls like this all the time. The NYT reports that a senator likes yellow daisies. It's a reliable source. But we don't use it because it's trivial. Or The Washington Post reports that so-and-so was being investigated for some crime. The Post is a reliable source but we don't use it because it's preliminary (not an arrest, not even a charge) or it's not relevant to the subject - or for whatever reason. There's no "slippery slope" in this. It's not "arbitrary" because it's backed up by sound editorial judgment, guidelines, and policies.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification (as it were). But, this is a "you say tomato, and I say tomato" situation. What you coin "judgment calls", I am calling the "slippery slope". Be that as it may. I understand your point about the reliable report on the Senator's like of daisies being trivial, etc. So, in this specific instance (Weiner), can you clarify? Why are you "rejecting" what the reliable source states? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

I already gave my reasoning, Joseph. This kind of charged material needs more than unnamed sources to report on it. And if what Abrazame says is correct (that the family of the 17-year-old confirms Weiner's claim that the exchange was not explicit, etc.), then that makes the inclusion of this material that much worse. It'd be nice if Abrazame provided a link to that - it's not in the same article (he calls it the same source).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, from both the parents and Weiner. So far. If something changes, it can be added in this article Right now, there are major BLP concerns in adding texts to a minor girl in some 'sexting scandal' article is there was no illicit messages sent form Weiner to the minor girl. Adding it here absolutely infers that Weiner was 'sexting' with the girl. Dave Dial (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Abrazame, "subvert our democracy"? "equal offenders"? "myriad aspects of encyclopedic responsibility he is in violation of"? A little melodramatic, no? Let's just focus on the content.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, violations of WP:BLP are about character assassination, and this is taking place in a highly charged political environment driven by a media circus where (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) is actually defending his justification for adding this material here as being that the mere implication that this may be an aspect of this scandal is motivating public officials to call for his ouster. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) is trying to be part of the story here, and his reverts were him insisting upon using Wikipedia to disseminate an erroneous, skewed presentation that would have the effect of enabling just such a move to strip the man of his elected position. To the degree an ethics investigation might result in that some way down the road when cooler heads prevail and people can review what actually happened in all this, that's not up to us. What is up to us is to protect the project from being abused. One argument for this article at its AfD is that Google News points to this article as one of its primary listings on the subject, and that it would be "an embarrassment" if we were to pull it. Obviously the thinking of a contingent defending this article is that we're big time breaking news on this subject, completely in violation of the letter and spirit of our mandate. But obviously more in violation is to use that primacy in a Google search on this affair to conflate and smear with half-truths and dangerously libelous associations to fool the readership on this key point.

The first user who reverted this section, User:Medeis, wrote at Weiner's biography that it is important to note that Andrew Breitbart "is an influential person with an agenda and the means to carry it out". (Although he contradicts himself in that section.) Still, the point remains that Breitbart was clearly leaking these photos in order to damage Weiner's career. That doesn't mean that we refrain from publishing what Weiner did now that it's come out, but it does mean that we should take extra precaution that we don't aid and abet him in that agenda by presenting inflammatory innuendo about something we know from our own cited sources is not what we are making it seem. This is a lot of people's real lives, folks, and it seems a number of people see it not only as sport but as a participatory sport. We're here to give an encyclopedic account of what actually happened, past tense, once we actually understand what that is and can help a reader understand it. If (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) doesn't know or doesn't care that this element has been resolved by the family and by police as not being a part of the scandal, but is scrambling to do everything to obfuscate it and prevent contemplating and admitting that fact, it's important to point that out. Abrazame (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You can point it out with less inflammatory language and less discussion about the editors involved. It's unwarranted, no matter what your views are about the "real lives" that are at stake. I think you're assuming way too much about the editors, an unfortunately common practice at Wikipedia in these kinds of discussions, and should focus on the facts and the applicable policies and guidelines. Your arguments would be stronger if you proceeded in that manner.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing justifies your edit warring to remove this material when the bare facts of a police visit - a public official act - and 'Weiner's own statement are reported. I note Bbb23 has now reverted the article five time in the last few hours. I am sick of people overtly breaking the 3rr rule with no sanction. Abrazame and Bbb23 have been warned. Their edits are against consensus and should be reverted. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had to undo the last editor's total removal of the Deleware thing on the Timeline. If he had such a big problem with the wording, then he should have simply RE-WORDED it, not totally removed it. What happened on June 10th IS very relevant. The tipping point for why he's been asked to resign was what happened yesterday Friday... Because of the "17 year old girl" blah blah, though the police found nothing illegal per se being said. But it's what's the last straw for many Dems to say to Weiner "resign." So very relevant. Not sure why Bb23 has a hard time seeing this. He calls this "mundane" and maybe it was. NOT THE POINT. The point is that it has caused uptight ones in Congress (for political expedience of course) like Pelosi, to call for Weiner's resignation. THE TIPPING POINT. Whether it's fair or not is NOT the issue. I personally think Weiner should not resign over this nonsense, but my view is irrelevant. It's the fact of how this or that is all related. The Deleware thing is very relevant, and should be in the timeline. The thing should should stay. Period. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that say that event was the "tipping point"? Because it seems irrelevant to an encyclopedic entry, even if news sources are reporting it. I don't think it will have any standing in the long term, in terms of the events in the article. - SudoGhost™ 03:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

RSS copiously say this. This is not really debatable. They weren't calling for his resignation like this just days ago...and now because of this "17 year old contact" thing, it's being adamantly called for now, and even admitted by many of these Dems. How is this even an issue or disagrement? How can you say "even if news sources are reporting it"? when in many cases that IS what is mainly reliable sources to begin with? And to appeal to WP:NOTNEWS in the context of this whole article seems a bit silly given the fact that the article exists (though some incredibly don't want it to), and then suggesting that "Delaware 17 year old girl" is just salacious or gossipy, and nothing more, and given the fact that there's a TIMELINE in this article (that I originally put in the article, by the way, days ago), and there's a chronological listing of significant events in this whole sorry and silly mess. I mean, how can you have June 11th calls for resignation by many Dems WITHOUT having June 10th's "Delaware 17 year old girl" thing, that EVEN MADE JUNE 11TH HAPPEN in the first place? It's called sequential logic. And proves relevance by its very nature. And Dems have even SAID this. Not sure what the big fuss and disagreement are about. Delaware 17 year old girl communication, even if mundane and not illegal, seem arguably relevant, otherwise June 11th calls for resignations can't be so "relevant" either, if June 10th "Delaware" was (as is sourced) the "tipping point". Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says this? Because I haven't seen one. Just because the chain of events happened the way it did, does not mean that one event preceding his being called to resign was the cause of it, or the "tipping point". - SudoGhost™ 07:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The term "tipping point" was NOT a term I came up with, but is the very term I heard on TV News reports. ABC news for one. Also, I was able to find abc web page using that very term right here. Not sure why you say that you "haven't seen a source" that says this. I found the website in like 4 seconds. This right here makes me wonder about the total objectivity with many editors regarding this. I (and other editors who want this in the article) did not make this up or "assume" it simply because one event preceded another. This is what's been reported in reliable sources. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the information Joseph wants to add about the 17-year-old and the Delaware entry in the timeline are, of course, related. We need to resolve the issue of whether to report this information and, if so, how, regardless of where the information is in the article. It was for that reason I removed the Delaware entry, namely because no consensus has been reached on the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

True. In a sense, and at this moment. On this specific event, it's better to wait until all the facts are known and investigations complete before adding it to an article that has BLP implications. The manner of which it was being added, along with the Talk page entries, seem to have an agenda without regard to those implications. Dave Dial (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The 17-year-old Delawarian, her mother, and their lawyer deny any impropriety

I maintain that none of this is appropriate to be mentioned in the article in any way unless some shocking new development unfolds. However, editors who would rather spend their time reverting half-baked POV into the article than read the source those same editors were using to cite their statement (which has since been erased from article history), and who would rather edit war and throw tantrums than be responsible for getting the full story on something they were trying to add into the article, demanded that I do their editorial work for them.

The media has been anything but helpful in this regard. For the record I want to state that I had viewed an article this afternoon giving statements from the girl's mother and the police in regard to their interview with the girl. When I went through my browser history to bring those articles back up, those links had been erased, and clicking on them now led to a completely different article — about various calls for the congressman's resignation. Even some articles from RS that came up in a Google search for various terms and supposedly titled one thing turned out to be similar switches of focus. I find this highly unethical. This is the medical equivalent of snake oil to dull a symptom rather than diagnose and cure the disease. For those who will butcher that analogy, the snake oil is the calls for resignation, the symptom is the insinuation that there would have been any impropriety in the exchanges.

At any rate, from the article:

"'The Tweets in question between the student in question and the congressman were not salacious or in any manner inappropriate,' said Daniel McElhatton, the attorney representing the girl's family. 'No photographs were ever sent to her or from her.'

Weiner spokeswoman Risa Heller also said that Weiner's interactions with the girl 'were neither explicit nor indecent.'

The police are trying to verify that, McElhatton said.

'I think that police just want some independent corroboration that there is nothing on her computer or cellphone that was inappropriate,' he said. 'They're looking to confirm it because it's their responsibility.'"

We have a responsibility, too, and it has a higher threshold than leaving out the supposedly — and, by the media, actually — injured party's version of the first reliable source we can get our hands on to determine what is encyclopedically relevant, or even accurate and up to date. I reiterate that it goes against all manner of Wikipedia guidelines to put any version of this wrinkle anywhere on Wikipedia, much less an article about a scandal that is completely unrelated. I simply present it because even the talk page is subject to BLP and should not have what editors have suggested was an open question unanswered. The full article is here. Abrazame (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, for the moment, the Delaware story is a side show and shouldn't be in the article. If we were to report it, it would end up being weird and disjointed, reporting on the one hand the insinutations that Weiner was doing something improper and then balancing that with his denials and the denials of the girl's family. At this point, it's all innuendo and guilt by association. If something comes of this later that contradicts the family's statements or provides actual evidence of wrongoing, maybe the story would warrant inclusion, but not now.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see how this shakes out for a few more days in the mainstream press before we come to a firm decision. Meet the Press led with it this morning, saying that it "appeared to accelerate" pressure from top Democrats for him to resign. But DNC chair Schultz didn't mention it during her appearance (neither did the GOP official), so it's difficult to know whether it's an old red herring or had enduring effect on the politics of this scandal. Similar things were reported in the NY Times either today or yesterday ("further inflamed" the scandal). This wrinkle is newsworthy in its political effect, but it's hard to tell at this point whether it deserves a short sentence or a full paragraph in the political section (either way, the exculpatory information would have to be included) or simply nothing. No harm, and lots of benefit, in waiting for this to settle more. But please don't write it off entirely.--Chaser (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)