Talk:Anthony Weiner sexting scandals/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Psychologists

I just want to add a voice of approval for the removal of the Psychologists section. In addition to what the editor said in the edit summary, the information is far too tangential to include. These kinds of psychologists/media commentaries on people's conduct are generally fluff and not worth reporting in Wikipedia articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As a psychologist, I couldn't agree more strongly. Diagnoses in the media are not valid (just ask Senator Frist about Terry Schiavo). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Do they appear in reliable sources? Nevard (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is in a "reliable source", it's not encyclopedic. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it encyclopedic to cover "significant views that have been published by reliable sources"? Nevard (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Are the views of people who are significant, relative to this matter? If so (as w/Pelosi's view), the answer is clearly that they are significant. If not, it is less clear. (But if they are not, and they are also not "notable", then their views are clearly non-notable for this article).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

'[F]ormer director of the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis' (quoted in reliable sources) isn't exactly the same as 'Onion 'man-on-the-street. [1] Nevard (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

To me, he might as well be. Unless he has personal knowledge of Weiner, we have to acknowledge that he could too easily be wrong. He might be trying to increase his own personal profile or push some sort of agenda. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

And yet, that's just your opinion. This is why we count on reliable sources. Nevard (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't care how notable the psychologist is, nor how reliable the source is, it doesn't belong in the article because it's insufficiently relevant to Weiner - just generalized psychological stuff about why someone like Weiner might be doing what he is doing. The only reason they can even comment is because he's not their patient, and their opinion is of marginal value but, again, more important, has very little relevance to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's only considered relevant to the article subject by reliable sources. Have you published an article in reliable sources about how the opinion of psychologists on Weiner should not be considered relevant? If so, perhaps that should be in the article too. Nevard (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

They are not relevant because these psychology professors are not offering clinical diagnoses of Anthony Weiner. They have not examined him, nor is this part of a trial in which his mental state or personality is a factor. If you read the articles, the professors are simply giving their own opinions about sex scandals in general and refer to this scandal because it is a current event. The discussion about politicians who engage in risky behavior because they are narcissists does not belong in the article because leads the reader to make the inference that Weiner himself must have a narcissistic personality disorder. The professors interviewed are careful not to directly suggest they are making a diagnosis of the congressman, therefore this sort of thing does not belong in the article. It is not just that something must be written down in the mainstream press. The underlying citation must support what is written in the article. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Fault in the poll percentage.

"On June 9, a NY1-Marist Poll showed that 56% of registered voters in Weiner's Congressional District wanted him to stay in Congress, and 33% thought he should resign, with 12% uncertain."

That makes 101%. The citation from the source is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.211.204 (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This often happens. "Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding." See poll data.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Failing to follow RSs; Breitbart description

The RSs overwhelmingly refer to Breitbart as "Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbert", when reporting on him relative to this matter. See The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, ABC News, CBS, The Boston Herald, The Boston Globe, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Forbes, The Hill, The Daily Mail, The Toronto Star, Salon, WPIX ... etc. Whatever the POV of the editor who has reverted that, that is not reason to stray from following the RSs -- that is how we stay away from POV editing on wp. Saying that the description used by Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes (among others) is due to a different political bent is not credible. I am reverting the revision that was made without any edit summary whatsoever.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that these sources refer to him as a blogger have nothing to do with denying the more impostnat fact that he is a journalist, publisher, and paid commentator as you were advised here: [2]

Please see the above RS sources, and the discussion on the same topic at the AW talk page. Also, please don't engage in SYNTH by adding a 2007 footnote to the description of Breitbart that is not related to this matter. Please also take this as a warning against editing against consensus, and edit warring on a slow-war basis.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why it is helpful to hide from this article's readers Breitbart's wider resources and more specific agenda than just the fact that he has a blog. Given that recent edits retain the fact of his blogging and describe him economically as an "activist" and "internet publisher", which is his own description and that of his critics, I am not sure what the reason is for continued accusations of "edit warring." μηδείς (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Medeis. As demonstrated above, Breitbart is widely refered to in the mainstream press as "conservative blogger". I think that is how he should be labeled in this article. How is calling Breitbart a "activist/publisher/blogger" important to understanding the Weiner scandal, when Breitbart's role was to post an image on his blog? It is hardly a personal attack on Breitbart to call him "conservative blogger" when this is how he is widely known. I'm worried about Breitbart getting undue weight and even a bit of cheerleading. Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Liberal Classic. As do a host of other editors -- see here. Yet, oddly enough, Medeis keeps on editing this point against consensus, and just left me an unfathomable 3rr warning re this (for my heeding consensus).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete Timeline section

The Timeline section should be deleted from this article. It detracts from the article by repeating information found in other places within the article. It is redundant and is redundant. Do editors really think this section is necessary? -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's useful. The timeline provides a day-by-day snap shot and progression of the pertinent events in a nut-shell. As such, the timeline adds something that is not attained (i.e., different / more concise format) by reading the text / narrative above it, even if the information is duplicated. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

• Delete. I've worked on making it, as have others, and hate to see good work go, but it is highly duplicative. I think it is fine to delete it. While we do use timelines at times, and they have their purpose, the cost does in fact outweigh the benefit when the material is as highly duplicative as is the case here. Hadn't focused on it, but Wiipedical does have a good point.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It is very useful, more factual and less interpretive than the prose, for sure, and there is no consensus to delete it. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I should say, delete one and leave the other, integrating whatever (if anything) is additional and not simply duplicative. I care less which of the two remains. But there seems to be little question that the 2 are largely duplicative -- just go with the best one, and tweak it by adding whatever is in the other and is missing in the one retained.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I vote delete it. The article is short already and the timeline takes up perhaps a third of all of the information. That's too much given that someone could very easily read the rest of the article. Or the entire article could be arranged in timeline format and all other information could be incorporated into the timeline. That would work pretty well. I don't know- are there any other articles that are arranged in that way? Lunixer (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I also support deletion - Timelines are always trouble - its almost completely duplicated and its not a real times line anyways, never is - its just the press reported this on such a day. Also presenting simplified comments in such a way seems to present the details of the incident open to the misinterpretation that one led to two and two led to three etc. Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I say delete as well. It is redundant and repetitive. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I too am in favor of deletion. To the extent there is any information in the timeline that is not duplicated in the rest of the article - and that information should be retained - it can be integrated into the body of the article. The timeline is just going to cause problems. For example, the first entry about the briefs cites to a NYT "timeline". Although elsewhere in the article the "bulging briefs" description is sourced, the NYT source doesn't say that. It's really a can of worms. Finally, timelines are lists and are generally disfavored on Wikipedia compared to integrated material. See WP:EMBED.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That was the guideline I was looking for: "Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs." The timeline is not specifically appropriate for this article, since all of the information is already covered in prose paragraphs. I will remove the Timeline due to the support I've seen in this section. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No valid reason to delete a streamlined listing of events and dates that casual readers may want to go to. I'm restoring. Wholesale removal was unnecessary, and arguably even a violation. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get very far considering the consensus for removal. A violation of what?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

note - the timeline was replaced by user:Hashem sfarim, as there seems a clear support against it here I removed it and requested he move to discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it may have been discussed to some extent SO FAR, and there seems to be more people against it (people who arguably don't even want this article to exist in the first place) but the discussion was not for very long and not exhausted, to wait for others to maybe chime in and give their thoughts. (I mean, what is the big problem in having a Timeline thing on the article? Why does it need to be totally removed? Is there no benefit at all in having one?) Removing a whole section, that is arguably useful for quick reference and event dates, etc, seems a bit premature. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the votes for keeping or deleting the article, but I can say, as an editor who is clearly against the Timeline section, I have not voted. So, please don't assume ulterior motives in my views on the Timeline section. Also, the reasons why editors are against the section have very clearly been expressed. Your view seems to be "why not" and "what's the big deal". I don't find that very persuasive. The focus should be on why have it, and your other basis (quick reference) doesn't convince me, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hashem, you were clearly against consensus by readding that section, as we have given "valid reasons" to remove it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I have a question for you, BB. You say that the "quick reference" point (though I said a wee bit more than that) "doesn't convince" you either. You have not explained just WHY that's not a good point. In other words, with events or scandals or situations in general, a concise chronological listing of dates and happenings IS useful for quick reference and summation. How exactly is that not "convincing" as any kind of argument for keeping it? Timelines do exist in other articles that also have the same basic info or material in the rest of the article (to a greater or lesser extent, depending)...with the timeline there regardless. For a brief overview for readers who may not want to mill through all the particulars in the rest of the article or who may not have time. Again, BB, how (cuz you did not explain or elaborate at all) just why that point is "not convincing"? Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Timelines are simply not good ideas. Here is the one from Kircher that is no longer there. I have seen many removed although there will be some in some articles when there are many editors and a degree of partisan between the editors a timeline is always imo nothing but trouble. Content is king, simple writing noy lists which is what timelines basically are WP:LIST -

As Bbb23 noted, WP:EMBED is a guideline on Wikipedia: "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context." That's a pretty good basis for deleting the timeline. Its information is merely repeated content from the rest of the article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus to delete this material, and saying so in an edit summary doesn't create one. A guideline is not a policy. If anything, the timeline is bare and factual, while the text of the article is prose creeted by unpaid volunteers with various biases. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:EMBED, and the fact that it seems to be duplicate information. - SudoGhost™ 05:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Medeis, please assume good faith. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• There is plenty consensus to delete this in this section of this talk page. Just because you don't acknowledge a consensus doesn't mean there isn't one. Our "biases" are to improve this encyclopedia based on its policies. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Mub, etc., that Medeis should stop editing against consensus via slow-motion-edit-warring, both with this issue and with the Breitbart issue discussed above.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

note' - I have left user:Medias a 3RR warning note on his talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete too much duplication and this issue seems to be a large factor in the Protection rational.Grahamboat (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see any consensus from active contributors to this article in favor of deletion of the timeline. Requests for blocks when there are no 3RR violations and complaints about good faith from people who do nothing but issue wholesale reversions hardly strike me as constructive. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• I see the consensus for deletion. And it makes sense. The timeline was simply redundant -- it was repeating everything twice. As to the edit warring by Medeis, I agree w/those who see it in his slow edit warring -- edit warring does not require a technical 4 reverts in 24 hours, as the rule makes clear.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If other editors act to restore the section I will support them. Do, let's keep this question alive.μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Medeis is at it again -- despite multiple warnings for edit warring -- please take a look at his deletions at the Anthony Weiner page. He again, without consensus support, insists on both: 1) deleting the poll of AW's constituents, and 2) revising the common RS (and, on that tp, agreed-to) description of Breibart to fit his own, non-consensus view as to how it should read. I think this slow-burn edit war by him on this page and the AW page are disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested change in first sentence

Suggest first sentence in lede be changed to delete "sex", prior to "scandal". It is not needed, as the sentence is sufficiently clear, and its addition raises the possibility of misleading readers into thinking that sexual intercourse was engaged in.

It would then read:

"The Anthony Weiner sexting scandal ... is a sex scandal[6] which began when married ... Weiner used the social media website Twitter to send a sexually suggestive picture of his boxer brief-clad erect penis[7][8][9][10] to a 21-year-old Washington State woman."

--Epeefleche (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this change, as there was no "sex" involved. - SudoGhost™ 18:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I also agree and made the edit. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, besides the fact that "The Anthony Weiner (sexting) scandal is a scandal..." sounds half baked, the term sex scandal is accurate and the link is useful. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There may well have been no 'sex' involved in Clinton's little sex scandal too, but it was still a sex scandal. It's a broad term, unlike 'sexting', which besides being crass is confusing as it refers to sexually explicit MMS messages.So how many times have the media referred to this as a 'sex scandal'? Oh- quite a few. Why not leave the question of whether or not it's a sex scandal to reliable sources? Nevard (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Obama’s statement

The CNN reference does not seem to support what is written in the article. It states that Jay Carney noted the President has not been involved in calling for Weiner’s resignation. I don’t see that anywhere in the ref. In fact it seems to suggest the opposite. The head line is “Weiner takes leave of absence; Obama suggests he should resign”. The ref continues quoting Obama “I can tell you that if it was me, I would resign." Technically not a direct call but certainly a strong hint. The way the statement is written in the article gives the idea the President has no opinion on resignation. Grahamboat (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• - http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-13/politics/weiner.scandal_1_weiner-jay-carney-obama-ratcheted?_s=PM:POLITICS

I agree that this needs an edit to improve its reflection of the comments from the president - he said in an interview - (brought from the citation for discussion only) - "Obviously, what he did was highly inappropriate," Obama said in the interview, scheduled for broadcast Tuesday. He added, "Ultimately, there's gonna be a decision for him and his constituents. I can tell you that if it was me, I would resign." - Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the edit reflected the initial form of the article, which was later revised (or perhaps a different article was used). I do recall seeing an article, before Obama's statement, that matched this text. But it should now reflect the most current statement (not the headline, which goes a bit further, but the precise statement).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked for other refs that would support the statement but couldn’t any. I agree we should be precise about what Obama said.Grahamboat (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Epe is correct, the addition was quoting the comments from the spokesman proir to the interview with the president and the external was update after the interview. We could/should alsl update, the addition (although now removed) on the Weiner blp seems more correct. In an interview on June 13, 2011, with TODAY’s Ann Curry President Barack Obama said that if he were Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner, he would resign. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43385259/ns/today-today_news/ - Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Added statement as above. Grahamboat (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for Media Reactions section.

As the article is protected for the next couple of weeks, I'd like to make two requests. One is a specific edit request, the other is a RFC for the same section.

1.) Please remove the proper name of the "single mother from Texas". WP:BLP particularly WP:BLPNAME states that caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. It is true that this person has been publicly identified, but this is the only person so named in the article. Out of respect for this person's privacy I suggest that the name be removed. In anticipation of the argument that this person is directly involved, I answer in advance that the policy does not give great weight to appearance of a name in news stories. I don't believe identifying this individual is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.

2.) The comment I have on the "Media Reaction" section is that the first two sentences of this paragraph aren't really reactions of the media. They are reports of further messaging on the part of Weiner. IMO, these citations from ABC news ought to be moved to section on admission. This leaves the "Media Reactions" section with one sentence: "This story also generated a large amount of fodder for late night television and talk shows." This is hardly a notable fact, and IMO not relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject, either. So, I suggest this sentence be struck, and the section be renamed to "Political Reaction." Thoughts?

Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you on both. Bielle (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with item 1.) and 2.) moving the first two sentences of “Media reaction” to the last part of section “Admission”. The fodder comment is not relative. We might need a new section (Other messages?) if new emails, pics, tweets surface.Grahamboat (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, late night television is irrelevant to this. Truthsort (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both comments. Abrazame (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Twitter material (from Wired)

The following material was added to the article:

Steven Levy of Wired said that on Twitter many people, confused by the interface, accidentally sent tweets to all of their followers instead of public tweets. Levy says that the Twitter interface mislead Weiner, leading him to send a tweet intended to be private to all of his followers.

I'm not sure it should even be in the article as it's speculative, but I don't believe it conforms to the source. I read the source. I tried to correct the material in the article. I failed. It's incredibly convoluted. But I'd like other editors to look first at whether we should report on this at all. If so, please try to read the Levy article and see if you can figure out how best to encapsulate what he's saying. I even got so desperate I started calling different Twitter users X and Y to distinguish between followers and followees. I'd love also to hear from the admin (WhisperToMe) who added the material and get his take. Obviously, he thinks he did it right, or he wouldn't have worded it that way, but I ask him to please revisit it.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that its one author's speculation and would also ask how notable it is and if it warrants inclusion. I took a stab at trying to match the material to the citation. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What the article is saying is that Twitter's interface makes it easy to accidentally send a message to all of one's followers instead of one of them. He argues that because of the way Twitter was designed, Anthony Weiner accidentally sent a message

Quotes from the article

Page 3: "So Twitter decided that for "direct" messages there should be some limits. Direct, private messages could only be sent to someone who followed you. The fact that you followed someone meant that you'd probably be happy to hear from him or her. To have a back-and-forth conversation, then, both parties would have to be following each other.

Otherwise, once you hit a few keystrokes to specify that something is a direct message, sending a private tweet is not all that different from sending a public tweet.

The service has never really figured a way to foolproof the process. It is a rare Twitter user -- even an experienced one -- who has not mistakenly sent something intended as a direct message out into the public Twittersphere. Happens all the time."

The article is saying that because of Twitter's interface, users frequently send "public" messages when they did not intend to. And...

Page 4: "The train wreck occurred when Weiner confronted the confusing rail yard that Twitter's founders never truly fixed: the inadequately drawn distinction between a public message and a direct one.

When Weiner decided to send a young woman a picture of his crotch -- wearing gray boxers that barely contained his tumescence -- he had already taken the step of following her. But he made a common mistake between a direct private message and a public reply, and sent the picture out to the tens of thousands of people who followed him."

The author is saying that Weiner simply fell for a common mistake that occurs among the Twitter userbase.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Whups, I just found typos on my end: "accidentally sent tweets to all of their followers instead of public tweets." should be "accidentally send tweets to all of their followers instead of private tweets for individual users." WhisperToMe (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Resignation?

News leaks indicate that Weiner intends to resign today. If that happens, IMO, we should merge an abridged version of this page back to main page under “Resignation” or “Sexting scandal” and eliminate this page. Grahamboat (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Go for it boy! --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that it’s official, I stand by my comments above. Let’s move to a consensus below at Merge back to the main bio. Grahamboat (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Locker room pictures

I'm against the recent addition of the TMZ locker room pictures. I think the story adds little to the article. The derivative confirmations (the source reports that other news sources confirmed ...) is pretty thin. There's little context as to what one woman the pictures were sent to. And, of course, although I'll be accused of being prudish, the source cite itself is pretty tawdry. How tabloidy do we have to make an otherwise tabloidy story?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was contemplating removing it - its not a story so to speak. He is an adult and can send pictures to people if he wants, I don't see anything additional there at all. He goes to the gym and has a fit body and takes pictures of himself and he might have sent one to somebody, seems normal to me in the modern world - it reminds me of the 17 year old girl story - nothing in it at all just designed to add weight/pressure to the story. Support removal until anything substantial results from it - or not as the case may be. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not being an American, I didn't really absorb how contentious this article is, so I boldly removed the section for the same reasons you have set out. (My second such removal, the first being the "Psychologists" section.) I shall check first the next time. Bielle (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As you know, I support both of your removals. I was being cautious, partly because this is a contentious article and partly because I've been accused (falsely, in my view) of making too many reversions to the article. In fact, the few reversions I've made have been pretty uncontroversial. But, hey, emotions run high in this kind of article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be undue weight to include the gym pictures. The press has been all over this. The gym pictures have not been a focus, even in the last 24 hours.--Chaser (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The same editor has reinserted the material, beefed up (if you'll pardon the pun) with more pictures and more sources. I've reverted, if for no other reason because the editor literally copied a paragraph from the NYT to the article. However, the issue of whether the material (without verbatim copying) belongs in the article should be discussed here first.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Note section #34, below. I don't agree with him, but as I reverted the initial insertion, I don't feel I should do so again. Somebody has made some money selling what would otherwise be quite unremarkable photographs. I wonder who has taken most of them as they are on the other side of the door from him. (Warning: WP:OR about to strike: Perhaps they are from a security camera and not related to this silliness at all.) WP:UNDUE and all that. Bielle (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I was in the wrong section. I agree with not using the actual pictures, but how about including the story. It seems to show a new outlook. Grahamboat (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23 - how about just the story - I suggest "June 12, 2011 the New York Times reported that the website TMZ posted 11 additional controversial photographs of Weiner posing in the Congressional gym. Reportedly, they were taken with his Blackberry and sent to a least one woman" Grahamboat (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, the new information is relevant. Of course we have to remove the word-for-word copy and paste job the other editor inserted. That's just inexcusable. Dave Dial (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

They are unlikely to have all been taken with his blackberry as in the ones taken outside the glass door he has his blackberry in his hand. There is something not right here. Bielle (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any value at all in the content. Someone has sold the pics to TMZ, there is no story its just bloat to the story with not claims of any wrong doing at all. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rob. It's a non-story artificially built up into a salacious story and poorly presented by sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No value in this? This is certainly a part of the scandal and seems to be putting even more pressure on the congressman to resign. Truthsort (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How exactly is this trivial and not relevant to the scandal? Truthsort (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Current event tag

How is this article not a current event? I propose adding the current event tag, not that it matters much. Efcmagnew (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"the template may... be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day" Nevard (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Heckler at resignation

I have 1600 google news hits for "Weiner heckler". [3] Yes it's offensive and immature. That doesn't change the fact that it happened and major news organizations: NY Times, ABC... are covering it. The heckler, Benjy_Bronk, is also notable. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to revert.--RaptorHunter (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources:

Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/benjy-bronk-anthony-weiner_n_879002.html

New York Times: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/even-a-media-circus-needs-a-clown/?scp=1&sq=weiner%20heckler&st=cse

1600 more google news hits: http://www.google.com/search?q=weiner+heckler&hl=en&safe=off&sa=G&complete=0&prmd=ivnsu&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&ei=MKL7TevDLZCFtgeqiKi8Dg&ved=0CDQQqAI&biw=1366&bih=581

---

• RaptorHunter keeps on insisting on and edit warring by adding information regarding the fact that at Weiner's resignation press conference, one or more people yelled out disruptive comments from the audience. RaptorHunter doesn't even pretend the people were notable, and there is no reason to think they are. There is no need to engage in tabloidy discussion of their views, or their voicing them. RH maintains that of course we should reflect them, as RSs have discussed them in stories of the day, but that misses the point that we don't reflect every single detail reported in RSs ... only the notable ones. I would ask that RH stop edit warring. We're not a tabloid, and edit warring to make us so is a deprecated practice.

RH's suggestion, for example, that it is incumbent upon wikipedia to report in this article that "a heckeler asked: "Senator Weiner! Will you maintain your hot physique and smooth sexy chest?" makes me wonder whether RH's edits support the purpose of wp.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually the heclker WAS notable. See Benjy_Bronk. The NY times article [4] talks about him explicitly and include a full color photo of him at the event.--RaptorHunter (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not notable for these purposes. If Obama heckles him, that is notable. We don't reflect every shouted utterance and disturbance of planned events by in-house joke writers for shock comedians.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Not notable attack heckler does not warrant inclusion. Its just trivia - some unknown person shouted insults in the crowd and was ejected by security. Also Benjy_Bronk is a comedy commentator and not even notable himself. - - Ow - I see it was even worse it was Bronk himself that was ejected - anyway as such there is a comment where it is notable in his section of the article where he has a mention. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Come on, let's not be silly. This isn't the Howard Stern Show. A Stern employee heckling doesn't seem notable to me. Are we going to include every "Baba Booey" shout out as well? Dave Dial (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So it's good enough for the New York Times but doesn't live up to the "high standards" of Wikipedia?--RaptorHunter (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A fact appearing in a newspaper does not confer notability upon it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't meet our criteria for notability. We're not in the business of selling papers, or promoting radio shows. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Muboshgu. The heckler is a bug-splat on the windshield of the article. Even though The New York Times reported it, the heckler is tangential material more suitable for tabloid gossip rags; it is certainly not encyclopedic. Someone once ran up to O. J. Simpson, shook his hand, and had his picture taken with him. Then he said something like “Thanks, I’ve always wanted to shake the hand of a murderer.” That too was widely reported. That too isn’t encyclopedic. So that too isn’t in our article on the man. Greg L (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• In the future, a person's importance will be measured in googlehits. Oppose per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see any mention of the "weiner" jokes that were running around. Jay Leno is far more notable than this Bronk character is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• This entire saga, including the resignation, has gotten beaucoup press coverage. The heckling at his resignation has gotten comparatively little. Including the quotes attributes undue weight to a minor part of the scandal. Just saying that he was heckled by someone in the crowd is plenty. To do more is sensationalist and espouses the wrong tone.--Chaser (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Per your advice, I have reduced the sentence down to just that.--RaptorHunter (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Raptor -- that's classic ignoring consensus, and edit warring, and has been reported as such. It is in complete conflict with the consensus view on this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• If in a year, the heckling is seen as notable, revist, until then lets not feed this any more. --Threeafterthree (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with this, too.--Chaser (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• [someone] …heckled Weiner?? There is way too much group-think going on with this one. Nothing about that is remotely interesting, let alone notable or encyclopedic. But I see with the latest edit (∆ edit) that User:Threeafterthree let the basic principals of Technical Writing 101 regroup in his mind and finally deleted that business first added by RaptorHunter. Thanks. There is clearly no enthusiasm for any mention of that heckling, let alone a consensus to keep it. So it’s out of here. Greg L (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop stalking me Greg.--RaptorHunter (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Stalking?? As if it is odd that this subject would interest me and I would once again stumble across edit warring involving you? The universe and all its inhabitants don’t measure latitude and longitude relative to you. It’s been nearly a month since you and I last crossed paths. Count your blessings that I didn’t bother to weigh in on the ANI brought against you for once again flouting consensus here on this article. Have you ever wondered how much less conflict you would be involved in if you actually listened and abided by consensus on Wikipedia instead of insisting on getting *your* way? Try it sometime. Greg L (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. And if you were really all that fascinating to me, I would have known—before I made the above post—that the ANI resulted in a 48-hour block. I’m truly sorry to see that there are individuals who have to learn lessons the hard way. No one ever said participating in a collaborative writing environment is easy. The key is “more heary / less talky” when others are attending the party. And you might also drop the ‘tude, as if you’re at the party holding the microphone at the podium and are lamenting how I had the hubris to wander in, ask for one of those free beers in the ice bucket, and actually join in with others to disagree with RaptorHunter©™® as I’m peeling back the easy-open can. Greg L (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was No consensus. Safiel (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Anthony Weiner sexting scandal → Anthony Weiner scandal – Removing the word 'sexting' from the title per discussion above and per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Neologisms and new compounds. "Anthony Weiner scandal" is a concise title for this article, whereas adding the word "Twitter" would exclude Facebook and texting elements of this article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support as per my comments above. - SudoGhost™ 05:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support as original suggester . — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 09:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the current name is much more descriptive and accurate. Besides, the media has widely referred to the affair as a "sexting scandal" (see referrals in the start of the article). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support My first glance at this article I really wasn't a fan of the title, a generalized title that encompasses all aspects of the scandal is far superior to the current choice. -75.150.195.86 (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose because the title of the article should tell you what the scandal is, even in one word or two. I'm okay with moving the page away from the word "sexting", but something appropriate should replace it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• How about just "Anthony Weiner sex scandal"? Gets rid of the neologism and there is already an page for sex scandal that is linked in the first sentence of this article. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 15:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• That raises a good question, actually. Is this a sex scandal? If it is, is that the best way to describe it in the first sentence? To me, the phrase suggests that someone had sex. I haven't noticed any such allegations in this scandal. Perhaps it is not the best phraseology for the first sentence, as it could mislead readers -- might be better to simply describe it rather than characterize it.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• That is a really good question, as Epeefleche says. Answer is, I'm not sure. If Bill Clinton can make the argument that he didn't have sex with Monica, then surely Weiner can make that same argument much more easily. Hmm. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• And, even when sex is had, it isn't necessarily reflected in the wp article title. See, e.g., John Ensign scandal.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support, Whatever the media says, "sexting" is not an accurate description and it is too slangy for Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• support. Also agree this is not a sex scandal. No sex has occurred. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: It would be nice to avoid the neologism "sexting", but it is very descriptive here. Maybe something like Anthony Weiner sexual messages scandal despite it being less brief? –CWenger (^ • @) 20:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• support: Anything but 'sexting'. Isn't that used to refer to mobile phone MMS's the vast majority of the time anyway? Nevard (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't like the word sexting, but I also don't like the new title. Can't we find some descriptor that is both acceptable and clarifying? If my only choices are the current title and the proposed title, I offer a weak support.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm uncomfortable with the reduced wording as it implicitly says that this is the only scandal he's ever been, or will ever be, involved in. He's already been part of the parking ticket mini-scandal, and the almost-but-not-quite scandal over "turn and burn" in his office staff.--WriterIN (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that those quite qualify as scandals. And as to future scandals, the good thing about wp is that when another scandal pops up (if it pops up), we can re-name both articles at that point. We don't generally anticipate such things -- which is why his article is "Anthony Weiner" -- and not "Anthony Weiner (politician)".--Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WriterIN. Article is useless simply as the "Anthony Weiner" scandal. Needs more detail than that... Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Most recent articles refer to it as the Anthony Weiner scandal to the point of falling under WP:COMMONNAME. - SudoGhost™ 06:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support: No sex occurred and Twitter is not the same as texting. So, wrong on both ends of the compound word. Mojoworker (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I note that we do have the Larry Craig scandal, the John Ensign scandal, the Marconi scandal, the Iris Robinson scandal, the Jack Abramoff scandals, the Schön scandal, the Enron scandal, and the Satyam scandal among others. It's not as though nom's suggestion is breaking new ground.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:TITLE. Anthony Weiner Twitter scandal might be OK, but a scandal is a scandal whether with twitter or hand-written love-letters by candlelight. Liberal Classic (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Sexting is the word commonly used in the media. Per WP:COMMONNAME, there is nothing wrong with that.--RaptorHunter (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's misleading, Raptor. There are twice as many gnewshits for "Anthony Weiner scandal" as compared to "Anthony Weiner sexting scandal". Which interestingly matches the 2-1 comments in favor of the former title, in this !vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most scandal articles on Wikipedia have a descriptor word or phrase indicating what the scandal was about. "Sexting" is now a well-accepted term in common usage. —Lowellian (reply) 21:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Anthony Weiner is not the scandal: nor is it the Anthony "Weiner Scandal": sexting is informative: there is no problem leaving Anthony Weiner scandal as a redirect: and we are not entitled to assume that this is and will be the one ever Weiner scandal. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment We are also not entitled to assume that there will be another one, in fact, we are required to do the opposite. - SudoGhost™ 03:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed title. "Anthony Weiner scandal" is too vague and broad. Oxford Dictionary, which calls itself "The world's most trusted dictionaries", defines the word sexting — http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sexting "the sending of sexually explicit photographs or messages via mobile phone: like it or not, sexting is part of growing up in 2010." Clearly that is precisely what this scandal is about. Less succinctly, but still far better than the mere, overbroad "scandal", would be Anthony Weiner Twitter photo scandal. The question is: What is the article about, and how can we capture that succinctly for its title? Virtually all the scandals my colleague User:Epeefleche lists as being called this broad term do so justifiably, as they are far more layered, complex, involve criminal activity or major fraud directly connected to their work or claimed work. The less obvious of those, Iris Robinson committed suicide in office as a result of scandal publicity, itself a major story aside from the actual adultery. Larry Craig's original arrest and official precinct admission of guilt of solicitation of sex in a men's room is perhaps furthest removed from his work, but the complexities are he vowed to resign, then withdrew that guilty plea and did not resign; and perhaps most importantly that he spent campaign donations defending a non-campaign-oriented issue. (That's all aside from the hypocrisy that he sought to admonish and humiliate Bill Clinton (apart from impeachment) and positioned himself as a "family values" candidate against civil rights for gays.) The point being that amongst all that actual illegality (and the suicide) you couldn't really draw one broad stroke about how to describe what was scandalous about those stories in a word or two beyond the name and the word "scandal". ("Solicitation" would have sufficed for Craig but for the fact that he later denied he was doing what he was arrested for and admitted to.) This story is about sending suggestive photos of himself to a handful of adult women before and since his marriage. One of the main arguments for keeping this article at the AfD was that it was historic as "the first scandal of the social media age"; to the degree that this may be true, it would by definition then require le mot juste, the precise single word for the technological developments and the context of this popular usage of that technology. I maintain this article should be merged with the biography, but if it were to remain, it should be called precisely what it is, a sexting scandal. To that point, and in regard to the OP's premise against neologisms, he cites a section actually created to argue against "Expressions that lack precision", and which reads, "They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources." They are arguing about words not yet established in the public lexicon, but whose use is as jargon limited to a certain field. The definition of "sexting" is not unstable. Its meaning is supported by reliable sources, as Epeefleche noted; the "sexting" term is used not only in those articles but in the titles of many of those WP:RS news articles. But if the argument is the preponderance of sources, a Google news search of "Anthony Weiner Twitter" brings up over 1,000 hits, more than twice as many as merely "Anthony Weiner scandal", including those that do not end the "Twitter" phrase with "scandal", but rather with "escapades", "controversy", "fiasco", "mishap". And the word "Twitter" is as commonly used as the word "Scandal" in a Google News search of Anthony Weiner and either word without quotes. So if the argument that wins out is against the most precise Oxford Dictionary word, sexting, we should certainly replace it with something, rather than simply removing it, and do so with both of the most widely used words, Twitter scandal appended by the concept "sexting" encompasses but the other does not, Twitter photo scandal. Abrazame (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Brevity is the soul of wit. (In both titles, and posts). IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Opposed. I don’t like the word "sexing" but scandal alone is not descriptive enough. There must be a better word, but right now I can’t think of one. Grahamboat (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge back to the main bio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result was oppose merge at least for the time being. Safiel (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Looking at this there is a decent section regarding this already in the main BLP, Anthony Weiner#Sexting scandal if as seems likely this is all over today, I don't see that this is such an issue worthy of its own article, others will likely disagree but , married man sends pictures of himself in his underclothes to women on the Internet, tries to deny it, then admits it and finally resigns under the media and political pressure - does not really require its own article. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming Weiner resigns, I argee. After Weiner’s resignation the news hype will fade. All the details of who said what need not be in the article. One sentence covering initial reports and denial, another covering admission, and another covering calls for resignation and the resignation itself would be sufficient. We need to write this article for the long-term. Look at the Chris lee article for guidelines. Grahamboat (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose besides the fact that this is a comprehensive encyclopedia, the last failed AfD on this only closed yesterday. As for Chris Lee, the man had already resigned before the press even knew of the story. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Chris lee thats a similar story, nothing illegal at all, nothing foul of the ethics committee, caught out in a minor personal scandal - media fracas for a week or two and off they go to their next scandal- politician steps down and another takes over. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support The news stories will peter out (sorry) now that Weiner has resigned and a separate page devoted to all the lurid details is overkill. This is now just another typical Washington scandal and should be treated as such.Grahamboat (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

So your argument is that the facts will disappear?

Lurid is a subjective word, and you confuse your desire to erase these details with their existence and documentation in reality. Verifiable details will remain. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Suddenly Last Summer (film)μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No Medeis, the facts remain the repetitive minutia goes. Grahamboat (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I'm fine with merging it back, given the relative lengths of the articles, though I imagine some POV supporters of his would want to keep this content out of his main article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

So only people of bad faith could possibly oppose your position here? μηδείς (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

He didn't say they're the only ones. I'd also add people who don't understand WP:NOT#NEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. This scandal is considerably more notable than the events that led to Chris Lee's resignation. The criterion that determines its notability is the coverage it's receiving in reliable sources, not what we personally think about having an article about someone taking photographs of themselves in their underpants and lying about it. It's up to reliable sources, not us, to determine whether this topic deserves the attention its getting. (And they apparently think that it does.) There's no reason why this scandal can't have its own article in addition to being mentioned in the main Anthony Weiner article. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. An article covering the scandal that forced the resignation of a congressman is certainly notable. Furthermore, there is simply too much information here to merge back in with the main article.--RaptorHunter (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support merging this sensationalistic violation of WP:NOT#NEWS. We don't need to document every freaking detail that this article encompasses. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The scandal is standalone notable enough to warrants its own article. There is also WP:undue weight, and this was certainly a huge moment akin to Senator Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick incident which I just checked does indeed have its own article also. This is especially important given the technology component (twitter) and it's the first of its kind to have this much publicity. The Wikipedia policies, as well as prior similar judgments (e.g. other politicians and how we decided through concensus if their scandalous entries warrant absoprtion into the parent article, or a standalone article for its own reading) make it the right choice to oppose the merge. Wikipedia exists for the benefit of providing encyclopedic content to its readers, and this is probably going to be the best repository of all that transpired. The current article on the subject of the sexting scandal is by no means complete or finished, but it is very well written; and, I have no idea why so many people on the article's deletion entry were in support of a merge. The policies they cited did not even support the assertions in favor of merge. A quick perusal of the deletion entry summarizes all the points for and against a merge, and having skimmed it again, I really hope Wikipedians do what's in the best interests of Wikipedia, which is to keep this article as a standalone, complete article which provides encycloepdic information to its readers. Just the thought of how much knowledge and information would have to be condensed to fit into the original article (to avoid undue weight) makes me sad how anyone would support it. This article should be kept, not merged/absorbed/condensed. 67.77.168.127 (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no question that this particular matter of Weiner's life and career is a wp:standalone subject and is definitely "wp:notable". And appealing to "WP:NOTNEWS" and especially to "WP:SCANDAL" is silly, as the policy on that clearly says "scandal mongering from stuff heard through the grapevine" and should not be "libelous" etc. This is not libelous at all, but simply factual summation of what's happened, and what's involved. If other sex scandals involving politicians have their own articles (which they do) there's no reason at all for this one not to exist. And this is NOT "WP:OTHERSTUFF", because I'm not saying that that "other stuff" was "wrong" for doing it. The point is CONSISTENCY IN WHAT'S DONE CORRECTLY. This is NOT just a news story, but has become an actual "topic". Bigger and separate than just Weiner's life or career in general. Plenty of scandals are BOTH "news" and just separate "topics" or situational subjects. I think the burden of proof, in a way, is on those who want this article either deleted or "merged" (arguably the same thing), what makes this situation so different than the other political sex scandals that have their own articles. What's the difference, in other words? To warrant the disappearing of this thing as its own article. This situation is overwhelmingly sourced (reliably), and is definitely a separate and stand-alone topic. Not just regular "news", but an actual topic (for some time now). Deserving its own separate WP article. Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• With all due respect, WP:SCANDAL covers more than rumor mongering. It also cautions editors against writing an article that is a WP:COATRACK. Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment. And, I might note, this article is now 24K. The AW article is 43K. We split at 100K generally. Even not taking into account that a merge would result in deletion of redundant verbiage, we are at only 2/3 of the merge point, if we merge the two articles, suggesting that merger would be appropriate. All redirects to this article can then be pointed to the AW article.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That 100K rule of thumb relates to situations where articles "[A]lmost certainly" should be split based on excessive length alone- it does not address undue weight or the many other reasons to keep this as a seperate article. Nevard (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly my point above when I say the policies do not actually support the assertions earlier which is what I ran into countless times in reading the discussion at the article's deletion entry. The policies are usually casually cited, then someone has to go and point out something in the policy which goes against the asserter's viewpoint (user Hashem hit the nail on the head on WP:Scandal from the deletion discussion.) If anyone dare go back and count how many times WP:Scandal was wrongly used to be in favor of deleting this article, it was quite a headache. The only merit in supporting a merge is notability, which I think the justification is clearly deficient. The article on WP:NEWSEVENT gives very useful and powerful insights into inclusion vs splitting of main articles (nothing specific, but very insightful and a must-read for those unfamiliar.) 67.77.168.127 (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as the "k" size of the article, the fact is that it could easily be expanded right now, and get bigger if, for example, the amount of info in the "Resignation" section was expanded and added to, as arguably it should be done. I mean, hardly any information is in that section right now, when there are other details and factoids that could (and arguably should) be put in there, like what happened in the news conference, what Weiner said (more specifically), also the cackling that happened, some of the reaction, etc. It's just bare stuff right now though, in that section. Also, in general, throughout the article, more detailed info and statements and elaborations could easily be added, theoretically. My point: I'm not all that impressed with the argument that the article is not that big, and therefore is one reason that it "should be merged". Mainly because that doesn't really matter that much anyway given the fact that the topic itself is stand-alone, and also it's not exactly a stub, and it can easily be expanded with other details that were not put in yet. Hashem sfarim (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Procrastinate Let's wait until the end of June and see what news coverage Weiner gets in the meantime. From that, we can work out which parts of this article have lasting encyclopedic value. If that is less than (say) 300 words, we should merge this article into Anthony Weiner. If this article needs to remain much bigger than that, we should keep it separate. There's no need to make a decision now, IMO; waiting a while could save lots of wasted editor effort. Cheers, CWC 07:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Seconded See my comments above, it's so frustrating having the same battle that was just carried over from the deletion discussion. Also, this way there is less crystal-balling. It's sketchy judgment to make an argument about what we should do now based on the fact that the event is over--doesn't make it any less notable today than it will be at the end of the month. I hope nobody actually thinks we're opposing the merge because of recency or the belief that the scandal was supposed to keep growing, but Weiner didn't exactly nip this thing in the bud whatsoever. If Weiner resigned 2 weeks ago, then that's not the same thing as resigning 2 weeks too late. A lot has happened in the last 2 weeks, and Weiner allowed fuel to keep being added to the fire. 67.77.168.127 (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support procrastinate Having just survived one deletion debate, let's wait until the end of the month before any fresh decisions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

congressional gym photos

I don't see how you can conclude these were irrelevant. They were releases as a part of the scandal and the pictures were sexted to the woman who then had them sent to TMZ. Is this not what this article is about? Truthsort (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically, he didn't resign yet

He's announced his intention to resign "effective immediately". The act of resignation is submitting a letter of resignation to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, which he has not done, or has not been publicly disclosed. The last formal communication with the Clerk of the House of Representatives was his request for a leave of absence (which was granted). Unless he performs some official acts between June 16 and whenever the resignation is submitted, this isn't a problem in the article except to note his announcement date and the date the resignation is effective. patsw (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

My friends at the New York Post read my paragraph above. The only difference is that S.A. Miller and Alexis Jeffries wrote that Weiner submits a letter of resignation to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and not the clerk. patsw (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Miller, S.A. (2011-06-21). "Hold It! Weiner not gone". New York Post. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

He submitted the letter and the article has been updated. patsw (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Fox News discusses a technicality in handling the resignation letter. Again, I don't think this should be noted in the article text unless it develops into something bigger. patsw (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Pergram, Chad (2011-06-221). "House Still Doesn't Have Appropriate Weiner Resignation Letter". Fox News. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Material re "conservative group"

An editor has tried twice to insert information about this. I've reverted twice. The second edit said: "After Weiner announced his resignation, evidence surfaced indicating that a conservative group had monitored his online activities for several months and that false accounts had been used in an effort to influence or to obtain information about his online activities." There are two issues with this material. The first, a threshold issue, is whether we should report on this at all, whether it's sufficiently noteworthy to include. It strikes me as a tidbit and not particularly relevant to the scandal. However, if editors disagree and believe it warrants inclusion, it needs to be reworded. The language in the article is complicated, and we have to be careful how we summarize it. The latest wording is misleading in my view. The article says a conservative group monitored Weiner's exchanges on Twitter. It also says that "one or more people" created false identities on Twitter "to collect information to use against" Weiner. It also says it is "unclear who is behind the fake Twitter accounts". And then it gets even more complicated. In any event, the assertion I removed makes it sound like the conservative group created the accounts, which the article does not say. In addition, there's nothing in the article about "influencing" Weiner's online activities, just about collecting information. So, if there's a consensus for inclusion (I'm against inclusion), the summary needs to conform to the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be material since Weiner himself took full responsibility for his actions. patsw (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a side show, which is why I'm against it. I think the idea is to point up the possible motives behind the original revelations and to impugn Weiner's accusers. As you say, it loses a great deal of punch once Reiner admitted guilt.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:POV. Wikipedia's purpose is not to make judgments about guilt and responsibility, but to present facts about the events. Regardless that Weiner took full responsibility in his public statements, this evidence shows other influences were at work which may have affected his actions, and omission of it has the effect of slanting the POV. Preston writes in the NY Times that one false Twitter account user posing as an underage girl made romantic overtures to Weiner and wrote to others asking how to get him to "follow" her. Indication that he was targeted by unknown users posing as underage girls is a significant addition to the information available. The article states that false Twitter users also approached the conservative group and the women involved, info which might be included, as well. This info relates to the events, and feelings about whether it's appropriate to a "scandal" are indication of POV.

Bbb23, if you don't like the way the sentences are written, then you should bring the discussion here, or else edit them to make them clearer. This is relevant material reported in a highly respected and reliable source. I edited based on the objections you listed at the first revert. If you don't like the wording, then you can summarize it yourself. Serial reversions are considered disruptive. Pkeets (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to reword the material until there's a consensus it belongs in the article. Just because something is reported in a reliable source doesn't necessarily make it sufficiently relevant to warrant inclusion. Wikipedia is not a collection of all facts reported in reliable sources. I'd consider leaving the material in while this discussion is going on but only if it's accurate. Because I don't think it belongs, I'm not going to take the laboring oar to make it correct. And, as an aside, this has nothing to do with POV - no one is making judgments, least of all me, about Weiner's responsibility, just editorial judgments. Weiner ultimately took care of the moral judgment issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, your last statement indicates you're working from a POV, which is improper as a reason for reversions. The source adds complexity to the scandal, making it less salacious and adding more ambiguous moral and political overtones. Its inclusion would be useful for readers looking for info on allegations made by some media that Weiner had relationships with underage women, something likely to persist. Pkeets (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it so many Wikipedia editors always suspect ulterior motives on the part of other editors? In such an anonymous environment, it's amazing how well people think they know others. My statement was a fact. If a person pleads guilty, it's not the same thing as a jury saying he's guilty. I agree about the complexity - it's one of those pieces that is so complex no one is able to accurately report what it says, at least not in just a sentence or two.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

While the material on this issue is scanty, it is from a RS and should be included. Since the article is organized chronologically and the story was published on June 17, it would make sense to place a summarization and reference at the end of the current article. The wording will be tricky as it must make clear that what happened has no bearing on the Congressman's actions and admissions. Perhaps "During the last three months before his online relationships were revealed, a person or persons unknown were monitoring his twitter account and attempting to create new, inappropriate relationships with the Congressman using false profiles. They were apparently unsuccessful in this attempt."[reference]--WriterIN (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just being in a reliable source isn't good enough. Why do you think it's noteworthy?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's just not relevant in the long term

I can find a lot of verifiable facts reported in reliable sources regarding the Weiner sexting scandal that I wouldn't add to the article because they ultimately had no impact on its conclusion. I think the "noteworthy" test is vague. The test I suggest is long-term relevance: Real people and not "fake identities" were the root cause of the events. Frankly, its not news that people like #bornfreecrew are using fake identities to monitor or to interact with gullible public figures.

Here's the article as it was reported on June 18 after the resignation announcement (this is the cite deleted from this Wiki article)

• Preston, Jennifer (June 17, 2011). "Fake Identities Were Used on Twitter in Effort to Get Information on Weiner". New York Times.

As to the question of POV and motives. Let's look at essentially the same article on June 7 10 days earlier by the same source. This is after Weiner's admission of lying but before his resignation announcement

• Preston, Jennifer (June 7, 2011). "A Twitter Group Warned About Weiner". New York Times.

But wait there's more: let's look at the first mention in the Times, after Weiner made the claim of being hacked but before his admission of lying, 11 days earlier

• Peters, Jeremy; Jennifer Preston (June 6, 2011). "A Conservative Blogger Looks for Legitimacy". New York Times.

It was worth reporting in the June 6 news cycle before Weiner's admission of lying, because the Weiner-defender's blogosphere was looking for evidence to support Weiner's claim that he was hacked. Had it turned out that such groups hacked Weiner's account or entrapped Weiner by inducing him to send photos of himself, it would have been relevant. But that was not the case, and hence this reporting is not relevant in the long-run. It's moot. As for the POV and motives for the same story being reported three times, that's a question to ask of Jennifer Preston and her editors. patsw (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest though, one of these twitter accounts took a screenshot of the tweet Anthony Weiner sent that started this. I really do not feel that the fake accounts of underage girls is relevant, especially given that their was a consensus to keep the original report of Weiner having contact with a 17 year old girl out of this article. Truthsort (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Keeping it out of the article doesn't keep it out of other media. If there have been suggestions as part of the scandal that Weiner interacted with underage girls, then it should be addressed in this article. Some of these suggestions could have come from the existence of these false accounts. Pkeets (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The police investigated it and reported "[the minor contacted by Weiner] has made no disclosure of criminal activity nor inappropriate contact by the Congressman." So that's not long-term relevant either. I don't know what is meant by "these suggestions". The initial public disclosure of his inappropriate contact with women came by Weiner's own public tweet of which he himself later said "I intended to send [the photo] as a direct message as a part of a joke to a woman in Seattle." The transient speculation that hackers or entrapment was at fault became moot, as the events unfolded and its was revealed that real women received real tweets from the real Weiner. patsw (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• I can see arguments either way on this one. I've looked at this a bit more closely, and agree at this point that the underage matter turned out to be a non-issue, from a longer-term perspective. The effort by a group to entrap AW was, in contrast, real; it was just unsuccessful. So my leaning is to have brief mention of that either here or in the AW article.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If I were to rate this article, I'd list it as a start level article and recommend expansion. There is no reason to keep it brief, or to omit information that some editors consider "not long-term relevant." This is the place for details, not the main article, but we do need to beware of POV decisions on the details; again, Wikipedia presents facts, not news, salacious entertainment, or POV. My opinion is that anything that was considered important enough for the police to investigate should be included here. The false accounts and the long-term monitoring of his account are also important in presenting a complete picture of what went on. If we omit all the details that have "no impact on the conclusion", then there's no reason to break this out as a separate article. The events as described here could be as easily summarized in the main article.Pkeets (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for someone to make the case that those 8 days of transient speculation in media accounts regarding hackers and entrapment between May 30 and June 6 is long-term relevant, or that a police investigation which determined that nothing criminal or inappropriate took place is encyclopedic (and that's not even taking WP:BLP into account).

So, if this is "the place for details" and not a summary of verifiable, independent accounts, let's have a wider discussion of all the details and what should be included such as the actual text messages, the names of each disclosed contact, each photograph which appeared in media accounts, the names and dates when politicians urged Weiner not to resign, the names and dates when politicians urged Weiner to resign, quotes from late night comedians making jokes about Weiner, etc. There's enough details in verifiable, reliable, independent sources here to grow the article tenfold, so where do you draw the line? patsw (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the time just now to work through all that, but I notice above that there has been a discussion to merge this back into the main article. That means there's not enough extra detail included to justify this as a separate article. Adding the comedian jokes is going a bit far, but I do think names and dates of disclosed contacts, the porn actress' press conference, etc. should be covered. All with a neutral POV, of course. These are all part of the story. Without sufficient details, you're slanting the article with what you omit. Pkeets (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest we clean up the talk page a little bit? This discussion has evolved within its own topic and sorta shifted back into a merge/delete discussion. This part of the talk page is for discussion the sub-topic (It's just not relevant in the long term) of the talk page section (Material re "conservative group") which is hard to follow if you're new to the discussion. If it's okay with other editors, I'll just start a new topic this weekend so we can start fresh in July about the overall future of the article (noteworthy, relevance, merge, etc...) because this talk page has gotten kinda bad. I supported the "let's take a break" movement about the middle of the month, and I'm ready to re-convene along with whoever else still has any lingering interest and passion for the article. 67.77.168.127 (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You don’t need permission, but if you are looking for encouragement – go ahead. Grahamboat (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So, is there any discussion about further expanding the article? There are still two outstanding reverts of my addition to the article that need to be addressed--the beginnings of an edit war. Unless you mean to write a slanted article, then these facts (and others) are relevant and should be included. For example, has there been any investigation into where and how Breitbart got photos sent privately to the women? Pkeets (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No comments on this? Should I go ahead and try to reword my edit of the article to make it clearer? Pkeets (talk) 04:14, 8 July 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)

Of course neologisms don’t get to be “real words” until they learn not to tell a lie and all the boys and girls at home clap their hands and truly believe. —Wiki Wikardo 22:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The media seems to be simply reporting this as the Anthony Weiner scandal,[5][6][7][8] 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)