![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Although mention of this website MIGHT have merit, it is an anti-Weiner website with little editorial merit. I certainly think it should be the top link on the list of Weiner websites, and would think that a mean spirited website "comedic" website such as that one, that doesn't offer a chance for readers to leave comments to refute their diatribes, is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.245.8 ( talk) 03:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, can we not have Glenn Beck's foaming at the mouth diatribes influencing every bit of politics? --Flagg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.151.50 ( talk) 02:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought the same, I'm removing it. If its important enough to appear on glenn beck's wiki then those looking over it will add it. The goldline issue is barely on his page anyway. There is no need to have it on a member of congress's page. It's not news, it's punditry. If Weiner ever has a trivia section, then sure.-- Tunafizzle ( talk) 04:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The reference to His district is one of the most liberal districts in the country, although George W. Bush received 43% of the vote there in 2004, mainly because of the number of people in the district directly affected by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. [citation needed] needs to be sourced. If anything George Bush's activities and behavior pertaining to the September 11th World Trade Center implosion would alienate New Yorkers from supporting him. This is a controversial statement and requires a citation for that extent of assertion... Stevenmitchell 03:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to put on items like the rant on the house floor, you should also add the facts behind the rant and the truth that weiner fails to admit to [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.32.16 ( talk) 20:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Why do the owners of this site keep deleteing things legitimately posted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.28.16 ( talk) 22:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Why is there an article for everyone of those neighborhoods listed? I am from New York and a number of those places are not known outside of New York. People outside of New York don't know about Gerritsen Beach. Is this some type of advertising? 96.250.83.177 ( talk) 06:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The gentleman is correct in sitting. 70.171.242.139 ( talk) 03:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I wrote:
In December 2010, Weiner stated that Republicans got the better of Obama in the negotiations to reach agreement on the 2010 tax package, and that Republicans turned out to be "better poker players" than the president. [2] [3]
When a member of a president’s own party severely criticizes the president’s abilities (e.g.; ability to negotiate) I believe that statement should be part of the legislator’s biography.
Who objects or supports the above entry in Weiner’s article?--tuco_bad 13:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs)
Your two sources are:
Source 1 is a very brief news mention of what Weiner said. Thousands of such mentions occur everyday. The only mention of Obama is that he will face certain pressures. That is not the basis for an encyclopedic entry in a biography. Source 2 does not mention Weiner. You cannot blend sources 1 plus 2 to assert that Weiner's statement was somehow significant (see WP:SYNTH). Johnuniq ( talk) 01:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
in the press that he is a Democrat. 217.253.6.155 ( talk) 22:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
"and first published by BigGovernment.com[citation needed], which is run by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart." Is this true? According to DailyKos (not a reliable source), some twitterer named "@patriotusa76" was the first to publish it. -- B ( talk) 02:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Does this video [2] justify this edit [3]? The edit says "legal experts state Weiner is attempting to avoid prosecution". I looked at the video. One (not plural) legal expert Jack Ford is speculating on the implications of the photo. Ford does not state that Weiner, by not going to the FBI, is engaging in an attempt to avoid prosecution for lying to police or sending pornography. Ford speculates on why someone might not go immediately to the police (giving Barry Bonds and Martha Stewart as examples) and speculates on Congressional ethics investigations. The interviewer asks Ford "yes or no, laws that appear to have been broken?" to which Ford replies "doesn't look like there are any that would be prosecuted." So, I don't think this edit is supported by the underlying citation. It's very leading. Comments? Liberal Classic ( talk) 15:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
During all the editing of the Twitter controversy, the blurb about him being friends with Jon Stewart got wiped from the Personal Life section. If we note that he's friends with Ben Affleck, we should probably mention Jon Stewart too, right? Jon Stewart's article mentions that they are friends and that Weiner is the only recipient of any campaign money from him. Here's what there was before:
Fnordware ( talk) 17:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
He also dated Stewart's roommate at one point according to this interview. So while they were technically never roommates, they did live in close quarters for a period of time. Don't know if it needs to be in Weiner's article, but thought I'd mention it. Fnordware ( talk) 17:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Does the image in question merit its fair use for the purpose of documenting its memehood as a historical event? </end facetiousness>-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 00:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Clearly there are some editors at work at this page who have decided to approach the situation high on the impression they must be getting from the feverishly tabloidesque fun the media is indulging in over the dick-in-a-boxer-brief shot. Aside from all of the mitigating factors suggesting from the very start that it may not even be a photo of the person in this BLP (and that if it is, it was likely misappropriated by someone with the intent to, erm, frame Weiner, and harass the woman in question), there is the question of all the material recently added with squirrely POV misconstruing, misrepresenting, or downright sensationalizing these things.
Editors at this biography who have been adding things like this — and/or who would do so in the future — need to read and understand Wikipedia policies.
These guidelines could, if read with an editorially responsible mind and contemplated, save us all a lot of wasted time here. Abrazame ( talk) 08:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Weinermania looks to be the only W- mania. (See List_of_manias#V.)-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 10:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Somehow some editors find it within Wikipedia policy to delete heaps of valid information.
The information on:
must be reinserted. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 14:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
This should actually be added to the end of the "Twitter Controversy" section:
The incident was referred to as 'Weinergate' in common media and print outlets. Many comedians and talk show hosts have also made jokes on on the play of words between 'Weiner' (the congressman's last name) and 'weiner' (a euphemism for a man's penis). On May 31, 2011 Jon Stewart devoted 7 minutes of Comedy Central's 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' program to the controversy with jokes ranging from "distinguished 'member' of Congress" to the observation that in his recollection (see Friendship with Jon Stewart) there was "A lot more Anthony and a lot less Weiner".
This is not a balanced response, this is clear political bias. A dumb term it may be, but it has become integral to the unfolding story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.116.194 ( talk) 03:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
If you view the event as a controvery (which it is), the term is integral. The incomplete and unbalanced entry in the main story does not treat it as such and should be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.116.194 ( talk) 03:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC) This discussion section should be left in place and unedited until the discussion in the "Twitter Scandal" section has reached consensus.-- WriterIN ( talk) 04:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
We need a spinoff article, "Anthony Weiner Twitter/Facebook account hacking controversy", after the way the Climategate article was titled for a long time. After all, shouldn't the focus be on tracking down the hacker? Kauffner ( talk) 10:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Given how a large a story this has become, I imagine at this point it merits its own page, not only for how it will effect Weiner's career but also regarding the implications on politicians' use of social media. Thoughts? Plot Spoiler ( talk) 02:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It's getting interesting out there. Google has apparently censored news stories from appearing on news.google.com's home page. If you Google "Anthony Weiner" under News, some very interesting stories turn up, Including Luke Broadwater of the Baltimore Sun concluding that the congressman sent that tweet himself (after reviewing the facts AND talking to two separate experts on communications, including one expert on non-verbal communication): http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-03/entertainment/bal-communication-experts-agree-weiner-is-lying-20110602_1_anthony-weiner-tweet-twitter-account. Right now, I'm NOT advocating that this reference be put in the article, it's more of a breaking news thing, but I would suspect that this entry will need significant revision by the end of the week. By the way, I started this section (before creating a username) and it's becoming more apparent that the humor aspect will have to be addressed at some point. Steven Colbert spend most of Wednesday tweeting pictures of random items along with the statement "I cannot say with certitude that this is not part of my body": http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-02/entertainment/bal-stephen-colbert-owns-anthony-weiner-on-twitter-20110602_1_twitter-account-anthony-weiner-stephen-colbert (another Broadwater post. It should be noted that, gauging from previous articles, Broadwater leans to the left himself). And before someone points out that blogs aren't considered primary news sources, yes, I know, but I expect a major news outlet will echo the story before the week is out, which brings us back to my original point.-- WriterIN ( talk) 05:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
And NOW this section needs to be rewritten AND removed from the Personal Life section into a section of its own. UPDATE: I made the change. I did not change any wording or references, simply moved them to where it made contextual sense.-- WriterIN ( talk) 20:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Please don't add anything more to this section. Make any comments in "Twitter Photo Scandal", above. Let's consolidate.-- WriterIN ( talk) 01:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Ianmacm has twice reverted the correction of "groin" (the angle where the leg meets the trunk) to the accurate genitals. First he says, admitting he sees it, that "the organ is crlearly not erect" [6] and then, when reference to their arousal is ommited he says "I would prefer crotch". [7] This is obvious euphemism, counter to accuracy and to WP:NOTCENSORED policy. μηδείς ( talk) 19:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW... It's clearly a self-taken photo, as some sources have noted. That becomes clearer if you flip the picture, which was clearly the original angle. Maybe that should be noted, to clarify that it doesn't appear to be a picture taken by a third party(?) John2510 ( talk) 20:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The point, Sancho, is that Ianmacm first reverted on the excuse that the penis wasn't erect, then for another reason entirely. As for showing the entire area, it most certainly doesn't show the crotch or groin, it shows the penis and one leg. The fix is simple--assuming we are not just making excuses not to say genitalia--say a picture showing the outline of the genitalia--which it most certainly does. μηδείς ( talk) 20:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
No, WP:NOTCENSORED is policy, and has nothing to do with external censorship. Read it. It says: "However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."
Using inaccurate bowdlerised terms because self-censoring media won't say "you can see his wiener!" is not a Wikipedia rationale for avoiding an informative, accurate, relevant description. The image wasn't sent because you could see a pubic bone or where the leg joins the trunk. What is relevant is that you can see the outline of his penis. There. I said it. Pee. Niss. We can say "showing the outline of the genitalia" or "showing the outline of the genitalia" if penis makes us queasy. But "with a crotchal view" is just the silly sort of thing we would expect from the writers of The Simpsons, not a comprehensive encyclopedia. μηδείς ( talk) 01:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
1. The Baltimore Sun: "Weiner's (D-N.Y.) Twitter account was not hacked. He sent the image of his penis to a Twitter follower"
2. NYDailyNews.com: "denied posting the BlackBerry "package" photo ... 'If the best you can get is Charles Schumer, your old boss, saying he's "virtually certain" you didn't lose your mind and tweet a penis photo..." said one Democratic staffer.'
3. NPR: MARTIN [host]: And this is where I jump in to say, I'm not sure this conversation is appropriate for all listeners. ...A below the belt photo of a man was sent ... IFTIKHAR: ...if I were Anthony Weiner and I had a junk shot sent to me, I'd be like number one, that's not my junk ... TORRE: But whether or not that is a picture of your crotch is one of those things where you should have certitude"
4. Hearst (SeattlePI); reprinted from Politico): "marriage last summer to glamorous, trusted Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin had the feel of the merger of the two great houses of Clinton and Schumer. His apparent acknowledgement, like an embarrassed high schooler, that there may be pictures of his genitals floating around ... the simplest explanation of the scenario is that he had, in fact, tried to send a picture of his genitals"
5. The Seattle Times: "the photo, which shows a man's bulging underpants"
6. The Washington Post: "a picture of a man’s, shall we say, groin area. ... wearing a pair of those hybrid boxer briefs ... He told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, 'I don’t know what photographs are out there in the world of me. I don’t know what things have been manipulated and doctored.' In my case, I’d have certitude: I’ve never taken a beefcake picture of my crotch"
7. Time Inc.: "whether a picture of an underwear-clad penis was sent to a polarizing"
8. Mediaite: "facts that are available are that a picture of an underwear-clad penis was sent, via Anthony Weiner's Twitter"
9. Los Angeles Times: "a man’s underwear-clad torso ... Boehner, however, had no interest in talking about what has been dubbed in Washington as 'Weinergate.'"
10. Condé Nast (The New Yorker): "a boxer-brief closeup. (The picture has been widely described as 'lewd' and 'suggestive,' but the best word for it might be 'tacky.')"
11. Dow Jones (the WSJ): "controversy over a lewd photo of a man’s crotch sent from his Twitter account. Rep. Weiner said he will investigate if the photo is really of him, Stewart said. 'I don’t know if he thinks his penis robbed the Bellagio. There very few things I know: I know Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie. I know O.J. killed those two people. And I know what my d— looks like in a picture.'”
12. U.S.News & World Report: "an intimate photo, allegedly of Weiner, in his underpants. ... The media demanded to know: Were those his private parts beneath the fabric of the underpants? Weiner—perhaps too honestly—rhetorically shrugged, saying he could not say with 'certitude' that it was not a photo of him. That was the congressman’s mistake, although it was an understandable one in our YouTube, tweet-crazy, cell phone camera-stalking world. He should have paused, displaying an appropriately appalled face, and told the voyeurs--oops, I mean, media representatives--that it was none of anyone’s damn business whether he or anyone close to him had taken an intimate photo"
13. Condé Nast (Vanity Fair): "in the Anthony Weiner genitalia-photography scandal. Notably, the genitalia in question may belong to the congressman."
14. NYP Holdings (NYPost): "woman received a photo of an erect penis, covered by a pair of briefs"
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 04:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 15:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to Hodgson Burnett for the source, but primary sources are fine for their own description and you will note above that absolutely no one denies that the outline of a penis is visible. Ianmacm admits there is a penis, just not erect, and complains that while we see the cock, we do not see the balls. John2510 says we don not see the thing, only its "outline". Liberal classic suggests a euphemism ( WP:NOTCENSORED!!!) for what he admits to be "genitals". Lewd has no meaning if there are no naughty bits. Johnuniq admits there is a penis but says we should not make a big thing out of it. It is described by all as "his" crotch, but could we say his without the penis?
What exactly is bulging I can’t say with certitude,” he told NBC News in response to a question about whether he’s the man whose member features prominently in an image sent to a 21-year-old college student. a photo of a man in bulging boxer briefs in bulging underwear? An ego?
Not one single person denies that we see the outlines of a member. The article, to be accurate and uncensored must reflect this. μηδείς ( talk) 04:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems most of the, erm, pieces,
μηδείς
Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden is linking to above in such excess, are not actually news items but Op/Eds and blogs. That is generally frowned upon at Wikipedia. Yes, in Op/Eds and blogs, snarky people looking to joke or to appeal to a certain demographic, or to overemphasize for effect use one kind of language. News stories and encyclopedias use another. Notcensored does not say we have to use the most graphic word possible, it says that if a graphic word is called for, then we should not censor that word.
As long as a dozen people are debating what to call it, actually take a look and note that while the angle and aspect call to mind a familiar scene, it is nevertheless not a photo of a penis but a photo of bulging underwear. To all who would cite WP:NOTCENSORED, I would remind you that if we were writing an article about a penis, we would not have an image of something bulging inside of underwear, we would have an image of a penis. Conversely, if we have an image that appears to be bulging underwear, we do not call it a penis.
I have a whole lot of other editorial irresponsibility to discuss, so I won't belabor this point by reminding people how often they have seen close-ups they perceived to be one thing which, when the camera panned out, was actually something entirely different, and that not only might this be as Weiner asserts, not something he Tweeted to anybody, but not only might this be the way the prankster decided to publicize a photo of his own bulge (if not swiped anonymously off the internet), but it could as easily be a dildo or other facsimile, or something else entirely. I don't say it is not what it appears to be, I just point out that when reliable sources are leaping to conclusions that it is clear are not verified, we might decide to use language that indicates the degree of certitude of the source. Abrazame ( talk) 06:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
That said, I remain neutral as to whether Wikipedia should go out of its way to use the words penis or vagina in the blps of living people unless pretty much required to do so by the topic being covered. Does this case require it? I'm not sure. However, one thing I noticed is that all the cute euphemisms actually lend the reporting a less professional or high-toned air, to my ear. (Which sound more inocuous? "Janet Jackson accidentally exposed her nipple" or "suffered a wardrobe malfunction that revealed a part of her chest area"? To me the former--with the straightforward use of nipple--sounds less "embarrasing" or whatever, but that may just be my own "ear.")Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines are subject to the same standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions.[3] Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, attribute the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...").
I do find it interesting that Alex Altman Time and Tommy Christopher of Mediaite both used the selfsame expression of underwear-clad penis. To me this actually sounds better than bulging underwear because it sounds more clinical and less, well, "gossipy"--but again that's probably just me and I would certainly bow to any vocal minority that took great offense to this turn of phrase. (And it's true that the seemingly non-foreskin covered glans outlined in the pic might belong to a "penis" that is in reality a dildo. Which indeed would qualify as a type of "prank" shot. In any event--and I realize that few probably care what my inklings are but--I personally think it's of tight fabric-covered flesh and blood, fwiw.)-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 07:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Some people are suggesting that Anthony Weiner should apply for a court order, requesting that yfrog hand over the IP address from which the upload occurred. This is similar to what Wikipedia would do in a sockpuppet investigation. However, since Weiner seems keen to drop the matter as quickly as possible, this looks unlikely to happen.
Also, the Vanity Fair cite [9] has a good video of Weiner from the Wall Street Journal, and the text is uncontroversial. If someone could find the original WSJ article with this video, it could be used.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The bizarre claim was recently made that information published by a verifiable reliable source was OR, while the theory that the twitter picture might be actually be of a cucumber was made although not one source anywhere says any such thing. What remains is that it was a picture of an erect penis which has aroused all this interest, and we have not one single source arguing that this is not what was seen.
We have
A breakdown of all the lulz and tears trending online this week BY:CBSNews.com staff] "an image of a man in boxer briefs showcasing an obvious erection."
A few holes in skeevy skivvy story, June 5, 2011] "Asked that first day if the photo -- of a man's erect penis inside gray briefs -- was of the congressman, his spokesman, David Arnold, said no."
6/2/11] "a photo of his erect penis, concealed by briefs"
By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette] "a photo of an erection barely covered by a man's underwear."
and not one single source arguing otherwise. The is a comprehensive uncensored encyclopedia. μηδείς ( talk) 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't belong in a separate section. It's an argument that belongs in WP:NOTCENSORED.-- WriterIN ( talk) 05:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The New Republic has posted an analysis by forensic photoanalyst Hany Farid regarding the twitter photograph controversy. I added this to the article earlier, but it was removed by an editor who felt that TNR might not count as a reliable source. I thought that this was a topic that should be discussed in the talk page. To attempt to sum up the points, the New Republic is a relatively mainstream magazine (if small), and it strikes me as extremely unlikely that they would lie about contacting an expert, when that statement could be easily checked. The expert in question seems quite reputable (including having his own Wiki page.) On the other hand, TNR tends to lean liberal (though they were very pro-war and pro-Israel.) They've also had a fair number of of plagiarism/factual inaccuracy/etc. issues. I think this is unlikely to be one of those, given how easily the claim would be verified.
Thoughts? It would be nice if more news groups were actually doing analyses on this (or quoting them); instead, it seems to be mostly a 'he says, she says' affair at the moment. Seleucus ( talk) 01:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I am neutral as to whether the section should stand on its own or lie under the Personal Life section. But we should have brief NPOV heads that don't need scare quotes or make lengthy editorial comments. "Weinergate" should be "Twitter Scandal" and "admission"doesn't need to go into selected specifics. μηδείς ( talk) 21:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but Weiner did not use the word confession which implies crime or sin. I am going to treat such edits pushing POV's as vandalism.--unsigned
Now that Weiner has come clean, how relevant is the information from Breitbart to Weiner's biography? I am not trying to remove notable and verifiable information, just asking for consensus here. Did Weiner come clean as a result of further pics published by Breitbart? I don't see anything in the articles that would directly support a causal connection. Liberal Classic ( talk) 23:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I will reiterate: I believe that Weinergate merits a separate article. Other far lesser controversies and lesser significant topics have generated articles. Thoughts? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 01:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC))
I am not trying to shield the congressman when I ask if there is really "that much more" to the story than what is already in his biography. In my opinion, how the story broke, the lies, and the recriminations is punditry. It's MOS:OPED. Don't get me wrong: I like punditry and I like editorializing, but the purpose of the encyclopedia is somewhat different. Writing about the role of social media in the scandal is WP:OR, and how the scandal will affect Weiner's career is WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore, this new article doesn't even contain this much. It's just a copy of what we have in his bio. I fear the new article exists to be a POV fork and WP:COATRACK. Liberal Classic ( talk) 05:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
As I stated earlier, at some point in the future this will rate its own page, BUT NOT YET. The unilateraly created Twitter Scandal page currently merely repeats information present in the main article. As PlotSpoiler above pointed out, there's a lot more that COULD be on an independent page, but it's NOT THERE NOW. Until such time as that content is available and properly sourced, the page should be deleted. I agree, it's bad form. We have a responsibility to distill and extract the essence of the situation in an NPOV way. In fact, I question some of the details that are currently on THIS page. It was stated that he had six 'relationships' over three years. Is the detail behind each of those relationships truly neccessary, or is it just piling on?-- WriterIN ( talk) 05:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The following page was put up for speedy deletion: Anthony Weiner photo scandal. That page also had a Talk Page ( Talk:Anthony Weiner photo scandal), on which editors could object to or support the speedy deletion. When I last read that Talk Page a few moments ago, there were about a dozen people who opposed the speedy deletion ... and perhaps only one person who did not oppose it. Then, an editor named User:Jonny-mt deleted the article. And now, that Talk Page -- and all of its discussion -- is nowhere to be found. Where can I find that Talk Page that was deleted? And, how can he ( User:Jonny-mt) delete the page when the opponents to deletion outnumbered the supporters by 12 to 1? What would be the point of having the discussion then, if User:Jonny-mt can ignore and unilaterally override it? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC))
Hi Joseph. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Those who opposed deletion didn't justify their opposition using established guidelines. Read WP:CSD and scroll down to section A10 [14]. The section says this:
The content of the "Weinergate" article was just a copy and paste from the main article of Weiner's biography. And before you say the article didn't live long enough for people to have expanded on it, the current event just happened. There is not much else that can be said that is verifiable through secondary sources such as news agencies. There's a lot being said in the blogsphere, but these aren't considered reliable sources, as most of them (Breitbart/The Atlantic/etc/etc) are all biased one way or the other. Once the events have unfolded such that the implications are known, then there will be something to say. Until then, most of what is written about Weiner in blogspace can stay there. It's just opinion and speculation.
Cheers, Liberal Classic ( talk) 06:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The proper action for a heavily-contested (as indicated per that page's talk page) PROD is taking to AFD to seek community consensus, not unilateral admin protection and merge. I have unprotected and restored the page, while at the same time also nominating it for AFD. — Lowellian ( reply) 10:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
See [15], where three hours of incremental improvements are unilaterally discarded for no stated reason. Why? Rot42 ( talk) 07:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Removed by author.-- WriterIN ( talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
We can pare down the section quite easily without omitting the who what when where and why essentials. Let's not leave the reader thinking this is a story about a man who apologized for wearing grey underpants. μηδείς ( talk) 23:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Had to smile at this tweet from yfrog. They were initially in trouble over the claim that their photo posting service had been hacked, but it has now emerged that Weiner posted the underpants photo on yfrog himself, even though he thought it was a private message to a follower. This story is probably the largest amount of media coverage that yfrog has ever had, but they could well have done without it. -- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The section with "Weiner was born in Brooklyn, New York, to Mort, a neighborhood lawyer, and Fran" is poorly written for a biography. Please add last names of the parents to this for better reading and for information purposes. 202.29.57.215 ( talk) 23:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Is "Weiner" being pronounced correctly? I do not know if his name has any German origins or not, however, Whyner should be the correct pronounciation if it is. In the German language, "ie" = "ee"; "ei" = "long i" 63.3.2.1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC).
Please remove redundant link for Jon Stewart in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner#Personal_life 204.210.242.157 ( talk) 13:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Time for a major re-write. Weinergate is now far and away the most notable thing about anthony weiner and it should be central to this article. 24.111.211.207 ( talk) 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is this not protected yet? 76.250.130.85 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC).
Why is this not up. And more importantly why is his page locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.5.91 ( talk) 20:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Why must it be shown that HE sent them? The reality is it is a verified account that HE is known to send personal messages from. Plenty of sources have demonstrated he has a history of conversing people people he folllows on twitter in direct messages. It is rather obvious he meant that crouch shot to be a direct message. Additionally his initial twitter claim was his Facebook account was hack and not his Twitter account. Seems odd and thus the scandal.
BTW there are plenty of reliable source covering it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.5.91 ( talk) 21:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not believe the latest additions to this section are appropriate. They appear to be written in a manner to accuse Weiner of hiding something. There is no requirement for someone to report hacking to police of the FBI. He has repeatedly said that he did not send the pictures. Whether the pictures are actually of him are not material if he did not send them. GB fan ( talk) 21:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I object strenuously to the removal of the Twitter Scandal section. This is an unfolding event that may lead to the termination of the Congressman's career. It needs to be retained; vetted for accuracy and balance; and updated as required. The humor of the situation should be an integral part, I have suggested an addition under "Weinergate", a new discussion section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.116.194 ( talk) 03:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I can accept that. I can also accept that it may not be appropriate as WP:BREAKING NEWS. However, the unilateral edit by GlassCobra is not balanced in that it does not adequately discuss the controvery over the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.116.194 ( talk) 03:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC) I should clarify why this is a controversy. Congressman Weiner has not addressed several issues fundamental to the event. 1) Is that a photograph of himself? (This may be irrelevant, but remains an open question) 2) If he believes that his account was hacked, why has he refused to call in law enforcement? 3) Why has he not (as of June 2, 2011) addressed the first two issues? -- WriterIN ( talk) 03:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That statement is controversial in and of itself and rightfully belongs in the entry. GlassCobra, with respect, you should recuse yourself from the discussion if you cannot be objective. At this juncture you appear (and remember that appearance, while not neccessarily reflective of reality, still demands attention) to be more concerned with protecting the Congressman's reputation than producing a balanced and objective article. His reputation deserves protection, but only to the extent that it *deserves* protection.-- WriterIN ( talk) 04:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Please refer to my most recent comment under "Weinergate". Having two separate discussions about the same thing (three if you count the penis controversy) is proving unwieldy.-- WriterIN ( talk) 05:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
After much wrestling with the format of the reference line (first time for everything) I added a reference to Nancy Pelosi's opening of a house ethics committee investigation. I also changed the title of this discussion section to match the actual section in the article and removed the unsigned gloating message (ALL IN CAPS, sign of high intelligence there) from the top of this section.-- WriterIN ( talk) 01:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
They can try and sensor all they want to protect one of their own but his political career is over just like John Edwards and that will be in the first section within days. 98.198.238.111 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC).
I'm sorry to say that I won't be participating in any further editing of this page. I'm not comfortable with the rather sensationalist treatment of the current scandal. Yes, it's important. Yes it should be covered in its entirety as the story continues to evolve and it should be NPOV as much as that is possible in this situation. What I'm not comfortable with is the tendency to put a reference to it in as many sections as possible, including the lead. Best wishes,-- WriterIN ( talk) 22:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
We just need a clear historical record documenting what Anthony Weiner did, and allow people to make up their own minds. I think the most obvious deriliction is not the act itself (sexting or whatever) but the significant lack of judgement in how he went about it, and then how he covered it up. Makes for a great game, but not for a great congressman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.46.237 ( talk) 23:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a disagreement on whether it should. My personal stance is that there should be a brief one or two sentence mention of the scandal in the lead section, as it frankly currently comprises a large portion of what he is known for. The concern was raised (see my talk page, for example) that this might violate WP:UNDUE. I don't agree that it's an issue in this case, but it's certainly a legitimate concern. Let's try to hash this out here, get more input, and avoid edit warring. Kansan ( talk) 04:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the scandal should have at least a sentence in the lead, since if the now separated Anthony Weiner photo scandal were merged back in in full it would be the largest section of the article.
I still don't think that it belongs in the lead right now...and I compared Weiner's page to Rangel, Souder and Lee. Rangel has a para in the lead for a completed episode, including official action by the House. Souder has a partial sentence mention but only because that's what ended his political career. Lee, interestingly, has no mention in the lead at all. Once all the facts are in, including the results of the House investigation, I fully support a full paragraph or more summarizing the entire affair. But until then it's just duplicative of what's in the proper section. Good luck with it. As I stated above, I won't be making any further edits myself, but I will continue to contribute to the discussion.-- WriterIN ( talk) 22:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The lede without the scandal material is currently only 8 sentences. Adding 2 sizable sentences about the unresolved scandal seems pretty unnecessary at the current stage of the event. With the current coverage of basic bio information in the lede, the weight of the lede would be pretty badly biased towards the recent event, IMO. BigK HeX ( talk) 01:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
GB fan makes a good point, for several reasons, and I'd like to point out two. Firstly, we are not here to WP:CRYSTAL BALL about the effect of personal life on career or, I think more to the point, to participate in the creation of a self-fulfilling prophecy. That a few wags are suggesting impact on his career the day he came out with his admission is not the sort of thing that gets put into an encyclopedic biography. It's also not something that gets put into the talk page of one. WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. If, like User:ianmacm, your assertion is that what you are saying on this page has nothing to do with why we should have something in the article, then you should bloody well not be saying it here. This is not a blog or a chat room or a water cooler or a bar, it's an editorial discussion, and we need to exercise some self-restraint and responsibility. We've all made some tongue-in-cheek comments about what we should call this, what we should say about that. But we are crossing a line when we are promulgating prognostication about the end of someone's career. The whole point about that is that if and when such a thing were to evidence itself in real historical events, rather than merely someone yammering on CNN or blathering on a blog, then there would be notable people addressing the perceived and actual reasons — actual as in exit polls of people in a primary, or highly notable statements by the powers that be, and actual as it actually had an effect, not merely was supposed to have one.
And as long as this thread has gone there, I will point out that after several allegations of actual affairs, even the Monica Lewinsky scandal didn't end Bill Clinton's career, nor did it prevent him from having a major international influence since leaving office, nor did it hold back his wife's political career. There was an actual naked and erect penis there, too, even if we only heard about it every day for three years and didn't actually have to look at the pixels. Ian, you did avoid the question, and you are avoiding responsibility for littering the page with random, self-contradictory commentary. One minute it's likely to affect his career, the next minute its akin to the actual affairs of Bill Clinton, which did not. We have to exercise some self control and restraint here and remember what we're here to do, which is determine what will appear in the article and how, not spin stream-of-consciousness opinion.
But this is about the lead, so let's stay on point there. To the recent edit, I will point out that nobody has responded to the justification User:BigK HeX used. He wasn't "sanitizing", as someone mischaracterized, he was correcting WP:UNDUE. The way to handle this is to source details of Weiner's notability — his career and impact as a congressman — that belong in the lead. Abrazame ( talk) 14:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The calls for Weiner’s resignation from Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and Steve Israel plus Weiner’s leave of absence should end any controversy over the scandal material being included in the lead. Grahamboat ( talk) 23:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Although mention of this website MIGHT have merit, it is an anti-Weiner website with little editorial merit. I certainly think it should be the top link on the list of Weiner websites, and would think that a mean spirited website "comedic" website such as that one, that doesn't offer a chance for readers to leave comments to refute their diatribes, is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.245.8 ( talk) 03:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, can we not have Glenn Beck's foaming at the mouth diatribes influencing every bit of politics? --Flagg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.151.50 ( talk) 02:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought the same, I'm removing it. If its important enough to appear on glenn beck's wiki then those looking over it will add it. The goldline issue is barely on his page anyway. There is no need to have it on a member of congress's page. It's not news, it's punditry. If Weiner ever has a trivia section, then sure.-- Tunafizzle ( talk) 04:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The reference to His district is one of the most liberal districts in the country, although George W. Bush received 43% of the vote there in 2004, mainly because of the number of people in the district directly affected by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. [citation needed] needs to be sourced. If anything George Bush's activities and behavior pertaining to the September 11th World Trade Center implosion would alienate New Yorkers from supporting him. This is a controversial statement and requires a citation for that extent of assertion... Stevenmitchell 03:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to put on items like the rant on the house floor, you should also add the facts behind the rant and the truth that weiner fails to admit to [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.32.16 ( talk) 20:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Why do the owners of this site keep deleteing things legitimately posted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.28.16 ( talk) 22:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Why is there an article for everyone of those neighborhoods listed? I am from New York and a number of those places are not known outside of New York. People outside of New York don't know about Gerritsen Beach. Is this some type of advertising? 96.250.83.177 ( talk) 06:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The gentleman is correct in sitting. 70.171.242.139 ( talk) 03:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I wrote:
In December 2010, Weiner stated that Republicans got the better of Obama in the negotiations to reach agreement on the 2010 tax package, and that Republicans turned out to be "better poker players" than the president. [2] [3]
When a member of a president’s own party severely criticizes the president’s abilities (e.g.; ability to negotiate) I believe that statement should be part of the legislator’s biography.
Who objects or supports the above entry in Weiner’s article?--tuco_bad 13:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs)
Your two sources are:
Source 1 is a very brief news mention of what Weiner said. Thousands of such mentions occur everyday. The only mention of Obama is that he will face certain pressures. That is not the basis for an encyclopedic entry in a biography. Source 2 does not mention Weiner. You cannot blend sources 1 plus 2 to assert that Weiner's statement was somehow significant (see WP:SYNTH). Johnuniq ( talk) 01:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
in the press that he is a Democrat. 217.253.6.155 ( talk) 22:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
"and first published by BigGovernment.com[citation needed], which is run by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart." Is this true? According to DailyKos (not a reliable source), some twitterer named "@patriotusa76" was the first to publish it. -- B ( talk) 02:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Does this video [2] justify this edit [3]? The edit says "legal experts state Weiner is attempting to avoid prosecution". I looked at the video. One (not plural) legal expert Jack Ford is speculating on the implications of the photo. Ford does not state that Weiner, by not going to the FBI, is engaging in an attempt to avoid prosecution for lying to police or sending pornography. Ford speculates on why someone might not go immediately to the police (giving Barry Bonds and Martha Stewart as examples) and speculates on Congressional ethics investigations. The interviewer asks Ford "yes or no, laws that appear to have been broken?" to which Ford replies "doesn't look like there are any that would be prosecuted." So, I don't think this edit is supported by the underlying citation. It's very leading. Comments? Liberal Classic ( talk) 15:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
During all the editing of the Twitter controversy, the blurb about him being friends with Jon Stewart got wiped from the Personal Life section. If we note that he's friends with Ben Affleck, we should probably mention Jon Stewart too, right? Jon Stewart's article mentions that they are friends and that Weiner is the only recipient of any campaign money from him. Here's what there was before:
Fnordware ( talk) 17:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
He also dated Stewart's roommate at one point according to this interview. So while they were technically never roommates, they did live in close quarters for a period of time. Don't know if it needs to be in Weiner's article, but thought I'd mention it. Fnordware ( talk) 17:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Does the image in question merit its fair use for the purpose of documenting its memehood as a historical event? </end facetiousness>-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 00:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Clearly there are some editors at work at this page who have decided to approach the situation high on the impression they must be getting from the feverishly tabloidesque fun the media is indulging in over the dick-in-a-boxer-brief shot. Aside from all of the mitigating factors suggesting from the very start that it may not even be a photo of the person in this BLP (and that if it is, it was likely misappropriated by someone with the intent to, erm, frame Weiner, and harass the woman in question), there is the question of all the material recently added with squirrely POV misconstruing, misrepresenting, or downright sensationalizing these things.
Editors at this biography who have been adding things like this — and/or who would do so in the future — need to read and understand Wikipedia policies.
These guidelines could, if read with an editorially responsible mind and contemplated, save us all a lot of wasted time here. Abrazame ( talk) 08:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Weinermania looks to be the only W- mania. (See List_of_manias#V.)-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 10:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Somehow some editors find it within Wikipedia policy to delete heaps of valid information.
The information on:
must be reinserted. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 14:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
This should actually be added to the end of the "Twitter Controversy" section:
The incident was referred to as 'Weinergate' in common media and print outlets. Many comedians and talk show hosts have also made jokes on on the play of words between 'Weiner' (the congressman's last name) and 'weiner' (a euphemism for a man's penis). On May 31, 2011 Jon Stewart devoted 7 minutes of Comedy Central's 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' program to the controversy with jokes ranging from "distinguished 'member' of Congress" to the observation that in his recollection (see Friendship with Jon Stewart) there was "A lot more Anthony and a lot less Weiner".
This is not a balanced response, this is clear political bias. A dumb term it may be, but it has become integral to the unfolding story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.116.194 ( talk) 03:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
If you view the event as a controvery (which it is), the term is integral. The incomplete and unbalanced entry in the main story does not treat it as such and should be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.116.194 ( talk) 03:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC) This discussion section should be left in place and unedited until the discussion in the "Twitter Scandal" section has reached consensus.-- WriterIN ( talk) 04:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
We need a spinoff article, "Anthony Weiner Twitter/Facebook account hacking controversy", after the way the Climategate article was titled for a long time. After all, shouldn't the focus be on tracking down the hacker? Kauffner ( talk) 10:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Given how a large a story this has become, I imagine at this point it merits its own page, not only for how it will effect Weiner's career but also regarding the implications on politicians' use of social media. Thoughts? Plot Spoiler ( talk) 02:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It's getting interesting out there. Google has apparently censored news stories from appearing on news.google.com's home page. If you Google "Anthony Weiner" under News, some very interesting stories turn up, Including Luke Broadwater of the Baltimore Sun concluding that the congressman sent that tweet himself (after reviewing the facts AND talking to two separate experts on communications, including one expert on non-verbal communication): http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-03/entertainment/bal-communication-experts-agree-weiner-is-lying-20110602_1_anthony-weiner-tweet-twitter-account. Right now, I'm NOT advocating that this reference be put in the article, it's more of a breaking news thing, but I would suspect that this entry will need significant revision by the end of the week. By the way, I started this section (before creating a username) and it's becoming more apparent that the humor aspect will have to be addressed at some point. Steven Colbert spend most of Wednesday tweeting pictures of random items along with the statement "I cannot say with certitude that this is not part of my body": http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-02/entertainment/bal-stephen-colbert-owns-anthony-weiner-on-twitter-20110602_1_twitter-account-anthony-weiner-stephen-colbert (another Broadwater post. It should be noted that, gauging from previous articles, Broadwater leans to the left himself). And before someone points out that blogs aren't considered primary news sources, yes, I know, but I expect a major news outlet will echo the story before the week is out, which brings us back to my original point.-- WriterIN ( talk) 05:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
And NOW this section needs to be rewritten AND removed from the Personal Life section into a section of its own. UPDATE: I made the change. I did not change any wording or references, simply moved them to where it made contextual sense.-- WriterIN ( talk) 20:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Please don't add anything more to this section. Make any comments in "Twitter Photo Scandal", above. Let's consolidate.-- WriterIN ( talk) 01:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Ianmacm has twice reverted the correction of "groin" (the angle where the leg meets the trunk) to the accurate genitals. First he says, admitting he sees it, that "the organ is crlearly not erect" [6] and then, when reference to their arousal is ommited he says "I would prefer crotch". [7] This is obvious euphemism, counter to accuracy and to WP:NOTCENSORED policy. μηδείς ( talk) 19:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW... It's clearly a self-taken photo, as some sources have noted. That becomes clearer if you flip the picture, which was clearly the original angle. Maybe that should be noted, to clarify that it doesn't appear to be a picture taken by a third party(?) John2510 ( talk) 20:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The point, Sancho, is that Ianmacm first reverted on the excuse that the penis wasn't erect, then for another reason entirely. As for showing the entire area, it most certainly doesn't show the crotch or groin, it shows the penis and one leg. The fix is simple--assuming we are not just making excuses not to say genitalia--say a picture showing the outline of the genitalia--which it most certainly does. μηδείς ( talk) 20:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
No, WP:NOTCENSORED is policy, and has nothing to do with external censorship. Read it. It says: "However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."
Using inaccurate bowdlerised terms because self-censoring media won't say "you can see his wiener!" is not a Wikipedia rationale for avoiding an informative, accurate, relevant description. The image wasn't sent because you could see a pubic bone or where the leg joins the trunk. What is relevant is that you can see the outline of his penis. There. I said it. Pee. Niss. We can say "showing the outline of the genitalia" or "showing the outline of the genitalia" if penis makes us queasy. But "with a crotchal view" is just the silly sort of thing we would expect from the writers of The Simpsons, not a comprehensive encyclopedia. μηδείς ( talk) 01:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
1. The Baltimore Sun: "Weiner's (D-N.Y.) Twitter account was not hacked. He sent the image of his penis to a Twitter follower"
2. NYDailyNews.com: "denied posting the BlackBerry "package" photo ... 'If the best you can get is Charles Schumer, your old boss, saying he's "virtually certain" you didn't lose your mind and tweet a penis photo..." said one Democratic staffer.'
3. NPR: MARTIN [host]: And this is where I jump in to say, I'm not sure this conversation is appropriate for all listeners. ...A below the belt photo of a man was sent ... IFTIKHAR: ...if I were Anthony Weiner and I had a junk shot sent to me, I'd be like number one, that's not my junk ... TORRE: But whether or not that is a picture of your crotch is one of those things where you should have certitude"
4. Hearst (SeattlePI); reprinted from Politico): "marriage last summer to glamorous, trusted Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin had the feel of the merger of the two great houses of Clinton and Schumer. His apparent acknowledgement, like an embarrassed high schooler, that there may be pictures of his genitals floating around ... the simplest explanation of the scenario is that he had, in fact, tried to send a picture of his genitals"
5. The Seattle Times: "the photo, which shows a man's bulging underpants"
6. The Washington Post: "a picture of a man’s, shall we say, groin area. ... wearing a pair of those hybrid boxer briefs ... He told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, 'I don’t know what photographs are out there in the world of me. I don’t know what things have been manipulated and doctored.' In my case, I’d have certitude: I’ve never taken a beefcake picture of my crotch"
7. Time Inc.: "whether a picture of an underwear-clad penis was sent to a polarizing"
8. Mediaite: "facts that are available are that a picture of an underwear-clad penis was sent, via Anthony Weiner's Twitter"
9. Los Angeles Times: "a man’s underwear-clad torso ... Boehner, however, had no interest in talking about what has been dubbed in Washington as 'Weinergate.'"
10. Condé Nast (The New Yorker): "a boxer-brief closeup. (The picture has been widely described as 'lewd' and 'suggestive,' but the best word for it might be 'tacky.')"
11. Dow Jones (the WSJ): "controversy over a lewd photo of a man’s crotch sent from his Twitter account. Rep. Weiner said he will investigate if the photo is really of him, Stewart said. 'I don’t know if he thinks his penis robbed the Bellagio. There very few things I know: I know Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie. I know O.J. killed those two people. And I know what my d— looks like in a picture.'”
12. U.S.News & World Report: "an intimate photo, allegedly of Weiner, in his underpants. ... The media demanded to know: Were those his private parts beneath the fabric of the underpants? Weiner—perhaps too honestly—rhetorically shrugged, saying he could not say with 'certitude' that it was not a photo of him. That was the congressman’s mistake, although it was an understandable one in our YouTube, tweet-crazy, cell phone camera-stalking world. He should have paused, displaying an appropriately appalled face, and told the voyeurs--oops, I mean, media representatives--that it was none of anyone’s damn business whether he or anyone close to him had taken an intimate photo"
13. Condé Nast (Vanity Fair): "in the Anthony Weiner genitalia-photography scandal. Notably, the genitalia in question may belong to the congressman."
14. NYP Holdings (NYPost): "woman received a photo of an erect penis, covered by a pair of briefs"
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 04:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 15:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to Hodgson Burnett for the source, but primary sources are fine for their own description and you will note above that absolutely no one denies that the outline of a penis is visible. Ianmacm admits there is a penis, just not erect, and complains that while we see the cock, we do not see the balls. John2510 says we don not see the thing, only its "outline". Liberal classic suggests a euphemism ( WP:NOTCENSORED!!!) for what he admits to be "genitals". Lewd has no meaning if there are no naughty bits. Johnuniq admits there is a penis but says we should not make a big thing out of it. It is described by all as "his" crotch, but could we say his without the penis?
What exactly is bulging I can’t say with certitude,” he told NBC News in response to a question about whether he’s the man whose member features prominently in an image sent to a 21-year-old college student. a photo of a man in bulging boxer briefs in bulging underwear? An ego?
Not one single person denies that we see the outlines of a member. The article, to be accurate and uncensored must reflect this. μηδείς ( talk) 04:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems most of the, erm, pieces,
μηδείς
Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden is linking to above in such excess, are not actually news items but Op/Eds and blogs. That is generally frowned upon at Wikipedia. Yes, in Op/Eds and blogs, snarky people looking to joke or to appeal to a certain demographic, or to overemphasize for effect use one kind of language. News stories and encyclopedias use another. Notcensored does not say we have to use the most graphic word possible, it says that if a graphic word is called for, then we should not censor that word.
As long as a dozen people are debating what to call it, actually take a look and note that while the angle and aspect call to mind a familiar scene, it is nevertheless not a photo of a penis but a photo of bulging underwear. To all who would cite WP:NOTCENSORED, I would remind you that if we were writing an article about a penis, we would not have an image of something bulging inside of underwear, we would have an image of a penis. Conversely, if we have an image that appears to be bulging underwear, we do not call it a penis.
I have a whole lot of other editorial irresponsibility to discuss, so I won't belabor this point by reminding people how often they have seen close-ups they perceived to be one thing which, when the camera panned out, was actually something entirely different, and that not only might this be as Weiner asserts, not something he Tweeted to anybody, but not only might this be the way the prankster decided to publicize a photo of his own bulge (if not swiped anonymously off the internet), but it could as easily be a dildo or other facsimile, or something else entirely. I don't say it is not what it appears to be, I just point out that when reliable sources are leaping to conclusions that it is clear are not verified, we might decide to use language that indicates the degree of certitude of the source. Abrazame ( talk) 06:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
That said, I remain neutral as to whether Wikipedia should go out of its way to use the words penis or vagina in the blps of living people unless pretty much required to do so by the topic being covered. Does this case require it? I'm not sure. However, one thing I noticed is that all the cute euphemisms actually lend the reporting a less professional or high-toned air, to my ear. (Which sound more inocuous? "Janet Jackson accidentally exposed her nipple" or "suffered a wardrobe malfunction that revealed a part of her chest area"? To me the former--with the straightforward use of nipple--sounds less "embarrasing" or whatever, but that may just be my own "ear.")Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines are subject to the same standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions.[3] Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, attribute the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...").
I do find it interesting that Alex Altman Time and Tommy Christopher of Mediaite both used the selfsame expression of underwear-clad penis. To me this actually sounds better than bulging underwear because it sounds more clinical and less, well, "gossipy"--but again that's probably just me and I would certainly bow to any vocal minority that took great offense to this turn of phrase. (And it's true that the seemingly non-foreskin covered glans outlined in the pic might belong to a "penis" that is in reality a dildo. Which indeed would qualify as a type of "prank" shot. In any event--and I realize that few probably care what my inklings are but--I personally think it's of tight fabric-covered flesh and blood, fwiw.)-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 07:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Some people are suggesting that Anthony Weiner should apply for a court order, requesting that yfrog hand over the IP address from which the upload occurred. This is similar to what Wikipedia would do in a sockpuppet investigation. However, since Weiner seems keen to drop the matter as quickly as possible, this looks unlikely to happen.
Also, the Vanity Fair cite [9] has a good video of Weiner from the Wall Street Journal, and the text is uncontroversial. If someone could find the original WSJ article with this video, it could be used.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The bizarre claim was recently made that information published by a verifiable reliable source was OR, while the theory that the twitter picture might be actually be of a cucumber was made although not one source anywhere says any such thing. What remains is that it was a picture of an erect penis which has aroused all this interest, and we have not one single source arguing that this is not what was seen.
We have
A breakdown of all the lulz and tears trending online this week BY:CBSNews.com staff] "an image of a man in boxer briefs showcasing an obvious erection."
A few holes in skeevy skivvy story, June 5, 2011] "Asked that first day if the photo -- of a man's erect penis inside gray briefs -- was of the congressman, his spokesman, David Arnold, said no."
6/2/11] "a photo of his erect penis, concealed by briefs"
By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette] "a photo of an erection barely covered by a man's underwear."
and not one single source arguing otherwise. The is a comprehensive uncensored encyclopedia. μηδείς ( talk) 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't belong in a separate section. It's an argument that belongs in WP:NOTCENSORED.-- WriterIN ( talk) 05:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The New Republic has posted an analysis by forensic photoanalyst Hany Farid regarding the twitter photograph controversy. I added this to the article earlier, but it was removed by an editor who felt that TNR might not count as a reliable source. I thought that this was a topic that should be discussed in the talk page. To attempt to sum up the points, the New Republic is a relatively mainstream magazine (if small), and it strikes me as extremely unlikely that they would lie about contacting an expert, when that statement could be easily checked. The expert in question seems quite reputable (including having his own Wiki page.) On the other hand, TNR tends to lean liberal (though they were very pro-war and pro-Israel.) They've also had a fair number of of plagiarism/factual inaccuracy/etc. issues. I think this is unlikely to be one of those, given how easily the claim would be verified.
Thoughts? It would be nice if more news groups were actually doing analyses on this (or quoting them); instead, it seems to be mostly a 'he says, she says' affair at the moment. Seleucus ( talk) 01:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I am neutral as to whether the section should stand on its own or lie under the Personal Life section. But we should have brief NPOV heads that don't need scare quotes or make lengthy editorial comments. "Weinergate" should be "Twitter Scandal" and "admission"doesn't need to go into selected specifics. μηδείς ( talk) 21:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but Weiner did not use the word confession which implies crime or sin. I am going to treat such edits pushing POV's as vandalism.--unsigned
Now that Weiner has come clean, how relevant is the information from Breitbart to Weiner's biography? I am not trying to remove notable and verifiable information, just asking for consensus here. Did Weiner come clean as a result of further pics published by Breitbart? I don't see anything in the articles that would directly support a causal connection. Liberal Classic ( talk) 23:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I will reiterate: I believe that Weinergate merits a separate article. Other far lesser controversies and lesser significant topics have generated articles. Thoughts? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 01:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC))
I am not trying to shield the congressman when I ask if there is really "that much more" to the story than what is already in his biography. In my opinion, how the story broke, the lies, and the recriminations is punditry. It's MOS:OPED. Don't get me wrong: I like punditry and I like editorializing, but the purpose of the encyclopedia is somewhat different. Writing about the role of social media in the scandal is WP:OR, and how the scandal will affect Weiner's career is WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore, this new article doesn't even contain this much. It's just a copy of what we have in his bio. I fear the new article exists to be a POV fork and WP:COATRACK. Liberal Classic ( talk) 05:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
As I stated earlier, at some point in the future this will rate its own page, BUT NOT YET. The unilateraly created Twitter Scandal page currently merely repeats information present in the main article. As PlotSpoiler above pointed out, there's a lot more that COULD be on an independent page, but it's NOT THERE NOW. Until such time as that content is available and properly sourced, the page should be deleted. I agree, it's bad form. We have a responsibility to distill and extract the essence of the situation in an NPOV way. In fact, I question some of the details that are currently on THIS page. It was stated that he had six 'relationships' over three years. Is the detail behind each of those relationships truly neccessary, or is it just piling on?-- WriterIN ( talk) 05:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The following page was put up for speedy deletion: Anthony Weiner photo scandal. That page also had a Talk Page ( Talk:Anthony Weiner photo scandal), on which editors could object to or support the speedy deletion. When I last read that Talk Page a few moments ago, there were about a dozen people who opposed the speedy deletion ... and perhaps only one person who did not oppose it. Then, an editor named User:Jonny-mt deleted the article. And now, that Talk Page -- and all of its discussion -- is nowhere to be found. Where can I find that Talk Page that was deleted? And, how can he ( User:Jonny-mt) delete the page when the opponents to deletion outnumbered the supporters by 12 to 1? What would be the point of having the discussion then, if User:Jonny-mt can ignore and unilaterally override it? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC))
Hi Joseph. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Those who opposed deletion didn't justify their opposition using established guidelines. Read WP:CSD and scroll down to section A10 [14]. The section says this:
The content of the "Weinergate" article was just a copy and paste from the main article of Weiner's biography. And before you say the article didn't live long enough for people to have expanded on it, the current event just happened. There is not much else that can be said that is verifiable through secondary sources such as news agencies. There's a lot being said in the blogsphere, but these aren't considered reliable sources, as most of them (Breitbart/The Atlantic/etc/etc) are all biased one way or the other. Once the events have unfolded such that the implications are known, then there will be something to say. Until then, most of what is written about Weiner in blogspace can stay there. It's just opinion and speculation.
Cheers, Liberal Classic ( talk) 06:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The proper action for a heavily-contested (as indicated per that page's talk page) PROD is taking to AFD to seek community consensus, not unilateral admin protection and merge. I have unprotected and restored the page, while at the same time also nominating it for AFD. — Lowellian ( reply) 10:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
See [15], where three hours of incremental improvements are unilaterally discarded for no stated reason. Why? Rot42 ( talk) 07:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Removed by author.-- WriterIN ( talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
We can pare down the section quite easily without omitting the who what when where and why essentials. Let's not leave the reader thinking this is a story about a man who apologized for wearing grey underpants. μηδείς ( talk) 23:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Had to smile at this tweet from yfrog. They were initially in trouble over the claim that their photo posting service had been hacked, but it has now emerged that Weiner posted the underpants photo on yfrog himself, even though he thought it was a private message to a follower. This story is probably the largest amount of media coverage that yfrog has ever had, but they could well have done without it. -- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The section with "Weiner was born in Brooklyn, New York, to Mort, a neighborhood lawyer, and Fran" is poorly written for a biography. Please add last names of the parents to this for better reading and for information purposes. 202.29.57.215 ( talk) 23:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Is "Weiner" being pronounced correctly? I do not know if his name has any German origins or not, however, Whyner should be the correct pronounciation if it is. In the German language, "ie" = "ee"; "ei" = "long i" 63.3.2.1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC).
Please remove redundant link for Jon Stewart in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner#Personal_life 204.210.242.157 ( talk) 13:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Time for a major re-write. Weinergate is now far and away the most notable thing about anthony weiner and it should be central to this article. 24.111.211.207 ( talk) 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is this not protected yet? 76.250.130.85 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC).
Why is this not up. And more importantly why is his page locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.5.91 ( talk) 20:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Why must it be shown that HE sent them? The reality is it is a verified account that HE is known to send personal messages from. Plenty of sources have demonstrated he has a history of conversing people people he folllows on twitter in direct messages. It is rather obvious he meant that crouch shot to be a direct message. Additionally his initial twitter claim was his Facebook account was hack and not his Twitter account. Seems odd and thus the scandal.
BTW there are plenty of reliable source covering it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.5.91 ( talk) 21:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not believe the latest additions to this section are appropriate. They appear to be written in a manner to accuse Weiner of hiding something. There is no requirement for someone to report hacking to police of the FBI. He has repeatedly said that he did not send the pictures. Whether the pictures are actually of him are not material if he did not send them. GB fan ( talk) 21:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I object strenuously to the removal of the Twitter Scandal section. This is an unfolding event that may lead to the termination of the Congressman's career. It needs to be retained; vetted for accuracy and balance; and updated as required. The humor of the situation should be an integral part, I have suggested an addition under "Weinergate", a new discussion section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.116.194 ( talk) 03:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I can accept that. I can also accept that it may not be appropriate as WP:BREAKING NEWS. However, the unilateral edit by GlassCobra is not balanced in that it does not adequately discuss the controvery over the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.116.194 ( talk) 03:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC) I should clarify why this is a controversy. Congressman Weiner has not addressed several issues fundamental to the event. 1) Is that a photograph of himself? (This may be irrelevant, but remains an open question) 2) If he believes that his account was hacked, why has he refused to call in law enforcement? 3) Why has he not (as of June 2, 2011) addressed the first two issues? -- WriterIN ( talk) 03:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That statement is controversial in and of itself and rightfully belongs in the entry. GlassCobra, with respect, you should recuse yourself from the discussion if you cannot be objective. At this juncture you appear (and remember that appearance, while not neccessarily reflective of reality, still demands attention) to be more concerned with protecting the Congressman's reputation than producing a balanced and objective article. His reputation deserves protection, but only to the extent that it *deserves* protection.-- WriterIN ( talk) 04:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Please refer to my most recent comment under "Weinergate". Having two separate discussions about the same thing (three if you count the penis controversy) is proving unwieldy.-- WriterIN ( talk) 05:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
After much wrestling with the format of the reference line (first time for everything) I added a reference to Nancy Pelosi's opening of a house ethics committee investigation. I also changed the title of this discussion section to match the actual section in the article and removed the unsigned gloating message (ALL IN CAPS, sign of high intelligence there) from the top of this section.-- WriterIN ( talk) 01:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
They can try and sensor all they want to protect one of their own but his political career is over just like John Edwards and that will be in the first section within days. 98.198.238.111 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC).
I'm sorry to say that I won't be participating in any further editing of this page. I'm not comfortable with the rather sensationalist treatment of the current scandal. Yes, it's important. Yes it should be covered in its entirety as the story continues to evolve and it should be NPOV as much as that is possible in this situation. What I'm not comfortable with is the tendency to put a reference to it in as many sections as possible, including the lead. Best wishes,-- WriterIN ( talk) 22:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
We just need a clear historical record documenting what Anthony Weiner did, and allow people to make up their own minds. I think the most obvious deriliction is not the act itself (sexting or whatever) but the significant lack of judgement in how he went about it, and then how he covered it up. Makes for a great game, but not for a great congressman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.46.237 ( talk) 23:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a disagreement on whether it should. My personal stance is that there should be a brief one or two sentence mention of the scandal in the lead section, as it frankly currently comprises a large portion of what he is known for. The concern was raised (see my talk page, for example) that this might violate WP:UNDUE. I don't agree that it's an issue in this case, but it's certainly a legitimate concern. Let's try to hash this out here, get more input, and avoid edit warring. Kansan ( talk) 04:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the scandal should have at least a sentence in the lead, since if the now separated Anthony Weiner photo scandal were merged back in in full it would be the largest section of the article.
I still don't think that it belongs in the lead right now...and I compared Weiner's page to Rangel, Souder and Lee. Rangel has a para in the lead for a completed episode, including official action by the House. Souder has a partial sentence mention but only because that's what ended his political career. Lee, interestingly, has no mention in the lead at all. Once all the facts are in, including the results of the House investigation, I fully support a full paragraph or more summarizing the entire affair. But until then it's just duplicative of what's in the proper section. Good luck with it. As I stated above, I won't be making any further edits myself, but I will continue to contribute to the discussion.-- WriterIN ( talk) 22:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The lede without the scandal material is currently only 8 sentences. Adding 2 sizable sentences about the unresolved scandal seems pretty unnecessary at the current stage of the event. With the current coverage of basic bio information in the lede, the weight of the lede would be pretty badly biased towards the recent event, IMO. BigK HeX ( talk) 01:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
GB fan makes a good point, for several reasons, and I'd like to point out two. Firstly, we are not here to WP:CRYSTAL BALL about the effect of personal life on career or, I think more to the point, to participate in the creation of a self-fulfilling prophecy. That a few wags are suggesting impact on his career the day he came out with his admission is not the sort of thing that gets put into an encyclopedic biography. It's also not something that gets put into the talk page of one. WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. If, like User:ianmacm, your assertion is that what you are saying on this page has nothing to do with why we should have something in the article, then you should bloody well not be saying it here. This is not a blog or a chat room or a water cooler or a bar, it's an editorial discussion, and we need to exercise some self-restraint and responsibility. We've all made some tongue-in-cheek comments about what we should call this, what we should say about that. But we are crossing a line when we are promulgating prognostication about the end of someone's career. The whole point about that is that if and when such a thing were to evidence itself in real historical events, rather than merely someone yammering on CNN or blathering on a blog, then there would be notable people addressing the perceived and actual reasons — actual as in exit polls of people in a primary, or highly notable statements by the powers that be, and actual as it actually had an effect, not merely was supposed to have one.
And as long as this thread has gone there, I will point out that after several allegations of actual affairs, even the Monica Lewinsky scandal didn't end Bill Clinton's career, nor did it prevent him from having a major international influence since leaving office, nor did it hold back his wife's political career. There was an actual naked and erect penis there, too, even if we only heard about it every day for three years and didn't actually have to look at the pixels. Ian, you did avoid the question, and you are avoiding responsibility for littering the page with random, self-contradictory commentary. One minute it's likely to affect his career, the next minute its akin to the actual affairs of Bill Clinton, which did not. We have to exercise some self control and restraint here and remember what we're here to do, which is determine what will appear in the article and how, not spin stream-of-consciousness opinion.
But this is about the lead, so let's stay on point there. To the recent edit, I will point out that nobody has responded to the justification User:BigK HeX used. He wasn't "sanitizing", as someone mischaracterized, he was correcting WP:UNDUE. The way to handle this is to source details of Weiner's notability — his career and impact as a congressman — that belong in the lead. Abrazame ( talk) 14:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The calls for Weiner’s resignation from Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and Steve Israel plus Weiner’s leave of absence should end any controversy over the scandal material being included in the lead. Grahamboat ( talk) 23:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)