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 |
The poll results don't belong in this article, they have nothing to do with actual objective developments regarding Weiner. They fit quite well in the sub-article, and we don't need to add every new trivial and tangential development to both. μηδείς ( talk) 17:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Link. Obviously sensitive issue so I figured I should raise here before including. Kelly hi! 23:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I have concerns about the sentiment "Why does he 'deserve the benefit of the doubt?' if anything that violates NPOV". [2] Statements like that make it hard to assume good faith. Liberal Classic ( talk) 20:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the thing to avoid here is "guilt by association". Because he sent lewd and salacious photos and text to some women, it does NOT logically follow that his communications with this teenager were inappropriate as well. He did say during his press conference that the *inappropriate* conversations were all with women who he believed to be adults. As reported, this young women did not claim to be older than she was, so there's an implied exclusion. -- WriterIN ( talk) 04:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The last in the paragraph that leads the Wikipedia page for Anthony Weiner reads "Pelosi removed Weiner from working on any House committees." This sentence has no link to any news article and is not factually accurate. Rep. Pelosi has not stripped Rep. Weiner or any committee assignments yet. Rep. Cantor has made a call that Rep. Pelosi should consider stripping Rep. Weiner's committee assignments, but Rep. Weiner remains assigned to the committees he was originally assigned to at the beginning of the legislative session. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.166.102 ( talk) 22:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Nancy Pelosi has relieved Anthony Weiner of his committee responsibilities for the duration of his leave.-- WriterIN ( talk) 05:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The mention of this in the introduction should be reduced to a sentence or two. It really needs its own section. Perhaps something like:
On June 16, 2011, Anthony Weiner announed his resignation from Congress after admittedly sending sexually explicit photographs of himself to several women via social media, and enduring calls from top Democrats in the House, and President Obama, to resign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstrosser ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed under the sexting scandal section that there is a noticeable gap between the time that news of the sexting to a 21 year old college girl first broke on May 27th, and June 6th, when Weiner finally admitted he'd been lying and falsely accusing others. Between those dates, Weiner spent around 10 days screaming at reporters, calling them names like "This jackass here," and claiming he'd been hacked and letting others blame Breitbart, etc. And he continued, during that time, to send text messages to at least one of the women, giving her advice on what to say, etc. Weiner's behaviors during that time should be mentioned to give context, as well as the fact that he finally came forward on June 6th after the other women came forward with explicit photos and text messages. As it reads now, it makes it appear that Weiner was silent during this 10 day interval between May 27th and June 6th, and that he came forward of his own volition to admit what he'd done. That is not accurate and does not reflect what has been reported in reliable sources. Malke 2010 ( talk) 16:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Stop showing us your weiner please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.207.245 ( talk) 01:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
On June 7, 2011 at 7:26 AM User Abrazame removed two subsections from the article without gaining consensus. His notes in this discussion page on the deletions that one was duplicative (Treatment of staffers) and I partially agree, but disagree on NPOV.
He also removed the Parking Ticket subsection, with which I emphatically disagree. This was an issue affecting many Memebers of Congress, but Weiner was among, if not THE most egregious offenders. He handled it with class, actually paying for the tickets rather than claiming congressional priveledge, and made a notable statement at the time. This is a perfect example of NPOV, i.e., he did bad by not displaying proper ID on his vehicle, but he did good by paying up. This subhead belongs in the article. Before reverting, please discuss so we can have consensus. The original section read as follows:
- On March 29, 2010, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported that Weiner had racked up $2,180 in parking tickets in Washington, D.C. between 2007 and 2010 and that all but one had yet to be paid before the release of the story. Some tickets included instances in which he appeared to have incurred multiple violations at the same time, such as failing to display current tags while parked in a taxi stand zone. A spokesman for his office stated that all the parking tickets had since, "been paid. He is pleased to have helped decrease the D.C. budget deficit." Weiner has criticized United Nations diplomats for failing to pay parking tickets in New York City, claiming foreign nations owed $18,000,000 to the city. [1] [2]
Additionally, there is a significant difference between the current edit on Treatment of Staffers and the edit Abrazame removed. This subsection needs to be integrated, old and new to provide NPOV. The current edit reads like a puff piece and the old one reads like a hatchet job. The new one reads as follows:
The old one reads as follows:
I suggest that both edits be present, with the old edit directly preceding the new one.-- WriterIN ( talk) 05:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should do a little research before making inaccurate statements, Abrazame ( talk). First of all, I did not provide *either* edit. I simply noted that they were missing and contradictory in tone, and properly belonged in the article in some merged NPOV form. As to making the edit then inviting discussion, I'll stand my ground here. That is NOT the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Only NEW text should be added without discussion. To delete or modify existing items without consensus is firing Round One of a 3RR, and I've already indicated I'll not play that partisan game. The only thing I'll agree with you on is that this should be a subsection under his congressional career section, but I reiterate, it belongs there, as well as the parking ticket issue. In fact, the parking ticket issue needs to be updated with the fact that he paid those tickets because his license plates were a) expired and b) belonged on another vehicle, not for his stated reason at the time.-- WriterIN ( talk) 21:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
-- WriterIN ( talk) 21:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
"junk"-mail is not what he will resign for it is the licence plate scandal - a stolen licence plate and yet no where in the article do i see it mentioned?!-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 17:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Anthony Weiner Now Busted for Unregistered Car and Expired License Plate-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 12:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
NY Daily News Has New Shocking Claim Against Rep. Weiner: His Car Isn’t Registered-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 12:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I just removed this opinionated comment - it at least requires discussion - sourced to one of the most scandalous publications for a big city that I have ever come across. Off2riorob ( talk) 12:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
"junk"-mail is not what he will resign for it is the licence plate scandal - a stolen licence plate.
that the souce is from two tabloids = nothing since both his office AND the DMV are addressing the issue publically = therefore it is real!-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 13:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
a charge is not required to get into wiki all that is required is that it is common knowledge which it is - everyone "knows" the sun will come up tomarrow - i dont need a charge to write it into wiki-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 13:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
i will thou concede that it might need to be worded differently - but to remove it is obvious democratic party censorship -- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 13:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, this is significant and ties directtly into the since-removed parking ticket scandal(?)/story(?)/incident(?). It now appears he paid those tickets himself BECAUSE those plates were a) expired and b) belonged on another vehicle. Needs to be re-inserted and updated.-- WriterIN ( talk) 21:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC) I left the part about paying the tickets because of the tag issue out in the proposed edit above as too POV and needing reference.-- WriterIN ( talk) 22:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how something that is merely a summary offense would be, according to the anonymous entry on this talk page would result in a resignation. In most states, having an incorrect license tag on a vehicle is only a summary offense. The maximum that could be upgraded from it would be to a misdemeanor. Still not a high crime or infamous offense! Wzrd1 ( talk) 20:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I just doubled checked sources. He had the highest amount of unpaid tickets by some margin, and racked them up using license plates that didn't even belong on the vehicle over a 6 year period. If this weren't overshadowed by the sexting scandal, it would certainly have been a subject for another House ethics inquiry and a minor scandal on its own. My own opinion, but fairly well-informed.-- WriterIN ( talk) 22:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
To whoever edited the lede to reduce the scandal reference to a single line: Bravo! Perfectly done. Concise, essential, NPOV. My metaphorical hat goes off to you.-- WriterIN ( talk) 19:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Ok, A couple of lines. But still excellent.-- WriterIN ( talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Can we get a picture of the genitalia under the controversy section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnar123abc ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The same should be said about the article headshot. We shouldn't be posing a poorly-lit off-color image of Weiner with a fake grimace when we have a perfectly nice foto of him. It reminds me of Time Magazine's treatment of O.J. Simpson. We don't need to make the man look ugly just because we think he may be guilty. μηδείς ( talk) 01:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
A question about Congressman Weiner. The American slang "wiener," meaning a penis, comes from the sausage called a wiener, meaning a person or thing from Wien or Vienna, and it is spelt IE and pronounced VEENER. In German EI is pronounced "eye", so the Congressman's name Weiner (which is a fairly common German-Jewish name meaning a dealer in wine) should be pronounced WINE-ER, not WEENER. Why does he chose to pronounce it WEENER and leave himself open to silly penis jokes? Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 10:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to strongly object to this edit [4] changing the description of Andrew Breitbart from conservative commentator and internet mogul to "blogger". The man owns several websites, writes for the Washington Times, worked fro Drudge and helped establish the the Huffington Post. Calling him a blogger is an obvious attempt to belittle and discredit him. Please revert the edit. μηδείς ( talk) 18:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It is absurd to say that we cannot explain he is a publisher and commentator because he also has a blog. Nothing requires us to use a vague shorthand term when accurate and well sourced specific and relevant descriptions are available. When it is necessary, those publications which may refer to him as a blogger do describe the fact that Brietbart is a published author, a conservative activist and commentator, and the owner of several financially successful websites. And those are the facts that are relevant here. Our readers need to know that this is an influential person with an agenda and the means to carry it out, not just someone with a free google blogspot account. No one contests the descriptions of him as a commentator, activist and internet publisher. No source argues he is not these things. Nor is there any lack of space for this material in this article. Removing the information serves no purpose, and no wikipedia rationale has been provided for this purposeful vagueness. This is a comprehensive encyclopedia Please provide one reason why our readers should not be told the profession and agenda of the man who revealed the scandal? μηδείς ( talk) 21:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Both poles of the inherent "Either/Or" here would be less than optimum per wp:NPOV, in my opinion... although I should probably explain that the afore-mentioned Either applies to "WP's terming the um gentleman over-complimentarily," while the afore-menioned Or applies to "WP's damning Mr. Breitbart with overly faint praise." To explain: seemingly, either one of the following two randomly chosen designations would work just fine. In my opinion.
--Nonetheless, choice (A), blogger, would slightly damn with faint praise whereas choice (B), political expose author, would slightly err too much on the side of overly complimentaryness. In my opinion. In any case, I've not come up with something off the top of my head that would achieve the perfect kind of balance, if that target is even possible to hit. Any suggestions? or do I worry too much about minutiae?
ps - This edit seems NOT particularly UNreasonable...and certainly not an obvious "vandalism." In my opinion.
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 06:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- First, per basic guidelines about the use of editing rationales and discussions of content, the argument or rationale of "This version has consensus" is virtually meaningless and does absolutely nothing but uselessly move metaphorical soundwaves through the air. Any current version in mainspace on Wikipedia is due to current consensus. However, when RfC's are posted, they are designed to talk about the issues at hand, citing policies and principles, not continue on with discussing any editors conduct (which, for those new to Wikipedia, are not to be discussed on article talkpages in any case but at, eg, wp:ANI). Let's all agree, that different editors may honestly disagree about what is the most NPOV. This present case is difficult to ajudicate, I believe, but we can probably come to some kind of reasonable compromise if no side insists on their version completely holding the day (unless, of course, a vast majority of editors agree with that particular version by way of citing guidelines while not relying on personal preference, not making the discussion about editors' conduct, and not merely citing "This is censensus; arrrggghhh."
- OK, with that throat-clearing: Not to cite wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but only as a possible help to think through these issues: note that (Mister B's comrade in arms) James O'Keefe's blp has this as the first sentence of its lede: "James E. O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is a conservative American activist who has produced videos of public figures that were shot undercover." And the last sentence of the lede reads, "He has been called a guerrilla documentarian, a gonzo journalist and a conservative provocateur." That is pretty long-wided but apparently was the best they could do over there. Here is the talkpage discussion there: here and here (etc.) Hope this helps--well, if anyone should wanna scan the gist of those threads, I suppose.....-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 17:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Anthony Weiner has not resigned yet. A press conference is scheduled at Brooklyn after 1pm as per CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castor t ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it is premature to use phrases like "former Representative" as Rep. Weiner has not officially resigned, i.e. his letter of resignation has not been received by the House. Until that happens he remains the duly elected Representative from New York's 9th congressional district. Sources: [6] [7] 70.191.203.30 ( talk) 22:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
"He was an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of New York City in the 2005 election, and had begun to amass a campaign fund to run again for mayor in 2013."
This sentence presupposes the reader is familiar with Mr Weiner's scandal. It would read better as:
"He was an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of New York City in the 2005 election, and had begun to amass a campaign fund to run again for mayor in 2013 when a scandal led to his resignation from the House of Representatives, ending his political career." Or some such thing as that.
or, It should not allude to his perceived political failure at all:
"He was an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of New York City in the 2005 election, and has begun amassing a campaign fund to run again for mayor in 2013." Or some such thing as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFordization ( talk • contribs) 04:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The second being the less biased, as it does not presuppose (however likely) the results of future events.
The new "summary" is deliberately slanted to make Weiner sound like a victim and to omit confirmed, negative information. First, the 46-year-old Weiner admitted to having direct online contact with an underaged girl without her parents' knowledge (and they were upset about it), during the course of which he used a vulgar word for excretion. Second, the claim that he was allegedly "stalked" by fake accounts is not supported by the cited article, and the claim is utterly irrelevant insofar as Weiner never contacted, or was contacted by, the allegedly fake individuals. It is also well-documented that the very same "fake" individuals provided public statements to exonerate Weiner, so the insinuation that the the accounts were operated by adversaries of Weiner's who were "stalking" him is utterly unsubstantiated.
I would further suggest that citing the New York Times for any proposition in this article be prohibited. In the early stages of the scandal they ran a puff piece defending Weiner and his completely fictitous claim of hacking. They are a verifiably unreliable and prejudiced source for this particular subject matter. NeutralityPersonified ( talk) 20:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
We generally don't cover raw data that is not covered in turn by RSs. But someone has input just that, writing "According to the non-partisan GovTrack web site, between 1999 and 2011 Representative Weiner had been the primary sponsor of 191 bills, none of which have been enacted. During the same period he was a co-sponsor of 1,909 bills or Resolutions.[26]". That is akin to cherry-picking data for a baseball player such as "in year x pitcher y had a 3.33 ERA". We generally don't include that unless as RS has reported it in an article. This stat is particularly confusing, as without context we don't know how common or uncommon that record is ... did he sponsor more or fewer bills than most reps, and is that zero percentage rate as primary sponsor highly unusual? My suggestion is that we delete it, unless and until it is covered by an RS, rather than a site that simply spits out statistics.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
An article in the NY Times presented evidence that Weiner was monitored by a conservative group and that he received overtures from false accounts. WP:POV directs that information on events should be presented, and this is relevant to Weiner's actions and what went on during the months leading up to the scandal. The source is highly respected and reliable. However, there appears to be some disagreement about how to include it. I have reverted the revision that removed the passage below, but perhaps we need a discussion on where to include it and how to word it?
At the tail end of the scandal, evidence surfaced that a group of self-described conservatives had monitored Weiner's Twitter communications with women for at least three months and that two false identities of underage girls had been created in an attempt to get information to use against Weiner.[54] Pkeets ( talk) 06:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised this even came up in the biographical article. I discuss this on the talk page in the sexting article Talk:Anthony Weiner sexting scandal#Material re "conservative group" patsw ( talk) 04:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
In what way is "monitoring" public communications of politicians or celebrities on Twitter and Facebook extraordinary, ominous, or encyclopedic? patsw ( talk) 21:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I think all that's needed here is one sentence on each:
Back in June, there was a consensus that the official portrait is mediocre and that File:Anthonyweiner.jpg is better. The official portrait has found its way back into the article. Any objections to changing it to the above right image?-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed this section was removed. I don't think it's off mark. I'm an advocate of including scandals about politicians, the more the better; see Talk:John_Fleming_(U.S._politician)#Reversion for on going discussion in which I'm involved. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Bearian ( talk) 17:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Trivia, especially of scurrilous varieties, makes for bad biographies, alas. In this case, the material was of zero importance to the biography, hence properly removed. Indeed, I suggest that: "Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained." Collect ( talk) 23:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I like his AKA, Carlos Danger! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.52.99 ( talk) 16:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I am not certain why exactly a well referenced edit here from reliable sources (there needs to be more?) was summarily deleted in its entirety. I could go into the whole WP:CENSOR even with BLP and more but I am sure we are all well versed on what wikipedia is and is not. I see "trivial" and "slow news day" cited as the reason to completely delete a section, not to amend or edit? No citations are given on "trivial" or "slow news day" & even with them it is still opinion & doesn't justify a complete deletion. I'm now wondering what else may be up for deletion if all it takes is "slow news day" & an opinion of "trivial"? So yes this needs to be reconsidered and I thank you in advance. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 22:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
In the spirit of AGF I removed "controversy" & "gaffe" as you wrote above, also thinned down on the references so no impression of piling on is given, and stated the RS so no appearance of some blog attack. Edits that could have been discussed & made without a complete delete. I do read every single suggestion you and other editors have & may have but it would assist all of us if we stayed on topic without irrelevant "Drudge" and as yet un-cited "teapot" mentions. As stated in the edit, further constructive contributions/edits welcomed, thou a blurb of an editors reasoning here on the Talk Page may be beneficial. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 01:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I am responding here to a request for a third opinion made at WP:3O. I had a look at the edit in question and reviewed the reasons for behavior put forth by both of you. First off, a few observations:
I think the most applicable policy to this discussion is WP:UNDUE, a subsection on our policy on neutral point of view. To quote:
An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
Note that a reliable source is not needed to determine if a section of an article constitutes undue coverage (one would be needed in order to describe the event as a "tempest in a teapot" in-article, but not to decide if the event is an example of a tempest). This policy also should be balanced with editorial judgement. Does the paragraph in question contribute to an understanding of the subject? My opinion is no. Both WP:UNDUE and editorial judgement point to this content being excluded. It is just too minor of event to merit any mention in this article. VQuakr ( talk) 05:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Amusingly boneheaded it may be, I personally see no reason for inclusion. †TE† Talk 21:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the description of the leaflets which was inflammatory and inappropriate to the the neutral point of view that is required of Wikipedia articles. This is not the place to fight out political battles. Pkeets ( talk) 13:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
They weren't roomates, but neighbors. In the link in personal life provided to cite his relationship with Stewart, Stewart says "And contrary to the New York Times reporting we were never roomates" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.104.80 ( talk) 20:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Danny Kedem is a woman. Please change him to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.156.17 ( talk) 17:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Apologies. I was confusing him with Barbara Morgan. Please ignore, nothing to see here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.156.17 ( talk) 17:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
How was Bill Clinton able to officiate at the wedding? Is that legal? Robinrobin ( talk) 03:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Anthony Weiner was raised Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.48.71.163 ( talk) 22:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
re: "show hypocrisy, please explain how is irrelevant before deleting"
"On June 13, 2011, the New York Daily News reported that one of Weiner's vehicles, though it had been issued valid plates, was displaying expired plates that had been issued to another one of his vehicles."
Wikipedia:LibelThis is a vague, unproven & uncharged claim made by a tabloid. License plate switching is a crime, & it can be done by anyone. Without a police report, it's unreliable. . Jgmoneill ( talk) 04:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
We've got multiple sources for this including roll call magazine and the new york post as well (Yachnin, Jennifer (March 29, 2011). "Members Collect Many Unpaid Tickets". Roll Call. Retrieved March 30, 2011. ^ New York Post (March 29, 2011). "Rep. Anthony Weiner Racks Up $2K in D.C. Parking Tickets". WNYW. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved March 30, 2011.) You can add "according to reports in Roll Call and the New York Post to the article if you like per WP:ATTRIBUTE or file a BLP complaint. But if you simply revert again you'll be facing WP:3RR charges. μηδείς ( talk) 05:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't remove the parking tickets information...parking tickets can be validated. However, repeating a claim made by a tabloid that implies that Weiner switched his plates and putting that in a Living Persons bio is contentious and certainly violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Two claims have been made - one concerns parking tickets. The issue of license plate swapping is unrelated conjecture that serves no purpose but attacking. see Wikipedia:Coatrack ---- Jgmoneill ( talk) 05:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there any truth to the rumour that the Anthony Weiner controversy is the inspirational source of the new internet law, or “Weiner's Law”, that reads: "If it feels like a good idea at the time, it's probably a mistake."? I have not been able to confirm this to date. Captain Chipper ( talk) 13.59, 14 Sept. 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 12:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The following sentence: "A second scandal began on July 23, 2013, several months after Weiner returned to politics in the New York City mayoral race.[59] Explicit photos were allegedly sent under the alias 'Carlos Danger' to a 22-year-old woman with whom Weiner had contact as late as April 2013, more than a year after Weiner had left Congress.[59]" seems misplaced under the section headed Resignation from Congress. Shouldn't it go under the section referring to the New York mayoral election? I think maybe the New York Mayoral election section should include Weiner's admission that he sexted at least 3 other women since his New York Magazine and People spreads in July 2012 in which he implied that he was a changed man in the interest of being thorough. Also, perhaps a note about him punctuating his loss of the his New York Mayoral bid by flipping the bird to reporters would be an important bit of data. In fact, I think I'll fill in this last fact myself as my small contribution. Scholarlyarticles ( talk) 00:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The article mentions that he had an "interfaith ceremony" when he married his wife, but their respective faiths are not specified. He is listed under other Jewish people sections on Wikipedia but his own page doesn't seem to specify. Was it removed when he fell out of public grace (frequent occurrence for controversial people on wiki to have their religious or ethnic background purged) or was it never there? I'm pretty sure he is indeed Jewish & born to Jewish parents. In his wife's (Huma Abedin) article it is specified that she is a Muslim or affiliated with Muslims perhaps 10 times. In Anthony's article only a small footnote saying he is on a Jewish people list. I think it should be added to the biographical text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.161.160 ( talk) 19:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/25/rep-weiner-calls-youtube-al-awlakis-videos/ and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/world/05britain.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Anthony Weiner. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Anthony Weiner. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
This piece [15]claims weiner has a sex addiction. Does it have a place in this article? 92.13.134.77 ( talk) 00:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Since when is the NYP not a reliable source? I must have missed the breaking news. I guess CNN and the New York Times, being inherently nonpartisan organs of the mainstream media, are still OK. Especially the NYT with its "oppositional" reporting of Trump (see [16], [17]). Quis separabit? 13:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anthony Weiner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Anthony Weiner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Education..." section, it says that Anthony Weiner attended the State University of New York at Plattsburgh (he did) where he played on the hockey team (he DIDN'T) Please remove the hockey reference.
[7]
Dmesh ( talk) 23:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC) dmesh
References
nytstaff
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |First=
ignored (|first=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |Title=
ignored (|title=
suggested) (
help)
This
edit request to
Anthony Weiner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a typo at the end: Wiener should be Weiner (although both fit).
88.133.129.161 ( talk) 19:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Anthony Weiner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Alias: Carlos Danger 170.133.200.240 ( talk) 19:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anything about this in the article yet.
I can only read the first paragraph due to not being a subscriber. Are there any more accessible articles we could use as a reliable source?
Clearly this needs its own section but I am not sure what to title it or where to place it. Ideas? Ranze ( talk) 05:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anthony Weiner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:45, 20 December 2017 (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 |
The poll results don't belong in this article, they have nothing to do with actual objective developments regarding Weiner. They fit quite well in the sub-article, and we don't need to add every new trivial and tangential development to both. μηδείς ( talk) 17:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Link. Obviously sensitive issue so I figured I should raise here before including. Kelly hi! 23:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I have concerns about the sentiment "Why does he 'deserve the benefit of the doubt?' if anything that violates NPOV". [2] Statements like that make it hard to assume good faith. Liberal Classic ( talk) 20:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the thing to avoid here is "guilt by association". Because he sent lewd and salacious photos and text to some women, it does NOT logically follow that his communications with this teenager were inappropriate as well. He did say during his press conference that the *inappropriate* conversations were all with women who he believed to be adults. As reported, this young women did not claim to be older than she was, so there's an implied exclusion. -- WriterIN ( talk) 04:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The last in the paragraph that leads the Wikipedia page for Anthony Weiner reads "Pelosi removed Weiner from working on any House committees." This sentence has no link to any news article and is not factually accurate. Rep. Pelosi has not stripped Rep. Weiner or any committee assignments yet. Rep. Cantor has made a call that Rep. Pelosi should consider stripping Rep. Weiner's committee assignments, but Rep. Weiner remains assigned to the committees he was originally assigned to at the beginning of the legislative session. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.166.102 ( talk) 22:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Nancy Pelosi has relieved Anthony Weiner of his committee responsibilities for the duration of his leave.-- WriterIN ( talk) 05:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The mention of this in the introduction should be reduced to a sentence or two. It really needs its own section. Perhaps something like:
On June 16, 2011, Anthony Weiner announed his resignation from Congress after admittedly sending sexually explicit photographs of himself to several women via social media, and enduring calls from top Democrats in the House, and President Obama, to resign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstrosser ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed under the sexting scandal section that there is a noticeable gap between the time that news of the sexting to a 21 year old college girl first broke on May 27th, and June 6th, when Weiner finally admitted he'd been lying and falsely accusing others. Between those dates, Weiner spent around 10 days screaming at reporters, calling them names like "This jackass here," and claiming he'd been hacked and letting others blame Breitbart, etc. And he continued, during that time, to send text messages to at least one of the women, giving her advice on what to say, etc. Weiner's behaviors during that time should be mentioned to give context, as well as the fact that he finally came forward on June 6th after the other women came forward with explicit photos and text messages. As it reads now, it makes it appear that Weiner was silent during this 10 day interval between May 27th and June 6th, and that he came forward of his own volition to admit what he'd done. That is not accurate and does not reflect what has been reported in reliable sources. Malke 2010 ( talk) 16:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Stop showing us your weiner please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.207.245 ( talk) 01:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
On June 7, 2011 at 7:26 AM User Abrazame removed two subsections from the article without gaining consensus. His notes in this discussion page on the deletions that one was duplicative (Treatment of staffers) and I partially agree, but disagree on NPOV.
He also removed the Parking Ticket subsection, with which I emphatically disagree. This was an issue affecting many Memebers of Congress, but Weiner was among, if not THE most egregious offenders. He handled it with class, actually paying for the tickets rather than claiming congressional priveledge, and made a notable statement at the time. This is a perfect example of NPOV, i.e., he did bad by not displaying proper ID on his vehicle, but he did good by paying up. This subhead belongs in the article. Before reverting, please discuss so we can have consensus. The original section read as follows:
- On March 29, 2010, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported that Weiner had racked up $2,180 in parking tickets in Washington, D.C. between 2007 and 2010 and that all but one had yet to be paid before the release of the story. Some tickets included instances in which he appeared to have incurred multiple violations at the same time, such as failing to display current tags while parked in a taxi stand zone. A spokesman for his office stated that all the parking tickets had since, "been paid. He is pleased to have helped decrease the D.C. budget deficit." Weiner has criticized United Nations diplomats for failing to pay parking tickets in New York City, claiming foreign nations owed $18,000,000 to the city. [1] [2]
Additionally, there is a significant difference between the current edit on Treatment of Staffers and the edit Abrazame removed. This subsection needs to be integrated, old and new to provide NPOV. The current edit reads like a puff piece and the old one reads like a hatchet job. The new one reads as follows:
The old one reads as follows:
I suggest that both edits be present, with the old edit directly preceding the new one.-- WriterIN ( talk) 05:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should do a little research before making inaccurate statements, Abrazame ( talk). First of all, I did not provide *either* edit. I simply noted that they were missing and contradictory in tone, and properly belonged in the article in some merged NPOV form. As to making the edit then inviting discussion, I'll stand my ground here. That is NOT the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Only NEW text should be added without discussion. To delete or modify existing items without consensus is firing Round One of a 3RR, and I've already indicated I'll not play that partisan game. The only thing I'll agree with you on is that this should be a subsection under his congressional career section, but I reiterate, it belongs there, as well as the parking ticket issue. In fact, the parking ticket issue needs to be updated with the fact that he paid those tickets because his license plates were a) expired and b) belonged on another vehicle, not for his stated reason at the time.-- WriterIN ( talk) 21:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
-- WriterIN ( talk) 21:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
"junk"-mail is not what he will resign for it is the licence plate scandal - a stolen licence plate and yet no where in the article do i see it mentioned?!-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 17:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Anthony Weiner Now Busted for Unregistered Car and Expired License Plate-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 12:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
NY Daily News Has New Shocking Claim Against Rep. Weiner: His Car Isn’t Registered-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 12:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I just removed this opinionated comment - it at least requires discussion - sourced to one of the most scandalous publications for a big city that I have ever come across. Off2riorob ( talk) 12:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
"junk"-mail is not what he will resign for it is the licence plate scandal - a stolen licence plate.
that the souce is from two tabloids = nothing since both his office AND the DMV are addressing the issue publically = therefore it is real!-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 13:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
a charge is not required to get into wiki all that is required is that it is common knowledge which it is - everyone "knows" the sun will come up tomarrow - i dont need a charge to write it into wiki-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 13:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
i will thou concede that it might need to be worded differently - but to remove it is obvious democratic party censorship -- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 13:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, this is significant and ties directtly into the since-removed parking ticket scandal(?)/story(?)/incident(?). It now appears he paid those tickets himself BECAUSE those plates were a) expired and b) belonged on another vehicle. Needs to be re-inserted and updated.-- WriterIN ( talk) 21:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC) I left the part about paying the tickets because of the tag issue out in the proposed edit above as too POV and needing reference.-- WriterIN ( talk) 22:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how something that is merely a summary offense would be, according to the anonymous entry on this talk page would result in a resignation. In most states, having an incorrect license tag on a vehicle is only a summary offense. The maximum that could be upgraded from it would be to a misdemeanor. Still not a high crime or infamous offense! Wzrd1 ( talk) 20:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I just doubled checked sources. He had the highest amount of unpaid tickets by some margin, and racked them up using license plates that didn't even belong on the vehicle over a 6 year period. If this weren't overshadowed by the sexting scandal, it would certainly have been a subject for another House ethics inquiry and a minor scandal on its own. My own opinion, but fairly well-informed.-- WriterIN ( talk) 22:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
To whoever edited the lede to reduce the scandal reference to a single line: Bravo! Perfectly done. Concise, essential, NPOV. My metaphorical hat goes off to you.-- WriterIN ( talk) 19:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Ok, A couple of lines. But still excellent.-- WriterIN ( talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Can we get a picture of the genitalia under the controversy section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnar123abc ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The same should be said about the article headshot. We shouldn't be posing a poorly-lit off-color image of Weiner with a fake grimace when we have a perfectly nice foto of him. It reminds me of Time Magazine's treatment of O.J. Simpson. We don't need to make the man look ugly just because we think he may be guilty. μηδείς ( talk) 01:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
A question about Congressman Weiner. The American slang "wiener," meaning a penis, comes from the sausage called a wiener, meaning a person or thing from Wien or Vienna, and it is spelt IE and pronounced VEENER. In German EI is pronounced "eye", so the Congressman's name Weiner (which is a fairly common German-Jewish name meaning a dealer in wine) should be pronounced WINE-ER, not WEENER. Why does he chose to pronounce it WEENER and leave himself open to silly penis jokes? Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 10:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to strongly object to this edit [4] changing the description of Andrew Breitbart from conservative commentator and internet mogul to "blogger". The man owns several websites, writes for the Washington Times, worked fro Drudge and helped establish the the Huffington Post. Calling him a blogger is an obvious attempt to belittle and discredit him. Please revert the edit. μηδείς ( talk) 18:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It is absurd to say that we cannot explain he is a publisher and commentator because he also has a blog. Nothing requires us to use a vague shorthand term when accurate and well sourced specific and relevant descriptions are available. When it is necessary, those publications which may refer to him as a blogger do describe the fact that Brietbart is a published author, a conservative activist and commentator, and the owner of several financially successful websites. And those are the facts that are relevant here. Our readers need to know that this is an influential person with an agenda and the means to carry it out, not just someone with a free google blogspot account. No one contests the descriptions of him as a commentator, activist and internet publisher. No source argues he is not these things. Nor is there any lack of space for this material in this article. Removing the information serves no purpose, and no wikipedia rationale has been provided for this purposeful vagueness. This is a comprehensive encyclopedia Please provide one reason why our readers should not be told the profession and agenda of the man who revealed the scandal? μηδείς ( talk) 21:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Both poles of the inherent "Either/Or" here would be less than optimum per wp:NPOV, in my opinion... although I should probably explain that the afore-mentioned Either applies to "WP's terming the um gentleman over-complimentarily," while the afore-menioned Or applies to "WP's damning Mr. Breitbart with overly faint praise." To explain: seemingly, either one of the following two randomly chosen designations would work just fine. In my opinion.
--Nonetheless, choice (A), blogger, would slightly damn with faint praise whereas choice (B), political expose author, would slightly err too much on the side of overly complimentaryness. In my opinion. In any case, I've not come up with something off the top of my head that would achieve the perfect kind of balance, if that target is even possible to hit. Any suggestions? or do I worry too much about minutiae?
ps - This edit seems NOT particularly UNreasonable...and certainly not an obvious "vandalism." In my opinion.
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 06:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- First, per basic guidelines about the use of editing rationales and discussions of content, the argument or rationale of "This version has consensus" is virtually meaningless and does absolutely nothing but uselessly move metaphorical soundwaves through the air. Any current version in mainspace on Wikipedia is due to current consensus. However, when RfC's are posted, they are designed to talk about the issues at hand, citing policies and principles, not continue on with discussing any editors conduct (which, for those new to Wikipedia, are not to be discussed on article talkpages in any case but at, eg, wp:ANI). Let's all agree, that different editors may honestly disagree about what is the most NPOV. This present case is difficult to ajudicate, I believe, but we can probably come to some kind of reasonable compromise if no side insists on their version completely holding the day (unless, of course, a vast majority of editors agree with that particular version by way of citing guidelines while not relying on personal preference, not making the discussion about editors' conduct, and not merely citing "This is censensus; arrrggghhh."
- OK, with that throat-clearing: Not to cite wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but only as a possible help to think through these issues: note that (Mister B's comrade in arms) James O'Keefe's blp has this as the first sentence of its lede: "James E. O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is a conservative American activist who has produced videos of public figures that were shot undercover." And the last sentence of the lede reads, "He has been called a guerrilla documentarian, a gonzo journalist and a conservative provocateur." That is pretty long-wided but apparently was the best they could do over there. Here is the talkpage discussion there: here and here (etc.) Hope this helps--well, if anyone should wanna scan the gist of those threads, I suppose.....-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 17:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Anthony Weiner has not resigned yet. A press conference is scheduled at Brooklyn after 1pm as per CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castor t ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it is premature to use phrases like "former Representative" as Rep. Weiner has not officially resigned, i.e. his letter of resignation has not been received by the House. Until that happens he remains the duly elected Representative from New York's 9th congressional district. Sources: [6] [7] 70.191.203.30 ( talk) 22:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
"He was an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of New York City in the 2005 election, and had begun to amass a campaign fund to run again for mayor in 2013."
This sentence presupposes the reader is familiar with Mr Weiner's scandal. It would read better as:
"He was an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of New York City in the 2005 election, and had begun to amass a campaign fund to run again for mayor in 2013 when a scandal led to his resignation from the House of Representatives, ending his political career." Or some such thing as that.
or, It should not allude to his perceived political failure at all:
"He was an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of New York City in the 2005 election, and has begun amassing a campaign fund to run again for mayor in 2013." Or some such thing as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFordization ( talk • contribs) 04:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The second being the less biased, as it does not presuppose (however likely) the results of future events.
The new "summary" is deliberately slanted to make Weiner sound like a victim and to omit confirmed, negative information. First, the 46-year-old Weiner admitted to having direct online contact with an underaged girl without her parents' knowledge (and they were upset about it), during the course of which he used a vulgar word for excretion. Second, the claim that he was allegedly "stalked" by fake accounts is not supported by the cited article, and the claim is utterly irrelevant insofar as Weiner never contacted, or was contacted by, the allegedly fake individuals. It is also well-documented that the very same "fake" individuals provided public statements to exonerate Weiner, so the insinuation that the the accounts were operated by adversaries of Weiner's who were "stalking" him is utterly unsubstantiated.
I would further suggest that citing the New York Times for any proposition in this article be prohibited. In the early stages of the scandal they ran a puff piece defending Weiner and his completely fictitous claim of hacking. They are a verifiably unreliable and prejudiced source for this particular subject matter. NeutralityPersonified ( talk) 20:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
We generally don't cover raw data that is not covered in turn by RSs. But someone has input just that, writing "According to the non-partisan GovTrack web site, between 1999 and 2011 Representative Weiner had been the primary sponsor of 191 bills, none of which have been enacted. During the same period he was a co-sponsor of 1,909 bills or Resolutions.[26]". That is akin to cherry-picking data for a baseball player such as "in year x pitcher y had a 3.33 ERA". We generally don't include that unless as RS has reported it in an article. This stat is particularly confusing, as without context we don't know how common or uncommon that record is ... did he sponsor more or fewer bills than most reps, and is that zero percentage rate as primary sponsor highly unusual? My suggestion is that we delete it, unless and until it is covered by an RS, rather than a site that simply spits out statistics.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
An article in the NY Times presented evidence that Weiner was monitored by a conservative group and that he received overtures from false accounts. WP:POV directs that information on events should be presented, and this is relevant to Weiner's actions and what went on during the months leading up to the scandal. The source is highly respected and reliable. However, there appears to be some disagreement about how to include it. I have reverted the revision that removed the passage below, but perhaps we need a discussion on where to include it and how to word it?
At the tail end of the scandal, evidence surfaced that a group of self-described conservatives had monitored Weiner's Twitter communications with women for at least three months and that two false identities of underage girls had been created in an attempt to get information to use against Weiner.[54] Pkeets ( talk) 06:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised this even came up in the biographical article. I discuss this on the talk page in the sexting article Talk:Anthony Weiner sexting scandal#Material re "conservative group" patsw ( talk) 04:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
In what way is "monitoring" public communications of politicians or celebrities on Twitter and Facebook extraordinary, ominous, or encyclopedic? patsw ( talk) 21:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I think all that's needed here is one sentence on each:
Back in June, there was a consensus that the official portrait is mediocre and that File:Anthonyweiner.jpg is better. The official portrait has found its way back into the article. Any objections to changing it to the above right image?-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed this section was removed. I don't think it's off mark. I'm an advocate of including scandals about politicians, the more the better; see Talk:John_Fleming_(U.S._politician)#Reversion for on going discussion in which I'm involved. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Bearian ( talk) 17:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Trivia, especially of scurrilous varieties, makes for bad biographies, alas. In this case, the material was of zero importance to the biography, hence properly removed. Indeed, I suggest that: "Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained." Collect ( talk) 23:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I like his AKA, Carlos Danger! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.52.99 ( talk) 16:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I am not certain why exactly a well referenced edit here from reliable sources (there needs to be more?) was summarily deleted in its entirety. I could go into the whole WP:CENSOR even with BLP and more but I am sure we are all well versed on what wikipedia is and is not. I see "trivial" and "slow news day" cited as the reason to completely delete a section, not to amend or edit? No citations are given on "trivial" or "slow news day" & even with them it is still opinion & doesn't justify a complete deletion. I'm now wondering what else may be up for deletion if all it takes is "slow news day" & an opinion of "trivial"? So yes this needs to be reconsidered and I thank you in advance. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 22:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
In the spirit of AGF I removed "controversy" & "gaffe" as you wrote above, also thinned down on the references so no impression of piling on is given, and stated the RS so no appearance of some blog attack. Edits that could have been discussed & made without a complete delete. I do read every single suggestion you and other editors have & may have but it would assist all of us if we stayed on topic without irrelevant "Drudge" and as yet un-cited "teapot" mentions. As stated in the edit, further constructive contributions/edits welcomed, thou a blurb of an editors reasoning here on the Talk Page may be beneficial. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 01:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I am responding here to a request for a third opinion made at WP:3O. I had a look at the edit in question and reviewed the reasons for behavior put forth by both of you. First off, a few observations:
I think the most applicable policy to this discussion is WP:UNDUE, a subsection on our policy on neutral point of view. To quote:
An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
Note that a reliable source is not needed to determine if a section of an article constitutes undue coverage (one would be needed in order to describe the event as a "tempest in a teapot" in-article, but not to decide if the event is an example of a tempest). This policy also should be balanced with editorial judgement. Does the paragraph in question contribute to an understanding of the subject? My opinion is no. Both WP:UNDUE and editorial judgement point to this content being excluded. It is just too minor of event to merit any mention in this article. VQuakr ( talk) 05:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Amusingly boneheaded it may be, I personally see no reason for inclusion. †TE† Talk 21:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the description of the leaflets which was inflammatory and inappropriate to the the neutral point of view that is required of Wikipedia articles. This is not the place to fight out political battles. Pkeets ( talk) 13:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
They weren't roomates, but neighbors. In the link in personal life provided to cite his relationship with Stewart, Stewart says "And contrary to the New York Times reporting we were never roomates" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.104.80 ( talk) 20:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Danny Kedem is a woman. Please change him to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.156.17 ( talk) 17:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Apologies. I was confusing him with Barbara Morgan. Please ignore, nothing to see here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.156.17 ( talk) 17:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
How was Bill Clinton able to officiate at the wedding? Is that legal? Robinrobin ( talk) 03:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Anthony Weiner was raised Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.48.71.163 ( talk) 22:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
re: "show hypocrisy, please explain how is irrelevant before deleting"
"On June 13, 2011, the New York Daily News reported that one of Weiner's vehicles, though it had been issued valid plates, was displaying expired plates that had been issued to another one of his vehicles."
Wikipedia:LibelThis is a vague, unproven & uncharged claim made by a tabloid. License plate switching is a crime, & it can be done by anyone. Without a police report, it's unreliable. . Jgmoneill ( talk) 04:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
We've got multiple sources for this including roll call magazine and the new york post as well (Yachnin, Jennifer (March 29, 2011). "Members Collect Many Unpaid Tickets". Roll Call. Retrieved March 30, 2011. ^ New York Post (March 29, 2011). "Rep. Anthony Weiner Racks Up $2K in D.C. Parking Tickets". WNYW. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved March 30, 2011.) You can add "according to reports in Roll Call and the New York Post to the article if you like per WP:ATTRIBUTE or file a BLP complaint. But if you simply revert again you'll be facing WP:3RR charges. μηδείς ( talk) 05:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't remove the parking tickets information...parking tickets can be validated. However, repeating a claim made by a tabloid that implies that Weiner switched his plates and putting that in a Living Persons bio is contentious and certainly violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Two claims have been made - one concerns parking tickets. The issue of license plate swapping is unrelated conjecture that serves no purpose but attacking. see Wikipedia:Coatrack ---- Jgmoneill ( talk) 05:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there any truth to the rumour that the Anthony Weiner controversy is the inspirational source of the new internet law, or “Weiner's Law”, that reads: "If it feels like a good idea at the time, it's probably a mistake."? I have not been able to confirm this to date. Captain Chipper ( talk) 13.59, 14 Sept. 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 12:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The following sentence: "A second scandal began on July 23, 2013, several months after Weiner returned to politics in the New York City mayoral race.[59] Explicit photos were allegedly sent under the alias 'Carlos Danger' to a 22-year-old woman with whom Weiner had contact as late as April 2013, more than a year after Weiner had left Congress.[59]" seems misplaced under the section headed Resignation from Congress. Shouldn't it go under the section referring to the New York mayoral election? I think maybe the New York Mayoral election section should include Weiner's admission that he sexted at least 3 other women since his New York Magazine and People spreads in July 2012 in which he implied that he was a changed man in the interest of being thorough. Also, perhaps a note about him punctuating his loss of the his New York Mayoral bid by flipping the bird to reporters would be an important bit of data. In fact, I think I'll fill in this last fact myself as my small contribution. Scholarlyarticles ( talk) 00:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The article mentions that he had an "interfaith ceremony" when he married his wife, but their respective faiths are not specified. He is listed under other Jewish people sections on Wikipedia but his own page doesn't seem to specify. Was it removed when he fell out of public grace (frequent occurrence for controversial people on wiki to have their religious or ethnic background purged) or was it never there? I'm pretty sure he is indeed Jewish & born to Jewish parents. In his wife's (Huma Abedin) article it is specified that she is a Muslim or affiliated with Muslims perhaps 10 times. In Anthony's article only a small footnote saying he is on a Jewish people list. I think it should be added to the biographical text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.161.160 ( talk) 19:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/25/rep-weiner-calls-youtube-al-awlakis-videos/ and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/world/05britain.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Anthony Weiner. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Anthony Weiner. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
This piece [15]claims weiner has a sex addiction. Does it have a place in this article? 92.13.134.77 ( talk) 00:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Since when is the NYP not a reliable source? I must have missed the breaking news. I guess CNN and the New York Times, being inherently nonpartisan organs of the mainstream media, are still OK. Especially the NYT with its "oppositional" reporting of Trump (see [16], [17]). Quis separabit? 13:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anthony Weiner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Anthony Weiner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Education..." section, it says that Anthony Weiner attended the State University of New York at Plattsburgh (he did) where he played on the hockey team (he DIDN'T) Please remove the hockey reference.
[7]
Dmesh ( talk) 23:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC) dmesh
References
nytstaff
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |First=
ignored (|first=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |Title=
ignored (|title=
suggested) (
help)
This
edit request to
Anthony Weiner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a typo at the end: Wiener should be Weiner (although both fit).
88.133.129.161 ( talk) 19:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Anthony Weiner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Alias: Carlos Danger 170.133.200.240 ( talk) 19:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anything about this in the article yet.
I can only read the first paragraph due to not being a subscriber. Are there any more accessible articles we could use as a reliable source?
Clearly this needs its own section but I am not sure what to title it or where to place it. Ideas? Ranze ( talk) 05:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anthony Weiner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)