Talk:US Representative Anthony Weiner resigns over sexual conduct

Should the paragraph (minus the "including Lee") "'Weiner has admitted to communicating online with six women, including Lee, over the past three years. The scandal began when a picture of his erect penis bulging against his boxer briefs was accidentally posted on Twitter. He initially attributed the post to a prankster who hacked into his account, but then eventually admitted last week that it was he who posted the photo. More photos have emerged since then, including one showing his nude genitals.'" be incorporated into the initial paragraph to give the reader the complete background since "the scandal" may be unclear? --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems reasonable. I moved the paragraph. Ragettho (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

an interesting perspective on the (Bill) Clinton connection
Ragettho (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

timeline
Ragettho (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Article direction
I like the additions that give a broader view of his behavior rather than just focusing on the porn star, whose revelations  are a drop in the bucket, and he would have had to resign anyway IMO, whether or not she spoke up. After all, he admitted lying a week or more ago, and even when he admitted lying he did not come clean as to the extent of his "problem". Focusing in the porn star sensationalizes the issue without clarifying it. Mattisse (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the information about his wife?
There was a nice statement in the article at one time, but I can't find it now. Weiner made a big deal about not making a decision to resign until she returned from her Africa trip. The wife was very close to the Clintons (Bill Clinton married them) who were reported to be "enraged" at Weiner. She is pregnant, married to him for less than a year, etc. I think this is an important part of the story. The "wife" role is important in politics. The role is very important in political scandals in determining how the politician will be regarded publically. Mattisse (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I guess it is still there. Article needs a good quote. Mattisse (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Title
Ok...I like a little play on words when it comes to titles...but aren't we sorta stepping over the line with this one? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you concerned that it violates the neutrality policy? I would be ok with this move being undone. I can't revert the move myself — I'm assuming that an admin has to undo the move? Ragettho (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't require an admin... --Pi zero (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if its neutral or not. I mean I laughed. I wasn't against the title...I just wanted opinions. If it were changed to a more neutral title I wouldn't be opposed. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I changed it back to what it used to be (and I'm an admin, so no telling about that). Maybe I just don't have enough of a sense of humor.  I'm not out to raise a fuss over it, either way; but I did wonder if maybe it was one of those things where tastes differ between the two sides of the pond.  And it happened on this side of the pond.  --Pi zero (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Weiner gets deflated by reversionists with no sense of fun.

 * Well someone clearly has had a "senseofhumorectomy". It was spoken about in the IRC channel, we felt it was a good headline, jeez people, lighten up will ya. So it happened on the other side of the pond, big deal. It's not as if we have a thing for publishing headlines with a double-entendre in. BarkingFish (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To comment on something raised overnight on IRC &mdash; one difference between this and Category:Wackynews (which I'm not altogether happy with, but tolerate and, to be honest, once put a story I'd written in because it just had to go there) is that Wackynews is something it may take the reader a long time to notice, if they notice at all (I'd like to delete the infobox, even though I have to acknowledge the category serves a necessary function); whereas the headline creates the audience's first and most profound impression of the article, and of us. (BTW, do you realize how difficult it was to say that without a glaringly obvious double-entendre?  My first instinct was to quote the Style guide about the information content of headlines: "tell the most important and unique thing".  No, wait...)


 * There really are fascinating and subtle cultural differences across the pond, often not subject to easy explanation, but there nonetheless. Years ago, I attended an academic talk by a UK professor who made an allusion to the Answer being 42, and later he expressed frustration that that never gets a laugh over here, because nobody over here has read the book.  I reflected that probably everyone in the room had read the book, but to us that was a sort of joke best enjoyed without laughing at it.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ask that this article not be published
I'm asking that this article not be published. It is stale anyway, as the topic is barely mentioned in the US press today. The problem has been solved by Weiner's resignation.

Also, the headline of this article makes fun of a serious situation for Weiner, his family, the Democrat Party and the country. Perhaps the article is not clear enough, and is read by some as a joke. Some see anything that involves sex as a joke, perhaps. The issue for the country and the party was that the controversy was distracting members of the House of Representatives of conducting the country's  business. Resignation cut the matter short. He is not considered "disgraced" as many articles mentioned how well his work is considered as a member of the House and that his constituents still support him. He is also still considered by many as a viable candidate for Mayor of New York, and most seemed to think he will return to politics. Nancy Pelosi's comments were compassionate, and I think that is how many feel.

I don't think the word "disgraced" was mentioned anywhere. Except by wikinews in its title. Also, the issue was not just lewd photos, but the internet contact of a sexual nature with many women, especially since he has been married to his wife for than one year who is pregnant.

I feel bad for those of us that worked hard on the story, and I thank those that did as the experience was quite pleasurable and the collaboration excellent, but it would not be right to publish the article with its current title. And too much time has passed, IMO, for the article to be new news now.

Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Our audience is international, so position in the US news isn't important really. For many, this is something we know little about - e.g. UK. Our news has paid this only passing attention; few know many details. Staleness is generally considered to set in after three days. That merely leaves the title... Hardly an insurmountable issue :p. Review on this is tough because of the long nature of the talk page - all of which must be digested. That, and the larger number of sources. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

main page?
can we please put this up on the main page? Ragettho (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sighted. It was nice, for a little while, to have two leads with OR at once, but it was also time for the local one to go.  --Pi zero (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)