Talk:Dolores Park/Archive 1

Archive 1

Weiner section

(Prior Discussion Copied from Brain Slug's talk page.)

I am actually very suspicious of this edit, even with the attempt to cite it in the edit summary, since the only reference I can find to the "Weiner Section" folks is on somebody's MySpace page. I also live near the park and have not seen any evidence of it. But you're right, I am probably harsher than I ought to be, and my edit summaries are sometimes not informative. I will endeavor to improve. Brainslug 17:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm suspicious of any edit with the word "weiner" in it. So, I'd bet that you are right. I also appreciate your taking my comment constructively, as it was intended. -Kubigula (ave) 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm now convinced that the edit was vandalism, since the cite they came up with seems to refer either to new information retrieved from an interview conducted with a man who died 45 years ago, or to a book that has no mention of them in the index. It's remarkably cheerful vandalism, though. In any case, I appreciate your feedback. Brainslug 03:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am the one posting the information about "Weiner Section" and I admit I am new to editing Wikipedia but I am trying to give some information that I have a bit of information. "Weiner Section" are indeed mentioned in that interveiw but more importantly the group is one in exsistance today and can be found daily in Dolores Park. They are indeed a huge part of the :: contemporary culture of Dolores Park and should be mentioned. If you do indeed live near the park, do some personal research on the matter and take a stroll through the side of Dolores Park closest to 18th street. I most commonly spot them on the weekends any time from 6PM-1AM. Sorry if this was an inappropriate place to post this. Lukereiser 03:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

First, what interview? Where can we read this interview? It is not in my recent printing of the book you mentioned. Second, it doesn't seem like this is, in fact, a huge part of the culture of the park, since I know the park very well and have never heard of it, since there are no references on the web or in the local papers (I checked three of them) to this group. Third, the only references in general I can find are to a group of idiots on MySpace, and while this may be hilarious to them, it's not helpful to the larger Wikipedia effort. I am going to request protection of the article if these edits continue without proper sourcing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brainslug (talk • contribs) 03:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Obviously you do not have a very broad knowledge of the culture of Dolores Park... The article on Wikipedia is very exiguous and does not mention anything about either Weiner Section nor Big Kid Fun two very important cultural aspects of Dolores Park. If you would like, I could type out the entire interview that I found in my copy of The Barbary Coast, but that you have failed to find. I will try to find another source that makes reference to Weiner Section and perhaps Big Kid Fun (BKF, a similar group). If you are truely trying to help the greater Wikipedia effort please let people include information on contemporary culture espcially when they have exclusive information relating to the topic as well as a published (Notable) paper source. Like I said before, if you truely want to make an effort to disprove do some personal research and come to Dolores Park and ask KIDS if they know a thing or two about Weiner Section or BKF. Thats all I ask, Thank you. P.S. How can you argue with the picture!? Lukereiser 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am now satisfied that you are a troll, and I have requested semi-protection of the page. Best of luck in all your future endeavors. Brainslug 04:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not a troll... My only intentions have ever been to spread some interesting and truthful information and all you have tried to do is try and prove it wrong without even the slightest attempt to help a new Wikipedia editor submit a legitimate and notable peice of information. I see no reason why anyone would even have the inclination to fabricate this in the first place. I think that it is simply your believe that the name "Weiner Section" is a strange and possibly silly one so you automatically assumed that the information was not legitmate. I do not believe you live anywhere near the park and have not encountered this group of youngsters, like I said take a look around the park, I am sure you will be able to find them around Friday night. Try by the green container closer to 18th street side or perhaps near the statue in the middle. Lukereiser 04:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we should seek a third opinion on the matter Lukereiser 05:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you refused to settle this like gentlemen, I will simply have to add the information when my account is four days old in about 40 hours. Lukereiser 00:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The matter is settled, as far as I'm concerned. The sources you gave were fraudulent, the evidence of gang activity is a photograph of some teenagers in the park, the only references one can find that mention this "Weiner Section" are some pages by a giggly clique on MySpace, and your story about the source of the material has changed significantly. I am sure that there are in fact a bunch of giggly potsmoking teenagers who hang out in the park; I am not sure why this fact would be worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article. And since you have been dishonest in the past, I am not inclined to continue speaking with you directly.

Go ahead and ask on the Talk page if some more respectable users think this information would be worth adding to the page. If we get involved in some sort of edit war, I am willing to petition for full protection of the page and so on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brainslug (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

That is fine post an RfC or I will. What you seem to be doing is making me the enemy and any information I want to post "vandalism" when really we are both interested in Dolores Park but just have different ideas of what should be included in the article. To my knowledge this bit of information meets all Wikipedia's notability requirements Why don't you just let me include this information and perhaps we can work together to add a part to the article debating the legitimacy of this information until you stop being lazy and read the interveiw yourself. I can type up and email you the interveiw, or you can go get the version of the book I have and look at it youself. What you seem to be forgetting (lost somewhere in your personal dislike for myself) is that this information is true and current. Like I said find out for yourself, or email the man who did the interveiw at info@gangsorus.com or call him at 803-345-2600. I acquired all this contact information from Robert Walker's website www.gangsorus.com. Thank you and please be open to reconsider. I am unfamiliar with these MySpace pages, but they seem interesting considering MySpace is the number one social networking tool in the world. If you could, please link them to me. Thank you. And please try and keep this off of a personal level and not resort to name calling... Lukereiser 04:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Weiner Section is definitely legit. I've read the Barbary Coast book that Lukereiser mentions and the interview is definitely in there. Mmeyers 04:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion really needs to go on the talk page of the article, so I am responding there. -Kubigula (ave) 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(/Prior Discussion Copied from Brain Slug's talk page.)

I checked google and found no reference to "Weiner Section". So, whether they exist or not or frequent Dolores Park or not, I don't think you could describe them as a "notorious street gang". It seems to be pretty marginal information to put into the article, so I'm not sure what the fuss is about. -Kubigula (ave) 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Kubigula, there is a "Weiner Section" page on MySpace; it is some sort of cute MySpace clique. The user "lukereiser" has a MySpace page associated with the "Weiner Section" page. The obvious conclusion is that this is a vanity edit by people with an unusually long attention span. I have nothing else to contribute to this. Brainslug 05:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats a very fair response. I will remove the part "notorious street gang" because I admit that is simply what I was introduced to them as and have done no personal research to affirm that particular part of the entry. Thank you! Perhaps someone could find more references under "Wiener Section" becuase I am not 100% sure which way it is spelled, I will begin research immediately. It is nice to hear the voice of reason in this discussion! Lukereiser 05:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please respond in order Brainslug. You are going to make this a very confusing discussion. I believe that if you were to actually do some research on the topic you are so willing to protest you would know that Weiner Section is not a "cute MySpace clique". I believe that that MySpace page is not even maintained by actual group we are refering to in the article and it in fact either a fradulous MySpace or perhaps a fan page? My personal connections with Weiner Section is simply becuase I am an expert in the topic having personally met members. I have no gang affiliation and am not directly associated with sed group. Thank you! Lukereiser 05:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am curious as to why it is acceptable to mention the “gay” sunbathers but not the groups of teenagers who are there on a regular basis. I live across the street from the park and I have done my own personal research. The gangs that call themselves “wiener section” and “BFK” are there often from 2pm to 9pm on weekdays or from 2pm to 2am on weekends. They are quite load and I do not appreciate their presence but I do believe that they deserve to be mentioned in the article. Either add them or delete the section about gay sunbathers. Both the sunbathers and the teenagers are partially responsible for the atmosphere of the park. [infogeek77 9:23 december 6]

I am in complete agreement with the previous response. It makes complete and total sense. They are very much an aspect to Dolores Park culture. I am very interested as to whom wrote that because they did not sign it but I am impressed with your observations and would like to converse further about this after this entry debate has been settled. If you ever see Weiner Section in Dolores Park ask about Luke, sometimes I can be found amongst them and would be glad to ask them to keep it down if you are so inclined. Thanks so much. Lukereiser 06:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. How can I get this article unprotected? Lukereiser 06:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The *only* web reference to this concept is at a MySpace page (http://www.myspace.com/xmajorxsectionx), a page with which the user "Lukereiser" admits to being connected (http://www.msypace.com/lukereiser), despite the fact that he wrote in the quoted text above that he doesn't know anything about MySpace. Lukereiser claims that this "gang" is mentioned in a book that I own and that I have just checked does not mention the group. Supporting him is a comment by some Wikipedia user called "mmeyers," a user who has the same name as a user listed as his friend on MySpace (http://www.myspace.com/mmeyers) and a comment by the user "Infogeek77," who has only this comment in his contributions list. This is a vanity edit. And as Kubiglia points out, this is of only the most marginal interest, IF ANY. Brainslug 06:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I found the MySpace page for Weiner Section becuase you told me about it and I am very interesting in the group. Mmeyers is the person who told me about The Barbary Coast, I alerted him of this discussion. I do not see why this is relative in discussing the notability of this information. It is infact true and interesting to me and many others, whether or not you believe so is your own personal taste but you do not own the Dolores Park wikipedia article so your sole opinion should not govern what is included. Stop being so pretentious, you don't own Wikipedia. Lukereiser 20:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's true that no editor owns any article; we operate by consensus regarding each article and the established policies and guidelines. My interpretation of the policies and opinion at this point is that this information does not belong in the article (Infogeek makes a good point about the sunbathers - that doesn't really belong either and I have removed it). There are valid concerns about notability, verifiability and conflict of interest here. -Kubigula (ave) 23:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that both Weiner Section and the gay sunbathers are very important to the culture of Dolores Park. In fact I think an entire Dolores Park culture section should be added with both information about Weiner Section and the gay sunbathers as well as the variety of other people who call Dolores Park home. If you come to Dolores Park you'll see Weiner Section, they are a huge part of the park's atmosphere. Lukereiser 05:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I am new to Wikipedia and have made few contributions is irrelevant to this discussion. There is no need for you to resort to bullying. You probably will not find an internet site on gay sunbathers at Dolores Park but that does not mean they do not exist. A section on culture would be a very fair solution. Infogeek77 09:37, 8 December 2006

I'm not sure I understand how you are being bullied - that's certainly not my intention. I think you made a valid point about the nude sunbathers, so I removed that content. The problem with all this disputed content is that it conflicts with many of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. For example, information has to verifiable by people who don't have the ability to simply walk down to the park. Your personal observations and insight as to what gives the park its atmosphere is considered "original research" - see WP:NOR. -Kubigula (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is horrible! My intentions were to increase the amount of information about Dolores Park culture on Wikipedia. Deleting the section about nude sunbathers is counter to the essential goal of Wikipedia, spreading information. Nude sunbathers as well as Weiner Section are essential to fully understanding Dolores Park. Dolores Park is possibly the most interesting park in San Francisco, and it is rediculous for truthful, interesting, and current information to be denied. Lukereiser 00:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Brainslug sucks. Everybody knows about weiner section and is scared of them. hes fita get his ass beat. scubatuba 01:47, 01 August 2007 (UTC)