Talk:Jon Wiener

Conflict of Interest
This article was discussed at WP:COIN as it has been actively edited by User:Jonwiener. Such editing is permitted provided it complies with policy (see WP:WHYCOI). As no residual violations were found at this time no further action was taken, though it was noted that previous versions were promotional. -- samj in out 13:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fourteen years of litigation
Most folks can figure out that 1997 minus 1973 is fourteen. The claom of "litigation" moreover assumes a contimuing process -- while real cases run in fits and starts -- the case did not get to the 9th Circuit in any immediate manner, and was dormant most of that time. The clear implication of the sentence is that something was actively occuring ll that time, when it wasn't. Collect (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's still considered a year of litigation when a court sits on a case for a lengthy period of time, as the Ninth Circuit is prone to do. THF (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Math is hard? A case which takes 10 years to get to a judge is "10 years of litigation"? Seems like readers can do simple math as well as lawyers can. Collect (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ken Starr
The mention of Ken Starr is gratuitous. As the SG, he signed all briefs filed by the US to the Supreme Court. Moreover, how does one get from a 1992 cert petition (which I presume, was denied, and thus was not notable, since there was no precedential SCOTUS decision) to a 1997 settlement? THF (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just going by what's in the book. Sounds like you're an attorney with resources for your own original research.  Maybe instead of the tags you could just fix it to say what the source says in a way that's consistent with what you know.  As to Kenneth Starr, I just threw that in because it's part of what's in the source.  Does it bother you for some reason to mention him?  Take it out then. Dicklyon (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because a source says "John Doe had a dollar bill signed by Ivy Baker Priest" establishes absolutely no real connection between the two when her signature is found on a great number of dollar bills. "Throwing in" stuff of that sort does not improve any article.  Collect (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're a day late and a dollar short. We already agreed to leave that out; though I must admit I don't see why you care.  On the other hand, if I found a source saying that he had a dollar bill signed by Ivy Baker Priest, I might be inclined to report that, too.  If the guy who wrote the book found a reason to say it, I've got to think it might be an interesting or relevant connection, perhaps to establish patterns of history connections.  Did you ever watch Connections?  That was fun; probably didn't violate BLP, either.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * how does one get from a 1992 cert petition . . . to a 1997 settlement? happy to explain: The 9th circuit court of appeals ruled for Wiener; the govt. appealed; cert. denied; the Clinton admin. sought to settle outstanding FOIA cases, and negotiated a settlement. Does this need to be spelled out in the text?Jonwiener (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:RS and WP:NOR you need a single source making that chronological argument. Combining several hits WP:NOR and using none hits WP:RS.  As for connecting Ken Starr acting as a governmental functionary to any specific connection, it appears you are not arguing that.  Collect (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Revamp coming
I am working on a revamp of this article, with more references, and I am taking into consideration comments on this talk page. If there are other concerns, please write something here or on my talk page, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ I agree the main story is the Wiener v FBI, and made it prominent, but I thought many other aspects of this bio needed to be emphasized as well -- the many hats. The story about the legal battle was layered -- with things happening in one decade, referring back to things happening in previous decades, so I hope it is not too confusing. It was easier for me to rewrite it from fresh secondary sources rather than slog through the current material to check the veracity of each line, plus I thought that here is a good interesting story -- highly notable. That is, doing it this way I hoped would get a better article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Photos needed
If anybody reading this has a photo of this person, and permission from the photographer (which can be verified by email) to use this photo in Wikipedia, please write something here or contact me at thomaswrightsulcer (at) yahoo (dot) com.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC) First off, we request a photo of Jon Wiener if this is available. Additional photos requested -- any photos pertaining to the lawsuit Wiener v FBI, any photos of Wiener with radio show guests such as Gail Collins, Jane Mayer, Joan Didion, Gore Vidal, Barbara Ehrenreich, Frank Rich, Seymour Hersh, Amos Oz, Mike Davis, Elmore Leonard, John Dean, Julian Bond, Al Franken, and Terry Gross, any photos from Wiener's upbringing in Minnesota, or working on the Ole Mole or photos from Princeton or Yale. As per Wikimedia's guidelines, the permission of the photographer is needed for each photo; if people appear in the photos, then (according to Wikimedia's guidelines) identifiable persons in the photos should give their consent to be in Wikipedia in photo-form as well; so if photographers can be contacted by email (and can forward an email giving permission) then this will work swimmingly. Please contact me by email at the above email address if such photos can be made available which will, of course, curtail any need for a Freedom of Information Act request and having to wait 14 years for a reply.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for all your work on this article! I think the current photos on this page are a bit excessive, though. Placing Barbara Ehrenreich's photo as the first human visible seems to give the impression that the connection between the two is a lot greater than the rest of the article implies. Do we know if Anthony Romero was specifically involved with Wiener's case? I'm going to remove some of them. If you want to revert, that's fine, but I think we should just hold-out until we can find a few that are more significantly and directly related to the topic. Grayfell (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for saying thanks. Yes the photos were often tangential, perhaps it stems back to my third-grader days when I was afraid of anything with too much text in it. I like pictures because it makes articles more beautiful to read if there are good photos imo. Like, I would probably stick photos of plants randomly around just so the article might breathe a bit. As you know, getting good (relevant) photos by slogging through the Wikimedia Commons database is so slow and I haven't yet learned how to get good photos efficiently. Hopefully we might get JW (if that is him writing) to contribute more relevant photos under the Freedom of Information Act, perhaps Wikimedia might hire some actors who look like G-Men to show up at his office with sunglasses and briefcases and "request them" under FIFO. Btw you know that song I fought the law and the law won...? Well, Wiener is one of the few people who can sing that song but change the lyric to go I fought the law and I won. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

COI concerns
Generally it is a good idea for people not to edit articles about themselves; if there are errors, omissions, problems, please write something on this talk page; others monitor this page and will try to take care of any issues promptly, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Thank you Tom.  Jonwiener (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Requesting help with captions
I added four photos of redacted documents but I'm not sure if I'm getting the captions or details right; if not, please fix, thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Here are the photos:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)









FYI--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Upgrade
I kept much of the previous draft's wordings (occasional light copyedit) although there was some reorganization. I still continue to believe the story is so important (since it involves government surveillance of a person, as well as the reelection of a president and the abuse of the machinery of goverrnment) -- and rather complex (many layers, with new information coming available over time) -- and lasting over several decades (1969+) -- that it needs to be fully fleshed out. Many readers will not grasp the background of the late 60s and early 70s, so I think it is best to give this background, otherwise it won't make sense -- why was a government investigating a musician and celebrity? We need the background, and in chronological order (as much as possible). So I expanded this article with additional references including from the text of Gimme Some Truth, while keeping the recent additions as best I could. I found more references to critical reaction and tried to keep the NPOV tone (this is a political subject and it is best all around if we can keep things neutral). Last, aesthetic considerations are important here -- the blacked out copies (while instructive) are not good to look at, and I found the best photos I could which were relevant and help the page be more beautiful visually; if others here are unhappy with the photos, please may I ask could you find better replacements rather than merely axing them, since the article will look much better with photos that will also have the effect of telling the story as well. I suspect that many "readers" of Wikipedia just glance over articles, and if they read anything, it will be the captions for a few photos.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Too long and too much non-utile detail by half. At this point, it looks rather full of puff, alas, when the extra material does not add to the reader's understanding of the person. Collect (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is long but puffy? For me, it is like there are two stories -- Jon Wiener, and Wiener-vs-FBI -- and problem is, it does not make sense to disentangle them. Like, trying to describe Wiener without going into detail on the Wiener-vs-FBI does not make sense; nor does the latter make sense without the person. And, I don't think readers will get what happened (the story's many layers) without going into detail. And the article is well-referenced and interesting -- it's a good story -- I have never come upon anything like this before in which a professor using the FOIA took on the nation's top law enforcement branch, and won. And the weirdness of it -- a former Beatle, hounded by the reelection concerns of a president (Nixon) -- and then government agencies, caught in the weirdness, refusing to hand over documents. And then the documents reveal nothing. It's too weird. Excising the article risks losing the flavor, the nuances.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The idea of "editing" is to value what belongs in an encyclopedia article, and what does not. We do not need to encompass all the content of every book and newspaper article in the world - that is why we have a reference list for the reader.  Once the gist is reasonably established, the rest is less useful than parsley on a plate.   It is not up to us to show the entire story, as you phrase it - just to show the basic facts. I suggest you look at Joseph Widney now and as it once was at   and tell me whether depuffing helped or hindered the article.   As long as the reflist is there, the reader can and should use it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Generally I agree that we need to make choices about what belongs in an encyclopedia article, and that there is no need to "encompass all the content of every book and newspaper article in the world" as you write. There are plenty of articles in Wikipedia where there is much attention, few references, on rather silly or inane subjects of little interest to others. But in this case, in my view, and I think most people here at Wikipedia will agree, that this story is important, seriously so, since it deals with issues such as the role of government, individual freedom, rights and politics. It isn't celebrity nonsense (although it clearly involves a celebrity) but gets at high-level issues such as privacy, and it is not "parsely on a plate" as you suggest -- not in a long shot.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * About a year ago, I was detained by Union County College campus security for a half hour for taking pictures, I had thought it was a public college. And I was photographing mostly buildings, exterior shots, some classrooms. But a security guard "pulled me over" and I had to show my license and feel like a criminal for a half an hour. Like, it was I had been in a traffic stop (but without a car! I was on foot) and these issues resonate with me. We live in a time when government, trying to deal with terrorism, can seriously beat up on individuals; in this instance of Lennon-v-FBI, the government was beating up on an important individual. Perhaps you have never been arrested, or detained like I had been; but if this ever happens, perhaps you'll begin to see my concern here; and it affects all of us, including every Wikipedia contributor.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And it is important for scholars studying Nixon or the FBI, or people interested in learning about the early 70s period, or about the FOIA. Ther are many angles here -- important ones. It is a difficult enough story to get right that to chop it up, and ask readers to delve through references to try to piece it together -- well I don't think that works well either. That's a disservice to readers. That's how the article had been (but with many fewer references) and I think everybody will agree the new efforts are much better, and clearer. The article had been substandard, partially because it had been so short, as well as other issues (which appear to have been resolved). Now it is much better. It is a political topic, unfortunately, and subject to attacks by both left and right (I try to be nonpartisan) but it would be a shame if that were to happen. If you have specific ideas for tightening and honing, I'll try to accommodate your constructive criticisms. Last, I think we all have a duty to try to make Wikipedia interesting and readable, and this matter fits the bill nicely.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have known people improperly treated by police forces - but that is not what the issue is here. What sort of article will be the best for an encyclopedia?  Did you look at the example I gave?   First rule - if a fact is stated, there is no need to add more cites to stress the fact.  If an opinion is stated, use the most noteworthy opinion on each side (if such exist) rather than piling Ossa on Pelion.  Wikipedia, by the way, is not directed at scholars - they would disdain this as a source. It is aimed at casual users seeking basic information - if they need more we direct them to sources - not try to encompass every factoid.   Shorter is almost invariably better. Cheers - now can you reduce the article with those thoughts in mind, please?   I, for one, disagree that adding lots of sources and words improves an article which had good sources for readers, and covered the facts succinctly.  Collect (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean about Joseph Widney -- what a long list of journal articles at the end. In that case, I agree it was mostly superfluous in that situation, and my hats off to you and the others who have made the article respectable. Still, Joseph Widney is getting only 15 to 20 pageviews per day; in contrast, this story will get 40+ and by fall, 100+. And I want to make this article respectable too. About your "first rule" that there is no need to add more cites to stress the fact -- is that a Wikipedia policy? I have not come across it yet if it is official policy. It has been my experience here at Wikipedia, particularly with controversial and political articles, to reference heavily; I have worked on good articles here, only to have them cut up and deleted, and it has taught me to reference, reference, reference. If there is only one reference, and later if something happens and it becomes a dead link, then the information can get challenged and removed; at least you may understand where I am coming from if you still disagree with my way of seeing things. About your idea that Wikipedia is not directed at scholars -- well, directed at -- well I agree; still, I try to write at eighth grade level but write for everybody -- students, casual readers, and scholars as well. I believe many newspaper reporters use Wikipedia as a first source (and then delve deeper of course) and many scholars do likewise; the test is: Wikipedia has good information. I am one of the many people here striving to make this encyclopedia factual, informative, helpful. I've used many Wikipedia articles when I'm researching related subjects, and I believe you have too. But I will agree with you that shorter is better in many instances, and I will try to cut it down as you suggested. Still, it is not like a newspaper where we have to "pay" for ink or paper -- I think the guidelines about length should be Wikipedia's rules, and my reading of the rules in this instance is that this is a worthy subject with many reliable sources which needs to be fleshed out. Still, I'll try to do my best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not like overciting. Excessive citing is frequently noted in peer review here, not to mention that it annoys readers.   What we ought not lose sight of is that an encyclopedia article, by definition, is a summary of the work of others.  If you ever have a claim which is properly sourced get removed - yell to me .  If it is not properly sourced, I won't do much, but if it is, I will back it per policy.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I trimmed the article along the lines you suggested. I hope you appreciate the trimming and honing. I agree about the idea of articles being a summary work of others. I would like to merely point out that comments about overciting are really personal editing choices and do not constitute official policy, and you can see how some users such as myself have gotten into the habit of referencing as much as possible, particularly in controversial subjects such as this one where there is likely to be lots of battling about what stays and goes. At least you can understand my motivation. Also, I generally do not know much about the peer review process; rather, my focus is on getting articles up to the basic level first, with much information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good start -- why not ask for a "WP:peer review" now? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Be my guest. Generally, I leave it up to better contributors (eg people like you) to take articles to the next level; I just like bringing articles to a basic level of competence. And my big thing is pageviews -- I want readers -- and however I can get that, I'll try it -- incoming links, better pictures, compelling story, you name it. I floated Citizenship in the United States a while back; and now it gets several hundred page views each day (and others have taken over). Equal opportunity does great weekdays but lags on weekends for some reason. Dating gets several thousand sometimes. I'd like Jon Wiener to get to 100/day next fall. College admissions in the United States is eeking closer to the 300 mark but hasn't quite crossed it yet; it was 80/day a month ago. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Set the Night on Fire L.A. in the Sixties by Mike Davis and Jon Wiener.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Books by Mike Davis and Jon Wiener.jpg