Talk:Shake Weight

4 million views?

It says a viral YouTube clip has "more than 4,000,000 views", but the two sources don't show this. The one at [1] does say "4,370,100 views" under the video, but if you right click it and pick "Watch on YouTube", you see that the video only has 282,268 views. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

effectiveness

shake weight seems more to me like a sex toy than a excercise machine; can anyone me why? 68.70.14.63 (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I bought one a while ago and regardless of what it looks like it really has made me stronger, as a large man who already works a physically demanding jobs my arms and shoulders were already strong, but using the shake weight has made a difference, not just in how big and pumped my arms get but its a good cardiovascular workout as well.67.170.59.116 (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Eric in Washington state

What an awesome story, Eric. I'm sure it did. Now lets find some real evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.75.132.21 (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I see a lot of negative and skeptical or sexually related comments from many people who have not tried or used it. I've never seen any negative comment from anyone who actually has used it. I would suggest that people limit their skeptical comments to things which they actually have experience with. I don't think that anyone who has used this as instructed in the included DVD could say that it doesn't work. Basically as it does many reps per minute it works your muscles to the point of exhaustion quite quickly. So for upper body it gives good quick work out. It would be nice if there were some factual data to reference, but I don't have any myself. John (California) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.140.123 (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal witnessing of a product still proves your point to nobody; if you want to prove it get a source that proves your point. This is Wikipedia not a fitness center. I could say horse manure makes a great dumbbell and i could still be wrong 68.70.6.169 (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well horse manure would make a great dumbbell if it was heavy enough and could be curled easily, seeing as this is wikipedia after all why not just play the mmo properly until you're a mod then make up a load of crap, reference it with some bean eating fag rag, and stick it in: this isn't exactly the invisible college.

The sexual suggestiveness of the Shake Weight

So I'm going to start a discussion on this due to it being changed multiple times back and forth. I originally came to this page because I like to surf and see what disputes on WP:RFPP are all about. It seems as if there are 2 different theories going on here:

1. Is that because it is implied in the sources that the motion is similar to a handjob it should therefore be stated in article.
2. Is that because it is not specifically written in the sourced material that it should not be included in the article.

To me as I read both WP:Source and WP:SYN, which is contained in WP:NOR, it states that even though it may be implied and possibly true because the sources do not explicitly state this it is Original Research and therefore should not be included in the article. I hope that we can all come to a consensus here to help avoid multiple reverts and edit wars. Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)_{Striking this as I will admit I may have read it incorrectly and too fast--Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)}

To me it seems as if we need to come to a consensus so that the page becomes stable without the reverts that are happening. I can't speak for others but I am not attempting to censor the page but is it really needed that the page mentions handjobs? Does that help the users to better understand the product? Yes policy does say that not everything needs to be attributed except for anything challenged or likely to be challenged so therefore as I read it, yes maybe I'm thinking too far into it, at this point the material is being challenged and therefore should have a source. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be explicitly explained that the Shake Weight's motion resembles a handjob's because otherwise the reader would have no idea what is "sexually suggestive" about it. Its handjob motion is the cornerstone of the entire phenomena and this needs to be explained.

To defuse a diversion, WP:SYN has absolutely nothing to do with this situation and has just been shoehorned into this debate as another means to excuse the handjob mention's removal. The headline sentence for WP:SYN is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Finding a correlation between two sourced facts and then synthesizing them into a conclusion not implied by the original sources is forbidden, but has nothing to do with our situation here. The only sentences which pertain to us are from WP:VERIFY, which state "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. In practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material."

If anybody is challenging the fact that the Shake Weight's sexual suggestiveness comes from its handjob motion, please come forward and present your argument. Otherwise, the article should remain in its current form. FormPhony

Present a source! That's the main issue at hand, simply WP:RS. I also question how "encyclopedic" it is to use the term "handjob". Is there something more scientific that can be used? Do NOT insert that term until we come to some sort of consensus. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's forget that it doesn't need to be sourced for a second, the problem with sourcing the handjob motion is that no sourceable publication will spell out where the sexual suggestiveness of the Shake Weight comes from. The Shake Weight's handjob motion is implied up and down, but is never explicitly explained because of its obscenity. And I don't think that the same censorship and the people who would push for it should permeate into our Wikipedia article. Dropping our petty battle for a second, Plot Spoiler, could you explain how this situation would usually be handled? What if a specific detail's source can't be found because the sources won't spell out the detail? If Anna Nicole Smith died in the midst of mammary intercourse, but no publication was able to broach the subject because of policies of decency, what would Wikipedia do?

And of course "handjob" is the best term. What would you have it be? Even the official handjob Wikipedia article doesn't give an alternative. FormPhony

So I also am willing to forget weather whether it needs to be sourced for the moment or not and would like to get to the question is it "encyclopedic" or not aka does it need to be included in the article. As I see it, nothing is really added in value to the article and with the other statement that has been replacing it I don't think it not being in there under cuts the knowledge that people would take from reading it. With your example of Anna Nicole Smith, in that case yes that would be how she died and therefore should be included but including the fact that the shake weight resembles a hand job does not, again, add to the article's encyclopedic value. 95% of the people that look at this article will know immediately when we say "The sexual suggestiveness" exactly what it means, probably cause that is the reason they viewed the article in the first place but that is a different topic, and that remaining 5% may not but I do not think it would make a difference if they knew that or not. If it does remain in the article it should have some source. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, if I hadn't seen a video of the Shake Weight being used before I had read this article, I would have no idea where the "sexually suggestiveness" came from. I've never seen anything like this product. Sure, we could paint a better picture by adding more descriptors for how this unusual dumbbell moves, and rely on the reader to link the motion and "sexually suggestive" together, but why risk confusion when we have a perfect one-word mental image available that immediately solves the problem? Is being explicit about something sexual really not encyclopedic? Look up any sex act here and see it explicitly described and discussed. So why are we dancing around the wording when there's any chance that it could create confusion? You're fine with being specific about the sex act that hypothetically killed Anna Nicole, but not about why the Shake Weight has become infamous? This is ridiculous. FormPhony —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC).

So since it has almost been 2 weeks since someone besides myself or FormPhony has commented on this, all the time the reference to the hand job has been in the article with no reverts. Since I really don't care in the end, though also argue that I don't think it matters that the readers know for certain that it is a handjob being referred to, I am going to give up on even talking about this because I don't think it will change anyone's mind. And possibly to solve original issue of sourcing could you possibly change the sentence around with like a reference to the SNL video that parodied it. Here is an example of what I'm thinking it could be:

Obviously that probably needs some re-wording as I'm kinda tired right now, but it would at least be an attempt at sourcing the HJ part. I must admit though I am no expert on interpreting WP:RS but it also does say that the WP:BURDEN falls on the one inserting the material. I do understand that it is hard to find a undisputed reliable source here because I have also tried to see if I could find one that I knew wouldn't be objectionable. So to sum up, take my suggestions or don't it doesn't bother me either way just want to see this behind me cause I already spent too much time on something that I wouldn't have normally found. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I've presented my arguments well enough for why I think the handjob motion needs to be clearly explained before much/anything else (I'm tempted to say in the opening paragraph), and why it's difficult or even impossible to source (if it even needs to be), so I'm going to back away from the issue and let someone other than Plot Spoiler, Jnorton, or myself decide. I'd like to thank Jnorton specifically for putting time in to try and find a compromise, even if I don't necessarily agree with the compromise itself, and I'd like to extend a supernaturally long middle finger out toward Plot Spoiler for being a twat. FormPhony —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC).

• After some cracked inspired vandalism today I took a stab at rewriting the section in question using an MSNBC source. I didn't say "handjob" but I think it's pretty clear now. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Perfect, I love it. FormPhony —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC).