Talk:Harvey Milk

Please add new topics at the bottom.

Gays

Shouldn't gays instead be gay people? -- Banjeboi 21:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Do you have an objection to "gays"? --Moni3 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well "the gays" was used "back then" somewhat pejoratively so I accept it in quotes. And LGBT isn't quite accurate as we'd need to know that when Milk (or others) used the term they did or did not mean to include bisexual and trans people. Gays certainly included lesbians at some point. In the spirit of human dignity though I would want us to refrain from rolling back progress to become the shorthanded gays again, "gay people" or "gay and lesbian people" might help ease that in some cases although this certainly could wait to be fixed. It jumped out at me and on other articles - that hadn't been picked over - I would simply tweak it. Arguably His goal was to give hope to disenfranchised gays around the country should be His goal was to give hope to LGBT people around the country. They needn't be disenfranchised to have hope heaped in their general direction. -- Banjeboi 22:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to go with the way the sources refer to... you know...them. I'm sure you caught the self-referencing "fags" in Stonewall riots (as well as queens and transvestites - with no references to transgender people until 1994), but the majority of sources refer to gays and lesbians. Older sources about the DOB and Mattachine Society refer to homosexuals, homophiles, and variants. I bought the Gay & Lesbian Almanac at a library sale recently (for $2.50!) and they use "lesbigay" throughout the tome to my constant irritation. Seems like a term used for a few years, deemed momentarily politically correct. Milk himself used "gays" to reference gay people. Most of the authors I used for the Milk article were gay or sympathetic. Furthermore, most sources refer to the invasion of the Castro District to be primarily male. There were a few lesbian enclaves in and around San Francisco (and Milk's last campaign manager was a lesbian), but by far the majority of those who settled in the Castro were men. Personally, maybe I'm frightfully old, but I don't see gay as a noun (or adjective) to be pejorative. And I am a big ol' gaymo. --Moni3 (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Let's back-burner it til December. The Castro is certainly about the boys and culturally it's two men macking on each other that wrankles homophobic responses so we'd have to quibble each nuance to suss who within the LGBT is being referred and the varying levels of enlightenment. I'm sure this page will keep hoping well into the new year and maybe an elegant solution will present itself. -- Banjeboi 23:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I prefer to hew to the economist style guide in most cases. Though they don't have a specific comment, I agree w/ Moni a little bit. "Gays" dates the piece appropriately and (as Benjiboi notes) is closer to what people meant back then (before the movement was broadened to combat heteronormativity in general). And wow, totally better than Lesbigay. I'm not sure how well an elegant solution will link 1977 to the LBGT movement, but one may present itself. Protonk (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• How about "gay member of Hetero sapiens sapiens"? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)  ;)

Tributes

San Francisco dedicated a trolley to Harvey Milk which someone might want to add to the tributes section. Here are the news stories about it:

• City dedicates trolley to Milk (Bay Area Reporter)
• S.F. streetcar to be dedicated to Harvey Milk (SF Chronicle)

I saw it yesterday. The tributes are mostly in a footnote. We're running heavy on tributes, and I'm starting to wonder if we can or should include them all. --Moni3 (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I still think tributes should be spun into it's own and summarized here; it doesn't have to happen ASAP but clearly this section would be a fine article. -- Banjeboi 21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Length of introduction...and where the article has a major hole

I wish I'd caught this in the review process, but I haven't been here that much recently. One simple issue and one much more serious and complex.

First, the length of the introduction. Looking at the talk archives, it looks like there's been a lot of tweaking done on it over the last year, but I'm not sure the result was entirely satisfactory. If the purpose of an introduction section is to summarize the article, which in biographical articles is to summarize the importance of someone’s life, this misses badly.

Think about it this way: the introduction is longer than those of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, MLK...and even FDR. Milk's legacy is complex, but it's not that complex. Here's another way to look at it: if you were sitting down with someone unfamiliar with Milk over coffee (no pun intended) and describing him for the first time, would you really start out in the first two minutes that he was someone who lost an Assembly race to Art Agnos (even in the Bay Area, an awful lot of people nowadays would have no idea who Agnos was), chose to explore sexual relationships with secrecy pre-Stonewall, and had a campaign described as 'theater'? No. You'd describe him as ‘the most famous and most significantly open LGBT official ever elected in the United States', because as the point gets made later in the article, "no contemporary American gay leader has yet to achieve in life the stature Milk found in death."

There's a real underlying issue, though, which I think is one reason why the introduction (and article itself) ballooned. While consensus has been reached by writers on Milk's importance to the LGBT community, there has been utterly none reached on his impact or importance in San Francisco politics. That's where any biopic, or article about Milk is going to have problems. and while I think Moni3 has done a remarkable job in researching this, the source material she uses has a huge array of problems on the latter. It may be cited correctly but misses an awful, awful lot of what was going on outside the Castro...because the primary source authors are writing from Milk from the perspective of the LGBT community rather than Milk from the perspective of experts on San Francisco history, especially that of political history.

I'll give a simple example that begins to illustrate the problems. The the Agnos-Milk race had a lot less to do with Milk than it did with the simple fact Agnos was Leo McCarthy's (the Assembly speaker's) aide, and McCarthy and Moscone had intermittently fought a blood feud with Willie Brown and the Burton brothers that had started in the 1960s. (This is a fairly good 1993 Sac Bee article on some of its beginnings: http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1601/Richardson/Richardson.html) You can't place that race into context without understanding that there were an awful lot of people supporting Milk not because of what he was - but because they supported the other faction in town. That also plays into how the mayor's race for Moscone developed, and that's hard to do without understanding how the neighborhood Democratic clubs in SF developed in the 1960s and how both sides fought for control over them as the fight over those organizations by the two major factions along with independents like Milk dominated the political scene for years. It's true that Milk ran as an outsider, but lost in the long debate that seems to have occurred here over the People's Temple connection to Milk is that Jim Jones' support of both candidates had more to do with how he didn't want to anger either faction than support for Milk proper.

The primary sources generally cited on the local political angle - Shilts and de Strange - weren't really that familiar with the factors driving city politics outside the Castro as neither had been in SF during those years. Thus, they hadn't seen how the political grudges in town accumulated and their views on Milk's (and others) political importance to SF overall are written in that context. I'd agree with Awadewit that the major problem here is not the tone of the Moni3 or others who have put so much into this article, but the tone of the sources they're citing from. I was a young kid then, but my understanding is that in the grand scheme of things at the time, Milk was largely viewed much like Quentin Kopp (the token conservative west of Twin Peaks) or Dianne Feinstein (the rich Jewish girl from Pacific Heights) - outsiders not aligned with either faction, important in their communities and to deliver their votes on the margin, but by and large not nearly as politically important as both authors make him.

This front page may sum up exactly what I'm trying to say: http://cdn.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2008/01/30/dd_moscone1978_12_01.pdf. Moscone's service dominated above the fold. Milk's service was on page 5. You get the picture: at the time, Moscone's death was far, far more significant to everyone outside the burgeoning LGBT community.

There's other stuff. I'm not sure Jim Foster was as relevant to SF political organization as he was made (and that needs a cite in any case), since heck, you didn't want to get on Sue Bierman's bad side as she helped drive a mayor out of office when she stopped the Central Freeway from going through Golden Gate Park - and that's just off the top of my head since I know the history but not the ground level stuff. Also, even the main article on the assassinations and White point out that his supposed choice of targets and previous work with African Americans make him a lot more complex than just being "antigay." That doesn't come out in this article, and based on the SF Weekly article the White article cites, it needs to as the movie makes him even more of a cardboard character. If he had been, he'd have never gotten away with murder.

In short, Milk has achieved icon status now, but during his brief life he wasn't anywhere near there comparatively at least within the context of how important he was in San Francisco. I think that's what Mattisse was trying to point out as well before she gave up - there were a ton of interesting characters in SF politics in the late 70s: one who came within a vote of being Speaker of the House long before Pelosi did, two who controlled the CA Legislature for the 70s and 80s, one who is a US Senator, and those were just those who won. (The Kopp-Feinstein wars over San Francisco's future dominated a good part of the 80s, for instance, but the irascible Kopp is now largely forgotten unless you end up a criminal in his courtroom or have something to do with the high speed rail bond that just passed, since he's the chairman of that agency.)

I'm not trying to diminish Milk's accomplishments, but what I am arguing is that this article is in bad, bad need of sources (and editors who are experts) on San Francisco and California politics and history, since the article is just very weak when it comes to the wider context of the arena he played in (rather than the man himself and his role in the LGBT movement, which is quite good). San Francisco is a Byzantine place politically now, and back then it was even worse. I know there's stuff out there, like the Willie Brown biography, that gives a broader view of what was going on in SF at the time, and I've got to believe someone at SFSU or Cal or Stanford has published on this era since it's just too big a jackpot of a topic to miss.

Sorry, Moni3. I know you really want this as the front page article when the movie is released, but you asked where you missed stuff - and unfortunately the sources you used missed a lot. I think it's great you can look up what Milk did in the early years via the Advocate (and would love to see what you come up with), but using that won't fix the hole that's in this article.

I'd be happy to take a swing at the introduction as a pair of fresh eyes here if this doesn't turn into an edit war. Old64mb (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

And sorry, I meant de Jim, not de Strange. Hilarious guy, but not probably a good first choice of political or other history (see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/23/WBGG04CEG31.DTL). Old64mb (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I'll answer your note here Sunday probably. Been drinking tonight and I'm off to a Prop 8 protest tomorrow, then a party. Ever the social butterfly am I. Thanks for taking the time to read it. --Moni3 (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I made a stab at shortening the lead. I also feel that this article reads more like a book, with long sections summarizing the climate at the time (e.g. "Rise of Castro Street", "Broader Historical Focus") and equally long descriptions of Milk's every activity. Someone with more knowledge of the subject can surely tighten the article even more. Yoninah (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Old64mb

I am now unfortunately sober, and have read your comments several times and have had some time to think about them. First, may I ask if you are the anonymous IP 75.3.225.43 who started the "Proper citations" section above? Or are you someone else who was asked to review the article?

The political machinations in San Francisco: This is a unique article because its subject is a cord of thread which other threads of details of the decade are woven around. Many factors outside of Milk's life have to be introduced in order to explain Milk's reaction to them, or their impact on his life. I have had to decide how much outside detail to include based on the weight reliable sources have given them as they pertain to Milk's life. That is a vital distinction to make. Where the Race for State Assembly focuses on Milk's role, that is because this article is his. There were dozens of other factors in play during this race and the other supervisor races in a city where my sources have indicated, municipal politics was a fierce battleground where weaklings were not suffered. Those factors had little or nothing to do with Milk, so they don't bear mention here.

The sources I used focused primarily on Milk's life and his impact in local politics, particularly his involvement in the Castro District. Through my readings I became familiar with the ethnic and economic makeup of other neighborhoods in San Francisco, but I don't profess to be able to speak intelligently about them if Milk had no direct involvement in them. I can see, by reading this article, how it might be very similar to an article on San Francisco politics in the 1970s. In that case, I would certainly agree that not enough emphasis is given to George Moscone, Dianne Feinsten, Willie Brown, Art Agnos, Quentin Kopp, or any of the other key players in the political scene. However, the scope for this article has to be narrowed to what was significant in Milk's life as presented by reliable sources.

The question of Dan White is an interesting one. Again, this is a unique article because the subject was assassinated by another politician, and his assassination led to a high-profile trial with a dubious outcome followed by rioting by his supporters. Sources have not been able to provide any solid reason to why White shot Milk and Moscone. It's not that they can't agree, it's that they all say - I don't know why this occurred. No one has been able to say with solid reason why Dan White killed Milk and Moscone. He was uptight, and hated losing, and was maybe homophobic, and was under an extraordinary amount of stress, and maybe had tried bully tactics in his campaign with the Sons of Sunnydale, and went on this odd crusade against the Youth Campus in Portola Heights against the wishes of the nuns who would run it... I agree that White should be a three-dimensional biography, but that should go in his article. It was a decision I made to exclude further detail about White other than what directly involved Milk.

If Milk was elected, or gained popularity in part due to (other than the growing power of the Castro District) an ongoing political system that gave rise to political clubs and had factions fighting against each other, then I am very interested in the source that says that. I'm open to the possibility that Shilts, who was living in Eugene, Oregon when Milk moved to San Francisco, was not particularly familiar with political tradition in the city, but I need a source that points to the cause and effect relationship between political clubs and Milk's rise. If you know of one, I'll ask for it tomorrow.

Are you looking for a citation for Foster's importance in the San Francisco gay community, or his involvement in Alice? I used two corroborating sources: Shilts and Our For Good by Dudley Clendinen and Adam Nagourney. Both state Foster founded Alice with Stokes and Goodstein, and both point to his primary role in local gay politics that was partly based on his pioneering representation of gays in a national forum.

I encountered similar comment when I wrote and nominated Everglades National Park for FA. At that time, the Everglades article stunk. It was nine uncited paragraphs and had really no detail in it whatsoever. How can an article on the park be featured when the article on the wilderness it protects contains no descriptions of anything outside the park? Similarly, how can Milk's article be featured when the article about the assassinations, Moscone's, White's, Feinstein's, Agnos', and other politicians tangential to Milk's life are B, C, or start class articles and there is no article that discusses the political history of San Francisco? I ended up several months later writing four articles to expand the Everglades because that was a genuine problem. If I have understood your objections clearly, what is warranted more than adding information to this article about San Francisco politics in the 1970s, is constructing an article to discuss these issues where Milk would be a relatively minor player. This article essentially illustrates the cart without the horse. However, Wikipedia allows and encourages that.

The lead: I place this last because when I write articles, the lead is the last part I write. If we end up agreeing on or altering the details of the article highlighted above, it may be reflected in the lead then. However, as to the length of the lead, per WP:LEAD, it should match the length of this article. I read various encyclopedia articles about Milk, both biographic political and LGBT sources, and they mirror the points made in this lead. Milk was not an activist all his life—he became one after experiencing the counterculture and becoming fed up with the political climate in the early 1970s. Agnos isn't mentioned in the lead, but that Milk ran for the State Assembly was. And whether the source considers it hyperactive shouting or charisma, Milk had something that made his campaigning successful. The source for his success should definitely be mentioned in the lead.

Again, I appreciate your reading and commenting on the article. I enjoy discussing the details with editors who are knowledgeable and open to such intercourse about the subject. I am not at all closed to the idea that it has areas of improvement. There would be no end to my mortification if it appeared I missed a huge aspect of Milk's life or misrepresented something in the article that might warrant either its being de-featured or not deserving of appearing on the main page. In light of the small body of material that represents the literature produced on the life of Harvey Milk, I am not yet mortified. I appreciate your response. --Moni3 (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a response to your reply in the next couple of days when I have some time. Thanks. Old64mb (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

How about the following for a cut down on the intro. A lot of the info in the current intro should be in the main article, especially the quotes about Milk. Generally, a lot of quotes shouldn't be included in introductions. The material that I cut from the new version below can be put into the main article. Remember, this is just a suggestion, and I'm putting it here as opposed to editing the article directly so others can add input.

Harvey Bernard Milk (May 22, 1930 – November 27, 1978) was an American politician and the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California, as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Milk first ran for city supervisor in 1973, though he encountered resistance from the existing gay political establishment. Milk was elected city supervisor in 1977 after San Francisco reorganized its election procedures to choose representatives from neighborhoods rather than through city-wide ballots.

Milk served almost eleven months as city supervisor and was responsible for passing a stringent gay rights ordinance in San Francisco. On November 27, 1978, Mayor George Moscone and Milk were assassinated by Dan White, another city supervisor who had recently resigned and wanted his job back. Both Milk's election and the events following his assassination demonstrated the liberalization of the population and political conflicts between the city government and a conservative police force.

While established political organizers in the city insisted gays work with liberal politicians and use restraint in reaching their objectives, Milk outspokenly encouraged gays to use their growing power in the city and support each other. In 2002, he was called "the most famous and most significantly open LGBT official ever elected in the United States".[2]

If we need to add something about his charisma/attitude/etc, it can probably be added in a sentence in the middle of the last paragraph.-- eb3686 | talk 05:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not understand the objection to the length of the lead. Compared to any other Featured Article, the length is appropriate, and it summarizes the article well. --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I officially give up. Harvey Milk has become an icon in his afterlife, very different from the reality of the times. So be it. People need their icons for whatever reasons. Wikipedia reflects current beliefs, not history. Let people have their fantasies. Fantasies are probably as real as anything else. (For those who want to create history, grab a current person and write an iconic book about them. Then ten years from now, Wikipedia will reference it as a "reliable source".) —Mattisse (Talk) 05:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Someone just added the category Category:People associated with the hippie movement ! That was the last thing Harvey Milk was. From that point of view, he was straight! —Mattisse (Talk) 05:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Once more, I am confused. I don't understand your objection to the content, or even what content is at issue. Have you made it clear on this talk page? Though you have made a general statement that the article is POV, I don't know what content you are objecting to. Nor why you feel you would have to give up since discussion about that content has not taken place. We cannot come to an understanding about what is appropriate for the article without communicating. Caveat: I care so little about categories I hardly notice them. Is it category information at issue? --Moni3 (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Milk's arrest

I put this in a blind edit and originally decided not to include it because he wasn't arrested, just detained, and certainly not convicted of anything. It is not clear in Shilts if he was detained for soliciting a police officer or for being in the cruising area of Central Park. In such a long article, Shilts or no one else connected the interaction with police to anything else in Milk's life. Without that, why should it be included? --Moni3 (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I recall it in both the book and the documentary based on "Life and Times of Harvey Milk". It also seemed to have an impact on Milk later in his life, and was a major reason he never returned to the city of Albany, where he'd spent his formative years. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall any source stating that he never returned to Albany, or if he did why that was. It could have been because he was assassinated and just didn't make it back. It's a pretty significant point to make and it needs a reliable source. --Moni3 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well Done

I read this just before it went live on the front page and was very impressed. Well done folks and good timing! Eusebeus (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well done! --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Practicing Jew sources, and typo

Do we have a source that he practised the Jewish religion? I know it says he came from a Jewish family background. And could somebody please translate this into English: "gay rights is ot archaic"? I realise it is probably a typo, but what for? PatGallacher (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not archaic. The infobox, which I was never excited about, simply states Milk's religion was Jewish. That is cited. What other kind of proof or reliable source were you looking for? --Moni3 (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If "gay rights" is not archaic then can we use it here, it's "LGBT" which could be ahistorical here? I have looked over the article again and I do not see anywhere where his Jewish religion is cited, it just mentions his Jewish family background, not the same. Can you show me where this is cited? PatGallacher (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Judaism did not seem to be a significant factor in Milk's life in the material I read. That could be because most of the material written about him was completed by non-Jews. However, I learned from his nephew that Milk's grandfather started at least two and perhaps three Jewish congregations in the Five Towns area of Long Island. During a phone call, Stuart Milk also connected his great-grandfather's involvement in those congregations to his emphasis on supporting civil rights for all people, that may have motivated Harvey. But this was only brushed upon in Shilts' biography, so I can't use it in the article. A point Shilts did make was that in Milk's early life he was riled only once in political discussions - during a dinner party some guests talked about how Germans didn't know the Holocaust was occurring. Milk became very agitated and screamed at them about the ridiculousness of such an idea, embarrassing Joe Campbell. --Moni3 (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

All this may be perfectly true, but it does not add up to evidence that he ever practised Judaism. PatGallacher (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. How is it you are the one to determine over the reliable sources used, that despite his own identification as a Jew that he wasn't a practicing Jew? How often did he have to participate in Jewish ceremonies or rituals for him to qualify? Once a month? A few times a year? Once a week? He came from a strong Jewish family. His nickname growing up was Yiddish. He recounted to Eve Merriam and others his transformation from a middle class Jewish kid from Long Island. His memorial service was at a synagogue, presided over by the first openly gay rabbi in San Francisco. All that is in the article. He belonged to a Jewish fraternity in college - not in the article. But you require a citation for Religion: Jewish? --Moni3 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of these matters might justify this claim about his religion, but others are not decisive e.g. that he came from a strongly Jewish family (maybe Martin Luther came from a strongly Catholic family) or had a Yiddish nickname, or had a memorial service in a synagogue (presumably a decision taken by his family). Others which might back it up ought to be more clearly cited. PatGallacher (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think we need a direct, strong, reliable citation that he was either a practicing Jew, or believed personally in the Jewish faith, for a significant part of his adult life, before we say he had the Jewish religion. That's a general point about all biographies and all religions. Just because someone is born into a faith or practices as a child does not mean that they are that faith growing up. True, by Jewish tradition he is considered Jewish due to his mother's religion. But by that theory he is probably Mormon as well because they've posthumously converted him. Religious categorizations are better done using external objective factors, not the "in-world" standards of the religion. Also note that Jewishness is a mixture of heritage, ethnicity, culture, identification, and religion. Thus a reference that he was Jewish does not without more show that he is of the Jewish religion. Wikidemon (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion categories are quite strict for BLPs but certainly less so for historical figures. That his funeral was held at a synagogue seems telling. I smell a Jewish summary footnote might help here. -- Banjeboi 18:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Piping

Per the "intuitiveness" section of Wikipedia's piped link guideline (sorry, couldn't resist the nerdy joke there) would it not be best to either include some descriptive text in the link to the Moscone–Milk assassinations, or use a "main article" template instead of an in-line link?

The reason I ask is that User:842U, one of our better copyeditors, just changed the reference from were assassinated to were assassinated. In my opinion that creates an "easter egg" where the reader expects the link to point to the article on assassinations in general, which is probably uninteresting to most people reading about Milk so they won't click it, rather than alerting them to the fact that we have a fine article specifically on Milk's and Moscone's assassination.

Thoughts? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why I linked "were assassinated" originally. I'd prefer it back that way since assassination is a link to another unrelated article. As to the main article template, there is on at the top of the Black Monday section. Is that what you were referring to, or am I misunderstanding? --Moni3 (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Perhaps a better solution is to redo the sentence a little so that there is a somewhat more descriptive thing to grab onto as a link text than "were assassinated". Maybe turn it into a noun somehow, e.g. "the assassination of Milk and Mayor Moscone". Wikidemon (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, it's all the piping that's creating the problem. To follow the Easter egg thinking, what is a reader supposed to imagine this single hyperlink is going to mean: George Moscone were assassinated? It looks like one hyperlink, poorly crafted. It is in fact two hyperlinks sitting adjacently, but the adjacency obscures that there are two hyperlinks, not to mention the meaning of either. I do see the points others are making here... as mentioned, perhaps there could be a another way that the two hyperlinks are not sitting right next to each other under the caption "George Mascone were assassinated." 842U (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wide image at bottom of article

What's up with the ridiculously wide (my opinion) photo of Baden's Harvey Milk mural at the bottom of this article. I was bold and made it a more reasonable (my opinion again) size for this context, but someone changed it back. I know it's pretty, but is 400px to 500px not big enough? It seems like it was placed at the end of the article (just before the "Notes section") as a "cap" of sorts on the whole thing. In theory, that makes sense since the mural is a tribute and the last section used to be the "Tributes and namesakes section." But the "Tributes and namesakes section" is no longer the last section. So why is the image still there at the end of the article? Furthermore, while "capping" an article is, in a way, symmetrical, I've never seen articles on Wikipedia "capped" by wide images before. "Article capping" isn't (as of now) in Wikipedia's standards of format. Lastly, this just isn't the right context for that kind of personal emphasis, like a fansite would be.

In my opinion, the image should, at least, be put in the "Tributes and namesakes section," where I believe it belongs. And I think it could use a re-sizing too. Personal emphasis like this should not come across in any element of a Wikipedia article. These are just my opinions, so please don't take offense. Personally, I would be happy to hear the opinions of anyone else interested in this article. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! Cheers, ask123 (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the article, and I took the image. Been sick for the past few days, so sorry for taking long to respond. For all the reasons in the first paragraph, I decided to make the image a wide span one. I've seen it done in some FA state and national park articles and thought it could be used in others. --Moni3 (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm indifferent about the image use in the article (it is a lovely image, but I can see the argument that its use would be more appropriate for an homage than an encyclopedia article), but I will say that I tested it in a number of different browser engines and couldn't find any WP:ACCESS problems. I know you aren't suggesting this, but just noting it for the purposes of discussion. Protonk (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a fine image at the full size and at the end of the article - it's a nice treat after a lot of information. -- Banjeboi 18:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Heroic things / Outing Sipple

Several different users have changed the subheading titled "Heroic things" with quotes to "Outing Sipple" without quotes starting the day the article appeared on the main page. I've reverted them because 1. The subheading of the text is a direct quote from Milk, 2. It does not state that what Sipple or Milk did was heroic, so no POV issues are relevant, and 3. using "Outing Sipple" when Sipple was only briefly mentioned puts undue weight on Sipple's role in Milk's life in this article. Rather, the section is there to prove Milk's own clout in San Francisco, and his growing influence as a spokesman for the gay community since that job previously fell to Jim Foster and Alice. Some spacing is also breaking apart paragraphs, and the section loses integrity when that is done. I'm bringing this here since I don't wish to continue blindly reverting without discussion. So let's discuss it. --Moni3 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never see a quote used for a heading or a subheading and I have no doubt there's a good reason for it. --Voooooh (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Per the Manual of Style there is nothing forbidding it, and in fact I have used them in other FAs I have written, including Stonewall riots and Mulholland Drive (film). If you have no doubt there is good reason to have "Heroic things", why do you continue to change it? I do not understand your reasoning for doing so, which is why I am asking you to state it. If you continue to do this without discussion, you will be in breach of the edit warring rule. Please discuss it here before changing again. I do not feel "Outing Sipple" is appropriate at all, but I am not married to "Heroic things". If we have to come up with a 3rd idea, that is possible. --Moni3 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried putting in a different heading but you didn't like it. --Voooooh (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your suggested heading had neutrality issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only did you insert "Outing Sipple" once more, you removed the topic sentence for the section. By doing this, you are changing the purpose for including information about Sipple in Milk's article. The reason it is here is to illustrate the rise of Milk's profile in the city. Your reverts change it to make it seem as if Milk's outing Sipple had no connection to anything else he was doing, and weights it randomly. And entire section dedicated to Sipple? He was not that important in Milk's life. Any reference to Sipple in the subheading is inappropriate. --Moni3 (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, looking at this neutrally, that the section in question is manifestly about Oliver Sipple, and is not at all about Milk's role as a spokesman. It just isn't. Without the "topic sentence", there are 9 sentences in the section, and all 9 of them pertain to the Sipple case. Several of them are simply explanations of what occurred and don't even pertain to Milk directly. The "topic sentence" is not appropriate there since, well, that's not what the section is about. "Outing Sipple" is probably the best section heading - it's short, to the point, and accurately describes the content of the section. I don't see the objection to it. An alternative might be something like "Role in the Sipple case" or simply (in the context of the larger section title "Campaigns") "Oliver Sipple". --MCB (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, MCB. If the section does not read as if the incident reflected upon Milk's political role despite the topic sentence, then this should be taken into consideration. Two sources state that Milk contacted Herb Caen during a campaign that was not as successful as he had hoped. And I think it has been made clear in the article that Milk used the press to his advantage at every opportunity. I tried to keep the sections succinct and topical, and worried that too much tangent would be confusing. However, I wonder if taking the first two paragraphs from Race for State Assembly and placing them before the Role as a spokesman section, and integrating the two would strengthen the point of Milk's rising profile during the State Assembly race and avoid the issue of the subheading altogether. --Moni3 (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable idea. I agree that a whole section about Oliver Sipple is undue weight in this article (while a whole section about Milk is fine in Sipple's article). So a section that is about Milk's rising profile during the State Assembly race is definitely preferable to what's here. My point was only that a section that was about outing Sipple probably should be titled that, not something elliptical. (I admit I liked "Heroic things", though!) --MCB (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I did too. Brilliant and compelling. Ah, well. I'll work on the section today. --Moni3 (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The new "Race for state assembly" section looks great. Good work! --MCB (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's settled then the section is about the outing of Sipple and the subheading should reflect that. --Voooooh (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As you see, the Sipple material has been combined into a more relevant section about the state assembly campaign, where it makes much more sense. --MCB (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry to jump into this one on such minor issue, but calling the Tenderloin (TL) "sleazy" seems a bit POV to me. The TL has a load of problems, but I'm trying to think of a better word to sum it up(seedy, impoverished?). Is there a way to describe how/where Sipple was living? Was he living in a single room occupancy hotel/supportive housing? Or would it be ok to remove that altogether? I'm not sure if "sleazy" even needs to stay in to describe the TL to people unfamiliar with it. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: - For those unaware of developments earlier, Voooooh was blocked at 17:09 (UTC) this afternoon for a period no longer than 48 hours (that meaning it automatically expires at 17:09 (UTC) on December 15th) for continual edit-warring. Caulde 21:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote needs citation

Now located in the Assembly race section, "to keep the gay community free itself of anointed gatekeepers and machine politics" needs a citation. It also looks like it needs a correction because as written it's not grammatically correct. Otto4711 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you pulled the statement from its citation in the Tributes section. And since that quote cannot be traced back farther than 2008, I'm questioning if it should be in the Race for state assembly section. Furthermore, the Times of Harvey Milk was based on Shilts' biography, and you just removed that. --Moni3 (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Direct quotes need to have a citation directly following them in most or all cases. It was very unclear that the footnote at the end of the sentence is associated with the quote. Given the ungrammatical nature of it I wonder if the quote really adds that much value in either location. And I certainly did not remove the information about Shilts's book. The sentence reads "The Times of Harvey Milk, a documentary film based on the book's material, won the 1984 Academy Award for Documentary Feature." Otto4711 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Otto, jiminy. Citation 154 a link. Click on it and search for the quote with the ctrl+F feature. But I maintain that there is no verification to state why the Milk Club was organized in 1976. That quote was written in 2008 as far as I know. --Moni3 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and I know how links work and I see the quote on the Milk club's website. What I'm saying is that having the quote away from its attribution is confusing. It is not clear from the article as I found it, which read A Democratic organization more liberal than the Alice B. Toklas Memorial Democratic Club organized in 1976 "to keep the gay community free itself of anointed gatekeepers and machine politics". It changed its name to the Harvey Milk Memorial Gay Democratic Club in 1978 and boasts that it is the largest gay Democratic organization in San Francisco.[153] that the note is associated with the quote. They aren't even in the same sentence. Do you not see that readers may find that confusing? I don't understand your statement that the quote doesn't speak to the club's foundation in 1976 because you used it to explain why the club was founded in 1976. Otto4711 (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a matter of preference as to seeing citation immediately after quotes and facts. I generally tend to cite quotes, but when the same source is used in the next sentence, I also stretch it out. It's cited, this one in particular (obviously) by a quick link to check to see if I made it up. Were it a print source, I may have structured the sentences differently. However, the point about placing the quote in the Race for state assembly section is that, because this is a chronological article, the quote is being used to say that people in 1976 were saying why they were starting a new gay democratic club. But in actuality, the quote is attributed to the organization 30 years later. Ideally, a source is needed by the folks who started the club to say at the time why it needed to be started, not why it was started in retrospect. In retrospect, its placement is appropriate in the Tributes section. --Moni3 (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't want to get into a big argument about it. I've pulled it from the Assembly section. I don't think it adds anything to the Tributes section so I'm not going to re-add it but of course won't revert you if you do. I do think the rest of the sentence reads better the way that I have it so I hope you won't revert the entire edit. I still believe that if the quote is in a separate sentence it needs a separate citation per Wikipedia:When to cite. Otto4711 (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Tributes

I believe that the paragraph currently in the tributes section that details the various books, plays, films, etc. written about Milk ought to be moved to the legacy section. These really aren't tributes to Milk. Shilts especially, who strove so much for impartiality that he refused to take an HIV test until he'd completed "And the Band Played On" to avoid having his status color his judgment, would IMHO rankle at the notion of his book being deemed a tribute. I didn't want to move it without discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor wording issue

Pandemonium rapidly escalated

Pandemonium ensues, violence escalates. Volume escalates, tensions escalate, but pandemonium doesn't escalate, does it? MotherFunctor (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Milk and Rev. Jim Jones

Milk was an activesupporter of Jones duringthe People's Temple's times in San Francisco. This biographical sketch has completely ignored that and this means it is nothingmore than a propaganda piece by fans of Milk. To become otherwise, it needs to address to failings of Milk, such as his support of Jones. 66.31.55.175 (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Provide sources more comprehensive than the ones used in the article, and that may be a consideration. Otherwise, your assertions are original research. --Moni3 (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In general, it is not fruitful to complain that articles are press releases, whitewashes, fan club meetings, etc., simply because they do not happen to include a piece of derogatory content one might want to include. That tends to insult the hardworking editors on an article, and antagonizes them to the point where they are not going to be as eager to listen to any proposal that follows. The issue of unwarranted support for the People's Temple has been discussed regularly across many articles and the fact of it is that Jim Jones was thoroughly integrated into San Francisco politics and counted the support of a large part of the political and social power structure there. Much of the support persisted, and he had defenders, even as his behavior became more problematic and signs appeared that the church was turning into a cult. In general that information is best presented in central articles about Jim Jones, the People's Temple, and surrounding events, rather than peppering the biographical articles of each of his supporters with that same story. The focus of this article is Milk, not Jones - it would be relevant to this article only if it was a significant effect on Milk and his career. Wikidemon (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

THE HARVEY MILK PAGE SHOULD BE TEMPORARILY LOCKED!!!!

Given the climate of bigotry and intolerance that still exists in America and other places, I strongly submit that the Harvey Milk page and the Milk Movie Wiki page should be locked for, say, 2 weeks. I know most Wikipedians are good folk, but it just takes one shmuck to bring things down. What say you, Wikipedia editors? Aikibum (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

For what reason? --Moni3 (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Above the fold

Looking at the article for the first time, the first thing that strikes me is that the lead is longer than would be best. The content is fine, but a somewhat shorter introduction with material moved "below the fold" would read better. LotLE×talk 21:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Per the guidelines at WP:Lead, the lead is an appropriate length for this article, particularly because it is an FA. It skims over most of Milk's life, excluding major events to conclude why Milk is considered important. The lead does what it needs to do. --Moni3 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want the lead to be dramatically shorter. Clearly this is not a topic whose lead could be just a couple sentences. But three well-tuned paragraphs would be far friendlier to readers than the current four somewhat rambling paragraphs (or it could be four somewhat tighter paras, I'm not fixated on exact paragraph count, just bothered by the looseness and happenstance of the current lead). LotLE×talk 23:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as a side note, another politician article I edit is Barack Obama, whose lead as a featured article is less than half as long as this one was when I first looked. I have also worked on the Barney Frank article, whose lead is less than 1/3 the length of this one. I don't think either of those other political figures is insignificant. LotLE×talk 09:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have trimmed the lead to a length more appropriate for an encyclopedia article (following the example of other highly notable politicians). I believe it reads far better now. Most of what I did was basic simplification and use of more direct language (less peacock or weasel wording). There is one quite nice quote, however, that is really just out of balance in the lead:

Writer John Cloud remarked on his influence, "After he defied the governing class of San Francisco in 1977 to become a member of its board of supervisors, many people—straight and gay—had to adjust to a new reality he embodied: that a gay person could live an honest life and succeed."

I like Cloud's comment, and feel like it would be nice to incorporate it somewhere in the article. However, mentioning this one editorial opinion is really unbalanced for lead. I stick the quote here for now, pending finding a good home for it in the body. LotLE×talk 09:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Rambled did it? Like the tumbling tumbleweeds o'er the vast open plains of Kansas, the words bumping along until trapped by barbed wire fences and forced to congregate to be discarded by a farmer who burns them only to make some kind of order?

Since its appearance on the main page and the opening of the film, the article has had quite a few edits to it, folks tweaking here and there to their satisfaction, whatever that might be. You've removed information about city politics, which are vital to understanding how Milk was elected and how they played a role in his assassination. Most frustrating is the removal of the quote by John Cloud. Pardon to other readers of this page who have seen this before. I read all the sources for this article, including over 200 microfilms for local newspapers. I sought for weeks to find a quote suitable to summarize Milk's impact, making comments about this bizarre occurrence during the FAC. A good lead not only summarizes the article, but a lead in an FA compels the reader—with brilliant writing—to continue to read further. Your edits appear to compromise the compelling writing part. The last two paragraphs are stunted and choppy. I did not think it needed assistance before your edits, and I am hard-pressed to see the improvement. This article is its own; not to be modeled after Obama's, Frank's, or anyone else's. I would appreciate a discussion about this. I am open to the idea that wording can be improved, but I do not like the deletions that have been made to the lead. --Moni3 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The bit about tumbleweeds indeed seems exactly right :-)... as much as any metaphor can be, anyway. It had previously read as a "word stew", with far too many clauses thrown in under the hope they might "add flavor". In terms of the Cloud quote, it's really just far too much of an opinion to merit a place in the lead. It's one guy's (well-stated) opinion, but as soon as I read it I start wondering about what contrary opinions other people hold. And then I especially wonder who the heck John Cloud is that he is the preeminent authority on gay politics, or on Milk, or whatever (not so much as a Wikilink helps me figure out this quandry). An encyclopedia should be factual, informative, and neutral... especially the lead, and even more especially the lead in a featured article.

My comparison with Obama and Frank aren't efforts to lean on WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm just trying to get the article to follow WP:LEAD here. Other examples are useful, though are not determinative. According to policy, the lead was simply too long (well, it was at the far outside of what is "allowed" by the policy, if not strictly outside it). Moreover, in terms of writing, it was really quite ugly before, too hard to even figure out what the lead meant because of the insertion of so many accidental looking digressions.

In terms of actual content, I did make the judgment to remove the sentence about the change in districting rules that preceded Milk's successful run. I have no idea (nor does anyone) whether Milk would have run absent that change, nor whether he would have won if he had run for an at-large seat. Obviously, that change is worth mentioning in the main body, but I have trouble thinking that Milk's lasting world-wide legacy is about a minor change in SF supervisor districting rules (that was later changed again, FWIW). We have to deliberately leave stuff out of the lead to present the overall meaning in a more accessible way. LotLE×talk 19:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Moni3, please don't gasp when you see what I did to your lead. I came across this page and decided to learn more about the person behind the name (I'm from California, but I wasn't so aware of politics back then). I felt that the lead read like a synopsis of every campaign of Milk's life, rather than a short, crisp rundown of who he was and what makes him notable. I admit that something is still missing; I would actually like a different, succinct, summarizing sentence in the first paragraph, instead of the one I kept, but I hope you'll agree that notability should drive the lead, not biography. All the best, Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So it's my lucky day to find the drawing and quartering of a lead written by experienced FA writers for your preference? I should pay the lottery. I hope you note that by moving information from the lead to the body of the article you duplicated points already made. Shall we leave this leave this, or remove and take out the repetitive and repetitive redundancies? --Moni3 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I tried not to be redundant. You can definitely take out the redundancies in the article. Please see my (and other editors) comments at the very bottom of this talk page for more ideas about improving the lead. Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Word stew examples

This sentence reinserted by Moni3 is a good example of the "word stew" that has crept into the article:

Milk's election and the events following his assassination demonstrated both the liberalization of the population and political conflicts between the city government and a conservative police force.

Other than having a vaguely "feel good" tone to it, I haven't the foggiest idea what it actually means! It looks like the sort of filler sentence the newspaper insert bio profiles use, and nothing at all like one expects in an encyclopedia. There probably is some more elaborated point that this sentence is meant to stand for, and that can and should be explained in the body. But as is, when a new reader (like me a couple days ago) sees that in an article lead, the only possible reaction is to cringe at the bad writing... and possibly be put off from reading on. LotLE×talk 20:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Here's another bit of useless verbosity (that isn't even grammatical). Moni3 inserts an extra pseudo-clause at the end of the first sentence of the lead:

Harvey Bernard Milk' (May 22, 1930 – November 27, 1978) was an American politician and the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

For one thing, it's not quite grammatical. For another thing, it's factually wrong, or at least misleading: Milk isn't only the first public official to be elected "as SF super", but the first in California generally (there wasn't some other guy that was, e.g. mayor Santa Barbara earlier). But more than either of those faults, it's just unnecessary throwing in of random clauses. We have a whole paragraph of the lead to discuss Milk's political runs. Being kind to readers, we can state the general fact that gives his notability in the first sentence, and expand on that in the next paragraph. There's a tendency here on WP for enthusiastic writers to try to get everything into this very sentence. Good writing spaces it out a little, and lets sentences flow more naturally. LotLE×talk 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Weasel words. Let's look at some of the "connotative but meaningless" clauses that had been in the lead a couple days ago:

• He felt compelled to become involved in local politics and ran.... Really?! He "felt compelled"? How do we know this? Have we obtained his psychiatric confessions or something? Are we sure he didn't just "want to" (absent compulsion). Moreover, the "color" of this pop-psychological exploration adds nothing factual to the more direct "He ran...".
• ...secretive well into his adult years. This just makes me cringe for its value judgment. How far is "well" into?! Maybe it's only "slightly into". Giving an actual age or years would be better here. Trying to insinuate "too far into" is just editorializing.
• Not really weasel, just unnecessary circumlocution: His experience in the counterculture of the 1960s led him... C'mon, why are we sticking in more words when fewer words do exactly the same thing?! What other than someone's "experience with Foo" would cause Foo to affect a person. It actually does border on a WP:PEACOCK word in its effort to insinuate "something more" without actually stating anything (if we could say "Milk worked with SDS" or something like that, that would make the "experience" concrete; as is it's just three words of gibberish.

LotLE×talk 20:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Approaching an asymptote

Clearly I disagree. Look, I'm not against constructive criticism and suggestions, but I spent a lot of time and effort writing this article. It went through a rigorous GA and FA review, and the archives will show long discussions about content—what should be included or discarded. The issues you mention have already been discussed in previous threads by editors who were involved in the assessment or copy editing of the article. Like anyone who concentrates for long periods of time, I recognize that there are times I can't see the problems because I am too familiar with the construction, but I would like you to appreciate the collective effort that went into the article. I bristled when I read your flippant edit summaries; these issues were pored over by me and a few other editors. (I could stand not to have my efforts called useless, for example.)

So I incorporated your changes with restoring some of the lead before your alterations. I think the Cloud statement should remain (he writes for Time and The Advocate, among other publications), because I believe a well-written lead should end with a punch. Definitive quotes do that; many of the other articles I have written also include lead structure similar to this. As for length, I think that is one of the many things open to interpretation on Wikipedia. I think the length of the lead is fine, and it seems to be a recent trend in the FACs I've participated in to summarize the major points of the article in the lead. This one is long because the article covers a lot of information.

A related suggestion: WP:FAC needs reviewers. It may be mutually beneficial for you to review articles up for FA. You can see what is being asked of articles there. --Moni3 (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate, Moni3, that you did not wholesale revert. Thank you. I just stuck back in the John Cloud quote as a bit of concession. I still really don't like how it represents one specific POV in the lead, but it is a quote I also like, as I've written above. Maybe you can do me a favor: I wikilinked John Cloud, but I'm pretty sure it's the wrong guy now. Can you create an article (even a stub) to the right Cloud, so that we can at least link to him. Readers really will wonder "who the heck is this guy who needs to be quoted in the lead?!" To do that for someone who isn't even notable enough for Wikipedia... well, reads weird. LotLE×talk 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Btw. Let me step back and thank you further for your wonderful work on the article, Moni3. In fact, let me comment with something a bit "meta". Like you, I've worked on lots of biographical articles of "controversial" figures. I know painfully well that there is a tendency for detractors of a prominent person to come in and try to create a critical spin to the article... and during my time editing those bios, I tend to get a really heightened suspicion about editors new to an article (especially ones who come in with as much bluster as I have :-)).

At the same time, I also know that as articles reach consensus, especialy where that requires negotiating partisan mindfields, they often also become really stilted in their prose. The language goes through these tweaks where the pro- and con- editors try to find something halfway in the middle that doesn't quite say anything anyone is offended by, but thereby winds up not saying anything at all. In these cases, fresh eyes are desperately needed to hack away the detritus.

On the third hand: I really am highly sensitive to length concerns. It is so very much easier to add more words to articles than to remove them to gain precision and friendliness. On the curve of WP editors, I'm certainly up there at 2+ sigmas in my cringing at needless words. My formal concern has very often been confused by other editors with an opinion about content (on the contentious articles that seem to attract me, that's usually read as pro- or con- about the subject of the article). My concern on this article is (at least so far) purely formal (though I do think its subject is a good, important, and positive political figure... just as my personal opinion). LotLE×talk 20:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Well into: He didn't start advocating that gays should come out until he was about 45 years old. Randy Shilts offers Milk was having homosexual experiences at 14. You want an actual number of how many years spanned between his first homosexual experience and the was the first time he urged someone else to come out? The lead summarizes. I don't care if the "well" is discarded, actually, but there are reasons each of these words and sentences are included.
  • He felt compelled due to the information and quote cited at the end of the Changing politics section: "I finally reached the point where I knew I had to become involved or shut up".
  • Did everyone who lived through the late 1960s grow their hair, stay stoned for 3 years, and completely rebel against their previous political beliefs? Barry Goldwater, for example? The counterculture itself does not change a person; one's experiences being involved in the counterculture does that.
  • Interestingly enough, I could not understand your changes to Milk's election and the events following his assassination demonstrated both the liberalization of the population and political conflicts between the city government and a conservative police force. Your version made no sense to me. However, information in the lead should introduce to the reader that his election was a result of the massive political power gained by the gay community in San Francisco in the 1970s (the first gay community in the US and the largest in the world really was quite a social phenomenon), and his assassination, Dan White's trial, and the ensuing White Night riots were just as much a result of the conflicting values between conservative and liberal forces in the city.
    • Huh? My changes were removal of that sentence altogether. I'm not sure what is to "not understand" about the absence of the sentence. Your conclusions about what caused what though, is pretty obviously WP:SYNTH. LotLE×talk 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • What? The point that Milk was elected because in 1976 San Francisco voters decided to give neighborhoods the ability to choose their own supervisors, and Milk was in the middle of the gayest neighborhood in the world, telling gays to have hope, depend on each other, etc., is not synth. It's the virtual backbone of Shilts' biography, and a significant portion of Frances FitzGerald's 2 part articles on the Castro, and Karen Foss' article on how Milk won his fame as an outsider (Harvey Milk vs. The Machine). Neither is it synth to include the point that the gay invasion was bitterly resented by the San Francisco police, that they supported Dan White (he was an ex-cop), the prosecutor at White's trial felt sorry for him and the jury completely sympathized with his confession of how and why he shot the mayor and a city supervisor in broad daylight. The White Night riots were the physical manifestation of these political and social tensions. This is not synth. Mike Weiss' book on the assassinations and trial as well as Shilts cover these issues. The article touches on all of them. It's cited. Milk's rise and murder were the culmination of social changes. It's significant to introduce this in the lead. --Moni3 (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
        • My WP:CRYSTAL ball is not as accurate as yours apparently. I do not know for a fact that Milk would not have been elected to an at-large seat. Elections exist to actually measure votes, if their outcomes were objectively determinable without voting... well, things would be different.
        • In any case, I cannot fathom what this comment on the district vs. at-large election has to do with the word-soup sentence I removed about "liberalization of the population, etc", since that sentence says nothing about districting rules.
        • I think you really, really should step back from your attachment to some words you wrote, give it a day or two, and try to read the changes with fresh eyes. The plain fact is that the lead as of a couple days ago was extremely difficult to read, being full of contorted, awkward and overlong descriptions of tangential details. I know this having read it fresh, you don't having worked on it for a longer time. 99%+ of readers are ones who are not already in the thick of small points of long biographies. Most of your arguments for including small details depend on a prior knowledge of many things that most readers don't know. Being pedantically correct in some sense doesn't excuse writing that is incomprehensible to readers. LotLE×talk 21:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Assuming for the moment that you trust the sources made the points that Milk was simultaneously a result and symbol of the liberalization of San Francisco (from Haight-Ashbury in 1967 to Castro in 1977), and without the massive influx of gays into the city to comprise 25% of the voting population in 10 years' time he would not have earned such popularity, how would you introduce this to the lead? Similarly, how would you state that there were institutions in the city that resisted the aforementioned Haight-Ashbury/Castro social changes, and this resistance resulted in the double murder of Milk and the mayor, and the murderer received a pitifully short sentence? One sentence, because, of course, we want the lead to be concise.
• I appreciate that you think I should step back. But the point should be made. How would you make it? --Moni3 (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that most (or any) of the points you mention just above should be in the lead. They all read like advocacy of a certain political perspective rather than factual encyclopedic material. FWIW, I share your political perspective, but the encyclopedia isn't a soapbox to force-feed readers the correct understanding of political histories. Neutral and factual is what we want, readers can form their own opinions from facts.
• ... I do probably have a somewhat different belief about Dan White's murders than you do: I am a bit skeptical that he acted out of a broad zeitgeist and in reflection of broad social trends. He seems to have been a disturbed man with psychological and personal problems, but that doesn't make him a barometer of the nationwide political climate as is usually mythologized. Obviously, the reactions to the murders is something broader, but the acts themselves seem more individual. LotLE×talk 23:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Good gracious, these are not my opinions. These reflect points made by reliable sources. Not, mind you, a random opinion of a nutcase writer, but a significant portion of backstory and weight dedicated to the subject from the sources I used. My opinion on why Milk was elected, or why White shot him are irrelevant. You are, essentially, removing points that reliable sources have made because you prefer a short lead. I think it harms the article. --Moni3 (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm in the middle of a home renovation during a few days off and I do not have the time right now to construct an article for John Cloud. Perhaps his link can be changed to John Cloud (writer) for accuracy. --Moni3 (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Length of lead

The lead of this article had accumulated an excess of details and digression that made it overly long and difficult to read. Efforts to negotiate a shorter and more neutral version are underway on its talk page. Outside opinions would help greatly. LotLE×talk 22:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead, before I edited here, read like this revision. My first set of trimming revisions produced this revision. Since then there has been some back-and-forth about included material. Looking at these "longest" and "most concise" versions might help frame the issue in more clear terms. LotLE×talk 22:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I definitely prefer the shorter, crisper, less-opinionated lead. The longer lead is mired in detail that obscures the information presented. I also prefer the more neutral tone of the shorter version. And I appreciate the removal of a quotation that previously was in the lead, as in my view, it set a biased tone. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Far be it from me to claim ownership on an article I took from C class to FA. I hope those who no doubt have nothing but the quality of the article at heart watch the edits made as a result of this RfC. This one, for example, not only guts the timeline of the man's life, but doubles information already made in the body of the article. Is this a joke, a fast track to FAR, or really the best example of writing on Wikipedia? --Moni3 (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• (2 ec's) We got outside help, more than we actually wanted (grin), during the FAC. Moni had to rewrite the lead section many times before everyone was happy. However, comparing the lead now to what it was on October 28 when it passed FAC, I'm okay with about half the changes. I don't know yet who's responsible for what, but there are a few things in the current version that don't look right to me:

1. "California as a member": California, as a member
2. "gay political movement battles": since "gay" is a noun in this context, this is a string of 3 nouns, and this is something that FAC reviewers don't like at all. I'm not as passionate about keeping nouns apart as some are, but it doesn't work in this phrase.
3. "His goal was to give hope to disenfranchised gays": This was also in the Oct 28 version (in the following paragraph), but it needs to be clear that we're not saying this was his top goal; probably, more important goals were getting elected and giving hope to his gay constituents.
4. "Both Milk's election and the events following his assassination demonstrated the liberalization of the population and political conflicts between the city government and a conservative police force.": This sentence was deleted. I haven't looked at the history; if the deletion was the result of a lack of consensus, that's fine, but if the deletion was a stylistic decision, that's an example of something you don't want to do as a stylistic decision. Consensus on these kinds of interpretations can be hard to come by, and putting it in the lead is a statement of the strength of the consensus and value of the conclusion; you don't want to throw it away for nothing.
5. ""a martyr for gay rights", according to University of San Francisco professor Peter Novak.": the "according to" phrase was deleted. Half of the total consumption of energy in the state of Florida is attributable to Wikipedian discussions over the correct treatment of words like "martyr" and "terrorist" on Wikipedia. Consensus is that Wikipedia should not, in a case like this, state that someone is a martyr, but that someone was called a martyr. The "according to" needs to go back in.
6. A link was added to John Cloud, but is that the same John Cloud as the writer? Doesn't seem right. And "writer" was removed, but if John Cloud wasn't writing in any particular capacity (as a publisher, politician, historian, etc.), then I like "writer" because it answers that question. Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• As I commented in several discussion sections above, I think the original lead was too long and rambling. It read like a synopsis of every campaign of Milk's life, rather than a short, crisp rundown of who he was and what makes him notable. My attempt at shortening and rewriting it still doesn't hit the mark; I would prefer a different, succinct, summarizing sentence in the first paragraph, instead of the one I kept. Actually, I would also like to see a paragraph-long summary of some of Moni3's main points, such as the idea that Milk was simultaneously a result and symbol of the liberalization of San Francisco (from Haight-Ashbury in 1967 to Castro in 1977), with the massive influx of gays into the city to comprise 25% of the voting population. A line about the social resistance to gays should be included in the paragraph about Moscone's/Milk's murders. I don't know enough about the subject to write these summarizing lines, but I think they would help the lead dramatically. Yoninah (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  Not a lot about writing style has consensus on Wikipedia, but one thing that gets covered again and again at both GAR and FAC is that 3 or preferably 4 solid paragraphs are the norm for a long FAC like this one. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with you, Dank55. I didn't mean that the lead should be only one paragraph. I left a structure of 3 paragraphs, but it could definitely expand to 4. I just meant that broader and more succinct commentary should be written in each paragraph, not a list of highlights of the forthcoming article. Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  I agree, and did not think you were referring to only one paragraph, just crisper, less minutely focused material in the lead—more of a summary style. Also, I appreciate the removal of the quotations, which, it is my impression, do not belong in the lead according to consensus on Wikipedia. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Points that the lead should contain:

1. First sentence: dates, fame, and how that was achieved (as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors).
2. Milk was not an activist all his life; in fact, for most of it he was closeted and conservative.
3. His experience in the 1960s changed him.
4. He moved to San Francisco in the middle of a huge migration of gay people and took advantage of the opportunities that came with it, namely promoting himself. Part of his appeal was his theatrical way of communicating.
5. He was not originally or by any desire prior to his move to San Francisco, a politician. What he experienced in San Francisco made him decide to run.
6. He ran for three races before he won. He won because the city's voting population had grown to be 25% gay. He urged gay people to take economic and political power in the city, a message that resounded with the growing gay population, that also differed from what gay leadership had been doing to this point.
7. He was supervisor for 11 months; he passed a stringent gay rights bill for the city in a national political climate that was overturning gay rights in cities across the country.
8. He was assassinated with Mayor George Moscone by Dan White. Dan White recently resigned and wanted his job back.
9. The assassination, White's trial, and the White Night riots were evidence of the conflicting values of a city with liberal and conservative bases.
10. He is notable 30 years after his death. Three different sources have said so, with citations.

One two three or four paragraphs. These are the points reliable sources make about Milk's life and impact. --Moni3 (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Moni3, Your willingness to keep talking about this article even after you achieved FA status should be commended. I can see by the way you write how much effort and care you invested into this subject. This is a great article outline. But I would suggest incorporating just Points #1, 4, the second half of 6, 8, 9 and 10 into an eye-catching, 4-paragraph lead. The rest is important and deserves mention and embellishment in the body of the article. Yoninah (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree basically with this recommendation. It is helpful to have these "new eyes" that have some distance from the article subject. The lead is to set forth a summary outline, not to "prove" anything. And too much emphasis on Dan White can create a perception that if it were not for Dan White, Harvey Milk would have a stub of an article on wikipedia today. Surely, if Harvey Milk were not murdered, he would still be important? Or would he? The article is not clear on that point. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Per my above points, an abbreviated lead:

Harvey Bernard Milk (May 22, 1930 – November 27, 1978) was an American politician and the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California, as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Politics and gay activism was not an early interest of Milk's; he did not feel the need to be open about his homosexuality or participate in politics until his experiences in the counterculture of the 1960s, when he was about 40 years old.

Milk settled in San Francisco in 1972, as one of many gay men moving to the Castro District in the 1970s. He took advantage of the growing political and economic power of the neighborhood to promote his interests, and ran unsuccessfully for political office three times. His theatrical campaigns earned him increasing popularity, however, and Milk won a seat as a city supervisor in 1977, a result of the broader social changes the city was experiencing.

He served 11 months in office and was responsible for passing a stringent gay rights ordinance for the city. On November 27, 1978, Mayor George Moscone and Milk were assassinated by Dan White, another city supervisor who had recently resigned and wanted his job back. The events following the assassinations demonstrated conflicts between the liberal trends that were responsible for Milk's election, and conservative resistance to that course.

Despite his short career in politics, Milk has become an icon in San Francisco and "a martyr for gay rights", according to University of San Francisco professor Peter Novak. In 2002, Milk was called "the most famous and most significantly open LGBT official ever elected in the United States". John Cloud remarked on his influence, "After he defied the governing class of San Francisco ... many people—straight and gay—had to adjust to a new reality he embodied: that a gay person could live an honest life and succeed."

--Moni3 (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a great condensation of the main points into a much pithier lead. Great job, Moni3! One minor change: put Milk (the subject of this article) first in the assassination sentence. Moscone is important too, of course, and he was killed a few minutes earlier, but the subject should be the article topic. I also think we can trim the Cloud even a bit more to what I had used. That is, "defied the governing class" is a little bit of digression, but "adjust to new reality" gets to Milk's effect on politics. LotLE×talk 02:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It was originally that way, as "Milk and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated ..." but another editor protested that that produces a piped link: reader's can't tell if the link is on Moscone, or "George Moscone were assassinated" is one link. It is...quite difficult to please everyone. --Moni3 (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That's easy: Milk and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated. LotLE×talk 07:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent job, Moni3! As a newcomer to this page, I would definitely appreciate reading this concise summary, and would want to read on for details. I would like to suggest this small rewrite of the second paragraph:

His move from New York to San Francisco in 1972 came amidst a huge migration of gay people to that city's Castro District, and he took advantage of the growing political and economic power of the neighborhood to promote his own interests. After three unsuccessful campaigns for political office, he won a seat as a city supervisor in 1977 as a result of the broader social changes the city was experiencing.

Yoninah (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy in general with the rewriting. I see the point made above about "as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors"; even though people who read well-written stuff will immediately spot what the comma means, not everyone reads good stuff, and some readers will think we're saying he was the first gay man elected to the board of supervisors. Since you say "city supervisor" in the second paragraph, Moni, perhaps we can leave the phrase out of the first sentence and stick that link in the second paragraph? Also, "Politics and gay activism was not an early interest of Milk's" seems to me to be implied by the second half of that sentence; could you do without that part? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also prefer to move the link to SF BoS to the second para, and just have the first sentence say "first elected in CA". That seems to put the relative emphasis of facts in better perspective (i.e. had Milk, hypothetically, won the State Assembly, that would have been similarly notable... though presumably later events would have differed dramatically). LotLE×talk 20:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Dank55 and agree with Moni3, however, in regard to the two parts of the last sentence of the first para. That is: whether one is interested in gay politics and whether one is closeted are independent of each other; both parts are worth observing. Some politicians are "out" and "gay-activist"; some are "out" and still conservative (Log Cabin Republicans, anyone?); some are closeted (or at least "private") but still pro-gay rights; some are closeted and homophobic (per WP:BLP I won't name names, but I think editors can do so for themselves). LotLE×talk 21:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere in the bowels of archives, which could be attached to this talk page, the FAC, my talk page, or somewhere else, an editor demanded the capacity in which Milk served as a public official in the first sentence. And assassination has its own link. There's no indication that the Moscone Milk assassinations are linked using the current sentence structure, so now there's no reason to have it linked at all. Harvey, did you know you could be such a pain in the ass all these years later? Probably... --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Moni3, I'm very happy with the way you revised the lead. I compared it to what I saw originally and think it is much more concise as well as informative. It's a little disconcerting to go through that whole FAC process and finally see your article featured on the Wikipedia home page, only to have people who never heard of the article before start to make all kinds of suggestions for improvement. I think you're handling it admirably! Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm fine with leaving "supervisors" etc. in the first sentence. "Politics ... not early interests of Milk's; he did not feel the need to ... participate in politics until ..." still sounds redundant to me. If I'm the only one, it's not the first time. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you. The less redundancy and detail in the lead, the better—easier on the brain and more neutral. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin puzzle on RfC

This isn't about this article. The comments have been great all around. But I just noticed that the RfC doesn't appear on the RfCbio list page. Does anyone know what I did wrong that the bot didn't seem to cross-list it. It doesn't matter for this, since discussion has and is working well already... but I may want to ask for comment on some other article in the future. LotLE×talk 21:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I didn't even see the RfC. I just happened to come across this page right in the midst of your back-and-forth discussion yesterday! Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Don't know why it didn't show up, so I added it by hand, with is offered as an option on that page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RFCbio/manual. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Alice?

"Milk's reception by the gay political establishment in San Francisco was icy. Jim Foster, who had by then been active in gay politics for ten years, resented the newcomer's asking for his endorsement for a position as prestigious as city supervisor. Foster told Milk, "There's an old saying in the Democratic Party. You don't get to dance unless you put up the chairs. I've never seen you put up the chairs."[34] Milk was furious at the patronizing snub, and the conversation marked the beginning of an antagonistic relationship between Alice and Harvey Milk. Some gay bar owners, still battling police harassment and unhappy with what they saw as a timid approach by Alice to established authority in the city, decided to endorse him.[35] "

I don't understand the sudden change from Jim Foster to Alice. Can someone please either a) correct this or b) inform me of who Alice is and make the article clearer? 71.251.200.126 (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Katie

In the third paragraph under Changing politics is the answer: Jim Foster co-founded the Alice B. Toklas Memorial Democratic Club, which was known commonly as "Alice". --Moni3 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sentence in lead

There is a sentence in the lead that was recently removed, then restored in slightly altered form. In truth, I really don't understand what it is trying to say in either version:

Conflicts between liberal trends that were responsible for Milk's election and conservative resistance to those changes were evident in events following the assassinations.

It seems a bit like WP:WEASEL wording to me, sort of like it is trying to portend something deep, but not quite anything I can pin down specifically. For example, if someone were to factually challenge this statement, what could possibly count as evidence for or against it?

Maybe if we can pin down what claim is actually trying to be made, we can word it in a way that is more specific and factual. LotLE×talk 01:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Same thing that you removed in the previous lead. Reaction to the assassination (police support of Dan White, their denigration of both Milk and Moscone), the trial (prosecutor sympathized with White, ineffective prosecution, jury chosen was exactly like him), and the White Night riots (Feinstein, supervisors considered it a miscarriage of justice, gays marched to city hall and lit police cars on fire, police went to the Castro District and tore a gay bar apart) were evidence of conflicts between the liberal city government, Castro District, and Haight Ashbury elements in the city and the conservative police and criminal justice system.

There were long-standing conflicts already between gays and police all over the country. Gay bars in the 1960s were regularly raided, and homosexuals had been targeted en masse for arrests, much more in San Francisco than in any other city. Homosexuality was a civic embarrassment to many. In 1967 police considered homosexuality a criminal behavior. By 1977, homosexuality was being celebrated in the streets. San Francisco is no different than any other location that gets a huge migration of outsiders that changes a location's profile. Harvey Milk happened to be one of those outsiders and he rode the wave of change, simultaneously feeding from its force and leading the charge.

Every mass social change has a backlash. Some think ex-cop White was working at least subconsciously with a police mindset that the city was going too far liberal too fast. Milk and Moscone's assassinations proved how far their liberal reach did not go, how far the conservatives refused to acknowledge their legitimacy. It's quite basic: if you got killed, would the people in power see justice for you or let your killer go/get off light because they didn't like what you stood for? We'd like to think the police and courts would do their jobs regardless of who we are, but that did not happen in this case.

These issues, I suppose I need to say, are not synth or OR. Not until I read the sources for this article did I consider these issues presented on a broad scale. Even before the city events of the late 1970s San Francisco was a place that attracted oddities; editorials afterward questioned what made it so. Quite a few sources were introspective, wondering what created a climate that made it possible for a city supervisor to shoot the mayor and another supervisor in front of some of the most credible witnesses any court could ask for, have him charged with first-degree murder and the populace expect him to get the death penalty only to see him released in five years. The city exploded because of it.

Events following the assassinations demonstrated conflicts between the liberal forces responsible for Milk's election and conservative strongholds in the city that were resistant to change. If you can come up with a sentence to summarize what the article points out, and those 4 paragraphs I just wrote, please do. --Moni3 (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox edits

Before I started working on this article I was ambivalent about infoboxes, but perhaps could see the sense in leaving them out. Now, I seem to loathe them and think them crippling, unattractive, and a royal pain in the rear. I'm hoping to get some feedback on this issue.

Let's begin with the caveat that this is a Featured Article. All information therein should be accurate, and no clarification or fact tags should exist in an FA.

It is my understanding that infoboxes provide summaries that the article explains. I don't know of any policy or guideline that requires information in the infobox to be cited. In my experience with this article, it seems that infobox information is held to a higher standard of cited information, which may be impossible.

• Milk was born Jewish, was Jewish through his life, and perhaps not devout nor regularly practicing, but a fact tag was placed in the religion line for Jewish because no proof can be provided that he was a practicing Jew. This seems to me to be individually interpreted about what qualifies someone as a Jew. Because I cannot provide information on his spiritual habits, that information has been removed by me.
• An editor inserted the information about his being a Republican initially, which is accurate. But a clarification tag was placed to ask when he was a Republican, which sources do not state when he switched parties. I assume a specific date is being requested, but right now, all sources give is a span of years which indicate he was going through some political and philosophical changes. Now the Republican information has been removed.
• An editor inserted Milk's lovers as domestic partners. If the same kind of clarification is being asked of the previous two issues, this will be impossible to quantify. Milk lived with Campbell in an apparent monogamous relationship; what could be considered as married as gay men could get in the early 60s. His relationship with McKinley was not monogamous, nor was it with Smith or Lira. Milk never lived with Craig Rodwell. Can Lira be considered a domestic partner if he moved himself in? Can any of these men be considered domestic partners if the term was never used by Milk, so we don't really know what he considered them? Milk dated at least 2 men after Lira, but their relationships were not included in the article. He actually slept around quite a lot in San Francisco... I removed this information.

It seems to me like my life at least would be a lot easier if the infobox were removed completely. I don't get the point of it, and I find it ridiculous that information within it is held to a higher standard than in the article. Infoboxes demand short, easy information when much of it is more complicated. They may give false or incomplete impressions. When I rewrote the article and replaced the text, I left the infobox out, but other editors replaced it and implored me to leave it. So now I'm asking: why? Why is it still here, and why is so much time and effort spent on an infobox? --Moni3 (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the depth and complexity in most well-written Wikipedia articles (and the bite-sized summaries found in the lead) make infoboxes irrelevant. I think in articles about military conflicts and movies, they make some sense, but trying to give vital info about a person in such a tightly confined space just feels wrong (especially when nearly all of the same info is right beside it in the lead). Perhaps we're just sentence-philes, and we don't understand the world from the factoid point of view? Scartol • Tok 18:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While I certainly share Moni3's concern for accuracy of information, and sympathize with the inability of a short data field to capture nuance, infoboxes aren't going to go away. If anything, they are being used more and more widely. The use, even requirement, for infoboxes is pretty much sine qua non for featured articles, or even "good articles" (GA). There are a lot of factors in this; one that is particularly close to my heart is that infoboxes are a lot easier to extract metadata from (there are some fascinating projects around this, many of which get rolled back into MediaWiki). One thing to keep in mind is that articles don't exist in isolation; a great deal of the knowledge implicit in WP comes from the comparison and correlation of information across different articles. For that, however, the boiled-down simple-valued data is really what we need. LotLE×talk 18:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe in infoboxes as much as they can be a source of frustration. Having stated that, simply removing the parameters that aren't that important and causing cultural disputes seems like an elegant solution. -- Banjeboi 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm boldly adding auto-archiving for threads stale 30+ days with a minimum of 5 threads to be left at all times. -- Banjeboi 00:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've gone ahead and added indexing since there's enough archives already that finding an old discussion would be difficult. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)