Talk:Harry Hay/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Harry Hay. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Between a rock and a hard place

Wasn't Hay booted out of his own Mattachine Society for his communism, as well as being booted out of the CPUSA for his open homosexuality? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA

Why is there no mention of his involvement with NAMBLA? It's well documented and there are many photographs of Harry Hay holding NAMBLA signs.--64.205.57.18 14:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If so, why don't you do it? Hyacinth 21:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added in it an NPOV way, I hope--Dudeman5685 05:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hay did **NOT** support NAMBLA, nor did he found it or any chapter of this organization. What he did was oppose a cadre of assimilationist gays from proving their worth to heterosexual society by condemning such groups as NAMBLA. Hay's position as a gay liberationist was that heterosexual culture was in no position to judge us nor should we be submitting ourselves to their scrutiny. This was twisted by reactionary liberals and gay assimilationists at the time, despite Hay's frequent clarifications - including a long cover-page interview in the San Francisco Weekly.

The placard Hay is accused of carrying supporting NAMBLA read "NAMBLA walks with me." It was not an endorsement but a statement that sexual minorities were all scorned by elite straight societies, and that he was among the scorned. Did him carrying this sign help clear the rumors?? Of course not. But many of us in Queer Nation were clear at the time of this controversy - Hay and all of us lived in San Francisco - was an attempt to erase Hay's direction of anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-consumer gay liberation so that the pro-assimilation camp would win: which it did, sadly.

John Burnside

The article states that in 1963 Harry Hay had a lover named John Burnside. It links to Scottish author John Burnside, who was born in 1955. Now, unless Harry Hay was a member of the radical wing of NAMBLA, this must be the wrong John Burnside :-)

I have removed the link. I'd suggest restoring it once somebody supplies a disambiguation page for John Burnside. --69.49.165.251 05:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Founding Mattachine?

Franklin E. Kameny says Kameny founded the Mattachine Society with Jack Nichols, making no mention of Harry Hay. But the Mattachine Society article says it was founded by "Harry Hay with a small group of friends". Which is right? Dybryd 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the difference: The Mattachine Society that Harry Hay founded eventually became a national organization with chapters intermittently established in various cities. Still later, it shrank to its headquarters entity, by that time relocated to San Francisco. Meanwhile, independent organizations using the name Mattachine were formed in some cities, including cities that had previously hosted chapters of the once-national Mattachine Society. For instance, the Mattachine Society of Washington was formed by Kameny in 1961. The Mattachine Society of New York had been formed as a separate organization in the waning days of the national Mattachine Society, which had had a New York chapter. Mattachine Midwest was formed in Chicago in 1965 as an independent organization; Chicago had previously had at least two short-lived chapters of the national Mattachine Society. Wbkelley (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"'pedophilia-related activism' is far too POV"

The name "Pedophilia-related activism" reflects the topic matter of the section in question. I actually spent several minutes trying to think of something that would have less of an appearance of being non-NPOV, but could think of nothing. If you can think of some other manner for describing his pedophilia-rated activism, other than "pedophilia-related activism," I would be happy to change the name of the section to something that has less of a dramatic character. The issue is not so much with my wording (which is about as neutral as can be phrased), but rather with the fact that the overwhelming consensus in our society is that pedophilia, and socio-political advocacy on behalf of a pedophilia-friendly perspective, ought be considered extremely repulsive. I'm not sure how one can report honestly on some of the pertinent facts of Harry Hay's life without presenting him in a way his supporters might perceive as non-NPOV, due to its unflattering elements. To suggest a different course is the intellectual equivalent of suggesting we shouldn't mention the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, for fear it would present a non-NPOV view portrait of Harry S. Truman. That is clearly not a viable course. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I should probably further note that the source I cited for the Harry Hay quote comes not from a mere "forum," as was alleged, but rather from a recognized, national political magazine ie., The American Spectator. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pedophilia-related activism has every appearance of promoting that Hay was nearly on a speaking tour promoting Pedophilia when in fact this is a minor but documented aspect of his life. And your own sources don't suggest he was doing so so he himself could engage in sex with minors but that all groups, such as drag queens and leather folk should be free of the divisiveness just so the mainstream gays could get their human rights. This is a recurring mantra in LGBT communities. He also is advocating that LGBT kids deserve posiitive role models in LGBT adults, something that few would convincingly argue against. This section should be merged into the rest of the article otherwise it sure smacks of wp:coatracking to besmirch (yet another) LGBT leader. -- Banjeboi 00:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the section and saw nothing about pedophilia. Haiduc (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on it. I retitled it but I also support the new title. -- Banjeboi 15:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the new section title is just fine. I wish I'd thought of it. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This whole section is not as important as teh other sections on Mattachine and the Radical Faeries, it should be merged into the main body text instead per wp:Undue. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems fine to me, and balanced. Haiduc (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out, Kevin, it's your own source that states that Hay made his remarks about intergenerational role models and what-not at a forum, so why you're acting like I'm being dismissive of it for being at a forum is baffling. As others have noted, Hay's supposed activism around this subject seems rather unimportant as compared to his work with Mattachine and RF. His collected writings ("Radically Gay") make no mention of it that I can find in the main text and his support of NAMBLA is relegated to a single sentence in a 360 page book. I have The Trouble With Harry Hay probably waiting for me in my PO box; I'll pick it up tomorrow and if it goes into anything like the level of detail about his supposed pro-pedophilia activism that it undoubtedly will about Mattachine, RF and CPUSA then I'll expand it as appropriate. But what should likely happen is that the information should be incorporated into a balanced "later life" section. Otto4711 (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I misunderstood what you meant; I thought you were claiming my source was "a forum," like I'd taken that article off some v-bulletin discussion board, or whatnot. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed

“

He gave a number of speeches at NAMBLA meetings, and in 1986 he marched in the Los Angeles pride parade, from which the organization had been banned, with a sign reading "NAMBLA walks with me."

”

If a reliable source is found it could be re-added. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually do have a source somewhere for the sign; not sure if it mentions his supposed attendance at NAMBLA meetings. I'll try to track it down again. Otto4711 (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Defending intergenerational relationships" redux

I haven't finished all of my source material yet, but from what I've read so far "defending intergenerational relationships" is too narrow a subject header. Yes, he supported the right of NAMBLA to be included, but his support (while possibly initially arising from his encounter with Matt the 24 year-old sailor when Hay was 14) seems to be coming much more from his Marxist background, his long-held anti-assimilationist contention that the strength of homosexuals came because of differences rather than samenesses and his general aversion to exclusionary politics. The article already talks about his comparison of NAMBLA's exclusion to the marginalization of drag and leather people. His writings on Radical Faeries talk about intergenderism and the importance of inclusionism. I have references that talk about his dismay over ACT UP's tactics as being too embracing of the masculine/macho style of confrontation and dismissive of a broader-based approach. I'm thinking that something for the section header along the lines of "Anti-assimilation work" is going to be more representative of his actual views. Otto4711 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds about right. IMHO, the real issue is that the article is so short and he's much more then what we have presently. -- Banjeboi 08:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I'm working on it. It's almost doubled since I started putting in the work. I'm just one person there's only so much I can do! <sob> Otto4711 (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Photographic evidence of Harry Hay's involvement with NAMBLA

http://www.nambla.org/youtview.htm

http://www.nambla.org/sanfrancisco1984.htm

http://www.nambla.org/history.htm

These link were all current as of October 7th, 2009. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not seeing the point. As I review the links and the article it appears that this "evidence" of "involvement" with NAMBLA is already adequately covered. His speech to the conference, his protest sign and his refusal to participate in Stonewall 25 are all already included and sourced to reliable sources that are independent of NAMBLA. Per the earlier discussion on this page, it seems to me that a reasonable accommodation was reached to include this information in the broader context of Hay's anti-assimilationism beliefs and actions. There is little to be gained from including any of the information at the other end of these links and including it implicates WP:UNDUE by placing greater weight on Hay's NAMBLA-related activities than is merited by their actual scope. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Will Geer

"...he met and began a relationship with fellow actor Will Geer..." What sort of relationship? I've had relationships with many people, most of which weren't sexual. Inasmuch as Will Geer's sexuality has been debated, shouldn't this article be explicit about what said "relationship" comprised, and give references? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, good catch. -- Banjeboi 14:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Harry Hay was an occultist and organist

Whomever reverted my addition to the article clearly does not know what a source is. I provided the ISBN for the biography of Harry Hay "The Trouble With Harry Hay" that describes his active involvement in the Agape temple as their organist, and refers to his "sacrilege" of also playing the organ for the local Catholic Church. Hay was also loosely associated with the OTO. Both groups are occult organizations.

The Radical Faeries were also considered to be based in "spirituality."

The Faeries were described by a neutral writer as, "Marxism, feminism, paganism, Native American and New Age spirituality, anarchism, the mythopoetic men's movement, radical individualism, the therapeutic culture of self-fulfillment and self-actualization, earth-based movements in support of sustainable communities, spiritual solemnity coupled with a camp sensibility, gay liberation and drag." Hennen, Peter (2008), Faeries, Bears, and Leatherman, University of Chicago Press -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Job101010 (talk • contribs)

The detailed explanation on your talk page here was clear and polite. Please take some time to understand the issue and the discussion about WP:UNDUE on this talk page with regard to emphasis on NAMBLA (such as your use of "fervid"). Thanks, Fæ (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm also a bit worried about labeling him an "occultist" when in reality he played the organ for the Agape group - as he did for other groups. Being their organist doesn't make him a member of the organization - would you label him a Catholic? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hay was not Catholic. "The Trouble with Harry Hay" recognizes the fact that he played an organ for the Agape Temple and his Catholic Church as sacrilege. Hay's underlying opinions were clearly occult. Hay was also involved with the Aleister Crowley group, O.T.O., which is an occult group. The biography and O.T.O. recognize the influence that the O.T.O. had on Hay's life, such as the Radical Faeries.24.23.171.236 (talk)24.23.171.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC).

LGBT vs Homosexual and cultural identity vs. cultural minority

Since there has been two edits and two undos on this I would suggest it be dicussed. My point is that Hay's time made the "The call" for homosexual right (ala homophile movement) and less so thinking of LGBT, since this is a modern movement construct. Hay would definitely not included T (at the time at least) and arguably, B in that equation, and the early mattachine society from my understanding was almost exclusively male. We known that of later work by Hay (particularly the faeries but also his views on Gay assimilation) Hay saw sexual orientation not as a cultural identity construct but as a minority status, the same as a ethnicity or race.

Whether this (or any other justification) is valid is dicussable, I am open to changing either but I don't think LGBT is quite right or cultural identity is either

Howaboutudance (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I support your view that HH's biography needs to be expressed in the context of the time he was in. We would not anachronistically insist on using "LGBT" in Oscar Wilde and the same rationale applies here. Fæ (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde was bisexual not gay/homosexual. As for Hay he's a dinosaur and who cares if the old queen wouldn't have approved of LGBT? Radical Faeires are known for being highly inclusive of bisexuals, trans people, straight women, gay men, and even straight men like Fakir Musafar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.0.24 (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur w/Howaboutudance. Lionel (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Wilde was gay not bisexual, he was married by cultural oppression, gay despite violent homophobia. LGBT is actually more accurate as in keeping with the time all gender and sexuality minorities were called fruits, gay, queer, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonlaura (talk • contribs) 21:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Lede

Per WP:LEDE an article's lede is supposed to summarize its contents. It is also supposed to be neutral and balanced without giving undue emphasis to aspects of the subject. Harry Hay's "advocacy" against the exclusion of NAMBLA involved making a couple of comments at a conference, wearing a sign at a march in 1986 (while also wearing a sign in support of an entirely different person/cause) and not joining Stonewall 25 in 1994. This dogged insistence on making more of Hay's so-called "advocacy" than it ever was is not only not supported by reliable sources, it's a complete distortion of the man's life and work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.99.0 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Teacher and NAMBLA activist

Harry Hay taught for many years and this is documented in any number of sources that are already in use in the article. This is an aspect of his life that needs to be expanded, not deleted. His work as a scholar of Native American culture and Indian rights activist during his time living in the Southwest also needs to be expanded.

Including a sentence in the lead calling Hay a NAMBLA activist is an inappropriate emphasis on his involvement with the group. He was not according to any source that I have ever seen a NAMBLA member and his support based on those sources appeared to have been limited to speaking at a conference, carrying a sign (which also supported an individual person) and participating in an alternate march when Stonewall 25 refused NAMBLA entry. His NAMBLA involvement is covered in its proper context and plopping it into the lead in the absence of context damages the article. Orrin Knox (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Then those "sources" and "documents" need to be cited; otherwise it is unverifiable. You have clearly demonstrated a bias that favors Harry Hay and disregards facts. The definition of "teacher" can be subjective. There are people that could claim that a homeless person was a "teacher" because that person extolled wisdom. At the same time, that same homeless person would be seen as a kook by others. Whose perception is authoritative? Unless Hay had taught in an official capacity, such as a school, college, museum or otherwise, then calling him a "teacher" is highly debatable and should not be sublimated into the narrative of his life.

Whereas, Hay's beliefs on anti-assimilation and by extension, his support for NAMBLA are integral to the narrative of his life, because those opinions can be verified and remain to be controversial. Hay broke away from the mainstream LGBT movement because he supported anti-assimilation and NAMBLA by extension, whereas, the mainstream LGBT movement did not. Yet, people have continuously tried to marginalize his beliefs.

The fact is that, pederasty remains a controversial topic of the so-called Sexual Revolution. Yes, most people would agree that consenting people should be allowed to engage in whatever behavior they choose, but the conundrum is, at what age should people be legally allowed to consent?

Hay's support of NAMBLA is integral to the narrative of his life, because as I said, it exemplified the schism between the two sides of the LGBT movement - one that wanted to assimilate, and that other side that did not. The fact that Stonewall 25 refused to include NAMBLA is clear and incontrovertible proof that Hay, by his support, was not on the same page as Stonewall or the LGBT movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.171.236 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In the whole scope of Hay's life and the context of his "support" needs to be very clearly stated and plopping it in the lead sentance is NOT appropriate. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it is "not appropriate" to those who deny Hay's identity and would like to skewer history with propaganda. The opening paragraph was a mess to begin with, because whoever wrote it was clearly trying to over-state his role and influence. Hay's historical relevance is relative to the LGBT movement, not the Radical Faeries; and Hay's departure from the organized LGBT movement resulted from his ideological differences, with NAMBLA being a clear and incontrovertible example of his dissension.

If anything, this article has too much information about the Radical Faeries, which has little, if any, relevance to LGBT. That skew clearly detracts from Hay's cultural relevance and the questions about his direct role in the LGBT movement. Hay's role, in the context of history, is mostly symbolic.24.23.171.236 (talk)

What is your source backing your claims of the importance of his position re nambla to his overall life and works? Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hay's historical relevance is relative to the LGBT movement, not the Radical Faeries; and Hay's departure from the organized LGBT movement resulted from his ideological differences, with NAMBLA being a clear and incontrovertible example of his dissension. I'm sorry but this simply is not true. Hay's historical relevance comes from a variety of things, including but not limited to his roles in co-founding both Mattachine and the Faeries, both of which the last I heard were part of the historical LGBT movement. Hay initially distanced himself from the movement in 1953 when he and the rest of the "Fifth Order" of Mattachine went public and resigned. The ideological differences involved were related to most of the Order's having associations with Marxism and the Communist Party and had nothing whatsoever to do with NAMBLA, which was not formed until 45 years after Hay left Mattachine. The "relevance" of the Faeries to the LGBT movement is irrelevant anyway, because this is not an article about either the Faeries or the LGBT movement but is instead an article about Harry Hay. It is supposed to be based on reliable sources and unless you can offer some that support your claims about Harry Hay then you need to stop insisting that everyone else who has tried to work to improve this article is biased against...whatever it is you're claiming they're biased against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.99.0 (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

His affiliation with nambla was notable and very controversial. It is properly discussed in the lede, lest we lower ourselves to censorship. Lionel (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is incredibly biased / Requesting review by Administrator

This article should be tagged for disputed neutrality.24.23.171.236 (talk)

This is the intro that was wrongly removed:

Henry "Harry" Hay, Jr. (April 7, 1912 – October 24, 2002) is considered a cultural icon and an early leader in the Sexual Revolution,[1] because of Hay's role in the American LGBT rights movement by writing "The Call" and defining the LGBT movement as a cultural identity, amongst other acts. Later in life however, Hay became a controversial advocate of anti-assimilation, specifically advocating against the exclusion of the North American Man-Boy Love Association from the LGBT movement. Drawing on his background as a labor advocate in the Communist Party USA, Hay co-founded the Mattachine Society in 1950, which is the first enduring LGBT rights organization in the United States. Following his ouster from Mattachine leadership in 1953, Hay largely withdrew from organized LGBT activism until the late 1970s. Hay would then study radical homosexuality, non-conformity, neopaganism, and Native-American rituals in the American Southwest. In 1979, Hay and his life-long companion, John Burnside, co-founded the Radical Faeries.

Additional comments: The intro was not too long. Other Wikipedia pages have intros that are much longer than this. The length of this intro is about average. The current intro is a garbled mess of propaganda. There are no sources to Hay being a "teacher." His role as a labor advocate was marginal - he was a not a leader in the labor movement. He only drew from his experiences in that movement to start the Mattachine Society. The problem that some people have was his decision to advocate for NAMBLA and concurrent choice to part from the mainline of the LGBT movement in order to advocate non-conformity in general, and NAMBLA in particular. Hay remains a controversial historical figure because of it, and attempts to deny Hay's decision to identify with NAMBLA reeks of irony, denial, and hypocrisy. His historical relevance is mostly symbolic; if anything, I thought the that the updated intro was generous yet still reflected the complexity of his life.24.23.171.236 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.171.236 (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it offensive to refer to Hay as a "teacher," when he had no certificates in teaching nor any experience as a teacher in any authoritative capacity (schools or museums). Orrin Knox claimed that Hay's scholarship of Native-Americans is "well documented" and yet has provided no sources to support that claim. "Documentation" can be very broadly defined, and could include things that range from fliers, pamphlets, or newsletters, which is not the same as teaching. I asserted once already that "teacher" is not a subjectively defined term; a person is not a teacher simply because someone else views him or her as a, "teacher." If that were the case, then any bum could be potentially defined as a "teacher," which is degrading to the profession (and art) of teaching.24.23.171.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC).

Based on this comment I'm guessing that you don't actually know very much about Harry Hay. Hay through his early exposure to the IWW and Marxism became an advocate for the American labor movement. As a member of the Communist Party he taught Party-sanctioned classes in subjects ranging from Party ideology to Native American culture to folk music to economic history for some two decades. It was his research into folk music that led him to the name "Mattachine Society" and his studies of Native American history and culture informed the formation of the Radical Faeries. It is not necessary to have a state-issued credential to be identified as a teacher. His being a teacher is sourced in the article and the idea that calling someone who taught in classrooms for as long as Hay did is somehow "degrading" to teachers is ludicrous.
The lede quoted above is factually inaccurate. Hay did not help define the "LGBT movement" as anything, because when Hay was formulating his ideas there was no such thing as an "LGBT movement". Hay did not view homosexuality as a cultural identity. He viewed homosexuals as a cultural minority. These are not synonymous. The lede as written above also does not come anywhere close to summarizing the contents of the article, which is what a lede is supposed to do. There is no mention outside the lede of Hay's supposed status as a "cultural icon" or as a figure in the sexual revolution. If the book that was linked does in fact include information about these things then by all means the information should be added, probably to the "legacy" section. And quite frankly it's not well written.
Hay did not "advocate for NAMBLA" in particular. He made three known public statements in support of NAMBLA: the conference speech; the LA Pride parade sign; and the refusal to participate in Stonewall 25. In two of those three statements, the two parades, his statement was not limited to NAMBLA. This is all documented and sourced in the article. As much as some would like to paint Hay as some champion of NAMBLA, the supporting evidence for such an assertion does not exist. No one is denying Hay's NAMBLA connections; they are simply not placing it at the core of his identity the way that some editors seem to wish it had been.
If you have questions about Hay's Native American scholarship, I suggest you read Hay and Roscoe's book Radically Gay and Timmons's book The Trouble with Harry Hay, each of which discuss Hay's Native American studies along with his activism in support of Native American causes during his time living in New Mexico. That is an aspect of his life that could benefit from expansion.
Instead of hostility and accusations, why not try working with interested parties to develop the lede (which is too short in any event) so that it serves as a true and accurate article summary, and perhaps work to improve the rest of the article too? 70.226.170.138 (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. Hay's involvement as a "teacher" was in political activities, thus, claiming he was a "teacher" is subversive bias. Claiming that I know nothing about Hay's life is nonsense. I have only used legitimate sources. Hay did cultivate the concept that lesbians, gays, bisexuals and later transsexuals were a culture that should not assimilate.24.23.171.236 (talk) FYI, Hay did advocate for NAMBLA - what would call marching for NAMBLA? Moreover, highlighting Hay's activities in the Communist Party or in studying Native-American rituals is historically marginal. His importance is mostly symbolic, which is why people have attempted to embellish the details of his life and marginalize any controversies. This article should be tagged for neutrality, because the use of "teacher" is not sourced and is clearly a synth argument based on original research.24.23.171.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC). Some have tried to downplay Hay's support for NAMBLA, because there were only a few public instances where he voiced support. Yet, conversely, some have tried to highlight activities that also had few public instances where he voiced support, such as the CPUSA. His involvement with the CPUSA was mostly "underground" or out of sight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.171.236 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

To Administrator: As the commenter has demonstrated, the use of the word "teacher" is subversive bias. The writer has claimed that Hay was a teacher because of his work in the Communist Party, when Hay is already listed as a "labor advocate." Thus, "teacher" and "labor advocate" is double-dipping, because both titles are relative to the same work; work as a propagandist (literal sense of the word), thus, claiming that Hay was a teacher because he disseminated propaganda is, again, an affront to the true profession of teaching. Hay's study of Native-American rituals does not qualify Hay a teacher, but nothing more than a student. If anything, the Radical Faeries could be considered a new religious movement or a cult. The lede should be reverted to one included at the beginning of this discussion, and that attempts to revert back to the current lede by the responder should result in a Block.24.23.171.236 (talk)24.23.171.236 (talk)

The use of the phrase "subversive bias" is idiotic. The man taught classes in classrooms and educational centers for decades. You discount his decades of teaching, which led directly to the formulation of his ideas on homosexuality as a cultural minority and to the ideas that led him to co-found radical Faeries, out of either willful ignorance or your own bias that calling someone who taught classes in classrooms and education centers for decades a "teacher" is degrading to teachers. Unless you sat in on Hay's courses, you're in no position to label them "disseminating propaganda" and your use of the word "propaganda" demonstrates your own incredible bias with complete clarity. Hay's teaching was not limited to Native American culture, and saying that it was clearly demonstrates that you have done little or no research into his life and activities. Calling Hay's involvement with Marxism and the CPUSA, which persisted for decades and informed literally every aspect of his life including his decision to marry and adopt children, as the equivalent of his three documented instances of offering any sort of public support to NAMBLA (all of which are already fully covered and cited to reliable sources) is an incredible display of ignorance and another clear indicator that you have no clue what Hay's life was about. Calling his CPUSA involvement "underground and out of sight" displays a stunning ignorance about the history of he United States in the 1940s and 50s and also a complete lack of knowledge of Hay's activities during that time frame.
I don't know what giant bug crawled up your nether regions about this article, but get it clear that you don't own it. You don't get to unilaterally dictate what does and does not get included. Your childish tantrums and demands mark you as someone who has no interest in working within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to develop consensus. It is your stubborn attitude and foolish actions that should warrant a block, not the good faith efforts of several editors to accommodate a tantrum-throwing brat. 76.204.102.102 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And from a purely stylistic standpoint, it is completely against WP style to introduce things like "considered an icon of the sexual revolution" in the lead paragraph when they are not discussed anywhere else in the article. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article as a whole, not a place where information that is nowhere else in the article is included. Instead of plopping it into the lead, please use the supposed source and develop the legacy section. 76.204.102.102 (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, I question whether a single page in a several thousand page multi-volume work is a sufficient peg upon which to hang a claim of iconography. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing and given that the sourcing that's out there doesn't describe Hay in such lofty terms it's a violation of neutrality to start off the entire article with "Harry Hay is considered a cultural icon" or words to that effect. 76.204.102.102 (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Next step

I think there are two parties in the above discussion. If that is the case, then a lightweight process to apply is to ask for a third opinion at WP:3O. I suggest one of the parties do so.
Though I'm an admin I would consider myself involved having contributed here in the past, though if there were no strong objection it might be an idea to semi-protect the article for a time (if there were objections then a request can go to WP:RPP for someone uninvolved to make a decision on protection). Any objections? Fæ (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to your setting up semi-protection. I would like to continue to work with all of the interested parties to develop a lead section that is appropriate for the article and I'm not sure that can happen in an atmosphere that allows at-will changes by any party regardless of where people are in the consensus-building process. 76.204.102.102 (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggested new lead

In hopes of resolving this ongoing issue, I've finally gotten around to doing something I've been meaning to do, expand the lead. I'd like to propose the following draft:

Henry "Harry" Hay, Jr. (April 7, 1912 – October 24, 2002) was a labor advocate, teacher and early leader in the American LGBT rights movement. He is known for his roles in helping to found several gay organizations, including the Mattachine Society, the first sustained gay rights group in the United States.

Hay was exposed early in life to the principles of Marxism and to the idea of same-sex sexual attraction. He drew upon these experiences to develop his view of homosexuals as a cultural minority. A long time member of the Communist Party USA, Hay's Marxist history led to his resignation from the Mattachine leadership in 1953. Hay's involvement in the gay movement became more informal after that, although he did co-found the Los Angeles chapter of the Gay Liberation Front in 1969. Following a move to New Mexico with his longtime companion John Burnside in 1970, Hay's ongoing interest in Native American spirituality led the couple to co-found the Radical Faeries.

Hay's belief in the cultural minority status of homosexuals led him to take a stand against assimilationism. This stance led to his public support of controversial groups like the North American Man-Boy Love Association and to criticize both the mainstream gay rights movement and some of the movement's radical components, including the AIDS activist group ACT UP.

Hay died on October 24, 2002, following a series of illnesses.

I think this addresses the majority of the concerns with the exception of the "calling him a teacher is an insult to teachers" business that I can't begin to acknowledge as legitimate. It covers his early life and influences, his various occupations, his longtime romantic life and his anti-assimilationsim, including incorporating NAMBLA into the lead in a balanced way. If this meets with consensus then I'll swap it in for the existing lead (or ask a registered user to do it if the article ends up protected). Please comment on this draft. Thanks. 76.204.102.102 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes Made to Lead

I feel insulted by the idea that I have refused to engage in discussion. I have made numerous attempts to engage in discussion, as you can see in the Discussion history. Yet, I have ignored. I have not ignored you. Someone continued to insist on referring to Hay as a "teacher" because of his involvement in the Communist Party. I have added citations that are removed; I repaired the vandalism and have accused of engaging in an "edit war." The original lead rambled on about Harry Hay, lacked citations, included trivia and few relevant facts, and vague generalities. I have once again updated the lead in order to give a concise opening lead that provides a clear overview of Hay's life.24.23.171.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

What you have once again done is ignore the good faith efforts of more than one editor to build a consensus. You have further demonstrated your complete and utter failure to grasp WP:LEAD along with your irrational bias around the word "teacher". Your repeated screeds about "propaganda" and your refusal to accept that someone who spent two decades teaching classes on a variety of subjects in classrooms throughout Los Angeles is reasonably called a "teacher". You have leveled false accusations of vandalism. No one hear has ignored you. What they have done is try to work with you despite your increasing hostility and irrationality.
The "original lead" incompletely summarized the information that was included in the article. It did not include meaningless crap like how he supposedly played the organ in some temple or extraordinary claims about his supposed status as an icon of the Sexual Revolution. It did not attempt to push a point of view about Hay's supposed significance to the gay movement and then label anyone who sought to be neutral about the man and his life as filthy propagandists.
We have bent over backwards trying to come to some accommodation, only to have you respond with rudeness and hostility. I see little reason to continue treating you with any measure of respect, but will continue to do so anyway. What I will not do is allow to stand poorly sourced, misplaced, overblown claims because you feel like throwing an extended temper tantrum. 76.204.95.105 (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I'm not sure this is going to be a full fledged third opinion, but I saw it there and have checked this out. I am not happy with the suggested lead

Henry "Harry" Hay, Jr. (April 7, 1912 – October 24, 2002) is considered a cultural icon and an early leader in the Sexual Revolution,[1] because of Hay's role in the American LGBT rights movement by writing "The Call" and defining the LGBT movement as a cultural identity, amongst other acts. Later in life however, Hay became a controversial advocate of anti-assimilation, specifically advocating against the exclusion of the North American Man-Boy Love Association from the LGBT movement. Drawing on his background as a labor advocate in the Communist Party USA, Hay co-founded the Mattachine Society in 1950, which is the first enduring LGBT rights organization in the United States. Following his ouster from Mattachine leadership in 1953, Hay largely withdrew from organized LGBT activism until the late 1970s. Hay would then study radical homosexuality, non-conformity, neopaganism, and Native-American rituals in the American Southwest. In 1979, Hay and his life-long companion, John Burnside, co-founded the Radical Faeries.

The reference to "The Call" is incomprehensible to someone not familiar with LGBT history; I had never heard of it; I don't think we have an article. It might be replaced with something like "He was one of the first people to call for political organization of homosexuals." As to "cultural identity" versus "cultural minority" as in "Hay did not view homosexuality as a cultural identity. He viewed homosexuals as a cultural minority. These are not synonymous." I wonder what either means and what language Hays used. Saving now and see if either are blue links. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC) That takes you to questions of identity politics with identity having connotations of assimilation, at least "according to Wikipedia". Hays seems to have had a cultural approach. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to do more tomorrow. I've left the notice requesting a third opinion up in the hope that someone more informed than I will come along. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources very specifically talk about Hay's concept of homosexuals as a cultural minority as separate and distinct from the concept of homosexuality as a cultural identity. A major source, the book Radically Gay (ironically, cited by the other party to this dispute but apparently much misunderstood by hir) holds as its central tenet that Hay's thesis of homosexuals as a cultural minority is what made homosexuality as a cultural identity possible. I make no statement about the validity of that claim; I merely offer it as evidence that Hay saw the two things as separate and so the article should not use them interchangeably. 76.204.97.22 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Current lead should be reverted to sourced material

Once again, valid and sourced information was removed and replaced with synthetic statements that lack sources.

That "meaningless crap" as you stated came directly from his biography, "The Trouble With Harry Hay," by Stuart Timmons, who spent significant time with Hay in interviews. It was included because Hay was known as a musician and dancer; both of which were part of his persona.

I had removed the final sentence which expounded on his relationship with John Burnside, when it was only necessary to state, "lifelong partner."

No one has "bent over backwards" to respond to my additions. You have met my reasonable additions with hostility. I have attempted to write a lead which reflects the complexity of Hay's life without subversive biases to skewer his legacy.

The Radical Faeries were a borderline "new religion" - Hay clearly saw his life in spiritual terms, which is why it is relevant to add his experience in the Agape Temple back in the 1930s. It is you who continues to deny his identity.24.23.171.236 (talk) (edit conflict)

Once again, you demonstrate that you do not understand the concept of consensus or WP:LEAD. To state it yet again, the lead should serve as a summary of the article as a whole. It should not present extraordinary claims and it should not include information that does not appear elsewhere in the article. Because the lead is a re-statement of information that appears in the article, the citations within the article generally serve to source it and separate citations within the lead itself are generally not needed.

Objections to statements like "Harry Hay is considered an early leader of the Sexual Revolution" when the statement is sourced to a single page of a multi-volume work have been raised and, rather than try to address those objections, your response has been to restore the statement while denigrating the work and opinions of other editors. I further object to the inclusion in the lead of statements like "In the 1930s, Hay would play the organ in the Gnostic Mass for the Agape Lodge" (which does not appear to be in the source you claim for it and even if it were constitutes an inconsequential aspect of Hay's life) and "The Mattachine Society would influence the Gay Liberation Front; the group founded after the Stonewall Riots in 1969" (which is not specifically supported by the citation you offer and is inaccurate, given that the GLF rejected much of what Mattachine had to offer following Stonewall as too timid). Timmons's statement about the Radical Faeries would be fine within the body of the article.

Your attitude from the start has been reprehensible. Your response to anyone who disagrees with you is to call them biased and propagandists. You label changes that you dislike as "vandalism".

I have no interest or agenda here, other than to present information about Harry Hay in a neutral, balanced fashion. Your agenda appears to be to exalt Harry Hay with neopagan idolatry.

I have requested a third opinion, as suggested by another editor elsewhere on this page. I hope, should the third opinion disagree with your actions, that you will finally start to accept that this is a consensus-based project and that hostility toward other editors is not helpful. 76.204.95.105 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I raised a request on WP:RPP for someone uninvolved to add semi-protection which has been done for a week. Again, I suggest that Third opinion might be a way forward here. Fæ (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What "extraordinary claims" were made? It was an extraordinary claim to refer to Harry Hay as a "teacher" for his activism in the Communist Party. The only information provided came from his BIOGRAPHER. The quote from Counter Punch is from Stuart Timmons, whom spent many hours with Hay in writing the biography, "The Trouble with Harry Hay."

It goes without saying that Hay was a "labor advocate," when it is stated that he was a prominent activist in the Communist Party, which is true. "Prominent activist" is objective; "teacher" is not.

My intent was to write a lead paragraph that indicated Hay's historical relevance, his identity, but also the controversies around him. Instead the lead is now a garbled mess.

Harry Hay and the Mattachine Society are widely considered important components in the "free love" movement of the 1960s, aka the "sexual revolution." The statement about Hay came from an encyclopedia, because Hay's role in the "sexual revolution" is widely considered to be common knowledge or, just a fact; because the Mattachine Society was instrumental in reforming laws against homosexuality.

I added that Hay wrote "The Call" and cultivated the notion that homosexuality is a "cultural identity" because of the insistence on referring to Hay as, "teacher." I had presumed that that is why people wanted to refer to him as a "teacher." It was more precise and factual to say what he was: an activist and leader in the, "sexual revolution."

Clearly, the writer wanted to indicate Hay's role in the Stonewall Riots, thus I wrote that the Mattachine Society influenced the Gay Liberation Front, which is true; even if the GLF rejected views of the Mattachine Society, GLF was still influenced and encouraged to "come out" because of Mattachine. Again, I presumed that was the reason for the insistence on the word "teacher." I removed the run-on sentence about Harry Hay coming out of obscurity for the Stonewall Riots, because it provided no factual information, but merely a vague claim that was not sourced.

It was clear that people wanted to emphasize Hay's persona, by expounding on his relationship with John Burnside. Instead, I included the fact that Hay was a skilled dancer and musician. Hay learned music and to dance on encouragement from his mother, in opposition to his father; which fostered his rebellion against the social norms of the day.

If anything, music and dance is what the term "teacher" should be related too.

Hay defended NAMBLA and parted-ways with the mainline of the LGBT movement, which is a significant decision in his role in the LGBT movement.

I added Hay's involvement with the Agape Lodge, because it's true. It relates to his experiences as a youth and rebellion against his dad, family privilege, society, and the Catholic Church; all of which were important components to his views. It would also foreshadow the formation of the Radical Faeries in New Mexico. Apparently however, some people think that Hay's background experience (which influenced his world view) is "meaningless crap."

Some people wanted to expand the information about the Radical Faeries. In reading the Wikipedia page about the Radical Faeries, it is clear that the the Faeries were based on Native-American rituals, "neopaganism" (their word, not mine), non-conformity and radical homosexuality.

None of which are "extraordinary claims," when many of the books about Harry Hay view him as a radical, such as "Radically Gay."

It is clear to me that several people have no interest in writing an objective lead with relevant information; no statements by me made were invalid or irrelevant. Biased and territorial writers are why my additions have been removed and replaced with embellishments, trivia, vague statements, subversive bias, and unsourced claims. In other words "extraordinary claims." It is an "extraordinary claim" to claim that a lead based on relevant facts is, "extraordinary."

Ironically, I have tried to write a lead that emphasized Hay's historical relevance. Some writers - who are clearly protective of Hay - have reduced him to a trivial footnote24.23.171.236 (talk)

The extraordinary claim, as I have noted several times already, is that Hay is "considered a cultural icon and an early leader in the Sexual Revolution" which you are making, inappropriately in the lead, based on a single page of a several thousand page multi-volume work. I have read several dozen sources on Harry Hay, from full-length books to chapters to newspaper articles and have yet to see one that describes him in such terms. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources and a single page doesn't cut it.

It does not "go without saying" that Hay was a labor advocate because the lead is supposed to serve as a summary of the article. "Prominent" is by its very definition subjective. "Teacher" is objective because there are independent reliable sources that discuss Hay's teaching career in detail.

The lead as it now stands is not "a garbled mess". It is a summary of the aricle, which is what a lead is supposed to be. If you object to the lead as written, then work with the editors trying to improve the article. You have been asked, begged to work with other editors and your response has been hostility and false accusations.

Mattachine is most certainly not considered to be an important component of the free love movement of the 1960s according to any reliable source that I have ever read. Mattachine never advocated free love. Mattachine was not instrumental in reforming laws against homosexuality. "Common knowledge" is not the standard for including something in Wikipedia. Independent reliable sources is.

The writer clearly did not want to indicate Hay's role in the Stonewall riots because Hay had no role in the Stonewall riots, being some 3,000 miles away at the time.

People want to refer to Hay as a teacher because he spent over two decades of his life teaching.

Hay did not "part ways" with the mainstream homophile movement because of NAMBLA. Hay parted ways with the mainstream homophile movement because of the differences in vision between the founders of Mattachine (the Fifth Order) and Mattachine's rank-and-file. This happened several decades before NAMBLA existed. Hay's relationship to NAMBLA is stated clearly in the lead and stated in appropriate detail in the article, with citations in the body of the article where they belong.

Hay's dancing and musicianship are discussed in the body of the article, but Hay was not generally known as a dancer or musician. Thus it does not belong in the lead.

As noted, the Timmons quote would be great in the body of the article, but not in the lead, which in general should not include citations because they are almost always redundant to citation in the body of the article.

If you have independent reliable sources that discuss how Hay's playing the organ at OTO (which is what the source says, by the way, not "Agape Lodge") related to the things you claim, then by all means add the information to the article with proper citation. The sources I've read don't indicate that Hay was particularly affected by OTO, considering how he openly mocked them by slipping choruses of "Yes, We Have No Bananas" and "Barnacle Bill the Sailor" into the middle of masses.

Please stop throwing yourself one pity party after another and whinging about "subversive bias" and how virtuous you are and how awful the rest of us are. This talk page is positively littered with requests that you work with your fellow editors and you have repeatedly refused. 99.153.133.156 (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you would object to such characterization of Hay as a leader in the free-love movement, yet insist on wanting to call him a "teacher." I simply tried to give context and relevance to why people view him as a "teacher." You're claiming that it is an "extraordinary claim," to say that Hay was an early leader - when he co-founded the first enduring advocacy group of LGBT rights (first makes it early). I never said he was the only leader. Many people from the 1960s like the idea that what they were doing was revolutionary.

Again, I added the notion about "cultural identity" because Hay did advocate that idea. He might have been the first or only one, but again, I presumed that was the reason for insistence on the word, "teacher."

"Sexual revolution" is a term used to describe various events in the 1950s-1970s to describe legal reforms, studies, and political movements relative to sex. Such as Alfred Kinsey, Playboy Magazine, the legalization of contraceptives, Stonewall Riots, Harvey Milk's election, Roe v. Wade, Loving v. Virginia, and yes, the Mattachine Society. Legal reforms are still on-going, but historically speaking, those are considered water-shed moments.

The generic definition of "Agape" is unconditional or divine love. If anything, it would be apropos to refer to Hay as a "guru" and not a "teacher," because the definition of, "guru," is subjective.

Nevertheless, you never discussed your issues with the source about Hay's role in the "Sexual revolution." You merely deleted it, along with other material sourced from "The Trouble With Harry Hay" written by his biographer, Stuart Timmons. Your complaint does not justify your deletions.24.23.171.236 (talk)

I object to the characterization of Hay as a leader of the free love movement because of the dozens of sources I have read about Hay, not a single one of them describes him in such terms. Whereas any number of them discuss the decades he spent as a teacher. People view him as a teacher not because of his supposed role in the sexual revolution but because he taught classes for well over twenty years.

Whatever your personal unsourced definition of "sexual revolution" might be, taking that definition and applying it to Hay because he did things that in your opinion fit your definition is unacceptable. There need to be reliable sources.

Of the "water-shed" moments you mention, Harry Hay was involved in exactly one of them, the formation of Mattachine. The fact still remains that Mattachine did not advocate "free love" and reliable sources do not identify Mattachine's formation as part of the "sexual revolution".

The generic definition of "Agape" is irrelevant. You made a specific claim and cited it to a source. The source does not support your specific claim.

I have explained in exhaustive detail why I believe the lead you proffered is inappropriate for this article. Your claims to the contrary do not change reality. 76.204.97.22 (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In regards to use of the word "teacher," - I asked several times for sources, yet no sources were provided. Thus, I went ahead and removed it, but tried to consider the spirit of why it was included in the first place.

Again, that's why I added that Hay had written, "The Call," because that at least provided something factual to indicate as to how he taught, and again, that's why I added the fact that Hay was a skilled dancer and musician. If Hay taught anything, it was rebellion against society (family, behavior, church, privilege) through music, dance, and his writings.

I understand the WP Lead should summarize the article as a whole, which is the reason I edited it in the first place. The lead included nothing about Hay's decision to part from the mainline LGBT movement and defend NAMBLA. Instead, the lead had embellished rubbish about Hay's involvement in the Stonewall riots, which is contrary to the section about Anti-assimilation.

As writers have stated, the views of the GLF differed significantly from Mattachine. As you have stated, Hay was involved in only one aspect of what I defined as "sexual revolution" - that being, the Mattachine Society. Thus, including the line about the Stonewall riots in the lead is misleading.

The fact that people "consider" Hay to be a teacher does not meet the criteria needed to qualify the statement as factual, thus it does not belong in the lead. Instead, the perception of Hay as a "teacher" should be under the section about his legacy and should be qualified as saying that Hay is considered by many to be a, "teacher."

Instead, I was told that the classes he taught were within the Communist Party, thus calling Hay a "teacher" for disseminating propaganda is, well, propaganda and incendiary.

I was also told that Hay should be called a "teacher" because of his scholarship of Native-American history and rituals, yet no sources were provided to prove that ever taught in an official capacity. Instead, I wrote in the lead that Hay was a scholar of Native-American rituals, and then elaborated on the purpose of the Radical Faeries.

I realize that Hay was involved in only the Mattachine Society, so thank you for validating my deletion of the run on sentence about Hay returning to the scene for the Stonewall riots. Again, Hay has been an icon to the gay community, regardless of whether they agree with everything he believed. And again, the LGBT rights movement, generically, has been part of the, "sexual revolution." And again, Hay co-founded the first "enduring" LGBT rights group, the Mattachine Society. Thus, it is apropos to consider Hay in the context of the, "sexual revolution." "Sexual revolution" can be applied to various, yet disparate events, reforms, and studies that related or relate to sex.24.23.171.236 (talk)

Hay's teaching career was and is sourced within the body of the article, where it's supposed to be. His being a teacher is a factual statement since he went into classrooms all across Los Angeles for over twenty years, continuing after his expulsion from CPUSA, and taught classes. That his teaching was based in Marxism does not disqualify him from being called a teacher because reliable sources refer to him as a teacher because he taught. Your phony "propaganda" label has been refuted any number of times already so I won't waste any more time refuting it again. The "run on sentence" to which you refer never said that Hay "return[ed] to the scene for the Stonewall riots". It read "Hay largely withdrew from organized LGBT activism until the late 1970s although he continued to participate in the movement informally and following the 1969 Stonewall riots became involved in a local Gay Liberation Front chapter."

No one has said or suggested that considering Hay in the context of the sexual revolution is not appropriate for the article. Indeed, if reliable sources exist that discuss his status as such, then I would be very interested in reading them. What has been objected to is the inclusion in the lead of a statement that Hay is considered an icon of the sexual revolution only to not have this supposed status discussed anywhere else in the article, and sourcing that rather grand statement to a single page of a multi-volume work. Your explanation above for why you want him called an icon of the sexual revolution is classic original research by synthesis. Gay groups are part of the sexual revolution, Hay founded a gay group, therefore Hay is an icon of the sexual revolution. It doesn't work that way. There need to be reliable sources that support each of those contentions and of the many sources I've read about Mattachine not one of them identifies them as significant to the sexual revolution.

I find it ironic that you rail against calling Hay a teacher based on your (incorrect) viewpoint that it's because some people consider him to have been one yet you have no problem submitting "Harry Hay is considered a cultural icon" as the first words of the article. 76.201.158.49 (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hay taught Marxist theory and folk-music at the "People's Educational Center," and the source is from Stuart Timmons. How ironic. Once again, you are delusional because you're proving my points, when you think that you are refuting me. In the lead, I added that Hay was a skilled "dancer and musician," which relates to his work in Hollywood and the PEC.

I made additions about the Agape Lodge and a quotation from Timmons about the Radical Faeries, yet both were deleted. I removed the line about Hay having been with John Burnside until Hay's death, because it is inaccurate to suggest that Hay and Burnside were exclusive. Hay had other partners, such as Rudi Gernreich.

A claim is made that Hay taught in the "Los Angeles area," when the only venue cited was related to a political party, and thus, it is "propaganda" in the original sense of the word, meaning, "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect."

Propaganda is not necessarily false; it can also relate to information that is cherry-picked for the advancement of a political cause and does not present the other side. Nevertheless, disseminating political ideas is not tantamount to being a, "teacher." A teacher would be someone who seeks objectivity by presenting both sides. I highly doubt that Hay ever presented both sides, and there's no reason to err on the side doubt, when his "teachings" were relative to political activism.

Again, I added that Hay cultivated the idea of homosexuals being a cultural identity or minority, because it was derived from Stalinist theory. Thus, it is appropriate to state that Hay cultivated that idea, if his teachings were related to Communist theories.

The first sentence says that Hay was a, "labor advocate and a teacher" which, we now know, is tautological because both are related mostly to his days in the CPUSA. It's saying the same thing twice. It would be apropos to replace both terms with, "political activist," or "prominent activist." Alternatively, "teacher" should be qualified as, "Hay taught courses on Marxist theory and folk-music at the People's Educational Center."

I should add that "folk music" was often used as a political tool, and in this case, I see no reason to believe that Hay would present an objective overview of folk-music. It is not appropriate to insinuate that Hay was an objective, "teacher." Instead, it should be stated that Hay was a skilled dancer and musician; both of which are forms of entertainment, which does present a cohesive view of Hay, because Hay was prominent in the Hollywood entertainment industry. 24.23.171.236 (talk)

Quoting from your beloved Timmons: "He was sent to teach all over the Los Angeles basin — Maywood, Hawthorne, El Segundo, Redondo." It is perfectly appropriate to call Hay a teacher because he was a friggin' teacher. "Labor advocate" and "teacher" are not synonyms. The idea that it's somehow bad to say "Hay was a teacher" but it's OK to say that he "taught classes" is colossally, monumentally stupid. He taught classes but he wasn't a teacher? Base idiocy. Your claims about what material Hay did or did not teach in his classes is unsupported by reliable sources and is unacceptable original research. Regardless, there is no requirement that a teacher maintain some mythical standard of "objectivity" to be a teacher so however objective Hay was or wasn't is irrelevant.

Again quoting from Timmons: "Sometimes the kids from the Filth and Famine League would go hear Harry play the organ at the Los Angeles lodge of the Order of the Eastern Temple, or O.T.O, Aleister Crowley's notorious anti-Christian spiritual group." Timmons does not use the words "Agape Temple" or "Agape lodge" or Agape anything so citing a statement about the "Agape lodge" to Timmons is absolutely unacceptable. The assertion that Hay's playing for O.T.O. had any effect on him whatsoever other than garnering him a paycheck is not supported by Timmons and any claims made about it that are not supported by reliable sources are unacceptable original research.

Hay was with Rudi Gernreich from 1950 to 1952. He was with John Burnside from 1963 (eleven years after Gernreich broke up with Hay) until 2002 and their relationship was only ended by Hay's death. How you could possibly have a problem with the factual statement that Hay and Burnside were together until Hay's death is beyond me. You're the one who's drawing an inference from that statement. The statement itself makes no implication about the exclusivity or not of the relationship.

Hay was not "prominent in the Hollywood entertainment industry". He was a failed film actor who moved into agitprop theater when he was unable to secure steady work in movies.

As had been said once already, the quote from Timmons about the Faeries would be a fine addition to the body of the article, but it is inappropriate for the lead. You could just add it to the body of the article. Your refusal to do so indicates to me that you are not actually interested in working to improve this article but would instead prefer to complain and moan about imagined slights and fictitious propaganda. 76.201.158.49 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)