Talk:Harvey Milk/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
first openly ...
I'm completely new to Wikipedia and it's going to take me a while to figure out the editing features. In the meantime, could someone please help me fix the first paragraph of the Harvey Milk article? The Time magazine reference is quoted accurately, but Time was factually incorrect.
Harvey Bernard Milk (22 May 1930 – 27 November 1978) was an American politician and gay rights activist, and the first openly gay city supervisor of San Francisco, California.[1] He was, according to Time magazine, "the first openly gay man elected to any substantial political office in the history of the planet."
I would just like to add a parenthetical note along the lines of: "Time was wrong. At least three openly lesbian or gay officials had been elected to office prior to Milk. In 1975 Elaine Noble[link] was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives, Kathy Kozachenko[link] was elected to the Ann Arbor City Council in Michigan, and Allan Spears[link] ran successfully for the Minnesota legislature. Spears held office for 28 years, eventually serving 8 years as President of the Minnesota Senate." Smartypants211 (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Smartypants211
- I'll look into into it. Banjeboi 09:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually they got it right. first openly gay man is accurate as those two women, of course, are not men and Allan Spear came out after being elected. "First elected in 1972, Spear came out publicly in 1974 after feeling "lousy" for staying silent about his sexuality during the debate for an antidiscrimination bill." Banjeboi 09:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Sipple section
| “ | On September 22 1975 former marine Oliver Sipple saved the life of President Gerald Ford, for which he was highly praised by law enforcement and the media but only a personal letter from the President instead of a visit to the White House.[1][2] Sipple, who was closeted in his hometown of Detroit had met Milk back in New York and had participated in San Francisco's gay pride parades and gay rights demonstrations.[2][3] The incident came just three weeks after Lynette Fromme's assassination attempt on Ford so reporters hounded Sipple who at first didn't want his name used, nor his location known.[2] Sipple had worked on Milk's campaign and the two were friends, Sipple would also be later described as a "prominent figure" in the gay community who had worked in a gay bar and was active in the Imperial Court System.[4][5] Milk, however, reportedly outed Sipple as a "gay hero" to San Francisco Chronicle's columnist Herb Caen in hopes to "break the stereotype of homosexuals" of being "timid, weak and unheroic figures".[3][4] Gay liberation groups petitioned local media to give Sipple his due as a gay hero. Caen published the private side of the former Marine's story, as did a handful of other publications.[4] Sipple then insisted to reporters that his sexuality was to be kept confidential.[2] Later, when Sipple hid in a friend's apartment to avoid them, the reporters turned to Milk, arguably the most visible voice for the gay community.[2] The reporters had already labeled Sipple the "gay ex-Marine" and his conservative Baptist mother disparaged and disowned him when she found out about his sexuality.[5] Milk's precise role in the outing remain somewhat cloudy as Sipple's active participation in the gay community suggests that his sexuality would have been revealed and reported even if doing so was seen as unethical.[5] | ” |
This section seems to violate undue as outlined in the recent RfC, trim it down and move relevant content to the Sipple article. Banjeboi 12:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Was there an RfC on the Sipple material? I think the material could be trimmed by 1/3 to 1/2 and be just as encyclopedic by eliminating unnecessary detail and commentary like "arguably the most visible voice for the gay community" and "Milk's precise role in the outing remain somewhat cloudy"...that whole last sentence is rather unencyclopedic opinion and analysis. The event does seem rather notable, though. Milk's primary legacy is as an icon and proponent of gay rights, so his outing of a famous person seems relevant on the substance - and it has also gotten quite a bit of press, to confirm that it does deserve some weight. Wikidemo (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree and the silver lining in the Peoples Temple saga is that I've pretty much stopped all other work on the article including trimming and reinserting this section. The break has given me time to simply step back a bit and have fresher eyes to re-read sources and content. Once the Peoples Temple issue is resolved, on this article at least, I'll resume and the Sipple content is first on the list. Banjeboi 05:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Please Stop Edit-Warring
| This discussion has been collapsed. | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benjiboi: you have again deleted the entire section. This edit warring lead to the entire page being locked for 2 days before. This time, the section you deleted wholesale was only a 1 sentence summary and a link to the main article on political alliances, as discussed above in the prior long section. This one sentence is the ONLY mention at all of Milk's support of Jones. You are now literally deleting every single mention of the matter at all. If you wish to gain consensus on such a deletion of sourced now very summary (literally 1 sentence) material, please do so. It is most certainly not even arguably "UNDUE" by any stretch of the imagination in its current 1 sentence form. To be blunt, it wasn't before either, but the continued edit warring just wore everyone else who weighed in on the topic down and I don't really have the patience to continue some bizarre edit-war on the matter. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Re "Right there we dismiss the concept that Milk solely supported Jones. " ->Again, no one is saying that Milk solely supported Jones or the Temple. That is nowhere in the article. In fact, the new breakout article makes it very clear that Milk was one of a number of persons to support Jones and the Temple. You've continued (repeatedly) to try to make additions/deletions a matter of defending/attacking Milks character/reasons when the article does not even venture into these waters. This is an encyclopedic presentation of events, not a puff or attack piece. Re "The issue of the letter is not to "extricate relatives" but to deal with Timothy Stoen and the child that Jim Jones had by Stoen's wife" -> Interesting you should take Jones side of the dispute -- Jones claimed he was the father -- but the article doesn't state that the letter is to "extricate relatives." Rather, it states that Milk attacked the leader of the Concerned Relatives attempting to extricate those relatives. In fact, Stoen actually wanted to go before CONGRESS on behalf of the Concerned Relatives to testify on the matter, and it is here that Milk stated that Stoen should not spread his "apparent bold-faced lies." I actually didn't elaborate on this in the Milk article because of you repeated edit-warring over frankly now laughable claims of "undue weight." The letter is quite clear.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: "What you know to be true about Timothy Stoen is unlikely to be swayed by a wikipedia article but neither is an article to be swayed simply by what you know. We go by what is reliably sourced. The Raven book now seems to be the one source so could you please provide a word-for-word quote as that book is out of print and online verifiability seems unlikely."' ---> First, we don't even go into the background of Tim Stoen's custody dispute in this article, so I have no idea why you'd want to go into it. Second, Raven isn't the only book on the topic, it was covered in detail in literally hundreds of books and newspaper articles. Re "Its seems completely unnotable that Milk spoke at political rallies at the church - so what? This only shows that he was either trying to get elected or was doing his job. If we include it then there's no reason to include the dozens if not hundreds of other venues where he also spoke at political rallies." ---> This take, if made in good faith, sees rather incredible. The Peoples Temple turned out to be one of the most notorious American civilian organizations in history. Please read the article about it. Speaking at rallies there is notable simply as is the history of any other figure speaking at the rally of other notorious organizations. And Milk's speaking at political rallies there is literally limited to SIX WORDS in the Milk article: "Milk spoke at Peoples Temple political rallies" Re "'extricate relatives' is plural, Milk's letter concerned one child and characterizing it as an attack is quite unencyclopedic." ---> This makes zero sense. In fact, the article doesn't say Milk was against the extrication of any relatives, much less one (or still less, plural). Rather, it says he attacked Tim Stoen, "the leader of the group attempting to extricate relatives". Stoen is famous for having led the "Concerned Relatives" group attempting to extricate relatives -- plural -- of several of the groups' members from Jonestown. This was the subject of what Stoen wished to speak about before Congress. As to the title "Peoples Temple investigestion" it is because this section is devoted to Milk's support of the Temple, especially during the investigation. This is different than Jones support of Milk during the 1975 election, which has by the way been entirely deleted from the Milk article. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of this commentary is rather stunning given the history of this section as evidenced in the prior Talk. Examples of support of the Temple after the 1977 investigations started is, just to name two examples, his attendance with Agnos at the post-exodus August 1977 Temple rally and the February 19, 1978 Carter letter. Both of which are sourced in the article and in the separate article now linked. None of this is in any way in factually in dispute, by the way. This is simply a lie: "because it was held in their church and the only answer Mosedschurte offers is that the Peoples Temple was later disreputable. " I said it was because they were notorious -- the Peoples Temple engineered the largest loss of American civilian life (outside natural disasters) until 9-11. Thus, like any other political figure, speaking at their rallies is notable, to severely understate the matter. And to be clear, it is a whopping six word mention in Board of Supervisor member Harvey Milk's article as is: "Milk spoke at Peoples Temple political rallies" That's it. Re: "The "Carter" letter is being used poorly as well." If by quoting it directly word-for-word you mean "used poorly", then yes. I wouldn't have a problem with more elaboration At this point, with the entire section now cut to a one sentence fully sourced NPOV summary, the quality of these generated complaints in this seemingly never-ending campaign are becoming rather silly. Frankly, I can guarantee that quoting more of the letter would run into even more objections from you. For example, this is word-for-word the entire concluding paragraph of the letter:
Note that this is not even in the Milk article. Mosedschurte (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Mosedschurte (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Re This sure makes Milk speaking at their political rallies seem not notable. You keep asserting this, but it's certainly not convincing given the notariety of the Peoples Temple. The argument simply that its not notable because its a political speech and that "that's what politicians do" is hardly convincing, to say the least. In any event, there is zero expansion of the point in the article as is. It merely notes that Milk spoke at Temple political rallies. It's 6 words. Re The Carter letter details how Jones had recognition of the Board of Supervisors and the California Senate. This sure makes Milk speaking at their political rallies seem not notable. Regarding the first sentence, of course. And, in fact, more than that. The second sentence makes absolutely zero sense following the first. Milk's support and statements re Concerned Relatives leader Stoen are notable on their own. Whether or not President Carter (or any other President) were even best friends with Jones (which they weren't). Re Piled onto that is Milk's own words - "I'll take his workers, but, that's the game Jim Jones plays" - in speaking to a campaign staffer about Jones calling to offer volunteers after Jones had already strongly backed Milk's opponent Agnos. And the previous quote about the church members being weird and dangerous so you do what they say and always thank them. I actually think these quotes are interesting and put one in the linked article. They provide potential reasons for the relationship and actions that followed. However, you keep pushing them forward as some reason why the other facts are not "notable", which logically doesn't follow. This isn't a debate about Milk's character, but rather an encyclopedic article. Re The Carter letter too was written nine months prior to the mass murder/suicide, nine months is a long time in politics and it was only a month prior that Congressman Ryan's fact-finding mission was actually happening. I have no idea what you're getting at here. In fact, I can't even construct a possible relation to which you could be inferring regarding the Ryan visit and its announcement (around November 1). As a sort of timeline, Jones and most of the Temple members had fled to Jonestown in mid-1977, after multiple media publications regarding alleged criminal and cult activities. I'm not sure what this has to do with the plans for Ryan's visit later. Re In hindsight yes, more people should have figure out what Jones was about before it was too late but Milk, like everyone else was going on the best information he had at the time. Out of context, yes, Milk sure seems guilty by association, he wrote a letter of support for a guy who helped him get his job and, at that point, still exerted a hefty amount of sway in local politics. You seem to be viewing this entire exercise as some sort of character defense/attack of Milk. I have no idea if Milk is "guilty by association" of anything at all. Nor have I come to any conclusion regarding whether he should have seen anything in hindsight. These seem like areas of debate and discussion. Not the reasons for inclusion of anything in a Wikipedia article. Re he wrote a letter of support for a guy who helped him get his job and, at that point, still exerted a hefty amount of sway in local politics. By February 1978, Jones had virtually zero sway in American politics. In fact, he had fled to Guyana half a year earlier with his entire high level staff and was in the process of attempting to sell the Temple buildings in many locations, while infrequent speeches to very few people by others continued in other buildings. I hesitate to provide information in this discussion, because it is usually just spit back at me followed by some odd entirely unrelated assertion of "undue weight" and the like, but there seems to be a timeline understanding problem. Briefly:
Re I again encourage you to consider brevity as volume isn't swaying my opinion on this. --> The "volume" was a background of information for your own benefit that I thought I would provide for context. I did this because you appeared to not know the history, thinking Jones still had significant political sway in the U.S. as late as February 1978. Note that I don't blame you for this. I thought I would provide more information on this discussion page. Re Instead of providing how you see a timeline thirty years after the events we have to write encyclopedicly on Milk's biography what he did and keep that in context. ---> This is ridiculous. I didn't provide a timeline for encyclopedic presentation in the discussion above. Nor have I suggested it for presentation in a Wikipedia article. I listed it to provide context for you since you clearly didn't know the history, thinking Jones still had significant political sway inside the United States as late as February 1978. Re The line "stating that leader Jim Jones was known as 'a man of the highest character'" is cherry-picking a quote out of a letter that seemingly is used to scandalize Milk while conveniently overlooking the extensive support spelled out in the first two paragraphs of that same source. ---> Bluntly speaking, this isn't just ridiculous, it's nonsensical. (1) The Milk section isn't about Jones' other support. It's about Milk's support. It would make zero sense to include the other portions in the letter. Re Milk... "who had spoken at political rallies at the Peoples Temple". This doesn't state he spoke at the churches rallies once they were scandalous, disreputable or notorious, to imply otherwise is misleading at best. ---> It is a virtual word-for-word quote from the San Francisco Chronicle Article: SFChronicle article: :Harvey Milk, 48, who had spoken at political rallies at the Peoples Temple" Re Please provide the direct word-for-word quotes from the Raven book to support that Milk "supported the controversial Temple during investigations of criminal wrongdoings". --->Instead of battling over the word "support", I have now changed the sentence to reflect the exact actions taken, with sources.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
- ^ http://www.lambda.net/~maximum/sipple.html "Oliver Sipple 1941-1989". Accessed May 23, 2007.
- ^ a b c d e Castañeda, Laura (2006). "News And Sexuality: Media Portraits of Diversity". Sage Publications Inc; ISBN 1412909996. Retrieved 2008-02-19.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help); templatestyles stripmarker in|publisher=at position 24 (help) - ^ a b Shilts, Randy (2005). "Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military". Macmillan; ISBN 0312342640. Retrieved 2008-02-19.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help); templatestyles stripmarker in|publisher=at position 12 (help) - ^ a b c Sadler, Roger L. (2005). "Electronic Media Law". Sage Publications Inc; ISBN 1412905885. Retrieved 2008-02-19.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help); templatestyles stripmarker in|publisher=at position 24 (help) - ^ a b c Johansson, Warren (1994). "Outing: Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence". Haworth Press; ISBN 1560244194. Retrieved 2008-02-19.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help); templatestyles stripmarker in|publisher=at position 16 (help)