Talk:Harvey Milk/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

too long

this is way too long for a san fran supervisor...it's simply an effort by the gay community to make this guy into something he was not.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.40.36 (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not as important as an entire community, just a single editor who wrote this article. However, the article reflects the weight of material written about Milk's life. And this one does not preclude you from improving the articles for George Moscone or Dianne Feinstein to match the length of this one. --Moni3 (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles can often be made better with some trimming, so it's not exactly "improving" those articles. This article is much longer than the concise and informative MLK article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.7.199 (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, which means that we serve the public best by giving them thorough, comprehensive and encyclopedic information about the subject(s). I don't understand why the MLK article is cited an example of a properly "concise" article; it (rightly) goes into depth about King's opposition to the Vietnam War and FBI wiretapping, his legacy, and many other issues. This is what the best Wikipedia articles do — and what the Harvey Milk article does well. I think the length is fine. Scartol • Tok 15:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have considered taking on the Martin Luther King article, which I consider to be much too short to do his life any justice. King's article, if you will look closely, is written taking the leads of several other articles. The section in King's article about the Birmingham campaign, for example, was taken from the Birmingham campaign lead. I wrote the Birmingham campaign article, then rewrote the lead so it would not be verbatim from another article. The sources as well in MLK's article are from GoogleBooks, which are not ideal sources to use. King's article should be an FA. It should be at least twice as long as it already is. Noting the difficulty this article gets, however (evidence on this talk page and its archives), means that I would spend 6 months to a year writing the article and as much time defending the content. Harvey was a fraction of the controversy that King was. --Moni3 (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, please no! Don't make the MLK article dramatically longer! This Harvey Milk article is definitely too long (but consensus didn't allow refactoring). On length at least, MLK is just about right, per WP:SUMMARY. Clearly, the total words devoted to MLK (or to Milk) on WP can be quite a large number very reasonably, but those words should be distributed among related articles in a manner to serve readers, not to serve the WP:OWNership interests of particular editors. LotLE×talk 19:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect, King's article is too basic and does not explore his life or his motivations. LotLE, if you are insistent that this article is too long, take it to featured article review and explain how its length does not adhere to the criteria for featured articles. Call into question its content, whatever. You'd get the most feedback there. You already know my stance on it. --Moni3 (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, this length concern is really, really not about the influence, importance, or moral worth of the various subjects. There are many minor bios for which there is simply no reason to spend 50kB of prose, but beyond a fairly low threshhold of notability, the problem isn't finding enough to say, but exercising enough constraint to actually help readers of this non-specialist encyclopedia. Anything over ~50kB of readable prose shows sloppiness and lack of consideration by editors (the more over, the more of those flaws exhibited). Just out of quick curiosity, I tried to look at some of the most "influential" people's bios I can think of:

• Harvey Milk: 58 kB readable prose
• Martin Luther King, Jr.: 47 kB
• Muhammad: 50kb
• Jesus: 60 kB
• Confucius: 22 kB
• Gautama Buddha: 24 kB
• Adolf Hitler: 125 kB
• Joseph Stalin: 70 kB

• Barack Obama: 30 kB

Of these, Jesus, Milk, and Stalin are in the "slightly too long" category. MLK and Muhammad seem "just about right". Somewhat surprisingly (to me), Confucius and Siddhartha really seem to need more words about them. And for the really, really bad historical figure, we apparently get an equally absurdly bad article (at least in terms of length). Running rough linear regression on the data set, I think we can conclude "the better the person, the shorter the article" :-). The Obama case is funny: I have been one of the editors pushing hard to maintain WP:SUMMARY style there, and I am very happy that there is an established consensus against allowing major expansion in length (when something is added, this pretty quickly puts social pressure to find something else to leave out and move to child articles, which is how things should work). LotLE×talk 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Milk and White picture

• I feel this picture should be included first of all any pictures of Harvey Milk should be as well as the picture has Dan White who is the assassin of Harvey Milk. How is it not relevant? Gang14 (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a non-free image. It's copyrighted. Wikipedia should, actually, delete the image altogether. Occasionally images that are copyrighted can be used, particularly if they are of historical importance. (Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria spells out how this happens.) But the reason for the image to be included must be absolutely rock solid. That means that there are no other alternate images that are free. Milk's article already has nine images. A non-free image should also be used to illustrate a point that is impossible to do with words. No concept is associated with File:Milk and white.jpg that in not already expressed in words. If the reason for the inclusion of the image is to show Milk and White together, I am unable to see how a non-free image must be used to accomplish that.

I've used non-free images of historical importance in articles such as Birmingham campaign and Stonewall riots. In these instances the images themselves were so famous that they impacted the event in question, or was the only image published that showed the participants of an historic event.

This is a Featured Article, and the standards for the images as well as sources and prose are extraordinarily high. If you do not believe what I am saying, I suggest you contact User:Elcobbola or User:Awadewit. Both of these editors give image reviews for Featured Article Candidates. I did at one time, and I would oppose an article for FA that did not have a water tight rationale for inclusion. --Moni3 (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on the use of the photo here for a couple of reasons. I don't agree it should be deleted altogether however as both Milk and White are dead so finding photos of the two together is certainly more challenging than if they were alive. Back to the photo though, it's not very good. Who's that person in the middle? And White is somewhat scowling in profile while Milk is smiling. Is it the sun in White's eyes? The photo creates more questions when it should be illustrating something the text cannot easily do. This doesn't seem to do that. I guess it can sit on the White article but really it's just not a great photo. -- Banjeboi 22:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Banjeboi is right. Both milk and white are dead, so that is one major hurdle. NFCC 8 still needs to be met. We would have to make a case that the article is significantly improved w/ the addition of that picture of the two of them. The best way to do this would be to show that the picture itself is the subject (or was) of some news. If we have both a picture of Dan White and a picture of Milk, it will take some doing to convince a neutral party that another image of them together is different and important. They worked together, so it wasn't exactly Elvis at the white house. Protonk (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• With not that many pictures out there of Harvey Milk and Dan White together I feel its very relevant and very important to add it to the article. It suggests they worked together as well as like each other a little at one point and with no other pictures of them together and such a history between them this picture is extremely important to this article. Gang14 (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It suggests no such thing. It does suggest they were proximately close in the big time space continuum along with a few other folks - one unidentified chap is in the very middle of the photo - so they too are just as relevant. And it's a poor picture of both of them, it show each in profile one scowlish the other grinning but neither image cropped is worth much and the whole is also, IMHO, rather useless here or elsewhere. If it was a good photo we'd be all over it, it just isn't - sorry. -- Banjeboi 11:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Milk´s nickname

(I don´t speak English very well). I read in web page that Milk´s nickname was Glimpy Milch, no Glimpy Milk. In this article, I can read Milk´s nickmame as Glimpy Milk, what is correct? And also, what is his original last name? --190.166.192.80 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey there - thanks for pointing this out. I looked it up and it seems that while you're completely correct that Milk's nickname was Glimpy Milch,[1] the school writing said Glimpy Milk instead[2]. FlyingToaster 15:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Per The Mayor of Castro Street, the book mentions both. The wording is accurate, however, that "Glimpy Milk" was the name used in the yearbook. Neighborhood kids, no doubt with Yiddish backgrounds, called him "Glimpy Milch". I am unaware of the difference since I have no Yiddish background, but don't think the full text should point out the difference because it would be distracting. If others feel that it is a point of contention, it can be added in a footnote. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's article worthy, but as milch refers to animals capable of lactating, calling him milch may have been meant to insinuate that he was effeminate and/or talkative. Maybe today he'd be Harvey MILF. FlyingToaster 15:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

stringent?

The Gay Rights ordinance was described in this article as stringent. In what ways was it stringent? That word doesn't seem right. I have removed the word until further clarification. Kingturtle (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Found in this section: The ordinance was called the "most stringent and encompassing in the nation", and its passing demonstrated "the growing political power of homosexuals", according to The New York Times[3]. --Moni3 (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Medora Payne

The following sentence could use some ironing out:

An 11-year-old neighborhood girl joyfully ordered gay men and Irish grandmothers to work on the campaign, despite her mother's discouragement.

Having read the sentence several times I'm still unclear what happened. Did she actually "order" people who weren't going to work on the campaign to do so? I suspect not, but hey, some people have the gift of leadership. Or was she somehow in charge of existing volunteers? Some clarification would be helpful.

Also, Moni3 is right, the claim is cited... that is, the citation seems to cover the entire paragraph. However, the cite note is a few sentences away and the subject changes from chaos in the campaign to relationship of between Milk and Smith, so I found it hard to connect the citation to the claim. It would help substantiate the claim if a citation was added directly to the sentence, perhaps with a specific page number.

Anyway, it's an interesting tidbit to add, just needs some clarification and more immediately connected citation. IMHO. :-) SnappingTurtle (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

However, also consider whether or not it contributes to the topic of the paragraph. Unless it can be connected to the subject matter very clearly, it may just be an example of trivia ("interesting tidbit") and therefore should be removed from the paragraph. However, if it's an example of how disorganized the Milk campaign is (if that's its purpose for appearing in the source material) and is written as such, then it probably has more reason to stay.Luminum (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Milk had older neighborhood residents, gay guys in leather, random people he pulled off the street, and a Chinese American straight guy he kept calling his little lotus blossom all hanging around Castro Camera at any one time. Payne put them all to work. When Harvey lost the campaign for Assemblyman, she went to the campaign manager the day after and cried with him. The page range discusses the chaotic nature of the campaign headquarters. Milk's relationship ending was a result of this constant campaigning and his blustery random temper that was a part of Castro Camera's chaos. If you'd like a cite with info about Payne, I can do that. The reason it wasn't done so when I wrote it is that it appears to be double-citing, but whatever. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, then how about something like as follows, borrowing from your paragraph above:

Milk had older neighborhood residents, gay men, and random people he pulled off the street all working on the campaign. There was even an 11-year-old neighborhood girl who joyfully gave orders to adult volunteers. [provide citation here]

[new paragraph

Milk himself was hyperactive and ...

That provides more of a connection to the subject of the paragraph, which was the chaotic and diverse nature of the campaign. It also provides a clear transition to the related but slightly different topic of Milk's personal life. SnappingTurtle (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Best of obth worlds, I hope. --Moni3 (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Protecting the Article

Anyone else think this article should be locked? A lot of "controversial" and popular articles are locked to prevent vandals from ripping them to shreds. Has the Milk article ever had this problem?

67.142.130.47 (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I've noticed, there hasn't been much vandalism on the page that was consistent and/or difficult to reverse. I'm not sure how necessary it is.Luminum (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The article was protected on Oscar night, but there was a large volume of readers. Otherwise, the vandalism has not been serious enough to protect the article. --Moni3 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Jewish?

I've read non-reliable sources saying that Harvey was initially religiously Jewish but he then abandoned his religion later in life. He allegedly viewed homosexuality and Judaism as inherently in conflict.

Do we have any evidence of this in reliable sourcing? Do we have any evidence of him going to Jewish celebrations, ceremonies, and services? The Squicks (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In an archived thread, found here Talk:Harvey_Milk/Archive_12#Infobox_edits, this has arisen previously. Milk grew up in a Jewish neighborhood. His grandfather was very active in the Jewish community. I have spoken with Stuart Milk, Harvey's nephew, who has claimed that Morris Milk, Harvey's grandfather, started three synagogues on Long Island. I have not been able to find a citation that confirms this, however. Harvey was involved in a Jewish fraternity at Albany State. Most of what has been written about Harvey is by gay writers who are not Jews. When Harvey was most active in gay politics, his religious views were not addressed by Randy Shilts much, or anyone else who was close to him. There is simply not much information on his religious views when he was his most active and famous. --Moni3 (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Milk's Fame Deserved?

Although had he not been murdered he might well have gone on to bigger things, Harvey Milk is proportionately more famous for accomplishing less within his life than any other positive (as opposed to notorious) figure than I can think of. Pushing fifty, he owned a camera shop and had held a low level, local elected position for less than one year. He was transformed into a gay “martyr” even though he was murdered along with the presumably very heterosexual (considering his marriage and many kids) mayor of San Francisco by a deranged fellow politico with a personal grievance. Mr. Milk was not even the first openly gay elected figure in the country, and I’ve heard friends of his acknowledge that the sobriquet “The Mayor of Castro Street” had been self-bestowed.

Does Mr. Milk really deserve all the attention he has generated since his passing?

This is a page for discussing the Wikipedia article and how it can be improved, not Milk himself. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I was going to make the same point as Awadewit, I also wanted to point out that the last paragraph in this section discusses your question. I wanted to address it because similar concerns have been brought to the talk page to justify cutting portions of the article. Are you suggesting that Randy Shilts was a ghost writer for The Mayor of Castro Street, and it was originally penned by Milk himself? I have not heard such a claim, and reading somewhat about Randy Shilts, I find it highly dubious. If something else, please clarify. --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

--No, not at all. I simply meant that I have heard gay friends and acquaintances of his on television interviews who said they thought he had started to refer to himself by that title and then it caught on.

Look, remove my comment if you want. I didn’t mean it to be political in tenor, nor did I mean it as disrespectful towards Mr. Milk or the gay community. I do respect his memory as a man; first and foremost, as a former naval officer, as I am an (enlisted) Navy vet myself. I would have gladly saluted him had we been contemporaries and had had the opportunity.

My point is that it just seems that nothing bestows fame on a public individual more than having been assassinated. I often wonder if even Dr. King—a man who accomplished so much in his life—would ever have risen to his current status as a national icon had he not been murdered and lived on to old age. Even this well-written and unusually (for Wikipedia) comprehensive article alludes to this phenomenon. In Dr. King’s case, he was murdered for his cause.

Although Mr. Milk certainly accomplished more in life than myself and most people, how many politicians who had been city council members (not from a city in which you are from or lived) can you name thirty years after their deaths unless they went on to higher offices? How many outside the SF area had heard of him at the time of his death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the clarification. Milk did refer to himself as the Mayor of Castro Street. It is in the article. When I was constructing this article. I was trying to find a quote to end the lead to summarize Milk's effect. I did not find the quote by Anne Kronenberg until many months after I had written it. It was quite difficult to find a quote that addressed why Milk was such a memorable figure in gay community all over the US as well as to the city of San Francisco. Much of the tributes about Milk were as much remembering his life as lashing out at Dan White. Just two years after his assassination the Castro District was faced with the mounting AIDS crisis, and Milk's legacy became entwined with AIDS activism as gay activists who had cut their teeth during Milk's campaigns were in battles with government agencies over issues much more serious than what Milk had ever addressed during his short tenure as a politician and neighborhood activist. After weeks of reading and searching, I finally constructed the end paragraph to the Politics in the Legacy section.

Milk was reported in national media when he was elected supervisor. He made personal appearances all over California while he was debating John Briggs, so he was well-known at least in California. Not quite a household name in California, but politically-minded people knew him.

Btw, Milk wore a Navy diver belt buckle while he was a supervisor. I don't know how that's significant, but I remember reading it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's Judaism, not Jewish

Just leaving a note that religion of a person should be Judaism rather than Jewish. For example, he/she is a Jewish person that believes in Judaism. This kind of typo really shouldn't appear in a featured FA article (however this article does deserve featured status). I don't know about Harvey Milk's religion but this error should be corrected and wikified.

Note: This article is exactly 100 kilobytes long right now, Yay! --98.154.26.247 (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes should be piled in the Grand Canyon and set on fire. Other than that, I have no reply to your comment. --Moni3 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Milk on religion

Milk believed that religion was dangerous and said it was a perversion.

I've put this in a blind edit to discuss it first.

First issue, I don't see the first link. It's very important that this appear clearly.

Second issue, per the source cited, Milk was saying that violence in the name of religion is a perversion, not religion itself. Another reason I don't like GoogleBooks. I want to know where this quote came from as well. Contexts can be distorted from one source to the next. --Moni3 (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

When I followed the first link, it didn't work. It was on a third-party advocacy site, not a news source site. I did find a press release with the same title and it seems to give some strange interpretations of Milk quotes, such as equating the destruction of closet doors with "doors of sexual experimentation". The second link, while from a book, had the visible text of the link as "What's the Matter with California?", just the title of the book rather than a full book citation. It doesn't seem that the book gives a provenance for the quote, which it says is from the 1978 gay freedom day celebration. I agree that the summation you suggest is more accurate than the one in the initial edit.--Larrybob (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping the first link would provide a context, such as where or when Milk stated that religion is dangerous. The second book link says right out "More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That my friend, is true perversion." --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

milk

I edited an article on Harvey Milk to remove adverbs that did not contribute to the article and seemed to suggest bias, and now I am involved in some kind of strange war where another person wants those adverbs to appear and will keep updating the article until I agree with him/her. I did this edit as an editorial act, not a political one, and this person seems to not understand. Maybe I violated protocol? How to respond? Clh74 (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is an editorial act. Not a war, just a disagreement. We will try and come to some agreement on the talk page here. Protonk (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The "stringent" issue has been brought up and discussed on the talk page before, here. It is not Wikipedia editors' opinions to call it stringent. It was the New York Times, and Milk's since this ordinance had, as Milk said, "teeth".

As for the issue of Milk pursuing Joe Campbell passionately, I am not sure what the issue is. He not only was apparently a mushy romantic but rather a horny guy. Randy Shilts discusses their relationship in The Mayor of Castro Street. --Moni3 (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The edits are about bad language choices, period. Grammar and all that. NOTHING else.

• Uhhh, no one has insinuated that the edits are about anything else. Protonk (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why these two words are used beyond the rules of grammar? I am unaware that they are breaking style rules. I don't know what "and all that" means. Can you clarify your opposition? --Moni3 (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't the article showing the less desirable traits of Milk, as per the biography of him? Such as the relationship with a sixteen year old boy, while he was thirty-three. Use of Nazi against his opponents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capdiamont (talk • contribs) 01:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what you are referring. Can you be more specific? --Moni3 (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruined film anecdote

There seems to be some back-and-forth about whether to include the ruined film anecdote which is on p. 65 of Shilts' book. It doesn't seem particularly necessary, since the main fact is the opening of the store. However, the store didn't open until 1973, not 1972 as the sentence said.--Larrybob (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless the anecdote is so important that it factors into a person's understanding of Harvey Milk or that it particularly illuminates a point or idea int he article, I would consider it unnecessary. The point is that he opened his camera store in 1973. Done.Luminum (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Trivia in the lead

and one of the first three in the United States, has been added to the lead. I reverted it for the following reasons:

• It is inaccurate. He was the second openly gay man to be elected to public office in the U.S. after Allan Spear, who was elected, came out, then was re-elected. Elaine Noble was the first openly homosexual elected to office in the U.S.
• Seconds--or thirds--are not necessarily notable, and particularly not in a lead. The lead should reflect only what is the most important summary of the topic.
• A list of firsts in LGBT achievement exists and is linked in the sentence leading to the disputed phrase.

I'm going to revert this again, and I suggest further discussion occurs here. --Moni3 (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Religion

An anon user tagged the religious affiliation in the info box, and after looking through the article, I believe it was for good reason. Is there any mention of him identifying as a religious Jew? Once source I've found claims he was "an entirely secularist Jew."[4] If that's the case, is it appropriate for him to be listed as having a Jewish religious affiliation? Any other sources?Luminum (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This is why infoboxes are so fucking stupid. I've already had this argument with Milk and the religion parameter of the infobox. It was just as pointless a year and a half ago as it is now. He was Jewish, but just how Jewish does he need to be for the infobox to be populated? By whose assessment? Infoboxes force simple answers out of issues that are not simple. Instead of trying to justify in the infobox that he was Jewish, why not remove the goddamn infobox? Problem solved. --Moni3 (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I saw your incensed disapproval in that older topic. The main question here is are secularist Jews, who identify with an ethnic culture more so than a religious culture, still considered religiously Jewish or are they generally considered to be ethnically identified? Either way, it could be removed from the infobox, but if there's substantial debate about it, then it could be its own section, much like the "Personal life" section in other bios. If you're advocating for the complete removal of the infobox in total, then I disagree, as other information easily suits the simple overview it provides (such as nationality, political affiliation, lifespan, etc.) Don't categories give the same problem of oversimplification?Luminum (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody puts tags on categories. Categories are just removed. And categories don't have much bearing on how the article is presented to readers.

I don't see the point in giving legitimacy to this issue. Milk was Jewish. That is not debatable. Someone put a fact tag next to that in the infobox, for what reason? Because just how Jewish he was is supposed to be resolved in the infobox? The alternative is just as pointless: the sources do not cover his religious observations. I suggested when this was covered before that the reason for this is Milk's biographers and friends weren't Jewish and did not make a connection between his spiritual life and his political. Sources say now he was Jewish. A separate section to say that is unnecessary. --Moni3ontheroad (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible error

In the article it says "Horror came in degrees as San Franciscans learned more than 400 Jonestown residents were dead." which is supported by the reference: "Downie Jr., Leonard (November 22, 1978). "Bodies in Guyana Cause Confusion; Confusion Mounts Over Bodies at Guyana Cult Site; Many Missing in Jungle", The Washington Post, p. A1." My question is was this a number error? The death toll at Jonestown was more than 900, not 400. Although this article does go on to say that ultimately the figure was over 900, it is still confusing as it is written. Is there content in the source that explains the lesser number, like possibly Jonestown residents from San Francisco or whatever? Just asking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a number error, but rather the result of the best reporting possible on a very confusing situation occurring on a different continent. The news about Jonestown was revealed in waves over a series of days. --Moni3 (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I was momentarily confused by the different numbers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Semicolons in lists

Semicolons are used in lists when the listed items contain commas; see, for example, Semicolons. AV3000 (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

speech

I would like to add Harvey Milk's 'That's What America Is' speech as it cant be found anywhere online, but it keeps getting deleted when I add it - can anyone tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzzboi (talk • contribs) 22:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, we wouldn't post the full speech. There are plenty of resources that one can use to hear/read/view Milk's original speech and Wikipedia would link to those. The only parts of the actual speech we might include would be quotes or parts of it as they apply to a discussion/content point. I left more detail on your user page.Luminum (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not here. If anywhere, try Wikiquotes. --Moni3 (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquote or wikisource would be best if the original speech is public domain (which I don't know to be the case). But not inside the article. Protonk (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Harvey Milk's speeches are not in the public domain. They are copyright, and owned by The Estate of Harvey Milk, which is itself owned and administered by the James C. Hormel Gay and Lesbian Center at the San Francisco Public Library. Vince Emery 19:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my wiki ignorance - and thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzzboi (talk • contribs) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I disavow any edit I made in the first six months I was here. Someone else made all those mistakes... --Moni3 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This article seems laudatory. I wonder whether NPOV should be increased, or whether the tone is appropriate for a celebrated symbol of the gay rights movement. rouenpucelle (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You should wonder no more. Go check out the sources cited in the article. Then you can determine if what is covered in the article is accurately represented. --Moni3 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack Galen McKinley

This article is hagiography - not a neutral presentation of facts. For example I tried to add a fact about Scott Galen McKinley and Moni wants to censor the truth. My source is Shilts' book which is used elsewhere in the article as a valid source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talk • contribs) 16:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of inserting McKinley's age? What is the truth? --Moni3 (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with supplying basic information (age) about an individual discussed in the aticle? I noticed that the age of Milk's other boyfriends (Rodwell and Smith) is included. Shilts' book is accepted as a valid source elsewhere in the article - why do you suddenly reject this source when you discover a fact you don't like? I really object to you trying to censor me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talk • contribs)

The ages of Rodwell and Smith are not stated, but the age differences are. Shilts makes a point in his biography to state this. To keep consistent, are you seeking to make sure the age difference is included? --Moni3 (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Age of these other boyfriends is discussed we agree. Seems more useful to include the age rather than just the age difference. Why make the reader figure this out on his or her own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talk • contribs)

No, the age differences are discussed, not the ages. Why make the reader figure out what? --Moni3 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussing age differences is of course one way of discussing age. When I say "figure out" I of course mean figure out age.

Here's what you wrote when you reported me. My replies are in bold.: Jimjilin is attempting, I believe, to insert an irrelevant fact that Milk's partner at this point of his life was 16 years old and therefore slanting information to make it seem as if Milk was a pedophile. Slanting information?! How can the truth slant information! The source says Jack Galen McKinley was 16! The source is accepted elsewhere in the article. Was McKinley 16 - true or false? The The source used for this does state that McKinley was 16 at the time he met Milk, but that McKinley had left his home in Kentucky or Tennessee, where his family was very religious, and was seeking out gay relationships in New York. Within the pages Jimjiln has cited for McKinley's age is a thorough explanation that McKinley left his home because he was gay and that he had come to New York "to suck cocks". Seriously, that's the opening line of the chapter. Milk met McKinley when McKinley was already involved with Milk's friend and theater producer Tom O'Horgan. Doesn't alter McKinley's age lol + * Harvey Milk is a Featured Article. No other partners Milk had have their ages included in the article because it's irrelevant. But their ages are discussed. Moreover the ages of other individuals: Dan White and Moscone, are mentioned. How can you possibly object to mentioning McKinley's age when including the ages of these other individuals has been considered acceptable?! No reliable biography on Milk has ever suggested he was a pedophile, including the one cited by Jimjilin. I urged Jimjilin to start a talk page thread to discuss this if he thinks the issue has merit, and he did, but then inserted the information into the article again. Then accused me of censoring the truth. This smacks of POV and UNDUE. Did you delete a fact supported by what has been considered an acceptable source, yes or no? How is that not censorship? --Moni3 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talk • contribs)

I am reporting you for warring Moni.Jimjilin (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I already know what I wrote, Jimjilin, and this paragraph you posted reiterating our discussion over this is confusing, and what you are trying to accomplish by posting it I have no idea.

You're not the first editor (or perhaps you are, just under a different name) who is keen to intone that Milk was a pedophile or pederast by stating McKinley's age when he and Milk got together. But an encyclopedia is no place to intone anything. It states facts outright. If reliable sources state that Milk actively and regularly pursued underage men or boys, and they identify him as a pedophile or pederast, then that needs to go in the article. They don't, so we can't insinuate, leave the reader to figure anything out, or hint, hint, make subtle non-statements about the subject. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag or Fox News.

This appears to be the only fact (not) about Milk you are interested in making to the article. You pulled a fact, citing it from a source that makes it very clear that McKinley left his very religious home because he was gay and had gone to New York "to suck cocks". In the first line of the chapter, on the same page that states McKinley's age is that quote. He had already been living with Tom O'Horgan when he left O'Horgan to live with Milk. In the same set of pages you cite, it states that within weeks McKinley and Milk were living together in a long-term relationship.

If you wish to improve the understanding for the reader as to why McKinley was so troubled, Shilts offers more detail than his age or the difference in ages between him and Milk. His age and the age difference was part of the reason why, but does not explain it in totality. For years after, he was still moody and depressed, and attempted several times to commit suicide, once jumping into San Francisco Bay at low tide and landing only in four feet of water and mud, then walking home to Castro Street a complete mess. Milk had to restrain him and put him in a closet to keep McKinley from punching him. He was eventually successful in his suicide attempts in 1980.

So what are you trying to do here? If you wish to insert McKinley's age, it needs to be consistent with the rest of the article. That means Campbell's (19), Smith's (22), and Lira's (25) ages should all be included as well. This necessitates the rewording of each sentence that introduces each of these men to readers. There was a 17-year age difference between Milk and McKinley. Age differences are made clear in the article for Campbell and Smith. If consistency and uniformity are your goal, either of these changes: ages for all of Milk's partners, or the age difference between Milk and McKinley, are acceptable changes.

I'm interested to know the input of article watchers as well. --Moni3 (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My response is in bold:You're not the first editor (or perhaps you are, just under a different name) who is keen to intone that Milk was a pedophile or pederast by stating McKinley's age when he and Milk got together. But an encyclopedia is no place to intone anything. It states facts outright. Which is exactly what I am doing! For some reason you want to cover up the fact in question.

You pulled a fact, citing it from a source that makes it very clear that McKinley left his very religious home because he was gay and had gone to New York "to suck cocks". In the first line of the chapter, on the same page that states McKinley's age is that quote. He had already been living with Tom O'Horgan when he left O'Horgan to live with Milk. In the same set of pages you cite, it states that within weeks McKinley and Milk were living together in a long-term relationship. Your point seems to be that you think Milk's relationship with a child is acceptable. Of course that has no bearing on the fact that McKinley was 16. Please try to stay on topic.

So what are you trying to do here? If you wish to insert McKinley's age, it needs to be consistent with the rest of the article. That means Campbell's (19), Smith's (22), and Lira's (25) ages should all be included as well. This necessitates the rewording of each sentence that introduces each of these men to readers. A simple matter. We can do that if you'd like. There was a 17-year age difference between Milk and McKinley. Age differences are made clear in the article for Campbell and Smith. If consistency and uniformity are your goal, either of these changes: ages for all of Milk's partners, or the age difference between Milk and McKinley, are acceptable changes. You are ignoring the fact that some ages (White's and Moscone's) are included. Anyway I accept your proposal that we include the ages of all of Milk's partners. Seems much more useful than talking about age differences.Jimjilin (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anything about Milk's relationships. That you are introducing your own values to what is acceptable and what is not is a sign that you are attempting to address this factoid with an agenda in mind. My only agenda is the accurate representation of the source material. Shilts' book does not say that Milk preyed on boys regularly, and Shilts never calls him a pederast or a pedophile. Moreover, Shilts does address the lives of Milk, Rodwell, Campbell, McKinley, Lira, Smith, Sipple, Foster, Stokes, and others when they realized they were gay, usually in adolescence, and how they had to handle this with their families. It makes a specific point to say that many of them were either kicked out of their homes for being gay or had to leave when they realized the conflicts this revelation would create. In fact, the point of all this discussion by Shilts is to illustrate what the article illustrates: the Castro District became the fastest growing neighborhood in San Francisco at the time because gays were leaving their homes to go someplace where they could live without being arrested or otherwise harassed for being openly gay. Many of them left as adolescents. Milk's speeches addressed these issues, particularly the "Hope Speech". Milk made this a frequent topic because of his experience knowing others who had left their homes. McKinley was just one among dozens or hundreds that Milk knew in his life.

To gain a truer understanding of what material is in the article and why, you and anyone else interested in providing an accurate picture of Milk's life need to read all of Shilts' book, and preferably the sources listed, if not others I missed. As much as possible we cannot write the article with our own values in mind. We can only mirror what the best reliable sources have published about the topic. We cannot highlight a fact we think is important if the source itself does not make it important. This is the essence of the WP:POV and WP:UNDUE policies.

There appear to be three options: leave the article as it is not stating McKinley's age, state the ages for all the men Milk dated, or state the age differences for all of them. Shilts makes a point to state more than once that Milk preferred men who were younger than he and later in his life, were troubled with substance abuse problems, depression, or some other issues. This is why the age differences for each man Milk dated are included, except for McKinley. Why I neglected to include that, I can't remember. It's possible I included it at one point and it was removed by someone else during copy edits or other changes made in the 3 years since I wrote the article.

Again, I'm interested in reading other editors' opinions in the hopes that more experienced editors understand that we cannot make the mistake of coloring material with our own values and making content decisions based on what we think is morally right or wrong. --Moni3 (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Moni3. Personally, I don't think any discussion of age is relevant. I am assuming good faith on the behalf of all editors. However, jimjilin, be aware that while I assume you are for some reason really interested in this minor detail, there is the appearance of impropriety in your suggestions that smacks of wanting to paint Milk in a certain color. Please consider how this may be interpreted by other editors, even under the doctrine of Good Faith. We are not here to add moral coloring to descriptions, only to describe. I don't think the age of everyone Milk was ever an associate, friend, in a relationship, etc with is relevant. That goes for a lot of the age information here....how old Moscone and White were, etc. I don't think it's relevant information. With Milk specifically, I haven't really heard why this bit of trivia adds anything of value to the article. That fact that other irrelevant ages have been added is not an argue to continue along thisd path...it's an argument to get rid of the existing irrelevant information. Jbower47 (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

My replies in bold: Please consider how this may be interpreted by other editors, even under the doctrine of Good Faith. We are not here to add moral coloring to descriptions, only to describe. Really? Let me quote the article: "Anne Kronenberg, his final campaign manager, wrote of him: "What set Harvey apart from you or me was that he was a visionary. He imagined a righteous world inside his head and then he set about to create it for real, for all of us."" I guess somebody's campaign manager can always be counted on for an unbiased portrait of their employer. lol And later: "Harry Britt summarized Milk's impact the evening Milk was shot in 1978: "No matter what the world has taught us about ourselves, we can be beautiful and we can get our thing together ... Harvey was a prophet ... he lived by a vision ... Something very special is going to happen in this city and it will have Harvey Milk's name on it."" This is just hagiography! Wikipedia demands neutrality. This article as is violates the rules. I don't think the age of everyone Milk was ever an associate, friend, in a relationship, etc with is relevant. That goes for a lot of the age information here....how old Moscone and White were, etc. I don't think it's relevant information. C'mon just about every article on Wikipedia includes ages. Your efforts to hide this one particular age certainly gives the appearance of impropriety. Many articles in Wikipedia including damaging information about political figures. Why should we cover up damaging information about Milk?Jimjilin (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anything about Milk's relationships. And yet you've spent quite some time trying to justify Milk's relationship with a child. Why would that be? That you are introducing your own values to what is acceptable and what is not is a sign that you are attempting to address this factoid with an agenda in mind. My only agenda is the accurate representation of the source material. By not including a fact from that very source material? Are you serious?! My only "agenda" is the truth. I don't think damaging information about political figures should be swept under the rug. Shilts' book does not say that Milk preyed on boys regularly, Only on occasion. and Shilts never calls him a pederast or a pedophile. I am adding someone's age, I did not use the word "pedophile". You can't accuse me implying anything when I only want to include a basic fact without any editorial comment. You object not to my editorialzing but to the truth. To gain a truer understanding of what material is in the article and why, you and anyone else interested in providing an accurate picture of Milk's life need to read all of Shilts' book, and preferably the sources listed, if not others I missed. As much as possible we cannot write the article with our own values in mind. We can only mirror what the best reliable sources have published about the topic. We cannot highlight a fact we think is important if the source itself does not make it important. The source thought the fact was worthwhile mentioning. Let's do the same! You respect the source by omitting information from that source?! Kind of Orwellian don't you think? lol

There appear to be three options: leave the article as it is not stating McKinley's age, state the ages for all the men Milk dated, or state the age differences for all of them. Shilts makes a point to state more than once that Milk preferred men who were younger than he and later in his life, Shilts also includes the ages for these individuals. Let's mirror the source! I think we've reached a compromise. Let's include the ages for the men Milk dated. Seems like the most useful option for the reader.

Again, I'm interested in reading other editors' opinions in the hopes that more experienced editors understand that we cannot make the mistake of coloring material with our own values and making content decisions based on what we think is morally right or wrong. A question for you Moni3: Can you admit your article paints Milk in a favorable light? You included a panegyric from Milk's campaign manager and yet you object when I include an undisputed fact that you don't like. Looks like you are in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy.Jimjilin (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Interspersing your replies in bold between sentences is confusing at best. It does not promote my understanding of your argument. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As we’ve seen the article heaps a great deal of entirely gratuitous praise on Milk. I am only asking that the hymn of praise be interrupted momentarily to include a single undisputed fact. Isn’t that a step toward balance? Isn’t that a step toward neutrality? Since Moni3 you feel Milk’s relationship with this child is acceptable, why do you want to cover up the details? Why are you afraid of the truth? How can you criticize me for mentioning a relationship that is, in your view, perfectly acceptable?Jimjilin (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Moni3 I'll follow your constructive suggestion: "That means Campbell's (19), Smith's (22), and Lira's (25) ages should all be included as well." I am glad we were able to hammer out a compromise. Though we argued I think in the end we'll both submit to the Truth, no matter how uncomfortable that may make us feel.123.132.120.202 (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm reverting, and the statement should stay out barring consensus to include. The factoid is by itself derogatory by implication. If the source says that the person's age at the time of the original relationship was the reason why the relationship was troubled, that's one thing. That seems unlikely as 16-year-olds can and do have relationships (most do in modern American society) without them being particularly troubled, but if that's what the sources say so be it (though we could use some more context instead of leaving it to the reader to imagine for themselves). As I read the sources, they say the age difference was the issue at stake. In any event, there are some red flags all over this edit war, e.g. edit warring by IP accounts. The business about Milk supposedly being a pedophile has some currency in the anti-gay blogosphere. Several of the editors pushing this through through repeated reverts are claiming censorship, whitewash, etc., which is almost never a valid argument on Wikipedia for including content and always ends up dragging the discussion down - it tends to expose the person making the argument as having a POV agenda (to tell the rotten truth about a thing). - Wikidemon (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, rereading the discussion here it's very clear that the effort to include this is agenda-based, selectively adding a fact that portrays Milk as violating the editors' moral code. It's pretty much a nonstarter, unless we have some rock solid sourcing as to weight and relevance to the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Propose to close discussion as not gaining consensus, and tainted to excessive socking. If any legitimate non-blocked editor wishes to propose this is in a way consistent with talk page guidelines (sticking with sources, not using page as a soapbox or attacking other editors), please go ahead in a new section. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is little point in stating McKinley's age, although Jimjilin may have miscalculated it. According to Shilts, McKinley was 33 when he died on February 14, 1980 (Mayor of Castro Street, p. 343). If so, McKinley was 17 on February 14, 1964, and was 17 or 18 when Milk met him in late 1964. I believe the reference on p. 30 giving McKinley's age as 16 refers to his age when McKinley first met Tom O'Horgan, not when McKinley moved in with Milk. None of which matters for this Wikipedia entry.Vince Emery 18:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinceemery (talk • contribs)

According to Milk's address book, in which he also recorded the birthdays of people he knew, McKinley was born October 18, 1946. Therefore, when Milk met McKinley in late 1964, McKinley was at least 17 years old, and possibly 18 years old. 17 is the age of consent in New York state, so the pedophile consideration is not valid in this case.Vince Emery 17:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinceemery (talk • contribs)

McKinley "was the same age as Harvey had been when they met in 1963: thirty-three." 1980 - 1963 = 17 years 33 - 17 = 16 years of age Looks like an enormous amount of effort here to cover up the fact that Milk had sex with a child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Milk as a martyr in the lead

Speciate (talk · contribs) removed the name of the person identifying Milk as a martyr in the lead. Such a term carries a lot of weight, and it demands some explanation of who said such a thing. This is a Featured Article, and the standards for writing and sourcing are very high. It's not that the issue is Peter Novak, UCSF Professor who said it, but someone needs to go on record here as saying Milk is considered a martyr. Someone with enough academic (or otherwise) clout to establish Milk as a martyr would be best. --Moni3 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• That's not true. Novak is the last in a long line of people who have said this (1979, 1984, etc). You are engaging in an form of logical fallacy called an argument from authority--except Novak, whoever he is, is not the authority. Speciate (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Also, the following sentence has an unattributed quote, but you did not change it. Are YOU Peter Novak? Speciate (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha. No.

I don't care if it's Peter Novak or someone else, but someone has to take some responsibility for calling Milk a martyr. It wasn't just the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, or someone melodramatic placing this label on him. The burden is being placed upon the cited authority--in this case, a professor at UCSF--to make this claim, not a newspaper story that passively states "In the gay community, Milk became a martyr". This term, furthermore, is being used by Novak in 2003, 25 years following Milk's murder. It would be natural for the Castro to call Milk a martyr in the years after his murder, but someone is still calling Milk that 25 years later.

I don't understand your objection to Novak. Can you provide an alternative that is as strong as his declaration?

Adding: I don't have a problem fixing the sentence after the one in question. I can't remember now if the authors of the source in question were never included in the paragraph, or the names were excluded in the rewrites of the lead. It lead has been rewritten several times, btw. It would read In 2002, the authors of Gay and Lesbian Americans and Political Participation (2002) write that Milk is "the most famous and most significantly open LGBT official ever elected in the United States". --Moni3 (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Speciate, the BRD schedule seems to be off. You were bold, I reverted, you reverted, I started a discussion, reverted to original, you have not replied, and you reverted again. I don't understand your issue here and your energy behind this. You don't seem to be objecting to Milk being called a martyr, just his being called a martyr by Novak. I don't understand why.

Would it be possible to have a conversation about improving this article without bluster or hyperbole? And with an actual discussion? --Moni3 (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Although an unattributed statement that he's a martyr could technically pass WP:LEDE as a summary if strongly sourced and attributed citations were placed in the article body, I lean toward Moni3's opinion that this particularly strong assertion should be quoted and attributed up front to avoid challenge. AV3000 (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, it makes my skin crawl whenever I see non-notable people's names in articles. I see no Wikipedia policy or guideline (or a secondary source on encyclopedia writing) that says that supposed strong appellations like "wikt:martyr" need to be attributed to somebody important. That is elitest. Furthermore, such names add to the length, clutter and unreadability or an article. Finally, and I believe this is important, since Milk began to be called a martyr right after his assassination and moreso after the movies came out, Novak does not have any claim on the language and should not be in the article. In fact, the gay community is/are the ones that need to be mentioned in the text, and then (using ref tags) a reliable secondary source that makes the claim that the gay community considers him a martyr to back up this statement. Do you see my point? The gay community organically considers him a martyr, not some professor. Speciate (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely see your point. But help me out here, because this is the reality: this article gets its share of criticism from folks who sometimes have points but deliver them in clumsy ways, or simply have no points at all. For instance, since I wrote the article in 2008, I've had to remove information alleging Milk was in cahoots with Jim Jones (that went to dispute resolution), he wasn't Jewish enough to be called Jewish, and he hated religion. I've had to deal with vague accusations that the article is too detailed, too long, too NPOV, a hagiography, and if you'll just look at the thread above this one: someone thinks Milk was a child molester. Ba-dum-tiss. Hey also: someone changed all the page numbers for a later edition of a book I used as a source, because the editor who made the changes publishes the newer edition.

I don't care about Peter Novak. I'm interested in info in the article that supports the fact that someone else called Milk a martyr, or whatever commentary that may be in question throughout the article, and not a Wikipedian expressing his/her own opinions in the article, whatever can be done to prove we're not presenting a hagiography. I'm not even averse to rewriting the lead...again...but please make an effort to understand that Harvey Milk is a lightning rod for controversy here even 33 years after his death. Anything that will make it easier on me, natch, to maintain this article at very high standards is what I'm interested in. Anything, any edit no matter how minor it may seem, that will invite more pointless criticism is something I do not wish to see in the article.

This may mean a footnote after the sentence in question (and the citation format has to be consistent throughout the article, btw) to explain how the term "martyr" is used: in 1985, in 1979, and in 2003. Can you help me out here? --Moni3 (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just include the 1979 Edmonton Journal citation, for precedence (and objectivity, since a contemporary mainstrean newspaper in Canada has got to be as clean as it gets), and the Shilts book, p 348, where it says "Harvey Milk had clearly become the first martyr of the young gay movement". The Shilts book is already heavily refererenced in the article, so no one can object. 00:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What I'm considering now is the sentence in the lead reading "Despite his short career in politics, Milk became an icon in San Francisco and a martyr in (for? of?) the gay community" followed by a footnote using Shilts, the Edmonton Journal, the LA Times obit of Dan White, and Peter Novak, establishing a 30+-year pattern of multiple sources referring to Milk in this way. I'm just not sure right away how to word it. But I'll figure it out. Feel free to assist. --Moni3 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

cf. or accord. Speciate (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Excessive detail regarding GLBT museum

This edit overturned a trim job I did on a paragraph in the Tributes and Media section, turning this:

Since 2003, the story of Harvey Milk has been featured in three exhibitions created by the GLBT Historical Society, a San Francisco–based museum, archives and research center to which the estate of Scott Smith donated Milk's personal belongings that were preserved after his death. In 2003, the society opened the main gallery in its new space on Mission Street in San Francisco with "Saint Harvey: The Life and Afterlife of a Modern Gay Martyr"; the emotional centerpiece of the exhibition was a section displaying the suit Milk was wearing at the time of his death.[172] The society subsequently featured a selection of Milk's belongings in "Passionate Struggle: Dynamics of San Francisco's GLBT History," in a pop-up museum at the corner of Castro and 18th streets that was open November 2008 through October 2009.[173] More recently, The GLBT History Museum — the permanent, stand-alone museum the society opened in San Francisco's Castro District in January 2011 — has featured a display of objects from Milk's daily life, including a pair of his Levi's jeans, his self-defense whistle and his pair of pink novelty sunglasses.[174] Also on display is Milk's battered, gold-painted kitchen table, which the crew for the feature film Milk measured and color-matched to create a replica for use as a prop in the film.

Into this:

Since 2003, the story of Harvey Milk has been featured in three exhibitions created by the GLBT Historical Society, a San Francisco–based museum, archives, and research center, to which the estate of Scott Smith donated Milk's personal belongings that were preserved after his death.

So in the spirit of WP:BRD, can GKoskovich (talk · contribs) justify this kind of detail about museum displays in the article? This information is more about the museum displays than about Milk. What information about Milk does this convey to readers? --Moni3 (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding: this source which GKoskovich added to the paragraph in question is written by? Gerard Koskovich?? A founding member of the San Francisco GLBT Museum? Many of GKoskovich's edits are to the GLBT Museum article. I just want to make sure we're not conflating information about the museum to information about Milk. --Moni3 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 May 2012

Recommended for the Tributes section:

On May 22, 2012, the City of San Diego, California named a street in honor of Harvey Milk. The street receiving the name change is located near the LGBT Center, in the district of Hillcrest.

Source: sandiego6.com (Channel 6 News)

70.95.254.216 (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done – additionally added "Harvey Milk Promenade Park" opening in Long Beach, CA from this source. – Jonadin (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello,

1. Please simplify the first sentence in the second paragraph of the lede to "Milk moved from New York to San Francisco in 1972..." As is, the wording is awkward.

2. Please explain the meaning of the term "stringent gay rights ordinance" mentioned in paragraph three of the lede. What was stringent about it? As is, the term sounds like a vague generalization.

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 November 2012

24.4.235.126 (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC) There is no information of the fact that he had 16 year old lover named Jack Galen McKinley (Born 1947- Died 1980) who committed suicide at the age of 33.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Once this is verifiable there should be a discussion about whether to include it in the article or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A simple text search for "Jack Galen McKinley" would show that the article does indeed have information on McKinley. His earlier threats of suicide are mentioned; his actual suicide is not, because it is outside the scope of this article, having happened years after Milk died. Maralia (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

statement error in article......

Harvey Milk is not the first opening gay person elected to public office in the USA. That was Elaine Noble in 1974. See her article. I believe the error was generated by the film: "Milk". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.45.110 (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Noble wasn't either, although she's usually given that distinction. The first was Jerry DeGrieck, who doesn't even have a wikipedia entry (this needs fixing, folks!) Either way, the claim that Milk was the first gay person elected in the United States really does need to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.75.121 (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Age difference

Why is the age difference between Milk and each of his romantic partners mentioned when none of the differences is unusual or notable, except in the case of McKinley?

Probably the classic attempt to draw a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. 72.28.82.250 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Fix the lead, please

Fix the lead. Milk was not the first openly gay man (or woman) to hold public office in the U.S. One of the notes in the article explains that Elaine Noble and Allan Spear both served before Milk was elected. Milk was the first openly gay person to hold office in California. -- Anon

 Done - Camyoung54 talk 20:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• • • • The neutrality of the article is suspect. Under the "Just Politics" section, the misleading label "Christian Conservatives" is used, but there is no reference or back-up to this. The citation provided does not itself mention Christian Conservatives, therefore affixing such a label is misleading and propagandist. In a broader context, much of the article is biased and propagandist, so it is quite surprising the editors of Wikipedia would lock the article down. It is hardly neutral.**** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folsom530 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Grape Kool-Aid

If anyone goes looking for the grape Kool-Aid references (such as I did), here are two good ones: Shilts, p. 292 and Bellefontaine, p. 92. Not sure if it's worth including in the article (though it could use the sources—FAC must have been lax back then), but there you have it. Also, here's the best photo of his ashes. Would be cool to include if someone wants to ask Dan Nicoletta, the photographer, for permission. czar · · 04:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

incorrect use of "assassination"

Just because the killer was a politician doesn't make a murder an assassination. Just because the victim was a politician doesn't make a murder an assassination. If both the killer and the victim are politicians, this alone doesn't make a murder an assassination. For it to be an assassination, the killing needs to be premeditated and for political reasons. This murder was neither. Therefore I have changed the word to "killing" as this is factual, whereas "assassination" is very much a point of view and not everyone's opinion, whereas it is still factual. --Rebroad (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

this article also makes the same point. He was killed due to a personal vendetta, and it was therefore not an assassination. --Rebroad (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the line between assassination and murder is as clear-cut as that. Our own article on "assassination" defines it as the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons ... it is an act that may be done for financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from a desire to acquire fame or notoriety. When John Hinckley, Jr. shot Ronald Reagan in 1981, he did it because he thought it would impress Jodie Foster, but people don't usually hesitate to describe it as an "attempted assassination". I see your point, but I think there's a reasonable case to be made here that "assassination" is the proper term. If others concur, I'll edit it back. —Tim Pierce (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think a case could certainly be made that the incident is most often referred to as an assassination (sometimes interchangeably with murder). I would support reverting it back to assassination as it fits the literal definition and matches how it is referenced elsewhere. This change would also require many changes to the Moscone–Milk assassinations article as well. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 18:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some definitions of assassination do seem to equate it to murder, but some do not. If you go by your argument that the two terms are synonymous, then why would you object to the use of the other term being used? Whereas if you go with my argument that assassination is a specific type of murder, then you should agree with me that it's too specific, opinion-influenced and disputed, whereas murder is not. Given that avoiding the term assassination fulfills both arguments, then the logical solution is to go with that term. Murder/killing, not assassination. The only reason to advocate assassination is to promote an agenda as the connotations of the word assassination are significant. --Rebroad (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Then by your argument - using murder over assassination is also pushing an agenda - which does seem to be the case. Assassination is clearly the term used by historians and academic writings. Unless you can show documentation showing that assassination is inappropriate - beyond your own personal opinion and that of a film critic - please do not engage in a revert war. You proposed a change to the article without documentation (again - something by academics or known historians and not film critics would be helpful) - it is on you and not Twp to explain the change. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 00:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Assassination is a subset of murder, therefore my argument is that given assassination is disputed and murder is not (since they are both murder), it makes sense to use murder. Please refer to the dictionary definition of assassination, which is a murder for political gain or payment. This murder was neither as it was a personal vendetta. Most articles online that analyse the meaning of assassination in relation to Milk also agree on this. --Rebroad (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that playing the "dictionary definition" game is really that productive to begin with, but if we're going to do that, I submit that the definition we should use is Wikipedia's own definition of "assassination" -- which, as already noted, explicitly includes killings that are motivated by personal grudges and other non-political motives. There's no shortage of murders that are described as "assassination" even without a political motive. In some cases -- Olof Palme and Park Chung-hee to name just two -- we use the word "assassination" even when no one can agree on whether the motive was political or personal. So it seems to me that demanding a narrowly tailored definition of "assassination" is both unhelpful and inappropriate, and that the right thing for Wikipedia to do here is to reflect the conventional wisdom, which is that Harvey Milk was assassinated. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I would rather see citations than proclamations. I would also ask that no one make these changes until some consensus is reached. Right now there is no consensus on a change. Generally WP policies indicate that changes like this need better justification than "some think this is a bad wording" - something more to the effect of "here is proof that this is factually inaccurate" would be better. So far that has not been submitted - beyond a non-cited dictionary definition and film critic's essay. Wiktionary's definition says "political motives" - not "gain or payment". I think you could logically argue that even if a broader Wikipedia definition of assassination did not apply - there is plenty of reason to believe that the assassinations were politically motivated. Implying that both Milk and Moscone were killed while working in a political role in a government building by a fellow politician over a political disagreement (White staying in office or not) seems to be ignoring the word "political" way too many times. Additionally the definitions offered by The American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Random House, or Oxford do not match the one you have provided. Can you please cite your source? Generally these sources provide for broader definition, or take about political motives and not gains - if that is brought up at all. Most support the definition used by Wikipedia's article. I previously cited several news and academic sources indicating that assassination is applicable. I have not been able to find any reliable sources indicating that assassination is an invalid term to use. Again, please cite your reasons for wanting this change beyond your personal opinion. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 23:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It is very easy to find references that describe the killing as assassination, which I also think is the correct term. Wikipedia's definition of the term also includes grudges and non-political motives. In a quick search, I have found [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], all of which refer to an assassination. As consensus for change has not been met, this article, and the others related to it, should not be changed. --Dmol (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

For me the stopper is the sources (used in the article) which describe it as an assassination. Since it also fits our operating definition of an assassination I'm less inclined to entertain the argument that a small number of sources referring to at as a 'murder' (which isn't itself exclusive with assassination) requires us to break with the balance of the source material. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2013

No details of personal life. No details of his controversial pederasty. LiangLiangTunis (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your request is noted, but you have not suggested specific changes to the text, nor provided sources to support doing so. Happy to entertain your request at that time. Maralia (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

McKinley is mentioned as well as his age. What "details" were you looking for? 207.237.211.236 (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Harvey Milk wrote letter of support for Jim Jones to President Jimmy Carter in 1978

Copy of letter:

http://www.brasscheck.com/jonestown/milk.jpg

97.94.167.160 (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)WikipediaScout

• this is in the article here. Protonk (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate age for Jack Galen McKinley

I would like to point out two inaccuracies in the following sentence:

"Their relationship was troubled: McKinley, aged 16,[13] was 17 years younger than Milk, and prone to depression and frequently threatened to commit suicide if Milk did not show him enough attention.[14]"

The first inaccuracy is the age difference between Milk and McKinley. Milk was born May 22, 1930. McKinley was born October 18, 1946. (Source: Milk's address book, in which he listed the birthdates of people he knew. The address book is included in the Milk-Smith Collection of papers held by the James C. Hormel Gay & Lesbian Center at the main branch of the San Francisco Public Library.) The age difference between the two men was 16 years, 4 3/4 months. I believe that rounding this figure down to 16 years would be more accurate.

The second inaccuracy is McKinley's age when he met Milk. Because McKinley was born October 18, 1946, and he first met Milk in late 1964, his age at that time would have been 17 or 18 years old, not 16.

Would anyone mind if I corrected those two numbers and their associated notes?

Vince Emery 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinceemery (talk • contribs)

That is just a horrible sentence and structure to begin with. I would blow it all up and start over. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Changing one sentence about how ideology resulted in the assassinations.

Could you take out or edit the sentence that claims the assassinations were the result of changing ideology in San Francisco? (It's the last sentence in paragraph.)

NO! Changing ideology does not kill people. An insane man with a gun killed two people, not a changing ideology.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.206.41 (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

---

I saw this ^talk and deleted the statement from the article but because it was unsourced and seemed to be editorializing. A Friendly Nerd (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Released FBI files

Shall we include FBI investigation files on Milk, Dan White, and George Moscone? [10][11] --George Ho (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Portal peer review

I have submitted Portal:San Francisco Bay Area to peer review. i would welcome any comments. i believe it is fully ready for featured portal status, but i have been just about the only editor there for a while.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Noticed Error

Harvey milk was not the first openly gay person elected publicly as the article states, although he was one of them.

592ley (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you might have missed the rest of the sentence: " the first openly gay person to be elected to public office in California". Maralia (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the purpose...

...served by remarking on the age difference of every single of Milk's partners? If I do that on the pages of straight figures, will I get reverted? Rafe87 (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Not only that, but a comment — never refuted — on the archived Talk page[12] states that the age difference between Milk and McKinley given on the entry is incorrect, and the underage accusation is therefore unproven and slanderous.Rafe87 (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason reliable sources state that McKinley was 16 is that they met in 1963, not 1964 as that comment claims. KateWishing (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The entry itself recognizes that Milk recorded McKinley's age differently, allowing for the interpretation that he was not aware of the "underage" quality the entry obsesses about. Combined with the fact that a remark is made on the age of every other of Milk's lovers, all of whom legal adults, the impression one is left with is that the entry is trying to pass off a malicious image of Milk. If I remark on the pages of heterosexual figures the great disparity between their age and that of every single of their lovers, will there be a guarantee I won't face a reversion? I'm going to ask again - what purpose is served by remarking on age differences every single time? Rafe87 (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Milk didn't say McKinley was 18. He gave McKinley's accurate birthdate in his address book, and a Wikipedia editor combined this with the wrong year of meeting. After that editor added their original research to the page, another Wikipedia editor came along and altered it to suggest that Milk had lied. I'll fix this by removing the original research.

If reliable sources highlight the age differences in his relationships, it makes sense to note it (as with Woody Allen, for example). KateWishing (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

...served by concealing Milk's connection to pederasty? I do a google search for 'harvey milk pederast' and I get 4120 hits. Clearly there is something to be said about this matter. Is this article controlled by people who want to protect Milk's reputation? Or do they continue to need a gay hero whose reputation is unsmirched? 75.175.97.91 (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Military Ship Naming and fixes

The article should be updated to reflect the pending naming of a U.S. Naval ship after Milk. Additionally, 'State University of New York at Albany' is not the correct name of Milk's alma mater -- it's 'University at Albany, State University of New York' or just 'University at Albany' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.226.73.37 (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

statement error in article......

Harvey Milk is not the first opening gay person elected to public office in the USA. That was Elaine Noble in 1974. See her article. I believe the error was generated by the film: "Milk".

According to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/first-100-gays_us_59039dcce4b05c39767f71ae , he was the seventh elected nationally. 97.120.32.147 (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

White wash

Why isn't this guy called what he was: sex offender? For doing it with minors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:AD00:14B8:49C3:861E:1474 (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Homosexuals need heroes, I guess. But they happen to have few more than Harvey Milk. This WP article is probably patrolled by gays who scour it of material embarrassing to their hero and themselves. https://halfabridge.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/harvey-milk-child-molester/ http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/10/matt-barber-calls-harvey-milk-a-rapist-demonstrably-categorically-an-evil-man/ http://wonkette.com/517375/california-parents-harvey-milk-molesting-children-from-beyond-the-grave I recommend starting by adding material from Randy Shilts' book, "And the Band Played On". You will probably get a lot of push-back. 75.164.160.161 (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Article on Harvey Milk

"Milk moved from New York City to settle in San Francisco in 1972 amid a migration of gay men to the Castro District. He took advantage of the growing political and economic power of the neighborhood to promote his interests

and three times ran unsuccessfully for political office. earned him increasing popularity, and Milk won a seat as a city supervisor in 1977, his election made possible by and was a key component of a shift in San Francisco politics."

WHAT??? Italic text WHO says he "took advantage" and that it was to "promote his interests"? And WHO is qualifying his campaigns as "theatrical", if not a homophobe, who is offended by LGBTQIA mannerisms?

This is INFLAMMATORY and unashamedly HOMOPHOBIC language and, once I have flagged to key LGBTQIA organisations around the world, we would begin scrutinising ALL articles on Wikipedia on the topic, giving Wikipedia the following choices:

1) To to remove all homophobic inferences from the Milk article AND ANY OTHERS of the same tone 2) To face a Twiiterstorm to warn people that Wikipedia is being taken over TROLLS sponsored by homophobes 3) To become the subject of a global boycott, asking LGBTQIA people and allies NOT to donate to Wikipedia until ALL homophobic articles are edited.

Your call!

GeaVox

V^^^^V

PS THIS is what Harvey Milk would have done, in our shoes, in honour of his memory we can do no less for him than he did for us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeaVox (talk • contribs) 14:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

    Harvey Milk was a man who cared about the lifestyles of those who were hiding in the closet. He, himself was a gay man and wanted equality. For Harvey being the first gay man elected to public office, that's amazing to me. No one doesn't have to agree with me about what my point of views towards Harvey. If it wasn’t for him, that one person who came out and helped others as well, I don’t know how or who I would’ve been. Those who say “being gay is a sin” or have “homophobia” don’t really see and understand that not everyone has to be straight. Every human being has a right to be themselves and believe in either science or religion. Its 2017 and by now everyone should understand that everyone can be straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or a transgender because I do think some people still have a problem with the idea of being open minded and argue to understand the topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.151 (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC) 

Harvey Milk was the seventh openly gay man in America elected to public office. So says http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/first-100-gays_us_59039dcce4b05c39767f71ae 97.120.32.147 (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)