Talk:Harvey Milk/Archive 11

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 5

←

Archive 9

→

Ah, I ec'd with you on the IP edit's talk page

Stuart Milk is apparently Harvey's nephew, I'll see if he's had anything published and if I can get a hold of it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, let me know when you get to a nice stopping point and I'll do a more thorough copyedit. We don't seem to be getting any more takers at the peer review; do I smell bad? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My biggest concerns are with the images now, perhaps cutting down the Broader historical forces section as I've drafted here. Copy edit away! --Moni3 (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Stuart Milk made some pictures available here: http://thecastro.net/milk/family/milkfamily.html. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Got some loose ends all over the place, I'll give you a shout when I start, it will be in the next 24 hours. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, strike what I said about trying to get John involved here, this article is looking really polished Moni. I'll try to get him in trouble somewhere else. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll do some searching to see if I can verify the story about Milk's grandfather with better sources. --Moni3 (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting 2

John has volunteered for the copyedit; I'll go through after he's done. Should be sometime today. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"were encouraging gays to work with liberal politicians": how do you feel about "were asking gays not to alienate liberal politicians"? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

I think it's more accurate to say they encouraged gays to work (or rather justified what they were doing) with liberal politicians. Not until Milk came around did they start asking gays - and really Milk only - not to alienate anyone. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"a frequent campaign tactic, Milk's case": should be "in Milk's case", either with or without brackets around [in]. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
I think some reviewers may feel that the soap opera goes on just a little too long, given that the focus of the article should be on what made Milk notable: "To make a point to McKinley, Milk took him to the hospital to show him an unsuccessful suicide: Milk's ex-lover Joe Campbell made an attempt when the man he was in love with, Billy Sipple, left him. Milk had remained friendly with Campbell, who had entered the avant garde art scene in Greenwich Village. Milk disapproved of Campbell's relationship with Sipple and did not understand his despondency." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
- Aha! I didn't realize it was Sipple who probably saved President Ford's life in San Francisco. Okay, that makes this tough. I don't think there's any perfect way to present the information; what you've done here is as good as any, and nicely understated. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
"Alioto's supporters—were forced out": it doesn't really say what they were forced out by, other than "young families" ... and if they were displaced by young families, that wouldn't explain why prices were depressed and space was opening up in the Castro. Were they forced out by job loss? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, loss of jobs at the docks, blue collar industry jobs replaced by white collar service industry jobs. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"When Alioto tried to win Catholic influence with a Cardinal for San Francisco": I don't quite follow what this means. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alioto cracked down on homosexuality to show the Archdiocese that SF was, I guess, a virtuous enough city to warrant a Cardinal. Excellent plan, eh? --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"became involved with O'Horgan's theater company": would it be possible to say:

became a "general aide" with O'Horgan's theater company

and attribute it, and get rid of all or most of the following sentence? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

Yeh, I guess. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"publisher of The Advocate David Goodstein": we can leave it, but some at FAC may want "Advocate publisher David Goodstein". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

I'm ok either way. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"granting equal rights to gays and lesbians": even though we are, of course, talking about equal rights, I think there's a good case for deleting "equal": it has a POV ring to it, and it's redundant; that's what rights are for. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
"Milk decided to do something; he would run for city supervisor": I think I'd prefer "Milk decided to run for city supervisor." We can never really know why someone runs for office; they always say its to help the little guy, or restore faith in government, or whatever. If your sources feel strongly that they have a good handle on why he ran for office, we could go into detail. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'm good with that, too. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"He also put socially liberal points in his platform, including sexual freedom and the legalization of marijuana." I think I'd prefer "He ran on a socially liberal platform, opposing government interference in private sexual matters and favoring the legalization of marijuana." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's better. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a program note: when something I'd like to see seems uncontroversial, or when it's controversial but I'm pretty sure I'm right, I go ahead and make the edit. I'm putting notes here if I'm less certain on what the final outcome should be.
"on the day of the fair than in previous decades": if they made more in that one day than in the last twenty years combined, I'd change this to "than over the course of the last X decades (or years)". Otherwise, "than on any previous day".

From Shilts, p. 90: Over five thousand came to the first fair in August 1974. The street hadn't seen a crowd like that since the festival celebrating California's centennial fifteen years earlier. An Italian liquor store owner who had decried the gay onslaught to Castro Camera the next day to tell MIlk breathlessly he had sold three times the booze on that one Sunday than on any other single day in his decades of business. It was as if he just figured out that homosexuals liked ice-cold cans of Bud like anybody else. He signed up as a CVA member. I'll have to search at sfgate.com or purchase Gay by the Bay to get more information than this. Not that I mind buying the book, but if you think it's going to be a big deal, I won't be able to get the book for a week or so. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, "than on any previous day" sounds good to me; good for you? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"to resemble the type of men Milk found attractive": I'd prefer either "to resemble men that Milk found attractive" (if they looked like people he knew) or "to be the type of men Milk found attractive" (if they were his "type").

Ok. --Moni3 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Milk favored support for small businesses and the growth of neighborhoods over the growing city-wide trend to support large businesses and develop the downtown area. This clash of interests between downtown development prioritized by Alioto and the support of local neighborhoods resulted in a political overhaul.": I don't quite follow.

From the 1960s Alioto was trying to lure large corporations to SF, and doing a good job. So good that they replaced the established economy and population of the city, moving all the blue collar workers out. Alioto and his conservative colleagues were replaced by Moscone and other liberal politicians. --Moni3 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My phrase: "When the police response was considered inadequate": I don't mean by this that I'm not willing to sock it to the police (to adopt the lingo of the time :) for bad behavior, but if there was definite bad behavior, I'd want to know exactly what the sources are saying that proves that. Police can't usually put an end to random attacks of any kind in any city. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Random attacks on gays rose, but police would have little to do with the Castro District. Response times to calls from the Castro were slow. The "Pink Panther" groups would corral an attacker until the police eventually responded. Milk himself caught a guy and held him until the police got there. --Moni3 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be fussed to leave the phrase I put in, but I'd also be fine with being more specific about the slow response times and the "Pink Panther" groups, but I'd want to see some text that sounded like someone was really keeping track of response times and numbers and severity of incidents, and comparing those numbers with the city-wide police response. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"dictated to him what he would have to do to get gay votes": don't know what this means. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically told Moscone to freeze out Alice and Jim Foster, which he did. From that point on, Moscone dealt with Milk when there was a city issue dealing with gays.

How are we going to prove that "Milk voted his conscience"? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer to know either a little more or a little less: "Although the proposed law was simple in legislating that gay teachers not be allowed in public classrooms, it also was written generally enough to state that any employee of a public school district who supported gay rights—regardless of their own sexual orientation—could also be fired." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

The way the law was written - threatening to fire teachers, regardless of sexual orientation, for what they believed - was what got the attention of Reagan, Carter, and others. --Moni3 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"quick statements that they shot back and forth at each other": "repartee" gets 96K ghits; is that enough to substitute "quick repartee", or am I being twee? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nevermind, that is twee. How about "quick back-and-forth banter"? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. --Moni3 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I know this is a more thorough copyedit than last time, but I know Scartol's lurking in the bushes, and this time I wanna be ready for him. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't told Scartol about this article. It's you and me, and whoever trips over it. --Moni3 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's a relief. His copyediting puts me to shame. Still, we're guaranteed to have one or more fussy reviewers at FAC, God love 'em, and I want to be ready. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There should be a ton of sources out there that consider Dan White's actions "murder"; it would be best to support your use of the term by citing a couple of them. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The "Dan White, killer" ref needs a page number. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
"Despite the antics that led some to dismiss him as a panderer for publicity": I reworded, but with or without the rewording, we probably need to add attribution. I don't want to lose this key sentence, though. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I fixed it with "Despite his antics and publicity stunts..." There's no question that there were antics and publicity stunts, Harvey was the first to admit that. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay I'm done. I checked the Notes, but not the other endsections. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Excellent article. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Btw, on your overall questions: I don't think the article is too long or winding, and yes, I think you can say that the police acted very very badly, but only if you want to. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I will go over these points through the next day or so. Thanks, Dan! --Moni3 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"That laborious adjustment plods on—now forward, now backward—though with every gay character to emerge on TV and with every presidential speech to a gay group, its eventual outcome favoring equality seems clear." Is this the right article for that? If we state that in the lead, we should prove it in the article. Even in 2008, over the short term, the outcome isn't clear to me, although I have a hard time seeing how the long-term outcome can't be favorable. But I think a lot of readers would think that this is just my opinion. The first part of the quote is fine. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to know why so many statements about the impact of Milk's life are so bad for a lead quote. I think all these people speaking and writing about Milk know what I'm trying to do and are deliberately making it difficult. It's quite clear that they all hate me. You too. Injustice! Thy sting is sharp! Argh. --Moni3 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You could prove that statement or something like it, and you're just the person to do it, but that's a whole nuther FA. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for fixing the Briggs edit. I'm done. Again. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image check

Image:Harvey milk.jpg - Milk appears in four (if I counted correctly) other images; the purpose of "Illustrate the person" is fulfilled by the other images (NFCC#3A), which makes this redundant. (NFCC#1 problems, too, as this and this are free).
Image:Harvey Milk in Texas 1957.jpg - try to elaborate on what, specifically, about his appearance is conservative (I suppose I don't see rolled up pants and short sleeves as conservative, but that's coming from a someone who even wears a tie and coat on weekends). I have NFCC#8 concerns, too, which may or may not be remediable with a stronger rationale. In Stonewall, the contrast in appearances was important because it reflected values underlying the cause of the riots. The importance of contrasting appearance is not readily apparent here. The rationale indicates the image is illustrating a conservative appearance, but does not go the next step to say why it is important to do so. With the reinstated NFCC#8 phrasing of "omission would be detrimental to that understanding", what understanding of Milk would a reader lose if this image were removed?
Image:Milk at Castro Camera 1973.jpg - similar questions as the above image, although the stronger caption helps. In that vein, however, why wouldn't prose akin to "Milk grew his hair long, began wearing jeans, etc." be sufficient to understand a change to a liberal appearance? What understanding does the image convey that words alone cannot reasonably substitute?
Image:Gay Freedom Day 1976 by Harvey Milk.jpg - the substantive purpose seems to be to illustrate "how freely gay men in the neighborhood in 1976 felt to dress and behave"; would a free image of this be available? If there's no free image, does physically seeing Milk's constituency really assist our understanding of Milk? That Milk took it doesn't seem to really be germane to our understanding of Milk.
Image:Bronze plate of Harvey Milk ashes on Castro Street.JPG - I think the text is substantial enough to be eligible for copyright protection; NFCC#1 would probably require this to be included in quotation form (i.e. a quote box), not an image.
Image:Mural of Harvey Milk in former Castro Camera.JPG - this, as you know, is a derivative. Would it be possible to get permission in writing (i.e. email) and forward to OTRS? As it is, we don't have a means of verifying that John Baden (the artist) has approved the GFDL license, which puts the image at odds with WP:IUP.

Apologies for my delay. Remember, also, that I'm merely playing devil's advocate here to assist preparation for the rigors of FAC. Эlcobbola _talk 14:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Elcobbola, for the review. I think we're going to ditch Image:Harvey milk.jpg.

FYI, I sent permissions for Image:Mural of Harvey Milk in former Castro Camera.JPG on September 29. Are you able to check on that?

While aesthetically and just...because...I love Image:Gay Freedom Day 1976 by Harvey Milk.jpg, I may have to give it up for deletion unless Dank55 has ideas.

I never have ideas about images, I just follow directions. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between copying the text verbatim from Image:Bronze plate of Harvey Milk ashes on Castro Street.JPG and using the image? I'd think copying the text, if the words are copyrighted, would be a bigger problem.

I'll try to work on justifying or fixing these other problems. --Moni3 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The mural is ticketed!

In the "real world" there isn't a difference; in Wikipedia, it's a quirk in policy. In the "real world", literary and visual works are protected by the same copyright law, Title 17. The fair use provision therein, therefore, applies to both prose and images. Every quote from a copyrighted work you see on Wikipedia, the media, etc. is actually "real world" fair use in action. The quirk here is that, for images (which, unlike prose, fall under the definition of "non-free content"), Wikipedia uses rules deliberately stricter than "real world" fair use (the NFCC). Эlcobbola _talk 19:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Another issue is that I now have to cite the statement on the plaque covering Milk's ashes. It has to be a third party source. This does seem like a nutty hoop to jump through, because I have the image here, but I can't use the image either in the article or as a source for the verbatim quote from the plaque, because my own photo of that would be OR? Eesh. Any tips? --Moni3 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that citing the quote to, say, "Harvey Milk Memorial Plaque, Castro Camera, Castro, San Francisco, California" (I assume you would have better, more specific wording) would be sufficient. The point of WP:V is giving the reader sufficient information that they could independently verify the information; giving the source and physical location, in this instance, seems perfectly acceptable. I don't foresee a reasonable person having an OR concern - quoting text from a plaque is, ultimately, no different than quoting from a book; there's just no handy ISBN number. Эlcobbola _talk 20:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

What about this cropped image for the infobox? Protonk (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We could also crop the longshoreman photo because (Duuhhh, duh, DAAAAHH!!!) the moscone desk photo wouldn't be facing the text. :) Protonk (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose...this would be ok for FA? (I like this one better at the top than the longshoremen photo even if Milk isn't facing the text)If we end up getting another by Stuart Milk, I'd like to replace it, but until then...? Anyone have any other ideas? --Moni3 (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could leave the FU image up there and keep the cropped image in the wings for a main page appearance. Protonk (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Stuart

No response from Stuart Milk yet at the aol.com address, but that address is from 1999 or 2000. I know what companies Stuart works for but would rather not contact his company email. Daniel Nicoletta, who you mention in your image credits, knows Stuart; should I contact him? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Stuart Milk gets emails at any and all his addresses. I'd use the work address. Then Dan Nicoletta's. Shall we consider, if we want to nominate this article Fridayish, that we should leave the lead without an image or infobox and place something in there as soon as we have it taken care of? --Moni3 (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why go without? Just take Image:Harvey Milk in 1978 at Mayor Moscone's Desk.jpg or Image:Harvey Milk Campaigning With Longshormen in 1976.jpg and crop to make a new image of just Milk for the infobox. Эlcobbola _talk 15:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to co-nom Friday-ish; the text is ready, I think, and the images don't look like a problem to me, although hopefully I'll be able to reach Stuart. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tributes

I added a reference to the SF Public Library branch that was renamed in his honor but I couldn't find the year that it was renamed. The library is located ay 1 José Sarria Court, a section of 16th St. that was renamed for another SF pioneer. I don't know if there's a good way to work that in but given the groundwork for Harvey's election that was laid by Sarria I would like to see some mention of Sarria somewhere in the article. Otto4711 (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

1981, found here. Here's a tie-to Jose Sarria to help explain that connection. -- Banjeboi 00:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Last review before FAC

Anyone who's watching the article can feel free to give input to this.

I don't see any way that the current image at the top of the page will be allowed. The options are shifting Image:Harvey Milk in 1978 at Mayor Moscone's Desk.jpg to the top of the article with or without the infobox and replacing that image in the Supervisor section with a quote box, having no image at the top of the article, or going through the process of trying to find a fair use image from the documentary or somewhere else. With recent difficulty justifying an image in Stonewall riots, the fewer fair use images in this one, I think the better. Thoughts?
- We're talking about the image that's just a profile, right? I can contact Stuart Milk and try to get permission for a family photo, if you want one. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
  - It might be Stuart trying to add that bit in about Milk's grandfather. If so, see if he has knowledge of a reliable source that will confirm his great-grandfather's establishing two synagogues. I would love an early childhood photo of Milk as well as a general one of him later in life. Are you familiar with getting permissions for photos? If not, ask him all nice and stuff for images. If he is agreeable, respond by asking him to place his name below the following statement: I own the copyright to the images found attached in this email. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify these documents under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Sometimes I've gotten a few images from organizations or people who were so excited to get something on Wikipedia, they just sent me images saying YES! and I forwarded that release to permissions@wikipedia.org with the image attached. Either way, the release and the photo has to be mailed to Wikipedia. You can load the image then (no more than 500 pixels, probably) and license it as GFDL. If you want help with this, I can assist. Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    - On it. Stuart is openly gay and very proud of his uncle, and he has a lot of family photos. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      - Sorry - I should have said this before, and sorry if you already know this. Makes sure if Stuart can give you images, that these are family photos and not images taken by other photographers. Stuart can only give us permission to use images that are in the family photo album, taken by family members. --Moni3 (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
        I'll let you know as soon as he responds, if I have the right email address (SacredRain at aol dot com). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead may benefit from a strong statement in the third paragraph that says Milk's election and assassination were the culmination of changing forces in the city, and tensions between political groups. The statements at the end of the current 3rd paragraph could be split into a small 4th paragraph. I'm still considering replacing the quote from the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality. Thoughts?
- I don't believe there's enough support in the article for this claim, at least not in a Wikipedia article. I'm not a fan of the Encyc. of Homosexuality quote. "Avoid statements that will become dated"; and saying that he did a better job than anyone has done "since" is probably already dated. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
  - Are you saying you don't think there's enough evidence in the article to claim that Milk's election and assassination were the culmination of changing forces in the city? If so, I gotta disagree. I think that's actually pretty strong in the article. Castro changing, liberal politics in the city, police force unhappy about it, Dan White as an ex-policeman... I'll change the quote at the end. Won't be hard. --Moni3 (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    - Can you put that another way? Are you saying that Milk's election and assassination had a greater political impact than anything else in San Francisco in the 70's and 80's? We could work in that direction, but Wikipedia is allergic to "the greatest". Some rephrasing may be needed. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      - Not necessarily. I think it's worth pointing out that Milk was elected due to several forces changing in the city, and his assassination was a result of the conflict of those forces. Is that clear at all? --Moni3 (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
        Not to me, but go on ahead, I'll catch up. I'm all in favor of statistical arguments correlating an increase in violent crime against a group, such as gays, with general political and social trends, but we're talking about one data point here. You can't correlate one data point with anything. Milk died for the same reason Moscone died: a criminal shot him. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
        I do love a complex story, and Milk's assassination would qualify. True that White was petulant and had significant mental issues, and I should clarify in any edit I make to the lead that White alone shot Moscone and Milk. The response of the police, the trial, and the riots, more accurately, were a result of the conflict of those forces. --Moni3 (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
There may be good cause to drop some of Anita Bryant's insanity to footnotes. Input?
- I think so. This article is a little long, and I see another article springing from the leftovers of this one. Logically, the next article would be about the stuff that isn't specifically about Milk. So yes, push some of that into the footnotes, please. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  - Got it. Will do. --Moni3 (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Are there any other sections that need to be altered, decreased in volume? --Moni3 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I printed this out, John says he'll have a reply in the morning. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  - From the top down to the beginning of Campaigns, I don't see anything where the volume needs to be lowered. Conceivably, people might want to chop a sentence here or there if they feel you're taking too long to get to the good stuff, but I'm happy with it the way it is. John will start copyediting at Campaigns before I get up, he says ... let's see! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Have the "small issues" I noted in the GA review been dealt with or addressed? I wasn't checking every change in the article (just some). Protonk (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I addressed all of them except for "White did not forget the snub" - I'm still thinking about it, and the "legal defense" term, because I believe the editor who changed my wording has legal experience. --Moni3 (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I was just thinking about going back to A: actually re-read the article and B: noting that my objections certainly weren't holding this train from FA. :) Protonk (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything at Hinckle, p. 48, that reports that White said that his uniform opposition to everything Milk did was because of Milk's switch on that vote? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You looking for a quote from White that said he was deliberately voting against Milk for the "betrayal"? I don't think White was that transparent. He took Milk's vote against the mental health facility personally, stopped speaking to him and would only talk to Milk's aide Dick Pabich. Within months of being sworn in, White was on a downward spiral, learning about city politics firsthand and not really enjoying the lessons. I'll see what Hinckle says on that page, though. Just FYI, most material about White's state of mind is given from his aides and acquaintances. --Moni3 (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'd be more comfortable saying that White's aide said that he never forgave Milk for the vote. We've got a guy who was homophobic, didn't like "loud" people, was in deteriorating mental health, was a politician, and didn't say one way or the other what his motivations were. I think in this situation, Wikipedia can't claim to know that the sole reason for his actions was Milk's vote, we can only quote people close to him on what his motivation was. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

According to White's campaign manager Ray Sloan (they gay guy), White never spoke to Milk from the mental health facility vote until the day he shot Milk. By March White stopped coming in to work every day and called in to check on things. Goldie Judge, White's first campaign manager reported that there were several attempts to recall White in his district. There's a link in White's own article that says he was going to shoot Carol Ruth Silver and several other people, but things didn't work out for him that day... Ray Sloan told Mike Weiss he thought Dan White was a little bit in love with Harvey. Note I neglected to put that in the article, among some other crackpot theories. Although...who am I to label something crackpot? For all I know he was in love with Harvey. Ultimately, we can't say that Milk's vote or White's crazy crap was any reason this happened. I've never seen an issue like this so muddy. I doubt White himself understood what the hell was going on. His wife must have need years of therapy. At any rate, I think the article is as ambiguous as White's state of mind. It doesn't blame Milk's vote or his sexuality or anything in particular. --Moni3 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's looking good to me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Alice?

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

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

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

Sentence in lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to Old64mb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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