Talk:Harvey Milk/Archive 12

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 10

Copyediting again

On the issue of whether quote marks should go around something that's also linked, Stanton and some others say the presence of a link should never make a difference, on the grounds that Wikipedia has many mirrors and forks (including WP:V0.7, and most of them won't have all the links that we do. I'm okay with deleting quotation marks that would have been used for emphasis when you add a link, if the emphasis wasn't strictly necessary. In this case ("not guilty by reason of insanity"), it's not emphasis, it's a matter of not being readable without the quote marks if there's no blue link, so I think we need them. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay I'm done. Still haven't heard from Stuart. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you fight it out with whoever objects to the quotes in the FAC. Epic battle in 3..2..1..

Ok, on Stuart...Worse case scenario is we have to ditch both images in the top portion of the article and have the cropped repeat at the top...Poop. --Moni3 (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw, you're right that we have info in two different sections now on the loss of blue-collar jobs; I was thinking that it's relevant to the section that talks about city demographics, and it's also relevant to the section that talks about how Moscone was able to win, but we could pare back in one place or the other. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see if someone objects to it. The article is as much about Milk's life as it is about all these demographic changes, but that's why I like it. I think it will probably be ok as long as it doesn't repeat the same or similar phrases. I keep thinking if I were reading this article for the first time it would be hard for me to keep all this stuff...ha ha...straight. --Moni3 (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth suggested we look at the ELs during the peer review, I suggested 3 could go, although I don't feel strongly about it; thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Toss 'em. I think deep thoughts. --Moni3 (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Moni, it seems to me the first paragraph in Change is now a better match for the material in the following subsection. (If it's moved, then Change probably wouldn't be the right title for that subsection.) What do you think? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yah. Did it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"that Milk was the same man as the hippie present at candidates' functions" (in the caption): did she not know that it was Harvey back then, and later make the connection, or did she know it was Harvey back then, know that he had been a hippie, and only later realized that, in some ways, he never stopped being a hippie? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh. Mmm. She didn't realize in 1978, that the hippie present at those candidates' nights in 1973 was Milk. Careful if you reword that. I'm trying to justify that image. --Moni3 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Understood. How about "would only realize years later that Milk was the hippie she had seen at"? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How is this? "Castro Street residents began to leave, and a more educated, professional voting base moved into the city." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
One small copyedit today, the rest all looks good. Lead is up to you, Moni. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand "Milk abruptly moved from his job", Moni; did he abruptly quit his job, or abruptly move? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

He quit. Got bored and walked out, which is what he often did. --Moni3 (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with removing "and successful"; I'll delete the hidden comment you added about that if you're done with it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
"When two men tried to open an antique shop": if the two men were gay, I think it would make this easier to read to say "gay men". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
If Milk didn't get permission from Sipple before contacting the newspaper and revealing Sipple's sexuality, then please remove the "initially" that I inserted. (I think he probably didn't.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
"Milk was not allowed to run a campaign while seated on a city commission": prohibited by city ordinance or state law or something else? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yah, since Sipple was pretty angry about the attention he got until the day he died, I'd say it's safe to say he never wanted the press to report on his sexuality.

Okay, I removed "initially". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Prohibited by Moscone. I'll get the exact wording. --Moni3 (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ... don't need a lot of detail, just the source of the prohibition. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

After "Milk led marchers", I removed "consciously avoiding a riot", because I didn't understand what that meant. If you want to reinsert, I'd prefer to see what Milk and/or the marchers did that helped avoid a riot. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Per my hidden edit yesterday, 4 paragraphs in a row start in Early life with "Milk". Yesterday I was trying to avoid that with the edits I constructed.

Okay, I'll keep an eye on that. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

Not running for office was a rule set by Moscone, but not one that anyone apparently followed, including Moscone himself. When he made his rule public, an editorial printed that the mayor "ought to build a stadium for us to laugh in". --Moni3 (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Okey doke, if you like, you could say that Moscone didn't want people running for other offices while working for him. I didn't like just flatly saying "not allowed", which made it sound like it was a law or ordinance. In other news, I'm happy with all the edits so far. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed "shocked ... inadequate support" to "shocked to see how little support they received". I don't care much about the wording, but I thought "shocked" didn't match the tone of "inadequate". All the other edits look fine, and the article is lookin' suh-weet. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Any other thoughts on making the first part as gripping as the second? That's bothering me. I don't know if Anita Bryant, John Briggs, Jonestown, and Dan White are inherently more sensationalistic than Milk's directionless life up to then or if the writing is just uncompelling. I can't tell. --Moni3 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's not compelling, I'm sure we'll be told :) Honestly, I can't see what you could change. Every significant life involves paying some dues and making some mistakes before notability; not all of it is gripping reading, but much of it is relevant to the overall story. I've got another quibble: "the primary candidate in District 5": the only candidate in the primary election? Or are you saying he quickly became the leading candidate? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I debated how big a deal to make this in the article. Milk was certain even in his late 20s that he wouldn't live to see 50. During the race for state assembly, the death threats he got kept increasing. Anne Kronenberg, his campaign manager for the last supervisor race, was certain he was going to be shot while he was riding in the open car during the Gay Freedom Day Parade; she drove the car and planned an escape route in case it happened. So by evidence of the number of threats and how violent they became, he was aware of the relationship between his public profile and the threats. --Moni3 (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no particular place in the article that pops out at me as the appropriate place for that information, where were you thinking of putting it? Another quibble: I've usually seen 'adding, "This was a sick man"', in place of 'saying "This was a sick man."' Doesn't mean it's right, but that's more common. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you feel about removing "(although the closeted and fearful gays and lesbians seemed to change cities often in his speeches)"? On balance, I don't think the reader will care much. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Everything's looking good. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Wait, I'm being silly, there's an obvious place for a little more detail on the death threats: the "if a bullet" paragraph. One or two more sentences with details wouldn't be out of place. It would also be fine, if you like, to get rid of the Lira reference there or move it down to the paragraph where you reveal that he hanged himself. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Any problem with "after his lover Billy Sipple left him"? One thing I did was add a link, since many readers won't get far enough in the article to know why we're going out of our way to mention lovers of lovers. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Awww, damn. Linking it there gives away the secret! Then they can hover over the link and see what's coming up later. You give away all my bags of tricks, masked magician. --Moni3 (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a guess about what the reviewers will want, but I could be wrong, they might like the drama. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Many of the blue collar workers who were Alioto's supporters, were forced out by inflation due to the influx of white-collar jobs." That's fine with me if it's fine with you, Moni, but you were previously saying that both the jobs (i.e. the businesses, forced out by inflation caused by an influx of service-industry businesses) and the workers were forced out by inflation; are we only talking about the workers now (at least in this section)? I've checked all the other edits; it's all good. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw, GrahamColm just requested all the "split ups" be changed at FAC. You reverted one. Let me take another look at that paragraph about Alioto and San Francisco. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well ... thanks. Someone else changed a previous one to "split up", but I'm going with Graham on this one for the non-American audience; I'll make the edits. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Graham's edits are good; thanks Graham. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm okay with removing the Sipple link, but isn't it a given that no one knows why someone wants to attempt suicide? I don't get the musing about Milk's state of mind about Campbell's state of mind. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

My ex had a fight over suicide once. As she has more than a handshaking familiarity with depression, she understood at once why a public figure would want to commit suicide. I can't even remember who it was now. As I did not understand it, she thought me very insensitive and shallow in the extreme. I suppose ironic or not, that I had a hot and heavy affair with depression myself later on. Suicide was a theme known too well in pre-Stonewall gay life. Craig Rodwell attempted it, was common for people whose names were printed in the papers after a raid. Milk seemed central to this theme. Rodwell, McKinley (who attempted to throw himself off a pier at low tide once, coming home covered in mud - and who called Milk for years after still threatening to kill himself), Lira, and even Dan White. I should get Shilts to say this for me, but his anger at Campbell, and at Sipple by extension had to do with his outing him publicly. --Moni3 (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Okay, so you're saying that Milk was angry with Campbell as well as Sipple? Is that providing some background concerning Milk's outing Sipple later on? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Beautiful edits today, Moni, they fill in some important details. I only tweaked the "born politician" sentence, because I thought the second quote ("made no sense") wasn't particularly stirring and could be paraphrased, and it also seemed like it should be in a separate sentence. See if you like what I did. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. A couple of books came in from Amazon. I went to the Friends of the Library book sale (freakin' nearly 700 pages of a massage tome Gay & Lesbian Almanac for $2.50 - jiminy!) and spent an hour or so at the library copying 30 pages from The New Yorker. I'm still reading everything I got.

You may be interested: 10% of SF's homicides in 1976 were gay. In 1977 and 1978 three gay bathhouses were targeted for arson fires. After Pride 1977 four Castro Street businesses were firebombed, including Castro Camera. A serial killer named "the Doodler" targeted gay men and was running amok from 1973 to 1976. He got his name for mutilating his victims with a knife. p. 77–78, (Stryker, Susan (1996). Gay By the Bay, Chronicle Books. ISBN 0811811875)
I feel like a very strong statement needs to be placed at the beginning of Last campaign about the social phenomenon that was Castro Street - the nation's first gay neighborhood. The Castro generated between $25 million and $30 million annually. In 1978 the purchasing power of SF's gays was estimated to be $1.4 billion (Stryker, p. 64 - 65) --Moni3 (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding one or two sentences sounds good to me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

acknowledged, secrecy, etc with sexuality

"Milk was born and raised in New York where he acknowledged his homosexuality as an adolescent, but chose to pursue sexual relationships with secrecy and discretion well into his adult years."

acknowledged seems clunky, do any sources offer alternatives? Realized, manifested, celebrated, discovered, came to grips with - OK, not sure I have a better suggestion.

but chose to pursue sexual relationships with secrecy and discretion - shouldn't this be followed with "lest he be beaten to death with a baseball bat"? At the time the overwhelming majority of gays did exactly as Milk did. I would argue that most still do. To fix this perhaps a qualifier of sorts that this went with this era would sound less shaming. -- Banjeboi 21:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It was realized, but other editors requested it changed to acknowledged. Celebrated? That's like a one-man parade and not quite accurate.
I saved the consequences of being gay for the article. --Moni3 (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

lesbians

Resolved

does anyony know the first lesbian voted into office? is this the right place to ask? has one ever been voted? am i out of line here?Д narchistPig (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's in Harvey_Milk#Notes #6: Elaine Noble. --Moni3 (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Compelled

Resolved

"He was compelled to run for city supervisor in 1973, though he encountered resistance from the existing gay political establishment."

In what way was Milk "compelled" to run for supervisor? Being compelled requires some compulsion (same root word), some essentially irresistable force acting on the person. It suggests a lack of free will or choice in the matter, due either to an psychological state or an external force. Is this actually what is meant in this instance? The word "compelled" is not appropriately being used analogically or metaphorically, since in those cases the purpose is to illuminate the unknown by reference to the known. Here the relationship is reversed. What was almost certainly a normal set of reasons (strong commuity support, a sense that current civic leadership was inadequate, etc) leading someone to decide (an exercise of choice) to run for elected office is obscured by use of language that suggests that, in fact, he did not make a free decision. It suggests Milk was, in essence, a puppet controlled by something other than his rational self.

This may seem pedantic, but if Wiki aspires to be an encyclopedia then it first of all needs to ensure its contents clarify and illuminate rather than obscure. 64.122.196.98 (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, semantics. I'm ok with compel, as one of its related definitions is to have a powerful and irresistible effect, influence, etc. as the political climate had on Milk. But I also don't care that much about the word. If you can offer a replacement that is stronger than "decided to run" or something that means it sounded like it was a decision he made one day when he woke up and had nothing else better to do, let's consider it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It does not seem that he was acting under compulsion, so "was compelled" appears to be plain wrong. "He felt compelled" would perhaps be an acceptable idiom, although something less idiomatic might be better. According to the body of the article, he said, "I finally reached the point where I knew I had to become involved or shut up". If that was the strength of it, even "felt compelled" might be overstating it. Nurg (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I came over to the talk page to make the same point. The phrase "was compelled" means that basically, he had to do it against his will. If not rephrasing, then at the very least this sentence needs more explanation about who or what forced him to do this Ifdef (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Proper Citations

Resolved

That this article has been featured is astounding. ~~Almost every single~~ citation is to a single book, the citation is incomplete and the author was an out of work gay man who was obviously grateful for the work that Harvey Milk had done in advancing gay rights. ~~Is there no other extensive source or biography?~~ Where are the newspaper articles to further cite things? Are the quotes that are quoted from the book cited to their original source? They need to be properly attributed. Proper sourcing is sorely missing and I cannot figure out how all this went past a featured article review. ~~I would label this article as a "good start."~~ 75.3.225.43 (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what article you read. Click on 'Citations' in the table of contents. There are numerous other books and newspaper articles cited. You seem to have only seen the Bibliography. Maralia (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just came back to look at it again and I admit I overreacted in my comment. As I started reading the article, I noticed many places where I expected to see a citation to a newspaper article. What disturbed me was when I tried to find the source of a quote by clicking on a number, I hit a wall of Shilt citations that didn't actually go back to anything. (I expected a first citation as I scrolled up and saw just "Shilt" all the way up.) I had to search the article to find where Shilt was, and the book is mentioned in the text. I come to the talk page to see what is going on, and I see "featured article" and think, how did this get past such a review? After I tagged it, I went back to look at the references and see what I could do. I still think the citations need to be vastly improved. 75.3.225.43 (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I see; you had difficulty getting from an individual Shilts citation to the bibliographic listing for the Shilts book. I'm sorry you found it confusing, but this citation style (citations plus a separate bibliography) is extremely common and widely used across Wikipedia (and elsewhere). Aside from confusion over the bibliography being separate from the citations list, I don't understand what you are seeing that makes you say 'the citations need to be vastly improved'. The article has over 170 citations from 9 books, several online sources, and numerous newspaper articles. Maralia (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As the article's primary author, I admit that Shilts' book is the most significant source of information on Milk's life. Shilts was a journalist who was freelancing when he could. It's in the article that he was unable to get a steady job because he was openly gay. But he knew Milk and lived in the Castro in the 70s and experienced much of the social change going on in San Francisco at the time. I researched the article pretty extensively. I read through over 200 microfilms of the San Francisco Examiner from 1975 - 1978, sent to me for a limited time through Interlibrary Loan. I requested the San Francisco Chronicle as well, but for all the marvels of my library, I had a very frustrating time with this system and could only get the ones from 1973 and 1974. I contacted the Bay Area Reporter for their older columns written by Milk - they don't have them, even in storage. I contacted the San Francisco GLBT Historical Society three times, and to agree good faith of them, I'll assume they were overwhelmed with other requests as the premiere date for the film and Proposition 8 vote neared. They finally responded to my request for images last week. I contacted the San Francisco Public Library for copies of news clippings about Milk from one of their collections, but the guy I spoke to was hesitant to count out how much it would cost to copy and send it to me. He stopped returning my calls and emails or got really busy.

I made a solid effort to diversify away from Shilts using the resources I had (a university library, not in California) in the timeframe I was trying to work within. He's a gripping writer, but no single person should shape the perception of history. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of gay journalists or historians who are jumping at the chance to chronicle was was happening in San Francisco during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. That's a shame. And Shilts is now the only source on Milk's private life from his birth until 1973. However, I traded emails with Daniel Nicoletta, who worked in Milk's shop in the 1970s. He is another source. I also spoke with Milk's nephew, who was a teenager when Milk died. Though I communicated with these folks, I can't use anything they told me because it must be published first per No original reserch.

From what is available, I am confident that the article's status as Featured is appropriate. I am eager to see it on the main page. The article is not finished, however; no article is. I will continue to search for more information. I just recently learned I have access to The Advocate as far back as 1970, so I can use that. If you are in San Francisco and have access to the main library, you are able to obtain copies of the news clippings in the Harvey Milk-Scott Smith Collection there. I will pay you for the copies because I would very much like to have those. Otherwise, I'll take suggestions of what you think I missed. --Moni3 (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

Resolved

– Had Milk not been assassinated there likely would be plenty of negative and critical content that could be used here. We have to go by what RS state. -- Banjeboi 18:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit of hero worship here? Wrong tone for Wikipedia Bluefox79830 (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion based on reliable sources? --Moni3 (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Milk is a hero and a cultural icon to a lot of people, queer and straight. Moreover, he did do a lot of good in the world and had few major controversies, enemies, or critics. Beyond that most biographies are generally positive, because most people are known better for their good deeds than their mistakes. It is reasonable for that to come out in the article. Wikidemon (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Existing gay political establishment"

Resolved

Is the following line correct?

though he encountered resistance from the existing gay political establishment

It looks to me as if "gay" shouldn't be there, but I may be wrong. garik (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. This language is intended; at times, the gay political establishment (what there was of it) objected to Milk's lack of experience and his approach. Further detail is offered in Harvey Milk#Campaigns and Harvey Milk#Last campaign. Maralia (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Author" John Cloud

Resolved

I reverted an IP edit today and then went searching for the basis behind the change (I know, should have done that first). I think the editor might have been trying to say that John Cloud was (and remains, AFAIK) a staff writer for Time Magazine and so should probably be quoted in that context. I started the discussion here on the subject, but I figured it was more appropriate to continue it here. CJR call Cloud a staff writer. Is he an author independent from his work at Time? Protonk (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

John Cloud wrote also for The Advocate, and is responsible for at least one encyclopedia article on Milk. Thanks for the revert. --Moni3 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Figured I would ask the question here as getting the right john cloud (and not getting articles about his biography of Ann Coulter) was proving difficult. Protonk (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My thoughts on this are conflicted. Milk's biographies appear to have been written by non-Jews, so information about how devout he was, or of what importance Judaism played in his life is not available. I spoke with Milk's nephew on the phone; a relative tried to add uncited information about Morris Milk starting 3 Long Island synagogues (it was removed, to their frustration), and Milk's nephew said that Harvey may have gotten his inspiration to fight for civil rights from watching his grandfather work for causes in the area, and raise money for civil rights issues in the 1920s and 1930s. The info about Morris Milk starting 3 temples is probably accurate, but I can't find a source for it, and in that case, in light of all the other information printed about Milk, it does not appear to be a major issue per WP:Weight. But here we are back again - his history was written by non-Jews who may not have considered faith or ethnicity a significant inspiration. What qualities are necessary to fill the religion line in an infobox? Does a person have to declare once that he's of a certain faith? Go to religious services weekly? Make it a major life's cause? Is it more a disservice to state that Milk was Jewish and not quantify how Jewish he was according to an individual's requirements, or to leave that fact out entirely and perhaps dismiss its importance even more? --Moni3 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's less a Jewish issue as much as a verifiability issue, IMHO. It may make sense to see if any Jewish media covered this aspect - we are well aware how minority media are often overlooked - or if other sources may help in this regard. As a suggestion perhaps steering the relative to do an interview with a trusted wikinews editor and see if some of that can be utilized. IMHO, issues of LGBT-ness and religion, versus spirituality, are quite touchy. As long as someone is alive, the religion wants to be at arms length, but once they die and are generally highly regarded - well then they were a great person of our faith. -- Banjeboi 00:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But it's already verified he was Jewish. What is not clear is how devout he was. Why does an infobox have to make that distinction? --Moni3 (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it did and I also support simply removing that section from the infobox if it's too much a battleground. If it needs to be there it may make sense to use an edit comment . -- Banjeboi 04:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)7

Archiving

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

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

Length of lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I commented in several discussion sections above, I think the original lead was too long and rambling. It read like a synopsis of every campaign of Milk's life, rather than a short, crisp rundown of who he was and what makes him notable. My attempt at shortening and rewriting it still doesn't hit the mark; I would prefer a different, succinct, summarizing sentence in the first paragraph, instead of the one I kept. Actually, I would also like to see a paragraph-long summary of some of Moni3's main points, such as the idea that Milk was simultaneously a result and symbol of the liberalization of San Francisco (from Haight-Ashbury in 1967 to Castro in 1977), with the massive influx of gays into the city to comprise 25% of the voting population. A line about the social resistance to gays should be included in the paragraph about Moscone's/Milk's murders. I don't know enough about the subject to write these summarizing lines, but I think they would help the lead dramatically. Yoninah (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Not a lot about writing style has consensus on Wikipedia, but one thing that gets covered again and again at both GAR and FAC is that 3 or preferably 4 solid paragraphs are the norm for a long FAC like this one. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, Dank55. I didn't mean that the lead should be only one paragraph. I left a structure of 3 paragraphs, but it could definitely expand to 4. I just meant that broader and more succinct commentary should be written in each paragraph, not a list of highlights of the forthcoming article. Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and did not think you were referring to only one paragraph, just crisper, less minutely focused material in the lead—more of a summary style. Also, I appreciate the removal of the quotations, which, it is my impression, do not belong in the lead according to consensus on Wikipedia. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Points that the lead should contain:

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

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

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

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

Per my above points, an abbreviated lead:

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

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

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

Despite his short career in politics, Milk has become an icon in San Francisco and "a martyr for gay rights", according to University of San Francisco professor Peter Novak.^[1] In 2002, Milk was called "the most famous and most significantly open LGBT official ever elected in the United States".^[2] John Cloud remarked on his influence, "After he defied the governing class of San Francisco ... many people—straight and gay—had to adjust to a new reality he embodied: that a gay person could live an honest life and succeed."^[3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a couple other comments on the Lead.

The sentence referring to Milk's "theatrical campaigns" needs to clarify just what is "theatrical". Did his campaigns contain theatrics (which I didn't see in my quick scan) or is it a reference to his theatre involvement?
It specifically mentions the 1960s "counter-culture", but that is referenced only in a picture caption in the Body. Trying to determine how Milk was involved in the 60s counter-culture is difficult to determine, unless it is implicit in his theatre activities and such things as "growing long hair". Also the Rise of Castro Street and Changing Politics sections don't seem to help much since the timeline references in them are muddied with what appear to be contradictory dates and out-of-sequence passages. I don't know enough to clear up this section.
Pretty much everything in the final para needs to appear somewhere in the Body, otherwise this article comes off as PR or an homage. Can someone knowledgeable on the subject work it appropriately into Body (or, conversely, remove it from the Lead)?
Jim Dunning | talk 19:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the article and have the sources for it. But, as usual, I don't see the problems you're highlighting. The third and fourth paragraphs under Rise of Castro Street discuss Milk's experiences with the cast of Hair, and his hippie experiences. I also don't see what is confusing about the order of the events in this passage.

Milk's mugging for the press, media skills, and otherwise ostentatious or entertaining campaigning are mentioned throughout the article. The last sentence in the first paragraph of Mayor of Castro Street has a quote that addresses this directly.

I disagree with your points about the final paragraph. Establishing notability for an individual is integral to an article, and to the level of writing required for an FA. The last paragraph in the lead answers not only why an article is necessary, but why an article of this length, why Milk has remained an icon. --Moni3 (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How about changing the line "His theatrical campaigns earned him increasing popularity," to "His political campaign theatrics earned him increasing popularity," for clarity (to clearly distinguish between the political and theatrical aspects of his career and tie it to the material in the body)?
Jim Dunning | talk 16:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin puzzle on RfC

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

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

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

^ Nolte, Carl (November 26, 2003). "City Hall Slayings: 25 Years Later", The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A-1.
^ Smith and Haider-Markel, p. 204.
^ Cite error: The named reference cloud was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1] Nolte, Carl (November 26, 2003). "City Hall Slayings: 25 Years Later", The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A-1.

[2] Smith and Haider-Markel, p. 204.

[cloud-3] Cite error: The named reference cloud was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]