Talk:Harvey Milk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Peoples Temple - Please Don't Delete Entire NPOV Sourced Sections with No Consensus To Do So

Especially given that you were actually the user to have issued a "dispute" tag (and Rfc) on the section, and then no consensus to delete the section emerged. Under such circumstances, wholesale deleting every single word of the entire section was not comporting with Wikipedia editing standards, to put it in the kindest light. Mosedschurte (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this writer. Please do not delete. It is true there is no consensus to delete the section emerged.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramia3403 (talk • contribs)

• — Caramia3403 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Benjiboi: Please stop vandalizing the Milk page. Do not delete wholesale entire sections of NPOV sourced material. Not only did your Request for Comment to delete reach no consensus (in fact, it was closer to the opposite), but this is not how WP:Requests_for_comment work on Wikipedia. Mosedschurte (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, there is no consensus to keep this material, proliferation of SPA accounts notwithstanding. Secondly please revisit what vandalism actually is on wikipedia. And third content under dispute is always under the responsibility of those wishing to add it, or re-add it, to demonstrate notability. That does not seem to have been done. Banjeboi 21:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I do understand the vandalism definition and, at this point, I think the wholesale deletion of sections of the article is not a good faith attempt to improve it.

Moreover, you initiated a Request for Comment to delete a sourced NPOV section of the article. Your statement that, after you some sort of consensus must be reached in order not to delete an entire sourced NPOV section of a Wikipedia article does not comport with Wikipedia editing standards. That you are well aware of this is one of the reasons your deletion of the entire section does not represent a good faith attempt to improve the article.

As an aside, I also understand from your talk page that you believe you have been unfairly treated by Wikipedia for issues related to homophobia. This is not such an instance. Mosedschurte (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read what WP:vandalism states, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." It would seem that you are actually compromising this article so be careful about throwing that word around. This section, and now you're reverting the Sipple content as well, both seem to violate WP:UNDUE. I will disregard the homophobia comment as a red herring of some sort. Banjeboi 22:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason it might be considered vandalism is that the wholesale deletions of the entire section, especially given the history of this section, was not a goof faith attempt to improve the article and, thus, could be viewed as attacking the integrity of Wikipedia.

The point of stressing that this reversal of page vandalism was not related to homophobia was stated only because of the huge-fonted text you've placed at the top of your own talk page.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what's on my page, let's stay with the content that is disputed instead. The RfC does not support including it. It's already in other articles and you are edit-warring over it, again. This is why the RfC was started, because of reintroducing material over objections. Just because it may be true doesn't mean every detail belongs in this article. there little evidence to suggest this was notable to justify the undue weight your giving it. Milk supported dozens of groups and churhes and wrote many letters of support. Do we include any of them, possibly but certainly not more than a passing trivial mention. Banjeboi 23:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of incorrect statements or implications here:

(1) Re "the RfC does not support including it", to being with, this incorrectly implies that when you start an Rfc to delete sourced NPOV content in an article, there must be a consensus against your point in order to prevent that deletion. This just simply does not comport with the rules of Wikipedia on Rfc's.

(2) Though an Rfc is not a "vote", if anything, most weighed in on the side of keeping it. Which is hardly surprising given its relative small size and the gravity of the matter.

(3) Re "just because it may be true doesn't mean every detail belongs in this article", only one line of one of Milk's many letters was mentione. Only one statement of support by him of Jones was mentioned. Only brief mention of his support for Jones and the Temple were mentioned.

(4) Re "Milk supported dozens of groups and churhes and wrote many letters of support," I'm not sure what this statement could even be implicating. This particular group was the most notorious in the history of the Bay Area, and one of the most notorious in American History.

And Milk not only supported Jones, but actually wrote a letter to none other than Jimmy Carter blasting those calling for investigation and help extricating their relatives from Jonestown, claiming they spouted "bold-faced lies." Milk was the only United States politician to state that the Concerned Relatives were spouting "bold-faced lies," and certainly the only one to write President Jimmy Carter about it. These people about whom the Concerned Relatives were desperately writing all later died in the largest mass suicide since Masada.

I'm sorry if having these facts laid out in that fashion about something of such a huge gravity compared to local city politics is troubling about an otherwise well-meaning man like Harvey Milk, but they are indeed the facts.

A tiny section merely summarizing them in a few sentences in City Supervisor Harvey Milk's article is certainly not giving them "undue weight" by any standard.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdent Mosedschurte, you've been edit-warring to include this content for two months now and seeming no one has been swayed to include much more than what is there excluding this section altogether. SPAs don't help here, so we have several editors who feels this violates WP:UNDUE amongst other policies. Note I haven't said that this information is false or doesn't belong on wikipedia at all. I do think more MPOV sources would help here but no evidence has emerged that this was a big deal in Milk's life ergo is shouldn't be given undue weight on his biography. Likewise, in the article on People's Temple I would expect to see a mention that supported each other but it should also be presented NPOV. For instance, Jones supported both candidates in Milk's campaign. This would suggest that Milk had less of a "special" level of support and was simply getting political favors from jones who was a mover and shaker. Banjeboi 05:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, I've tried to remain civil, but you do things like REPEATEDLY delete the entire sourced NPOV section and then claim that I am the one "edit warring," even though I'm the only one that has repeatedly attempted to edit the section to address your concerns.

Your attack at this point that it's me that is "edit warring" is fairly laughable.

I'm the only one that's provided sourced NPOV material on the issue and I'm the only one that repeatedly has attempted to modify the section to meet your demands.

You, on the other hand, have done nothing more than repeatedly delete the sourced NPOV section in its entirety. Even after starting an "Rfc" in which you received nothing close to a consensus to delete it. Mosedschurte (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, your statement that "seeming no one has been swayed to include much more than what is there excluding this section altogether" is inaccurate, to remain civil about it.

After issuing your Rfc, you received the following comments:

"I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"I agree with this writer. Please do not delete. It is true there is no consensus to delete the section emerged." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramia3403 (talk • contribs)

"Given the context and timing, the Peoples Temple section is far too important in this article to delete or merge. Especially the letter cited in the article attacking people calling for an investigation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.197.82 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Jones section has to stay in a page like this. It's way too big if its true. I don't know why it would be cut. The part about Harvey being scared of him should be added to it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.117.116 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Finally, the entire Peoples Temple involvement, even with Jonestown literally dominating the Bay Area and Milk's key support, is only a tiny (6%) portion of the article, thus there is no undue weight issue. As well, included is only a tiny portion of Milk's involvement with the Temple." - obviously me.

I'm not inclined to believe any SPA comments. They all seem suspicious as if canvassed in some fashion. So that leaves you and Wildhartlivie, who wisely pointed out that it was just as WP:UNDUE as the Sipple section which has also been removed for the same reason, although that section does seem to have reliable sourcing and seems more NPOV. Banjeboi 06:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I just came here after a quick review, based on the AN/I report. If the status quo is that the material was not in the article, the burden is on whoever proposes to add disputed material to establish consensus, and there's no consensus to include it. If the material has been in the article long term (as opposed to edit warred over long term), I'd say that the RfC discussion establishes consensus to trim down or remove it. Personally, I find it undue. It's fairly typical that a corrupt person or organization that's a major part of city politics will have the support of local politicians. That's especially true of a church that is central to the community and deals with underpriveleged people (meaning, it avoids a lot of scrutiny and is dealing with a lot of people with unsavory backgrounds) then becomes a cult. For it to be notable to a particular politician's bio you'd have to show that the connection rises above the normal level that exists between any institution and any politician. Milk probably wrote "I support you" letters on behalf of lots of people. I think the sources do show that Milk was a bit of a special patron of the church, so it's reasonable to give it some mention. But a whole heading and longish paragraph is undue weight. I'd trim it to a sentence or two. However, the subject of support for the church by local leaders and politicians is an interesting one. It might merit its own article, or at least a lengthy section within the article about the cult. That's a better place to put it anyway, and you could use one of those {{main|}} tags to refer the reader to that. Incidentally, I do find Mosedschurte's comments here to be unnecessarily confrontational, and uncivil in accusations of vandalism and bad faith. Plus edit warring and some WP:OWN issues. Not good from anyone, and particularly not a WP:SPA whose main purpose on Wikipedia seems to be spreading the world about Jonestown. I'd suggest some cooling down. Wikidemo (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I just, again, cut the section down little while ago.

Also, actually, I didn't include any of the generalized support letters from Milk. I could have, and many might find those interesting, but given the stiff resistance by Benjiboi to virutally any mention of Milk's involvement with the Peoples Temple, I frankly have attempted to stop much meaningful contribution to the article and have just attempted to cut down what remains to keep mention of it.

It's a bit sad that it has come to that, but he has sort of worn me down through pure repetition of wholesale deleting of the section after each editing to address his concerns.

The only letter now remaining mentioned is Milk's letter to President Jimmy Carter blasting the concerned relatives attempting to extricate their relatives from Jonestown as spouting "bold-faced lies." And only a portion of this one sentence is mentioned. Mosedschurte (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now cut the Peoples Temple section to just three sentences

Frankly, there is much interesting about the relationship, but despite that most people weighed in response to his Rfc that the section should not be deleted, I have been worn down by Benjiboi's repeated edit warring and wholesale deletions of the entire section after every attempt to accommodate his concerns through edits.

Thus, it is now just 3 sentences summarizing the issue.

If anyone else wishes to continue to try to add interesting sourced NPOV information to Milk's Wikipedia article, I encourage you to do so. Battling the repeated edit warring and wholesale deletions of the entire section has become tiresome to me. Mosedschurte (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This material seems perfectly fine and weighted ect. Please do not be put off by editors who appear to own articles as is the case here. Good luck, --72.209.9.165 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

ps, after closer read, I see that this material is actually duplicated in the section above. Can this please be rectified, ie remove the material in the section bove since it is covered in its own section? Thanks, --72.209.9.165 (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Frankly the majority comments from non-SPA editors has been WP:UNDUE but you have chosen to delete NPOV and well -sourced content for more speculative, non-NPOV and WP:UNDUE content. I have indeed reverted this. The material has been covered, perhaps more than needed now, and is reliably sourced. I suggest that you gain consensus to insert any other material along these lines before trying to reinsert it. There is little to no evidence that Milk was doing anything than his job as a candidate and later as a public servant. The quote shared above about "They're weird and they're dangerous, and you never want to be on their bad side" would seem to allow for almost all of milk's actions. If yu have a reliable source showing otherwise lease share it. Banjeboi 21:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop deleting sourced NPOV material and Edit Warring.

All material in the section is reliably sourced. In fact, now that was cut down to 3 sentences because of your concerns, much of it is covered by the multiple sources provided in the references.

The edit warring is particularly egregious here where you actually earlier attempted to later have this section deleted through a Rfc not only produced no consensus, but the majority of editors voted NOT to delete it. Not only that, but editors listing individual IPs are not necessarily SPAs because of dynamic IP address accounts (may be long term editors whose IP address changes with every log in). Mosedschurte (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I also just changed the section to remove repeated information in the earlier section discussing the Temple's support for Milk in the 1975 campaign.

The short PT section now just briefly summarizes Milk's support of Jones and the PT during the investigations.

In retrospect, it probably reads best that way and I should have done that to begin with. The PT's support of Milk in the 1975 campaign probably does belong in the earlier section detailing the efforts of the 1975 campaign. Mosedschurte (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually that section should be removed per policy as you have no consensus to keep adding it back. Until you have consensus you should probably post some reliable sources to the talk page and make some suggestions. Frankly, you're making a big deal out of these rather non-notable incidents as has been discussed for two months. If you have a reliable source that shows this deserves more weight than is in the article without the section than please present it. Otherwise send it to another article where making a big deal out of this material may be more appropriate. Banjeboi 02:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't even a passable red herring at this point. The sources are absolutely reliable. They are noted San Francisco journalist and author Reiterman in Raven, PBS and the actual letter itself. It is difficult to imagine better sources.

Please stop repeatedly deleting this now tiny section. At 3 sentences, it is nowhere remotely close to being "undue."

Your statement that including a short mention of this in the article is "making a big deal out of this material" is frankly highly revealing.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have followed this for quite a while (and at one point thought the article might need protection because of edit warring), and was going to suggest a compromise. The People's Temple issue and the Oliver Sipple case both deserve mention in this article, but clearly not the lengthy repetition of material that is presented elsewhere. However, it seems to me that three well-sourced sentences about People's Temple in a biographical article of this length is clearly not "undue weight", and a similar treatment of Oliver Sipple would be appropriate as well. --MCB (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree and, lo and behold, there are ... three sentences that I myself placed when this issue was raised.

“ Among Milk's supporters was the controversial religious and political figure Jim Jones, who is infamous for the Peoples Temple church he headed and the Jonestown mass suicide that he orchestrated after the group relocated to northwestern Guyana. Jones had been appointed Chairman of the San Francisco Housing Commission with the help of the Peoples Temple, which was also instrumental in the 1975 election victory of mayor Moscone. The charismatic Jones could direct "hundreds of volunteers who could work tirelessly for the candidates of his choosing," referring to his influence on the members of Peoples Temple. Milk, like Moscone and Milk's opponent in the same race, Agnos, had help from their volunteers in his campaigns. ”

Despite this, an entire section has been repeatedly added suggesting there was much more to this connection, there doesn't seem to be. Once this is cleared up dealing with Sipple shouldn't be an issue as Mosedschurte seemingly has only been here to insert and re-insert the added section. Banjeboi 06:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, now at looking at the sources used;

• Another Day of Death, Time Magazine, December 11, 1978 - says all of, [Milk] "who had spoken at political rallies at the Peoples Temple".
• Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple. PBS.org. - doesn't mention Milk
• Kinsolving, Kathleen and Tom. "Madman in Our Midst: Jim Jones and the California Cover Up." 1998. - shows that indeed Milk didn't do anything that other politicos weren't also doing and it notes "Before being elected supervisor". Also this is reprinted but www.RickRoss.org doesn't say from where.
• Milk, Harvey; Letter Addressed to President Jimmy Carter, Dated February 19, 1978 - is, simply a scan of a letter Milk supposedly wrote. No indication of its relevance or commentary of it's weight in Milk's career.
• Reiterman, Tim (1982) "Raven: The Untold Story of Rev. Jim Jones and His People" ISBN 0-525-24136-1 page 298; This source will have to be looked at offline but the author, Tim Reiterman, has many articles to his credit such as Hell’s 25-Year Echo: The Jonestown Mass Suicide November 19, 2003; where his big inclusion of Milk consists of "he moved the temple to California, where he established his credentials as a humanitarian civic leader who ran food programs and helped elect San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and other liberal Democrats in the mid-1970s."

All of which suggests our current coverage is fine. I'll look to adding refs to solidify it. Banjeboi 07:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)"

At this point, these criticisms supporting the Edit War have frankly become pretty laughable.

For example, The text of the Time magazine article stating that Milk had "had spoken at political rallies at the Peoples Temple" was cited for precisely the text in the article currently stating "Milk spoke at political rallies at the Temple." You simply can't get more spot on than that.

Regarding the clause that Milk "made statements in support of Jones", the sources state, for example:

“ "Rev Jim, It may take me many a day to come back down from the high that I reach today. I found something dear today. I found a sense of being that makes up for all the hours and energy placed in a fight. I found what you wanted me to find. I shall be back. For I can never leave.

--Harvey Milk after one of his visits to the Temple, (Sawyer, Mary My Lord, What a Mourning:’ Twenty Years Since Jonestown, Jonestown Institute at SDSU - exerpted from larger work by the African-American studies professor about Jones)

”

“ "my name is cut into stone in support of you - and your people."

--Harvey Milk handwritten note to Jones, Kinsolving

”

While clearly, again, spot on in support of the clause, keep in mind that these quotes about Jones are not even included in the article as it stands.

In support of the clause "and, after Jones and hundreds of Temple members fled to Guyana, attended a rally to oppose former relatives attacking the Temple", Reiterman's Raven specifically discusses Milk's attendance at this post-flight support rally with Art Agnos. Reiterman, Raven, p. 327.

In support of the phrase "Milk wrote a letter to President Jimmy Carter referring to Jones 'as a man of the highest character' and writing that relatives of Temple members pressing for an investigation were making 'apparent bold-faced lies'", the following is cited:

“ "Rev. Jones is widely known in the minority communities and elsewhere as a man of the highest character . . .

Timothy and Grace Stoen [parents of child John Stoen taken by Jones], the parties attempting to damage Rev. Jones reputation

It is outrageous that Timothy Stoen could even think of flaunting this situation in front of Congressman with apparent bold-faced lies.
--Harvey Milk, February 19, 1978 letter to United States President Carter about Timothy Stoen, the leader of the "Concerned Relatives" group attempting to extricate their relatives from Jonestown.

”

As a sidenote, nearly all of those relatives died just months later. Including John Stoen, the son of Tim and Grace Stoen whom Milk specifically attacked in his letter to Carter as they were attempting to extricate their son and others from Jonestown. Months later, 6 year old John Stoen was found poisoned in Jim Jones' cabin in Jonestown.

Again, as horrifying as it and Milk's comment now may appear to be perhaps to some, the end result isn't even in the article as is. Mosedschurte (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a brief mention is fine. A more expanded version is probably notable and verifiable, but is of undue weight in this article. This is based on a quick review as I think I said. A full weight analysis is quite lengthy - you have to collect all the sources and see how each one treats it if at all, then compare it to similar issues. I strongly suggest that everyone stop edit warring in the short term, and (to Mosedschurte) that you consider writing a separate article about the support of local politicians for the People's Temple and vice-versa, that is neutral in that it examines the full range of support (and perhaps opposition) from all quarters. Or else find an existing article about the temple, Jones, or Jonestown, where it fits. And then we can cut the information down further and simply provide it as a mention and link. Wikidemo (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with this sentiment and, since your post yesterday, I had cut the prior section down to just a very brief mention of 3 sentences. None of the quotes above are in the article, except a few words of the last. Rather, it's now just a 1 paragraph summary of the 3 facts (Milk support, rally attendance post-flight and the Carter letter attacking the relatives leader). Mosedschurte (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is worthy of a paragraph and perhaps a short subsection in the article. Milk was heavily involved in the People's Temple (as well as a number of other well known activists who would also like not to be remembered for it), there appears to be plenty of documentation on this, and it would certainly appear to be notable and noteworthy. CENSEI (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is now just a paragraph in the article. per your suggestion, I moved it to be a short subsection of the "Public Office" section. Mosedschurte (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte, you are adding additional content, more precisely an entire section suggesting that Milk was some huge supporter when no information except cherry-picked quotes suggests this is even remotely true. You are exhausting the patience of the consensus process and frankly harassing me personally by templating me and starting an ANI thread when one was already in process. This material has been cited by at least four experienced editors as undue which should be a sign that you should seek consensus before, again, trying to reinsert it. I may have erred in giving good faith that you would act in good faith but you have pushed this issue into a near-harassment state. Your own sources don't support that this content deserves this weight. I admire your tenacity and passion to document the People's Temple but, just maybe, its importance to Milk's life - and therefore this biography, is much less significant than you believe. If reliable sources suggest this really was a big deal then no problem, but this is presented as a big deal to Milk's campaigns and life and that doesn't seem to be accurate. Banjeboi 22:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Specific to the sources you have provided, they provide what is seen as "passing mention" of Milk and the Carter letter is, if it's verified, the letter itself, rather than any reliable source showing it was significant in any way, to Milk or anyone. Banjeboi 23:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

New article

For your consideration, I just created Political Alliances of the People's Temple out of material from the People's Temple, Willie Brown (politician), and George Moscone articles, which I trimmed and redirected accordingly. I think that's a useful way to organize the content centrally and avoid WP:UNDUE concerns. In editing, I see that the content was largely cut-and-pasted to appear nearly verbatim in multiple articles, which creates some forking problems. I suggest we agree on a similar move, integration, and link for the People's Temple material here. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate these efforts. Banjeboi 23:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's actually an interesting idea, but (edit) Benjiboi just cut from the article every single mention of Harvey Milk's support of the Peoples Temple during the investigation and attacking of the CRs attempting to extricate their relatives from Jonestown.

There is now ZERO mention of it at all in the entire Milk article. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As a clarification I didn't - I think Benjiboi did. The article is protected now and hopefully people can use the time to agree on how to handle this. I hope the notion of putting the material in one central place narrows the range of disagreement. Wikidemo (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to correct my comment. I noticed that it was Benjiboi -- again -- deleting all mention of Milk's support from the article.

I think the centralized article is an interesting idea for political alliances.

When the article unlocks, a brief mention of Milk's support of Jones and attacking of the relatives in the Carter letter can be placed in the Milk article, along with a link to the main political alliances section, without much of a problem from what I can see. This is pretty much what the section had dropped to by today anyway (it was 3 short sentences as is).

The quotes and elaboration can be contained in the centralized article. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with a link to the new article being included. However I see no evidence to include more material about Jones/People's Temple than is already in the article for all the reasons cited over the past 2.5 months. It's at, and been at, the majic three sentences many have said they thought was appropriate for almost the whole time. If you'd now like to present sourcing that the Carter letter was notable - the existence of the letter alone doesn't demonstrate that - and perhaps any other reliable sources that this subject deserves more weight or that Milk's support was somehow more notable than any other politician's or that what we presently have is inaccurate, etc. that would be helpful. Banjeboi 14:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please add Political Alliances of the People's Temple link into the See also section. Banjeboi 14:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that the page is unlocked (hopefully the edit warring can stop), I cut the section down to merely a 1 sentence summary with a link to the new article.

As a heads up to those interested, a discussion is occurring on the new article's talk page about the Milk contents. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)