Talk:Harvey Milk/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Anti-religion?

An editor has just added a section and a categorization purporting that Milk was anti-religion[1] based on a single source - a book's citing Milk's saying an oft-repeated complaint that more people died in the name of religion than for any other cause. I've got three concerns: (1) a single source does not establish that Milk is considered anti-religious, particularly not a book whose very premise is criticizing (some would say bashing) liberalism in California. Is there more support out there? Otherwise this is just one seemingly biased author's opinion, and fails as a matter of WP:WEIGHT. (2) Even if the quote is correctly reported, a single statement at a rally does not establish Milk's actual influences and beliefs. We don't have the context but Milk seems to be responding to the bigotry of the times, which gays would find particularly hurtful, that expressing their sexual preference was "perverted". That criticism was coming to a large degree from self-styled religious authorities who were condemning gays as sinners, perverted, doomed to hell, etc. Milk's responding in this way, frankly, is reasonable and defensive and does not without more suggest that he went out of his way to disparage or combat religious faith. (3) Finally, even if all this is true and Milk was anti-religious, how much weight does that bear in a bio? He's known for many other things. Without more support that it made a difference and people got his message, it's undue weight to highlight this as an entire section and perhaps to mention it at all. I hesitate to revert because I just don't know. Maybe Milk was a notable opponent of religion. But if so we need better context and sourcing. Wikidemo (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a revert is fine. If someone wants to re add the material (with more sources), it will still be there. CENSEI (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added more sources. The quote is used in anti-religious speech. You said Milk may have been responding to the bigotry of the times. Does that mean the quote isn't anti-religious? Having reason for saying something anti-religious does not mean it is no longer anti-religious. I tried to word it so that he was just being accused being anti-religious, not that he actually was. As far as due weight is concerned, I'm fine with it not having its own section. Where do you think we should put it? Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would mean that the quote is not anti-religious. Judging someone by today's standards, who was responding to the events of the time, isn't really valid. By that standard we could call every person in America before 1950 racist and add that tag. I see no point reverting though. Best just to discuss and review the sources. If the material is about the accusation of being anti-religious then we have to establish that the accusation is itself notable (notable being a shorthand for of due weight and relevant to Milk's notability, not WP:N literally). Did anyone at the time consider him anti-religious? Was it an issue then, or now? Wikidemo (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling something perverse seems like discriminatory speech no matter when it is said. I agree he was responding to bigotry of the times, but the way he choose to do it was itself discriminatory. It is very easy when someone is attacking you to attack back. That didn't change the fact that he attacked back. The comparison to pre-1950 racism doesn't apply here. First of all, we aren't tagging him as being anti-religious. We are only saying he said something that some people say is anti-religious. Second, racial bigotry was common-place then, whereas bigotry against religion as a whole was not. He went above and beyond what was typical for his time. Even before 1950, people whose bigotry went beyond that of their time (like the extreme example of Adolph Hitler) were mentioned. It is a fact that Milk said what he said and the quote should remain in the article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. Godwin's Law. That means this line of discussion is more or less over and I'm going to have to start quoting rock lyrics.

Too many people have died in the name of Christ - Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young)

We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. - Jonathan Swift

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. - George Washington

There are things about organized religion which I resent. Christ is revered as the Prince of Peace, but more blood has been shed in His name than any other figure in history. - Frank Sinatra

Sounds like we're going to have to update a lot of articles. If you want to establish that Harvey Milk's statement, or the response against it, was notable, you have to do more than offer an opinion that calling religion perverse or responsible for many deaths is bigoted or went beyond the norms of the time. Many people would agree with those statements and said so, then and now. That statement, in fact, had wide currency, e.g. We can't tag the biography of each such person with the anti-religion label. There has to be some reason why this is significant. Wikidemo (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen I am hardly the founding member of the Harvey Milk fan club, but I think it comes down to this: does anyone notable think that Harvey Milk was Anti-religion? So far, all I see are a bunch of primary sources, and one secondard source which do not a section make. CENSEI (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that entire section. Please take a closer look at the sourcing that was used:

• thinkexist.com; this is not a reliable source anyone to add quote by seemingly anyone thus putting words into someone's mouth. They have a cite section but no cites are provided.
• religioustolerance.org; Although they do provide some references they again don't cite anything verifiable
• What's the Matter with California? This ref has a link but it doesn't seem to work and using just the book's link, here shows the book doesn't have a preview option and only provides a summary of the book with no mention of Milk or the quote.
• California Legislature Approves Gay Day in Public Schools, this one might be my favorite. This is a "pro-family" group, I'll let everyone else interpret what that means but I can assure you I know no one who is "anti-family". This is a press release from that group opposed to California having Milk be honored with a proclamation or holiday. And their source? thinkexist.com.

Let me state I have little doubt that Milk, like most politicians has said many things is thier speaches that will be cherry-picked to come back and haunt them but this does not make them specifically anti-religious or anything else. We need to keep material in context and keep with policies already in place of verifiability and relaible sourcing as well as neutral point of view. Banjeboi 00:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Added Jones/Peoples Temple Support Section

This discussion has been collapsed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. I was shocked to see not a single mention here in this Harvey Milk article on something even more controversial for Milk than his support for homosexual rights. The Jonestown tragedy absoluted dominated national attention at the time of Milk's death, and it had essentially taken over everything occuring in the Bay Area at the time. Milk was one of Jones' most ardent political supporters against investigation into Jonestown in 1978. Mosedschurte (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC) It's presented way overboard at the moment, this is an encyclopedia not a smear piece. Milk got support from them, so what? So did other politicians and Milk got support from lots of groups. The entire section needs to be trimmed and treated neutrally and encyclopedicly. Banjeboi 03:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Your characterization of its presentation is entirely incorrect. It is presented entirely NPOV, and not a "smear piece." Only a small part of Milk's actual support of the Temple is given in the article and mostly only specific supporting statements about Jones & The Temple, focusing on support after the investigation (and only one of Milk's many letters there). As well, every sentence deals only with Milk's involvement. Tagging it as material for another article is flat out incorrect. Moreover, this was the primary worry -- and the absolute dominating force in news in the U.S. (especially in the Bay Area) -- during the last week of Milk's life. Jonestown was like like the 9-11 of the 70s. It so shocked the country, it was the third most known event in U.S. history (in Gallup polls) the year after (behind only the JFK assassination and Pearl Harbor). It even more dominated Bay Area news. As well, it hardly stands out in terms of size. There are a total of 15 lines devoted to his entire support and campaign involvement. Or exactly 6 more than the number devoted to the text on bas reliefs on a recently enacted pedestal. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC) The only even remotely non-"encylcopedic" part I could find (and I don't even agree about this) was a 3-line quote of support for the Temple given by Milk after a visit. I just cut it out with a short summary sentence. Now, the remainder is presented entirely NPOV, includes only a tiny number of Milk's interactions with/support for the Temple and is correctly proportioned in an article of this size. It even includes a mention that there is no connection between White and the PT (despite only a 9 day difference in the Ryan and Milk assassinations and rumors of PT U.S. hit squads), which I don't think is necessary, but it makes sure that this issue is clear. In addition, despite the magnitude of the event and Milk's rare vehement support of the Temple against the Concerned Relatives pressing for an investigation, even after Jones & the Temple fled to Guyana, there is also no mention of it all in his summary information. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC) I very much appreciate your quick looking into and trimming of some of the information. However, this is an article about Milk, not about his support of controversial figures. To me this seems likes it's worthy of inclusion but in no way to this degree. In almost every piece written about Milk there is no mention of his support of Jones. The sourcing used to support this material also seems a bit borderline. I'm not disputing, at this point, that any of it is false but since this is definitely controversial material it should be sourced a bit better in my opinion. This whole chapter doesn't deserve it's own section and amounts to mudslinging as far as I can tell. Every politician has dubious connections and supporters and Milk wasn't alone in getting support from Jones nor was he alone in giving support to him. Banjeboi 21:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC) I concur with Benjiboi and endorse his/her edits to this section on the basis of undue weight. --MCB (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Trimmed and removed the following “ Following a visit to the Peoples Temple, Milk wrote to Jones stating that he there found a sense of being making up for all the hours and energy placed in a fight and that he can never leave. After Jones fled to Guyana in August of 1977 following accusations of criminal wrongdoing, Milk attended a rally for the Peoples Temple with Art Agnos. Amidst pressure in the United States to investigate the Temple, on February 19, 1978, Milk wrote a letter of support for the Peoples Temple to President Jimmy Carter. Therein, Milk wrote that Jones was known "as a man of the highest character." Regarding defecting Temple members pressing for an investigation of the Peoples Temple, Milk wrote "they are attempting to damage Rev. Jones reputation" with "apparent bold-faced lies." Milk is cited in Randy Shilts The Mayor Of Castro Street as having called Jim Jones dangerous. ” While this all may true it's hardly that interesting and seems to only be useful in characterizing Milk in some way as a bad judge of character. I haven't fully vetted the sources but they seem to be used solely to discredit Milk, which isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia. None of the facts, he attended rallies, wrote letter of support, etc would seem out of place for any politician and seem to suggest he was showing support for someone he thought was working on humanitarian efforts and who supported LGBT people. This material might be appropriate in some other article along with all the other policians who also attended those rallies and wrote letters of support etc. Banjeboi 22:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC) I added it back. Please don't delete sourced NPOV material that's been in the article for some time now. As stated, I had already cut it WAY back from Milk's total involvement. I then, after your comments before, cut it again, taking out a 3 line quote. As it stands now, it's far less than 10% of the article now as is, even though the event was like the 9-11 of the 70s (and even bigger in the Bay Area) and Milk's support of Jones against the Concerned Relatives pressing for an investigation was front and center in the news at the time of his death just after the Jonestown tragedy taking 918 lives (most of whom were from the Bay Area). For comparative purposes, there are, for example, 9 lines of the article spent on a single piece of text on a bas relief. Nor is there even a mention of it in the summary. The sources are mostly from people like Tim Reiterman, a long time writer in the San Fransisco Examiner and one of the city's most respected Journalists. And one single Milk letter released (there are many more, including to the Government of Guyana himself against investigation, that I did not include). Wikipedia articles should be an encyclopedic NPOV presentation of all about the subject. That's what that section is now. It doesn't spin the reasons for Milk's support, good or bad. Wikipedia articles are not "tribute" pieces to the subject, not are they "attack" pieces. They are supposed to be neutral encyclopedic descriptions of the subject-related material. Mosedschurte (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Just for the record, this is material you added.[2] on 10 May, so less than a month ago. Banjeboi 05:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Compromise Change/Language Now In I've now clarified, using the already cited Milk letter, that he supported the Temple's effective remedies to social problems (in truth, they actually had a lot of soup kitchens, provided free legal advice, etc., but I didn't go into it), that Jones himself had supported politicians under attack for LGBT issues and that Milk was not a Temple member. These were obviously sort of forced pro-Milk points, but I can see the concern that, without stating his likely intentions, someone might have incorrectly jumped to the conclusion that Milk supported the end actions of the Temple in November 1978 (and there's obviously zero evidence of anything remotely like that). Its about the same length as before, and still only a very small (6%) part of the Milk article. Not that this is releavant but, Benjiboi, I noticed your talk page and believe me, I'm really not trying some underhanded attack against Milk related to his LGBT rights advocacy. Jonestown DOMINATED virtually every part of the the Bay Area news from late 1978 to 1979 in a way that's difficult to understand now (9-11-esque) and Milk ended up right smack dab in the middle of it before his death, though I'm sure the many novels focusing on his LGBT issues likely don't dwell on this. Milk's support, especially after the Temple had even fled to Guyana, does merit mention.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Again, I appreciate your addressing these concerns but the issues i have are more in keeping with policies on undue weight, biographies and material better suited elsewhere. Peoples Temple was a big chapter and many politicians were involved as well as other famous folks. However this article is a summary of Milk's life and that portion is being given too much weight, in my opinion. It certainly doesn't merit its own section and I rather doubt Milk's support or Jones' support of Milk is that notable, at all. Instead we should present any truly relevant material in context. Jones could direct hundreds of his volunteers to work on any politicians campaign and both Milk and Moscone benefitted from that. This materially would probably be best suitable to put into context of his campaign against Art Agnos who Jones supported more. Jones was apparently covering himself by supporting both candidates so he could benefit from whomever won the election. To present it otherwise is misleading - LGBT issues and Jones' bisexuality aside we need to remain accurate and not cherry-pick information as such. I'll await some revisions but frankly this material needs to be better cited and written more neutrally and we let the readers decide what to think when presented all the relevant and notable facts. Banjeboi 00:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Well, there are a few incorrect facts there. Agnos didn't support Jones more than Milk. Not even close. Milk's support was vitally important because Milk and Willie Brown supported Jones with letters to both President Carter and the Guyanese government AGAINST investigation AFTER Jones fled to Guyana. Jones used this support repeatedly in talking with Guyanese officials (and, oddly also, the Soviet embassy in Guyana) to bolster his credibility and hold off investigation. 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. In addition, there -- certainly now -- is no WP:Coatrack issue, because this information is limited to only a very brief mention of Milk's key support and involvement. In fact, it is better suited here than anywhere else. At this point, its thoroughly NPOV and addresses the issues of Milk's potential motivations for PT support. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC) We'll have to agree to disagree then as Jones regularly supported both candidates in races and the quick look at sources relevant to Milk seem to be at odds with the facts as they are presented here. I still feel they are presented with undue weight which violates NPOV. I strongly encourage you to trim off the unnotable bits and place this in context with Milk's career. Jones contacted Milk to offer support and Milk accepted the support, he attended political rally? who cares? he, along with Brown wrote a letter of support to Carter? put that in Jones' article. Milk wrote a lot of letters but we don't need to discuss them, at all. Again this is about Milk and his limited involvement with Jones which is ... limited. Banjeboi 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC) To perhaps be more clear, these events merit some coverage but in context of the story of Milk's life they only seem to earn passing mention - not extensive coverage. This material would generally be better suited to Jones' article where discussing currying favors from politicians would make sense. Banjeboi 01:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Jones helping Milk's campaign wasn't of central importance. It is limited to a sentence. Rather the opposite: Milk's support of of the Temple, especially in the face of investigations, are what's important and notable, especially given the vast notability of the incidents that followed -- so huge it was third most known fact to U.S. citizens then, only behind the JFK assassination and Pearl Harbor. And Milk didn't co-write just a letter of Temple support against the Concerned Relatives to President Carter with Brown. In fact, he urged President Carter in at least one letter himself, and wrote others to Guyanese officials, in the face of those pressing for investigations in 1977 and early 1978 (which obviously never happened). Most of them aren't even mentioned in the article. And Milk attended other rallies. I briefly mentioned only one (rather than go into it) because it was THE rally -- the notable one AFTER Jones fled to Guyana with the Concerned Relatives pressing for an investigation and return of their relatives -- that Milk attended in support of Jones against those pressing for investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosedschurte (talk • contribs) 02:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC) And it is definitely placed in the context of Milk's career now. It's only 6% of the Milk article. And article which devotes, for example, 9 lines just to text about Milk on a bas relief. It's mentioned nowhere in the summary and is buried in the middle of the biography section directly after a paragraph discussing Milk's pooper-scooper ordinance. It's hardly disproportionate or of undue weight. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Respectfully disagree. Milk along with other politicians benefited from Jones' support and Milk along with others also showed support. He supported the temple? So what? They got lots of support before the bodies started piling up. The material has its own section which certainly seems to imply its importance which we both agree it wasn't that important to Milk. This still should be trimmed down and woven into the career section not giving it undue weight. Just because the massacre incident was a huge bit of news doesn't mean this biography article has delve deeply into the connections. This is an encyclopedia not a book. Jones was a political opportunist who got favors from politicians he supported. That's not that big of a deal. Banjeboi 02:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Well, you keep saying "so what?" about Milk's support of the Temple against those calling for investigation. Respectfully, I think you may be letting your feelings for the subject cloud your thinking on the notoriety of the support. Take an analogous situation: Let's say, instead of operating in secret, Mohammed Atta and 19 others formed a small extremist (but non-violent) community organization in NYC in 1998. They helped in soup kitchens. They also helped an NYC City councilman to get elected 2 years before. The councilman then repeatedly visited with Atta et al and gave words of glowing public support. Then, other locals called for Atta & Co. to be investigated. The NYC city councilman vehemently opposed this, attended rallies in support and wrote Presidents Clinton & Bush calling the calls for investigation "apparent bold-faced lies." Did the councilman agree with Atta & Co's attacks on 9-11? Absolutely not. Did the city councilman spend a huge amount of his time on Atta & Co? Not really. Would it still merit, let's say, two small paragraphs in that councilman's wikipedia article? There would probably be some 77,000 byte 10 page article of every word stated by the councilman regarding support for Atta & Co and resistance to investigations. As it is, Milk's support is a tiny (6%) part of the Milk article buried in the middle of the biography section in the paragraph after Milk's pooper-scooper ordinance. Objectively, I really don't see how this could possibly be seen as giving it undue weight. Mosedschurte (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC) And I suggest that your interest in all things Jimes Jones/People's Temple/Jonestown may be clouding your perspective. I didn't follow the rather unique example you set out and that would seem to be more of a distraction which this entire subject seems to be. I've be reading about Milk for well over a decade and never even heard of this material except in relation that it also was San Francisco news around the same time. We don't go by percentages (6% is "tiny") - we go by what the average reader would take from the reading of the material. As it is now, sectioned out as if it were an important deal in Milk's life, and delving into non-notable material, it sure feels undue to me. If you are unable or unwilling to trim it and weave it into the career material then I'll do some research myself and see what the biographies about Milk seem to state and fix it myself. If that doesn't seem to do the trick we can ask for some other editors opinions to build consensus on how to treat this content.Banjeboi 02:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Well, I've already trimmed it and even added sentences giving potential reasons for Milk's support against the investigations before the tragedy. And it's weaved into the middle of the "Biography", section, as mentioned, in the paragraph after Milk's pooper scooper ordinance. As for "I'll do some research myself and see what the the biographies about Milk seem to state", that is always appreciated. I can assure you that they won't say that the facts already stated by the excellent sources in the article didn't occur, but any additional information is always appreciated. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Outdent. OK, I've looked through several sources and Jones is only mentioned in passing in most of it. That Milk spoke at the Temple (or anywhere else), that he got support from them (like a lot of politicians including Milk's opponents in the same races) and that he wrote letters in support of Jones all seems somewhat unremarkable. I did run across this gem from Milk speaking to a campaign staffer regarding his involvement with the Temple and Jones: “ Make sure you're always nice to the Peoples Temple. If they ask you to do something, do it, and then send them a note thanking them for asking you to do it. They're weird and they're dangerous, and you never want to be on their bad side. -- Harvey Milk ” I hope these changes are OK with you and I encourage you to consider adding the material to the Jim Jones and Peoples Temple articles as appropriate. There may even be a San Francisco politics article that the Jim Jones material would be very appropriate for as he was distinctly a part of the scene and had an impact. Banjeboi 22:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Really, let's try to stick to Wikipedia guidelines on changes. Deleting sourced NPOV material presented in encyclopedic form is not helpful to the article, even if its not entirely positive with regard to the subject. Mosedschurte (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC) First off, I'm pretty familiar with consensus and how we build articles - you just reverted my bringing the material in line with NPOV policies so instead of edit warring with you let's try an RFC and see where concensus leads. Banjeboi 23:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC) I mean, to be fair you didn't just bring the material "in line with NPOV policies." For example, you simply deleted all reference to Milk's support to President Carter for the Temple against investigation after Jones' famous fleeing to Guyana. It's no longer even mentioned in the "Career" section. Mosedschurte (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC) This is an article about Milk, not Jones and not the Temple. I've seen nothing to convince me that this was anything but a minor blip in Milk's life, and as such, deserves little coverage. The source's I've looked into about Jim Jones seem to show Milk as only a background politician in his story and vice versa. Just because there is proof that Milk wrote the President doesn't make that notable enough for inclusion - Milk was afraid of Jones and his people so we can't infer why he wrote it and what may have been said in private elsewhere, or that anything ever was. I'm sorry but this feels like mudslinging to me. Let's see what other editors have to say. Banjeboi 00:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Of course it's about Milk, which is why his post-Guyana support was limited to only one of MANY Milk supports of Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple against investigation. It's a tiny mention. And it's hardly "mud slinging." Its a mention of key support (and only a small portion of that support), along with actually attacking those calling for investigations, for what then turned out to be one of the most notorious organizations (and individuals) in American history. I'm not sure how this can be simply deleted because mention of the facts seems like "mud slinging" to you. It's already been cut way down, phrased and re-phrased to make it thoroughly NPOV (in fact, bent over backwards to provide other motivations for Milk) and presented in encyclopedic format. Mosedschurte (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.