Talk:Harvey Milk/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Expanded article

I've posted an expanded version of this article after doing some extensive research on Milk. I wrote it in my sandbox, you can see here. I am still working on finding images that will hold up under scrutiny at WP:FAC. The image that illustrates the article at the top will not be able to stay. I will also continue to read through microfilms of the San Francisco Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle during the 1970s, and I will be receiving another account of the assassinations and the Dan White trial to add to the sources that exist now. There are fact tags to remind me where they need to go. It will take me a while to go through them all, but I hope to be able to get feedback on the article from Peer Review and GA nomination during that time.

My standards for this article are Featured Article standards. I hope to be able to escort it through the FAC process so it can be posted on the main page by the release of the film. The film will premiere at the Castro Theater on October 28. I may not be able to make the FA happen so soon. If not, the wide release date of the film release will be November 26. --Moni3 (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Peoples Temple information in expanded version

Ok. After reading and researching what I have about the life of Harvey Milk, I think it's pretty safe to say that the section "Peoples Temple Investigation" puts significant undue weight on his involvement in the Peoples Temple, and the section falls under synthesized information. Jones was a powerful political figure in San Francisco, connected to most of the supervisors, assemblymen, and other politicians associated with the city. The information about Milk may be applicable in the article on the Peoples Temple, but it is not applicable here. It would be impossible to include every cause Milk commented on or supported. The Peoples Temple was not any major issue in any of his campaigns or throughout any of Milk's career. To avoid further edit warring, I will refrain for now from removing it. But it needs to go, and I believe Mosedschurte should be the one to take it out. I suggest Mosedschurte should instead check out the volumes of information available on Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple and concentrate on those articles, to write a comprehensive article on the political machinations of Jones while he was in San Francisco. I think it will reveal that Milk was not at all a significant part of Jones' operations. --Moni3 (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Re "The information about Milk may be applicable in the article on the Peoples Temple, but it is not applicable here."

--Not only does that assertion appear to have no basis, but the reverse is true. The Peoples Temple was at the center of the largest loss of American civilian life (outside natural disasters) until 9-11. While I agree that Milk's support of the Temple during its investigation should not dominate an article on Milk, a tiny one sentence section on such is clearly not "undue." --The original section on Milk's support of the Temple was severely cut all the way to one summary sentence to address prior concerns. Frankly, most of the edit-warring deletion of NPOV stated facts on such a huge issue seemed ridiculous to me, and I essentially just cut it to one sentence to avoid being further drawn into it, regardless of the lack of merit of some of the claims and attacks. --As it stands now, only the one sentence summary and "See" to the main article on political alliances of the Peoples Temple remains.

Re: "I suggest Mosedschurte should instead check out the volumes of information available on Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple and concentrate on those articles, to write a comprehensive article on the political machinations of Jones while he was in San Francisco. I think it will reveal that Milk was not at all a significant part of Jones' operations."

--I actually have done something like that, including scouring countless major newspapers covering Jones, Milk and others in the mid-to-late 1970s. --And no one has suggested that Milk was a "significant part of Jones' operations." Rather, the short 1 sentence summary that remains involves only Milk's support of the Temple during the investigations starting in 1975-6 through its demise via mass suicide in 1978. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This, the article about the life of Harvey Milk, should reflect what comprehensive reliable sources report about the life of Harvey Milk. Regardless of the enormity of the Jonestown suicides, this is not an article about Jonestown or Jim Jones or cults or the overall attraction that fringe crazy people have to San Francisco. If the Jonestown article and its associated satellites do not sufficiently describe the manipulative mania Jones employed on his own people as well as on city politicians, it should. That's where your focus lies. Not here.

Randy Shilts brushes the Peoples Temple issues in his so far most comprehensive biography of Milk to date. I don't know if you saw that there is a mention of Jones and the Peoples Temple based on Shilts' biography. What I posted in the article is actually more than what should be included in the article about Jones' and Milk's political relationship. If sources about Milk's life say that his most significant priorities and contributions were to gay rights, fighting large corporations and developers, and promoting neighborhoods, the article should not reflect that another of his most significant (and certainly not insignificant) priorities was the Peoples Temple. This, and really all, articles should not be collections of random facts attributed to various sources, but a summary of what the best sources have said about his life. Simply - the Peoples Temple information has no more place here than would a paragraph about deep sea diving because Milk was a diver in the Navy.

Look, I think we have a disconnect here. An FA-class article - which this will be one day, I hope - should tell a story based on what the best sources about Milk have said. You've included information from sources that are not comprehensively written about Milk, but more about the Peoples Temple that mention Milk in passing, and connecting them in a paragraph that lists events that occurred over a span of years with no connection to any other context, and under its own subheading. That is synthesizing information. You are placing too much emphasis on his involvement in the Peoples Temple and distorting his role with Jim Jones and San Francisco politics. Quite frankly, you're giving him way too much credit for having political clout beyond the Castro District.

I reassert my claim that the "Peoples Temple investigation" section does not belong in this article, and I request once more that you remove it. I base it on my knowledge and experience of what belongs in the highest quality articles, along with everything I read about Milk. I invite you to read The Mayor of Castro Street and the multiple biographies I used for this article. --Moni3 (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Regardless of the enormity of the Jonestown suicides, this is not an article about Jonestown or Jim Jones or cults or the overall attraction that fringe crazy people have to San Francisco."

--I agree and no one is saying anything remotely like that. That is why Milk's support for the Temple during the investigations is merely a one summary sentence. This particular "fringe" group was obviously one of the most notorious in U.S. history (and the most notorious in San Francisco history).

Re: "An FA-class article - which this will be one day, I hope - should tell a story based on what the best sources about Milk have said. You've included information from sources that are not comprehensively written about Milk, but more about the Peoples Temple"

--First, there simply is no such source restriction for Featured Article class articles requiring citing only biographies directly focusing upon the subject of an article. In fact, restricting facts from articles unless they are cited by biographies on the subject of an article is contrary to Wikipedia principles.
--Second, as an additional FYI, "The Mayor of Casto Street" actually came out well before many of the documents on the Peoples Temple became publicly available through FOIA requests and the like in the 1990s. For example, at the time of the writing of the book, Shilts almost certainly did not have access to the 1978 Milk letter to President Carter defending Jones and attacking the leader of those attempting to extricate relatives. I think "The Mayor" also might have even came out at the time or before "Raven" came out, which began another round (after the initial 1978-9 journalist investigations) of revelations regarding Temple activities and connections through Reiterman's throrough examination of Temple documents.
--Third, it is simply a better an more comprehensive article -- which is a criteria for FA status -- with the information included, not deleted.

Re: "Quite frankly, you're giving him way too much credit for having political clout beyond the Castro District."

--I'm actually not commenting at all upon his clout. In fact, I would suggest steering clear of speculation regarding the actual effects of his support without further authority on the subject.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, sadly, we seem to be using English and not communicating. Shilts interviewed every manager, political aide, speech writer, and major player in Milk's life for this book. Regardless of what the Freedom of Information Act uncovered, if these major players in Milk's life didn't make it a big deal, it wasn't a big deal. Not only did they know about this stuff, they probably wrote and typed the speech and letter. If Shilts and all of Milk's biographies don't have the emphasis on the Peoples Temple, we can't create it. We must, unfortunately, wait for another biographer to state what role the Peoples Temple played in Milk's life and politics.

The facts themselves are not in dispute. It is how they are formatted, written, and appear.

• Milk spoke at political rallies at the Peoples Temple,[88] attended a rally at the controversial Temple against its opponents during investigations of criminal wrongdoings,[89] supported the works of the Temple in a weekly column after leader Jim Jones' exodus to Guyana,[90][unreliable source?] and wrote a letter to President Jimmy Carter stating that Jones was known as "a man of the highest character" while stating that the leader of the group attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown was spreading "apparent bold-faced lies."

Within Milk's article, it is mentioned that he spoke at the 1978 Gay Freedom Day, the demonstration the night the ordinance was overturned in Miami, and at rallies at the Peoples Temple. Two of these were major occurrences in his life and legacy. The last?

No other organizations Milk supported are mentioned in the article except for the Peoples Temple. No other letters written on behalf of his constituents are mentioned in the article. So, that must be a pretty big deal then, right? Not according to his biography sources. Ok so where could it go in the scheme of what was most important in his life? Gay rights - pretty big. Hatred of large corporations - pretty big. Neighborhoods - somewhat big. Peoples Temple - not big in Milk's life at all, but a deal for a wheel in that's how it goes in San Francisco politics. A few instances among hundreds or thousands of back scratchings between politicians.

I'm willing to be creative. As the sentence reads it may be possible to put it in a ref group note at the bottom, attached to the section about his volunteers being creeped out by Jones' volunteers. Maybe a phrase after that section that leads into how Milk returned the favor paid him by Jones. Otherwise, it simply cannot stay the way it is. --Moni3 (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Again, sadly, we seem to be using English and not communicating. Shilts interviewed every manager, political aide, speech writer, and major player in Milk's life for this book."

--I'm not sure what's going on here, but this is not even remotely close to the criteria for inclusion in an article about ANY subject in Wikipedia. ---Moreover, the facts are the facts, regardless of the focus by Shilts or any other biographer, NONE of which by the way disagree with any of those facts. Using Shilts as some kind of factual gatekeeper would be rather ridiculous given the actual facts, especially given that he wrote his book back in 1982, not to mention I'm sure it wouldn't comport with Wikipedia standards.

Re "No other organizations Milk supported are mentioned in the article except for the Peoples Temple."

--What other local Bay Area organization Milk supported is even remotely as notorious or infamous as the Peoples' Temple?

--Perhaps I'm not stating things big picture enough. The Peoples Temple ended up orchestrating a massive tragedy that consisted of the single largest loss of American civilian life in U.S. history pre-9-11 as well as the only murder of a U.S. Congressman in the line of duty in U.S. history. They were as notorious in the U.S. as Al Queda before Al Queda. A small handful of U.S. politicians still directly supported them after they were exposed and fled to Guyana. Milk was one of them, and in fact, actually wrote the Carter administration attacking the leader of those attempting to extricate relatives from this tragedy.

--Note that I'm not even saying the article should discuss this in detail. Rather, what remains is only a tiny one sentence summary with a link to another article going into depth about it.

--To be perfectly blunt, the entire idea that even a mere mention of these facts must be scoured from a Wikipedia article on Milk -- especially for the reason that they are merely not mentioned in Shilt's book -- seems rather bizarre. If you read through the prior Talk Page discussions on the topic, you'll see that I'm hardly alone with that viewpoint, and that was back when the section was MUCH larger.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

After reading the essay by Michael Bellefountaine, I have even more cause to consider not including this section. Bellefountaine, apparently, lived to cause discord [1], and apparently made it his personal mission to connect Milk to the Peoples Temple. The source titled "Research on Harvey Milk Renews Calls for Reappraisal of Peoples Temple" does not appear to be reliable according to WP:RS. It's a call for volunteers to help him write a book, not a "published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It is Bellefontaine's own conclusions basically suggesting Jones ordered the murders of Moscone and Milk. We're getting pretty close to fringe and conspiracy theory and I don't trust that source at all. I am unable to view p. 327 in Reiterman's book. Please produce the passage that discusses Milk.

Bellefontaine's sentence: Milk spoke at the Temple often, wrote personal letters to Jim Jones, contacted other elected officials on the Temple’s behalf, and used space in his weekly column to support the works of the Temple,

What is in the article now: Milk spoke at political rallies at the Peoples Temple, attended a rally at the controversial Temple against its opponents during investigations of criminal wrongdoings, supported the works of the Temple in a weekly column after leader Jim Jones' exodus to Guyana, and wrote a letter to President Jimmy Carter stating that Jones was known as "a man of the highest character" while stating that the leader of the group attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown was spreading "apparent bold-faced lies."

• Milk's involvement in the Peoples Temple is not considered significant in his life to any of his published biographies.
• There is a passage that mentions his use of their volunteers already in the article.
• The one source explaining Milk's involvement on a larger scale is from an amateur historian who has attempted to draw connections between the two to uncover more of their relationship. It is not a third-party fact-checked article, but an essay and a call for volunteers for a book that was apparently not ever published.

I reiterate my objection to this material. It does not belong here. If you continue to insist that it does, we will have to take this to higher authorities. I'm willing to do that. --Moni3 (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you should start making plans to do so as this same editor has filled up this page several times in a similar manner despite repeated attempts to bring the content into context. They conveniently ignore that the equally problematic Political alliances of Peoples Temple article, created to appease these concerns, is linked in the "See also" section. They also dismiss that relevant information from reliable sources is placed in context in this article as should happen and instead insist that an entire subsection that serves only to besmirch the subject be placed with the ominous "Peoples Temple investigation" as if Milk was either investigating them, and this was notable or that there was a formal investigation of Milk's involvement with them that was somehow notable. None of which is true. -- Banjeboi 16:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been asked to comment on the by Moni3. Looking at the section "Peoples Temple Investigation" I note that four sources have been given.

• One [2] is webpage written by oneMichael Bellefountaine who is described in his obituary as an amateur historian and who was apparently interested in conspiracy theories regarding the origin of AIDS.[3] I would not consider this webpage to be a reliable source in WP terms.

• Another [4] is a primary source: a letter allegedly written by Milk, that is hosted on a website that also appears to deal in conspiracy theories.[5] As such, a primary source (presenting the danger of WP:OR) and also hosted on a website that would not be consider reliable, it is doubly inappropriate as a source.
• The Time article is clearly a reliable source, but all it does is mention that Milk once spoke at a rally.
• The book would be a reliable source but I can't verify it, but presume it is being accurately cited, but it also appears to boil down to the fact that Milk attended some Jones rallies.

I believe that in writing biographies, as well as making sure that information is verifiable and well-sourced we also need to determine how notable a fact/event is. If there are biographies and encyclopedia entries about the person, then we can be guided to a considerable extent by what they have determined to be notable aspects of a person's life. We faced a similar situation on featured article William Wilberforce, when editors wished to add information that was likely verifiable, but since it was not considered to be notable enough for inclusion in any of the many biographies of the man, it was unclear why our much shorter encyclopedia entry should include it. I believe this is a similar case. Given the unreliability of the first two sources given above, and the concerns about WP:UNDUE given that no biography of Milk has given weight to this area of his life, the most that should be done would be a slight expansion of the Race for state assembly section, to include some indication that he was a bit more involved in Peoples Temple events (attending, speaking) than the current text implies. --Slp1 (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm opining at Moni3's request as a person who was there (SF) and lived through all the events of that period. I agree that the entire section is UNDUE, placing too much importance on Milk's role and puffing up the importance by stringing together events in SYNTHESIS. Everyone in SF politics at that time was affected by Jones, and the wording at the end of the "Race for state assembly" section is adequate coverage of Milk's participation and role. A link to the undue article could be kept somewhere in the "Race for state assembly" if desired, as that may eventually encourage extra eyes to clean up that article to due weight, but the entire section is undue in this article, as Milk's relationship to Jones was not notable and no different than politics as usual in SF at the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

After Slp1's and SandyGeorgia's input, along with the preceding involvement of Benjiboi, I think it would be quite generous to include the following in a footnote after the appropriate section in Race for state assembly: Milk in turn attended Peoples Temples rallies (would like to know how many and when), and defended Jones during an investigation of (charge against Jones by specific agency) in (year). This is a gesture to resolve this conflict, although I'm quite certain that no more is deserved. --Moni3 (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion and input from a variety of editors on this issue months ago in the now edited Talk archives. Many wished to keep the section, and its various facts, when the section was much larger than it is now.

If Bellefontaine is unreliable, then the facts he cites should be deleted.

But, clearly, the facts should not now be scoured from the article. Especially for the reason of an upcoming release of a film on the subject, as discussed above.

In fact, such an attempted scouring seems rather bizarre. Especially claims of "undue weight" considering it is a tiny 3-4 line factual mention in an over 77,000 byte article. Mosedschurte (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't scour. Milk's working with Jones and the Peoples Temple is in the article in the "Race for state assembly". His attending rallies and defending the Temple would be appropriate in a footnote attached to that section because not all of it happened during his race for the state assembly, and there's not enough cause to place it later in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The subsection on Milk's support of the Temple during the investigations is not in the "Race for the State Assembly" portion. Jones earlier actions in support of Milk are separate -- and less notable, though interesting -- events. Mostly in 1976.

The descriptions regarding the separate events of Milk's support for the Temple during investigations are in a subsection of the "Supervisor" section, because those events occurred when Milk was a Supervisor (1977&1978).Mosedschurte (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The same problems remain. It was Bellafountaine who placed importance on Milk and the Peoples Temple. His reference is gone, justifiably. There is no reason to highlight Milk's involvement in its own subsection when it doesn't tie into any other part of his biography, and was not considered a major part of his life by his closest associates and those who wrote about him. The subsection needs to go. Information about his attending rallies may be placed elsewhere with less prominence, but the article cannot remain the way it is.

I've asked some very experienced editors with assistance in this issue. SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) is the FAC delegate, and it is her decision that determines if articles are promoted to Featured Article status or not. The argument has been argued out, and nothing has changed. Is there anything that I can do that will persuade you to remove the section yourself? If not, and you revert my attempts to make the article reflect the best sources about his life, I'll accept that you are willing to take this to a higher authority. Is that the case? --Moni3 (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "It was Bellafountaine who placed importance on Milk and the Peoples Temple."

Bellafontaine has nothing to do with the importance. It was one source that I deleted.

Milk's interactions with the Temple, including most notably his support during the investigation, have been written about in several major newspaper articles and books. Bellafontaine was one guy who essentially parroted these sources a few years ago.

Re: "The argument has been argued out, and nothing has changed."

I'm not sure what this means. The material is NPOV sourced (in fact many sources) fact about the subject of the article.

I suppose in that regard, nothing has changed. There is zero even remotely compelling reason stated to scour it from the article.

Re: "Is there anything that I can do that will persuade you to remove the section yourself? If not, and you revert my attempts to make the article reflect the best sources about his life"

Take a step back a second and look how bizarre that statement looks. The "choice" you've commanded is to either delete sourced NPOV facts from a TINY section of a 77,000 byte article or else the bald assertion that I will be "reverting" attempts to "make the article reflect the best sources about his life"

Keep in mind that this was already the subject of a Request for Comment months ago when the section was much larger and the Milk article was much smaller. Many weighed in that Milk's support for the Temple during the investigation should not be scoured from the article given the huge magnitude of the Jonestown events and the Temple's infamy.

The section was already slashed to one sentence basically to address all claims of any "undue weight", and that was when the article was half of the size it is now.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I shall assume that means you are willing to take it higher. --Moni3 (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to pursue scouring it from article, I suppose so. I'm not sure why that's necessary and this whole exercise seems, as stated before, rather bizarre.

I'm open to any rational reasons why Milk's 1977-78 support during investigations should be deleted from the article. So far, the only thing I've heard is the rather odd claim that it should be deleted because Randy Shilts didn't cover it in his 1982 biography of Milk (and perhaps others in there's). Which is, to say the least, not particularly compelling.

I'd certainly be willing to hear other arguments. To be frank, I'm a bit curious as to why you are making such a push to scour it, but I really don't want to get into the motivations of other editors because I don't think that's helpful or appropriate.

But I'm repeating myself.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Moni:

I just notice that SandyGeorgia had a comment on the user talk page (you should have indicated you requested assistance there because I would have jumped into the discussion) with which I completely agree:

---

"An entire section is undue; one-sentence linking over to the sibling article is appropriate, though; it was part of SF politics that few escaped at least brushing up against." (SandyGeorgia)

---

Is there any way to delete the section heading, keep the "see" link the main Political alliances article and keep that one sentence on Milk's support of the Temple during investigation that is in there now?

I'd be fine with that.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I wouldn't be opposed to linking the undue weight article (Political alliances of Peoples Temple) in to the current appropriate text in the "Race for state assembly" section; everything in the current "Peoples Temple investigation" section is UNDUE and SYNTHESIS. If such undue fringe theories continues in the article, further input can be garnered from the fringe theory noticeboard; the current text in "Peoples Temple investigation" is promoting a fringe theory and should be removed, leaving only a link to the article as part of the current text in "Race for state assembly". Alternately the solution proposed by Moni3 may be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy: respectfully, the 1977-78 Milk support of the Temple is simply not even remotely a "fringe theory." Were it such, I would never support including it in a Wikipedia article.

Rather, it was the subject of several major newspaper articles and books.

Nor are the facts themselves even controversial. No one has disputed them.

The less notable 1976 support of Milk by the Temple (which is the part in the "Race for state assembly"), a different set of facts, actually has not been documented to the same extent as Milk's 1977-1978 support for the Temple.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can produce sources that connect all the dots as you've connected them in the current sentence, then it's no longer fringe and synthesis. As of now, it's synthesis to create a fringe theory, because no source reports it the way you have. Please stop chewing up productive editor time; if you don't understand the nature of synthesis, I suggest you read WP:OR or post to WP:FTN to resolve an issue everyone else has opined clearly on; the fact that you are an WP:SPA on Jonestown issues will not likely incline many neutral editors towards your argument. Further, addressing your comment that you should have indicated you requested assistance there, that was already clear when I said, "I'm opining at Moni3's request ... " I suggest that accepting alternatives graciously offered by Moni3 will be the smoothest end to this dispute, and the one most in your favor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If it would resolve this dispute, I will consider the following in the Supervisor section:

Further information: Political alliances of Peoples Temple

During his tenure on the Board of Supervisors, however, Milk was able to pass two pieces of legislation. One of Milk's first priorities in office was to sponsor a civil rights bill that outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation. Only Supervisor White voted against it, and Mayor Moscone enthusiastically signed it into law with a light blue pen that Milk had given him for the occasion. Milk also continued to support the Peoples Temple by attending (how many?) functions, and defended Jones when his activities came under scrutiny (by whom and for what charges?)

--Moni3 (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this edit is accurate, and represents appropriate weight. I consider it an ideal compromise.--Moni3 (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The text you stated above is devoid of sources, just to begin with.

This compromise is about as NPOV short and to the point as it gets, and it doesn't even require its own section:

While serving on the Board of Supervisors, like some other local politicians, Milk spoke at at the controversial Peoples Temple while it was being investigated by newspapers and the San Francisco District Attorney's office for alleged criminal wrongdoing. Milk also wrote a letter to President Jimmy Carter praising Temple leader Jim Jones and questioning the motives of the leader of those attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown.

I'm going to be seriously alarmed and quite annoyed if you have no idea what Jones was being investigated for and make me look this up. "Criminal wrongdoing"? --Moni3 (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A wide variety of alleged wrongdoings -- and it was the Temple overall, not just Jones -- including alleged beatings, fraud and extortion, etc.

For example, here's a now famous article from July of 1977 that, when it was read to Jones over the phone the night before publication, and sent him packing THAT NIGHT for Guyana.

http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/PrimarySources/newWestart.htm

One of the rallies Milk attended was the rally 2 days later against alleged "reactionary" forces attacking the Temple, where Jones spoke via telephone from Guyana over huge speakers blasting the "witch hunt" and the like.

If you're interested, a somewhat humorous aside: the writer of that story (Kilduff) worked for the San Francisco Chronicle, but had to go to New West magazine to publish it. Why? The Chronicle City Editor would never let him publish it. Then, one day, when Kilduff covertly toured the Temple, he saw there in the front row at the Temple none other than that San Francisco Chronicle City Editor. The resistance became pretty clear at that point, and he went to New West Magazine to get it published. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Although Mosedschurte is, again, quite verbose, the same issues have yet to be addressed, concisely or otherwise. That Milk spoke at a church's political rallies as either a candidate or politicians is not notable. By the same logic we would include all manner of churches and civic groups whose rallies he spoke. Do the sources actually support "Milk spoke at at the controversial Peoples Temple while it was being investigated by newspapers and the San Francisco District Attorney's office for alleged criminal wrongdoing"? What is the context exactly? Or is that he spoke at political rallies at the PT more accurate - and, rather insignificant? Mosedschurte, if a new reliable source popped up today stating that Milk was heavily involved and indicated in which ways I would certainly support vetting it and including appropriately. The content should be worked in context as has been repeatedly requested.

Regards to the Raven book, I've asked Mosedschurte for direct quotes from the book several times to support this but after several months have yet to get anything but what we've seen presently. To me this borders on a verifiability violation. How much time should be allowed for a source to remain questioned and unverified? -- Banjeboi 05:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like to keep the personal sniping to a minimum and just focus on the issues at hand.

Re: "That Milk spoke at a church's political rallies as either a candidate or politicians is not notable. By the same logic we would include all manner of churches and civic groups whose rallies he spoke."

Of course not. It depends on the notariety and activities of the group.

If, for example, a U.S. politician spoke at an Al Queda meeting with Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atta in August of 2001, even if he had no idea those would occur the next month, that would be notable. While the same politician speaking at the local Hoboken Chamber of Commerce meeting would not. This comparison is not entirely theoretical -- the Peoples Temple orchestrated the largest loss of American civilian life in U.S. history before 9-11 (not including natural disasters). And, of course, no one has ever stated the Milk was at all involved in the Temple's murders or suicides at Jonestown.

Re: "Mosedschurte, if a new reliable source popped up today stating that Milk was heavily involved and indicated in which ways I would certainly support vetting it and including appropriately."

This raises a red herring because no one is saying that Milk was "heavily involved" in Temple activities. Rather, it is simply that he attended and spoke there while the Temple was under investigation (actually after Jones fled to Guyana) and wrote in support of Jones while attacking the motives of the leader attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown.

This is literally all that is said in the article about the subject.

I'd rather keep this to just the issues at hand in the remaining text and not some potential expansion of the issues.

Re: "Regards to the Raven book, I've asked Mosedschurte for direct quotes from the book several times to support this but after several months have yet to get anything"

The ONLY thing left in this article that the Raven article supports is that Milk attended a rally (with Agnos, by the way) at the Temple 2 days after Jones fled to Guyana, though I don't go into those details. It is now one of three cites listed. Another source states that Jones spoke at the Temple in October of 1978, though I don't go into those details.

I can get back my copy of Raven from the buddy I loaned it too at work to find the direct quote (it is likely one line about that topic, but I can't remember), and I already checked it when I first created the cite. That this is an issue seems rather ridiculous and I have never asked you to dig up a source cited and provide an exact quote, but I can do it if necessary.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I really wish you would, the other sources only seem to suggest that Milk spoke at rallies which is quite unsurprising as I've stated. Not that Milk knowingly supported a criminal figure. If you want to question any sourcing you're welcome to - most of the ones I've ever used are easily viewed online. This entire issue has been given too much weight and, now, detracts from otherwise excellent writing and sources. Milk likely did lots of things - like hanging out with pot-heads - but these are treated dispassionately and neutrally as should this content. Undue concerns not just the number of lines or percentage of an article but how the material is treated and viewed by the reader. That he, in some way defended Jones, also seems quite unspectacular. The Raven book is now the only source which would seem to suggest that Milk was involved and given your track record here I think some direct quotes showing the context of what Raven presents would be helpful. Was this rally notable in some way? If Milk wasn't the only politician there who else spoke? Did Milk speak at all? As has been pointed out previously we have a quote that Milk felt the Peoples temple were dangerous and he told his staff to do whatever they asked. It's more believable that the Peoples Temple orchestrated the rally and invited Milk amongst others. In this context Milk was simply doing what any other politician would likely do. This is why this all seems rather trivial and unhelpful - and yes, bordering on WP:Fringe. -- Banjeboi 08:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: "The Raven book is now the only source which would seem to suggest that Milk was involved and given your track record here I think some direct quotes showing the context of what Raven presents would be helpful."

Honestly, this contains a number of falsehoods and incorrect implications I'd like to avoid:
(1) No one is saying, or I think has ever said, that Milk was "involved" with with Temple in any way other than attending and speaking at it and writing Carter supporting it and attacking the leader of those attempting to extricate. This is a red herring being thrown up, no repeatedly and, frankly, embarrassingly. It has never been stated.
(2) The ONLY thing Raven is cited for re Milk in the text that remains in this article is that he attended one rally during the investigation. Which it most certainly states.
(3) The "given your track record here" comment is a complete joke. And frankly, you don't want to go down that road given your comments in the archives, but I'll leave it at that. I'd rather avoid sniping.
(4) I will provide the text from Raven (probably one line) about Milk's attendance at that rally, which is the only thing for which Raven is cited.
(5) Milk spoke at the Temple at other times, such as in October of 1978, one month before their final "White Night" (different meaning in Jonestown, obviously), and a source is provided for that (VanDeCarr).

RE: "Undue concerns not just the number of lines or percentage of an article"

If it did, this rather silly argument at this point would be over because currently the only mention is a whopping 3 lines in a now 77,000 byte article.

Re: "That he, in some way defended Jones, also seems quite unspectacular."

You keep repeating this odd assertion without explanation.

The notariety and deeds of the group are one reason by themselves that the events are notable. For example, if Rudy Giuliani (or a NYC City Councilman) attended and spoke at a meeting of Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 bombers in August of 2001, this would be notable even if Giuliani had no knowledge of their 9-11 plot. And it would be far more notable if Giuliani had, say, written President Bush opposing locals wishing to investigate Atta and the bombers. In fact, very large sections would likely exist on the topic in the Giuliani Wikipedia article. But if he, instead, spoke or attended an otherwise not notable Knights of Columbus group meeting, this would not be notable. It is the notariety and deeds of the group that make the meeting with and letter to the President notable in both the former example above and the Milk-PT events.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that Mosedschurte is unable to find specific details on the dates Milk spoke at how rallies, the charges Jones was facing (a Temple cannot be investigated, charged, and arrested), and who else was there and spoke, because GoogleBooks won't allow access to those chapters. Or those books being used don't cover it. What I find most exasperating about this is the singular focus on non notable events without the scholarship to back it up. I'm in the middle of checking details and getting quotes on over 200 microfilms from 1970s newspapers for the entire article, I've read the books used in the Bibliography section at least 10 times, and another is on its way from Amazon. This remote control research on what one can find if one searches Google for "Harvey Milk" and "Jim Jones" produces a distorted image of what was happening in 1977 and 1978, it's sloppy research and it does not belong on Wikipedia.

I don't know how this can be any clearer: This article is about notable events in the life of Harvey Milk. Star Wars was popular during this time - no Star Wars information. The Bee Gees were huge - no Saturday Night Fever. A busload of kids was kidnapped in Northern California - no info about that either. Patty Hearst was kidnapped and help up a bank with the Symbionese Liberation Army, arrested and tried - no info about that either. The government of Iran was being overtaken to lead up to the storming of the embassy - no info about that either. There is an article for Jim Jones, one for the Peoples Temple, and a poorly written one on Political alliances of Peoples Temple. That's three articles in which events in the scope of Jim Jones are appropriate. This is not such an article.

The notability of an event is inherent in the sources used. If the GoogleBooks sources available don't count the number of times Milk spoke, who was there, what was said, and the dates to detail what stage of the investigation Milk was defending Jones, it is not notable. So, Mosedschurte, go to a library and do some work if you're so motivated to tell the truth about Jim Jones. Enough is enough. Until you can reproduce passages in the sources you're using to verify details about the passage in question, and you can answer the details about 1) how many times Milk spoke at a rally at the Peoples Temple, 2)the date(s) of the rally, 3) what Jones was being investigated for, and 4) how long the investigation took place (your Coleman source actually states Moscone would not investigate Jones before Milk sent Carter the letter) I'm formatting the article according to Milk's best sources. If you revert without providing these details, let's go take care of it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I suspect that Mosedschurte is unable to find specific details on the dates Milk spoke at how rallies, the charges Jones was facing (a Temple cannot be investigated, charged, and arrested), and who else was there and spoke, because GoogleBooks won't allow access to those chapters. Or those books being used don't cover it. What I find most exasperating about this is the singular focus on non notable events without the scholarship to back it up. "

You're now down to just flat out lying. And sniping:
(1) At least two of the five sources you can't get via inter inernet in any form -- I bought them
(2) In fact, in addition to purchasing a wide variety of books, I also have over 500 newspaper articles, 70,000 documents, hundreds of audiotapes and several videotapes of events in San Francisco at this time

Re: "The notability of an event is inherent in the sources used. If the GoogleBooks sources available don't count the number of times Milk spoke, who was there, what was said, and the dates to detail what stage of the investigation Milk was defending Jones, it is not notable."

This is just about the most laughable concept one can imagine.

First, who knows what "Googlebooks" has available and why this would be a gateway for anything.

Second, there is absolutely ZERO requirement to state "the exact number of times" someone attended or spoke at any even to say they attended or spoke at an event on Wikipedia.

Re: "So, Mosedschurte, go to a library and do some work if you're so motivated to tell the truth about Jim Jones."

This is more sniping and implied flat out lying to be honest, and I've repeatedly asked you to stop such things.

FYI, not only have I "been to the library," but I've traveled hundreds of miles to other libraries and conducted telephone interviews myself on various subjects, though I've never included such because I don't want to turn anything into a primary research piece.

Re: "Until you can reproduce passages in the sources you're using to verify details about the passage in question, and you can answer the details about 1) how many times Milk spoke at a rally at the Peoples Temple, 2)the date(s) of the rally, 3) what Jones was being investigated for, and 4) how long the investigation took place (your Coleman source actually states Moscone would not investigate Jones before Milk sent Carter the letter) I'm formatting the article according to Milk's best sources."

(1) The sources stay he attended and spoke there multiple times, but I've only cited two specific instances in 1977-78. Raven and VanDeCarr here. (2) July 31, 1977 (Raven p. 327); and October of 1978 (VanDeCarr) no specific date given). (3) Most of the investigations of criminal wrongdoing by the Temple pre-Jonestown were media investigations, conducted by the San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Chronicle, New York Times and other publicatons. The San Francisco D.A. investigation was dropped nearly immediately, which itself was becoming a large scandal given Moscone's position, but he died 9 days after Jonestown. (4) The media investigations began mostly in mid-1977 and ran through the time of the Jonestown tragedy. Mosedschurte (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:Fringe

A thread about this article has been started at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Harvey_Milk_and_the_Peoples_Temple. --Moni3 (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)