LGBTQ+ studies C‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Biography: Politics and Government C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Wasn't Hay booted out of his own Mattachine Society for his communism, as well as being booted out of the CPUSA for his open homosexuality? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no mention of his involvement with NAMBLA? It's well documented and there are many photographs of Harry Hay holding NAMBLA signs.--64.205.57.18 14:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, why don't you do it? Hyacinth 21:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added in it an NPOV way, I hope--Dudeman5685 05:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments attributed to Jim Kepner in his review of "Radically Gay: Gay Liberation in the Words of Harry Hay," take issue with some of the claims made by Harry Hay. Like, how could Harry Hay have founded the Radical Faerie movement at a time when other people were already holding Faerie gatherings and publishing? Also, other sources of information are that Harry Hay does admit being inspired by Henry Gerber's Society for Human Rights in Chicago. See additional comments at: http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/reviews/011000re.htm

The article states that in 1963 Harry Hay had a lover named John Burnside. It links to Scottish author John Burnside, who was born in 1955. Now, unless Harry Hay was a member of the radical wing of NAMBLA, this must be the wrong John Burnside :-)

I have removed the link. I'd suggest restoring it once somebody supplies a disambiguation page for John Burnside. --69.49.165.251 05:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin E. Kameny says Kameny founded the Mattachine Society with Jack Nichols, making no mention of Harry Hay. But the Mattachine Society article says it was founded by "Harry Hay with a small group of friends". Which is right? Dybryd 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the difference: The Mattachine Society that Harry Hay founded eventually became a national organization with chapters intermittently established in various cities. Still later, it shrank to its headquarters entity, by that time relocated to San Francisco. Meanwhile, independent organizations using the name Mattachine were formed in some cities, including cities that had previously hosted chapters of the once-national Mattachine Society. For instance, the Mattachine Society of Washington was formed by Kameny in 1961. The Mattachine Society of New York had been formed as a separate organization in the waning days of the national Mattachine Society, which had had a New York chapter. Mattachine Midwest was formed in Chicago in 1965 as an independent organization; Chicago had previously had at least two short-lived chapters of the national Mattachine Society. Wbkelley (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Pedophilia-related activism" reflects the topic matter of the section in question. I actually spent several minutes trying to think of something that would have less of an appearance of being non-NPOV, but could think of nothing. If you can think of some other manner for describing his pedophilia-rated activism, other than "pedophilia-related activism," I would be happy to change the name of the section to something that has less of a dramatic character. The issue is not so much with my wording (which is about as neutral as can be phrased), but rather with the fact that the overwhelming consensus in our society is that pedophilia, and socio-political advocacy on behalf of a pedophilia-friendly perspective, ought be considered extremely repulsive. I'm not sure how one can report honestly on some of the pertinent facts of Harry Hay's life without presenting him in a way his supporters might perceive as non-NPOV, due to its unflattering elements. To suggest a different course is the intellectual equivalent of suggesting we shouldn't mention the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, for fear it would present a non-NPOV view portrait of Harry S. Truman. That is clearly not a viable course. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably further note that the source I cited for the Harry Hay quote comes not from a mere "forum," as was alleged, but rather from a recognized, national political magazine ie., The American Spectator. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia-related activism has every appearance of promoting that Hay was nearly on a speaking tour promoting Pedophilia when in fact this is a minor but documented aspect of his life. And your own sources don't suggest he was doing so so he himself could engage in sex with minors but that all groups, such as drag queens and leather folk should be free of the divisiveness just so the mainstream gays could get their human rights. This is a recurring mantra in LGBT communities. He also is advocating that LGBT kids deserve posiitive role models in LGBT adults, something that few would convincingly argue against. This section should be merged into the rest of the article otherwise it sure smacks of wp:coatracking to besmirch (yet another) LGBT leader. -- Banjeboi 00:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the section and saw nothing about pedophilia. Haiduc (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking on it. I retitled it but I also support the new title. -- Banjeboi 15:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new section title is just fine. I wish I'd thought of it. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section is not as important as teh other sections on Mattachine and the Radical Faeries, it should be merged into the main body text instead per wp:Undue. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine to me, and balanced. Haiduc (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to point out, Kevin, it's your own source that states that Hay made his remarks about intergenerational role models and what-not at a forum, so why you're acting like I'm being dismissive of it for being at a forum is baffling. As others have noted, Hay's supposed activism around this subject seems rather unimportant as compared to his work with Mattachine and RF. His collected writings ("Radically Gay") make no mention of it that I can find in the main text and his support of NAMBLA is relegated to a single sentence in a 360 page book. I have The Trouble With Harry Hay probably waiting for me in my PO box; I'll pick it up tomorrow and if it goes into anything like the level of detail about his supposed pro-pedophilia activism that it undoubtedly will about Mattachine, RF and CPUSA then I'll expand it as appropriate. But what should likely happen is that the information should be incorporated into a balanced "later life" section. Otto4711 (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood what you meant; I thought you were claiming my source was "a forum," like I'd taken that article off some v-bulletin discussion board, or whatnot. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source is found it could be re-added. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do have a source somewhere for the sign; not sure if it mentions his supposed attendance at NAMBLA meetings. I'll try to track it down again. Otto4711 (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't finished all of my source material yet, but from what I've read so far "defending intergenerational relationships" is too narrow a subject header. Yes, he supported the right of NAMBLA to be included, but his support (while possibly initially arising from his encounter with Matt the 24 year-old sailor when Hay was 14) seems to be coming much more from his Marxist background, his long-held anti-assimilationist contention that the strength of homosexuals came because of differences rather than samenesses and his general aversion to exclusionary politics. The article already talks about his comparison of NAMBLA's exclusion to the marginalization of drag and leather people. His writings on Radical Faeries talk about intergenderism and the importance of inclusionism. I have references that talk about his dismay over ACT UP's tactics as being too embracing of the masculine/macho style of confrontation and dismissive of a broader-based approach. I'm thinking that something for the section header along the lines of "Anti-assimilation work" is going to be more representative of his actual views. Otto4711 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right. IMHO, the real issue is that the article is so short and he's much more then what we have presently. -- Banjeboi 08:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm working on it. It's almost doubled since I started putting in the work. I'm just one person there's only so much I can do! <sob> Otto4711 (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nambla.org/youtview.htm

http://www.nambla.org/sanfrancisco1984.htm

http://www.nambla.org/history.htm

These link were all current as of October 7th, 2009. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I'm not seeing the point. As I review the links and the article it appears that this "evidence" of "involvement" with NAMBLA is already adequately covered. His speech to the conference, his protest sign and his refusal to participate in Stonewall 25 are all already included and sourced to reliable sources that are independent of NAMBLA. Per the earlier discussion on this page, it seems to me that a reasonable accommodation was reached to include this information in the broader context of Hay's anti-assimilationism beliefs and actions. There is little to be gained from including any of the information at the other end of these links and including it implicates WP:UNDUE by placing greater weight on Hay's NAMBLA-related activities than is merited by their actual scope. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...he met and began a relationship with fellow actor Will Geer..." What sort of relationship? I've had relationships with many people, most of which weren't sexual. Inasmuch as Will Geer's sexuality has been debated, shouldn't this article be explicit about what said "relationship" comprised, and give references? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, good catch. -- Banjeboi 14:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whomever reverted my addition to the article clearly does not know what a source is. I provided the ISBN for the biography of Harry Hay "The Trouble With Harry Hay" that describes his active involvement in the Agape temple as their organist, and refers to his "sacrilege" of also playing the organ for the local Catholic Church. Hay was also loosely associated with the OTO. Both groups are occult organizations.

The Radical Faeries were also considered to be based in "spirituality."

The Faeries were described by a neutral writer as, "Marxism, feminism, paganism, Native American and New Age spirituality, anarchism, the mythopoetic men's movement, radical individualism, the therapeutic culture of self-fulfillment and self-actualization, earth-based movements in support of sustainable communities, spiritual solemnity coupled with a camp sensibility, gay liberation and drag." Hennen, Peter (2008), Faeries, Bears, and Leatherman, University of Chicago Press -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Job101010 (talk • contribs)

The detailed explanation on your talk page here was clear and polite. Please take some time to understand the issue and the discussion about WP:UNDUE on this talk page with regard to emphasis on NAMBLA (such as your use of "fervid"). Thanks, Fæ (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a bit worried about labeling him an "occultist" when in reality he played the organ for the Agape group - as he did for other groups. Being their organist doesn't make him a member of the organization - would you label him a Catholic? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hay was not Catholic. "The Trouble with Harry Hay" recognizes the fact that he played an organ for the Agape Temple and his Catholic Church as sacrilege. Hay's underlying opinions were clearly occult. Hay was also involved with the Aleister Crowley group, O.T.O., which is an occult group. The biography and O.T.O. recognize the influence that the O.T.O. had on Hay's life, such as the Radical Faeries.24.23.171.236 (talk)24.23.171.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Harry Hay taught for many years and this is documented in any number of sources that are already in use in the article. This is an aspect of his life that needs to be expanded, not deleted. His work as a scholar of Native American culture and Indian rights activist during his time living in the Southwest also needs to be expanded.

Including a sentence in the lead calling Hay a NAMBLA activist is an inappropriate emphasis on his involvement with the group. He was not according to any source that I have ever seen a NAMBLA member and his support based on those sources appeared to have been limited to speaking at a conference, carrying a sign (which also supported an individual person) and participating in an alternate march when Stonewall 25 refused NAMBLA entry. His NAMBLA involvement is covered in its proper context and plopping it into the lead in the absence of context damages the article. Orrin Knox (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then those "sources" and "documents" need to be cited; otherwise it is unverifiable. You have clearly demonstrated a bias that favors Harry Hay and disregards facts. The definition of "teacher" can be subjective. There are people that could claim that a homeless person was a "teacher" because that person extolled wisdom. At the same time, that same homeless person would be seen as a kook by others. Whose perception is authoritative? Unless Hay had taught in an official capacity, such as a school, college, museum or otherwise, then calling him a "teacher" is highly debatable and should not be sublimated into the narrative of his life.

Whereas, Hay's beliefs on anti-assimilation and by extension, his support for NAMBLA are integral to the narrative of his life, because those opinions can be verified and remain to be controversial. Hay broke away from the mainstream LGBT movement because he supported anti-assimilation and NAMBLA by extension, whereas, the mainstream LGBT movement did not. Yet, people have continuously tried to marginalize his beliefs.

The fact is that, pederasty remains a controversial topic of the so-called Sexual Revolution. Yes, most people would agree that consenting people should be allowed to engage in whatever behavior they choose, but the conundrum is, at what age should people be legally allowed to consent?

Hay's support of NAMBLA is integral to the narrative of his life, because as I said, it exemplified the schism between the two sides of the LGBT movement - one that wanted to assimilate, and that other side that did not. The fact that Stonewall 25 refused to include NAMBLA is clear and incontrovertible proof that Hay, by his support, was not on the same page as Stonewall or the LGBT movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.171.236 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the whole scope of Hay's life and the context of his "support" needs to be very clearly stated and plopping it in the lead sentance is NOT appropriate. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is "not appropriate" to those who deny Hay's identity and would like to skewer history with propaganda. The opening paragraph was a mess to begin with, because whoever wrote it was clearly trying to over-state his role and influence. Hay's historical relevance is relative to the LGBT movement, not the Radical Faeries; and Hay's departure from the organized LGBT movement resulted from his ideological differences, with NAMBLA being a clear and incontrovertible example of his dissension.

If anything, this article has too much information about the Radical Faeries, which has little, if any, relevance to LGBT. That skew clearly detracts from Hay's cultural relevance and the questions about his direct role in the LGBT movement. Hay's role, in the context of history, is mostly symbolic.24.23.171.236 (talk)

What is your source backing your claims of the importance of his position re nambla to his overall life and works? Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been two edits and two undos on this I would suggest it be dicussed. My point is that Hay's time made the "The call" for homosexual right (ala homophile movement) and less so thinking of LGBT, since this is a modern movement construct. Hay would definitely not included T (at the time at least) and arguably, B in that equation, and the early mattachine society from my understanding was almost exclusively male. We known that of later work by Hay (particularly the faeries but also his views on Gay assimilation) Hay saw sexual orientation not as a cultural identity construct but as a minority status, the same as a ethnicity or race.

Whether this (or any other justification) is valid is dicussable, I am open to changing either but I don't think LGBT is quite right or cultural identity is either

Howaboutudance (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]