This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government FA‑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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Template:SFBAProject Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies FA‑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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Maintained

	Harvey Milk is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 27, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 28, 2008 Good article nominee Listed October 7, 2008 Peer review Reviewed October 28, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Medcabbox

Please add new topics at the bottom.

Shouldn't gays instead be gay people? -- Banjeboi 21:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have an objection to "gays"? --Moni3 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well "the gays" was used "back then" somewhat pejoratively so I accept it in quotes. And LGBT isn't quite accurate as we'd need to know that when Milk (or others) used the term they did or did not mean to include bisexual and trans people. Gays certainly included lesbians at some point. In the spirit of human dignity though I would want us to refrain from rolling back progress to become the shorthanded gays again, "gay people" or "gay and lesbian people" might help ease that in some cases although this certainly could wait to be fixed. It jumped out at me and on other articles - that hadn't been picked over - I would simply tweak it. Arguably His goal was to give hope to disenfranchised gays around the country should be His goal was to give hope to LGBT people around the country. They needn't be disenfranchised to have hope heaped in their general direction. -- Banjeboi 22:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to go with the way the sources refer to... you know...them. I'm sure you caught the self-referencing "fags" in Stonewall riots (as well as queens and transvestites - with no references to transgender people until 1994), but the majority of sources refer to gays and lesbians. Older sources about the DOB and Mattachine Society refer to homosexuals, homophiles, and variants. I bought the Gay & Lesbian Almanac at a library sale recently (for $2.50!) and they use "lesbigay" throughout the tome to my constant irritation. Seems like a term used for a few years, deemed momentarily politically correct. Milk himself used "gays" to reference gay people. Most of the authors I used for the Milk article were gay or sympathetic. Furthermore, most sources refer to the invasion of the Castro District to be primarily male. There were a few lesbian enclaves in and around San Francisco (and Milk's last campaign manager was a lesbian), but by far the majority of those who settled in the Castro were men. Personally, maybe I'm frightfully old, but I don't see gay as a noun (or adjective) to be pejorative. And I am a big ol' gaymo. --Moni3 (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's back-burner it til December. The Castro is certainly about the boys and culturally it's two men macking on each other that wrankles homophobic responses so we'd have to quibble each nuance to suss who within the LGBT is being referred and the varying levels of enlightenment. I'm sure this page will keep hoping well into the new year and maybe an elegant solution will present itself. -- Banjeboi 23:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer to hew to the economist style guide in most cases. Though they don't have a specific comment, I agree w/ Moni a little bit. "Gays" dates the piece appropriately and (as Benjiboi notes) is closer to what people meant back then (before the movement was broadened to combat heteronormativity in general). And wow, totally better than Lesbigay. I'm not sure how well an elegant solution will link 1977 to the LBGT movement, but one may present itself. Protonk (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How about "gay member of Hetero sapiens sapiens"? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)  ;)[reply]

San Francisco dedicated a trolley to Harvey Milk which someone might want to add to the tributes section. Here are the news stories about it:

• City dedicates trolley to Milk (Bay Area Reporter)
• S.F. streetcar to be dedicated to Harvey Milk (SF Chronicle)

I saw it yesterday. The tributes are mostly in a footnote. We're running heavy on tributes, and I'm starting to wonder if we can or should include them all. --Moni3 (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think tributes should be spun into it's own and summarized here; it doesn't have to happen ASAP but clearly this section would be a fine article. -- Banjeboi 21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I'd caught this in the review process, but I haven't been here that much recently. One simple issue and one much more serious and complex.

First, the length of the introduction. Looking at the talk archives, it looks like there's been a lot of tweaking done on it over the last year, but I'm not sure the result was entirely satisfactory. If the purpose of an introduction section is to summarize the article, which in biographical articles is to summarize the importance of someone’s life, this misses badly.

Think about it this way: the introduction is longer than those of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, MLK...and even FDR. Milk's legacy is complex, but it's not that complex. Here's another way to look at it: if you were sitting down with someone unfamiliar with Milk over coffee (no pun intended) and describing him for the first time, would you really start out in the first two minutes that he was someone who lost an Assembly race to Art Agnos (even in the Bay Area, an awful lot of people nowadays would have no idea who Agnos was), chose to explore sexual relationships with secrecy pre-Stonewall, and had a campaign described as 'theater'? No. You'd describe him as ‘the most famous and most significantly open LGBT official ever elected in the United States', because as the point gets made later in the article, "no contemporary American gay leader has yet to achieve in life the stature Milk found in death."

There's a real underlying issue, though, which I think is one reason why the introduction (and article itself) ballooned. While consensus has been reached by writers on Milk's importance to the LGBT community, there has been utterly none reached on his impact or importance in San Francisco politics. That's where any biopic, or article about Milk is going to have problems. and while I think Moni3 has done a remarkable job in researching this, the source material she uses has a huge array of problems on the latter. It may be cited correctly but misses an awful, awful lot of what was going on outside the Castro...because the primary source authors are writing from Milk from the perspective of the LGBT community rather than Milk from the perspective of experts on San Francisco history, especially that of political history.

I'll give a simple example that begins to illustrate the problems. The the Agnos-Milk race had a lot less to do with Milk than it did with the simple fact Agnos was Leo McCarthy's (the Assembly speaker's) aide, and McCarthy and Moscone had intermittently fought a blood feud with Willie Brown and the Burton brothers that had started in the 1960s. (This is a fairly good 1993 Sac Bee article on some of its beginnings: http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1601/Richardson/Richardson.html) You can't place that race into context without understanding that there were an awful lot of people supporting Milk not because of what he was - but because they supported the other faction in town. That also plays into how the mayor's race for Moscone developed, and that's hard to do without understanding how the neighborhood Democratic clubs in SF developed in the 1960s and how both sides fought for control over them as the fight over those organizations by the two major factions along with independents like Milk dominated the political scene for years. It's true that Milk ran as an outsider, but lost in the long debate that seems to have occurred here over the People's Temple connection to Milk is that Jim Jones' support of both candidates had more to do with how he didn't want to anger either faction than support for Milk proper.

The primary sources generally cited on the local political angle - Shilts and de Strange - weren't really that familiar with the factors driving city politics outside the Castro as neither had been in SF during those years. Thus, they hadn't seen how the political grudges in town accumulated and their views on Milk's (and others) political importance to SF overall are written in that context. I'd agree with Awadewit that the major problem here is not the tone of the Moni3 or others who have put so much into this article, but the tone of the sources they're citing from. I was a young kid then, but my understanding is that in the grand scheme of things at the time, Milk was largely viewed much like Quentin Kopp (the token conservative west of Twin Peaks) or Dianne Feinstein (the rich Jewish girl from Pacific Heights) - outsiders not aligned with either faction, important in their communities and to deliver their votes on the margin, but by and large not nearly as politically important as both authors make him.

This front page may sum up exactly what I'm trying to say: http://cdn.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2008/01/30/dd_moscone1978_12_01.pdf. Moscone's service dominated above the fold. Milk's service was on page 5. You get the picture: at the time, Moscone's death was far, far more significant to everyone outside the burgeoning LGBT community.

There's other stuff. I'm not sure Jim Foster was as relevant to SF political organization as he was made (and that needs a cite in any case), since heck, you didn't want to get on Sue Bierman's bad side as she helped drive a mayor out of office when she stopped the Central Freeway from going through Golden Gate Park - and that's just off the top of my head since I know the history but not the ground level stuff. Also, even the main article on the assassinations and White point out that his supposed choice of targets and previous work with African Americans make him a lot more complex than just being "antigay." That doesn't come out in this article, and based on the SF Weekly article the White article cites, it needs to as the movie makes him even more of a cardboard character. If he had been, he'd have never gotten away with murder.

In short, Milk has achieved icon status now, but during his brief life he wasn't anywhere near there comparatively at least within the context of how important he was in San Francisco. I think that's what Mattisse was trying to point out as well before she gave up - there were a ton of interesting characters in SF politics in the late 70s: one who came within a vote of being Speaker of the House long before Pelosi did, two who controlled the CA Legislature for the 70s and 80s, one who is a US Senator, and those were just those who won. (The Kopp-Feinstein wars over San Francisco's future dominated a good part of the 80s, for instance, but the irascible Kopp is now largely forgotten unless you end up a criminal in his courtroom or have something to do with the high speed rail bond that just passed, since he's the chairman of that agency.)

I'm not trying to diminish Milk's accomplishments, but what I am arguing is that this article is in bad, bad need of sources (and editors who are experts) on San Francisco and California politics and history, since the article is just very weak when it comes to the wider context of the arena he played in (rather than the man himself and his role in the LGBT movement, which is quite good). San Francisco is a Byzantine place politically now, and back then it was even worse. I know there's stuff out there, like the Willie Brown biography, that gives a broader view of what was going on in SF at the time, and I've got to believe someone at SFSU or Cal or Stanford has published on this era since it's just too big a jackpot of a topic to miss.

Sorry, Moni3. I know you really want this as the front page article when the movie is released, but you asked where you missed stuff - and unfortunately the sources you used missed a lot. I think it's great you can look up what Milk did in the early years via the Advocate (and would love to see what you come up with), but using that won't fix the hole that's in this article.

I'd be happy to take a swing at the introduction as a pair of fresh eyes here if this doesn't turn into an edit war. Old64mb (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry, I meant de Jim, not de Strange. Hilarious guy, but not probably a good first choice of political or other history (see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/23/WBGG04CEG31.DTL). Old64mb (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'll answer your note here Sunday probably. Been drinking tonight and I'm off to a Prop 8 protest tomorrow, then a party. Ever the social butterfly am I. Thanks for taking the time to read it. --Moni3 (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now unfortunately sober, and have read your comments several times and have had some time to think about them. First, may I ask if you are the anonymous IP 75.3.225.43 who started the "Proper citations" section above? Or are you someone else who was asked to review the article?

The political machinations in San Francisco: This is a unique article because its subject is a cord of thread which other threads of details of the decade are woven around. Many factors outside of Milk's life have to be introduced in order to explain Milk's reaction to them, or their impact on his life. I have had to decide how much outside detail to include based on the weight reliable sources have given them as they pertain to Milk's life. That is a vital distinction to make. Where the Race for State Assembly focuses on Milk's role, that is because this article is his. There were dozens of other factors in play during this race and the other supervisor races in a city where my sources have indicated, municipal politics was a fierce battleground where weaklings were not suffered. Those factors had little or nothing to do with Milk, so they don't bear mention here.

The sources I used focused primarily on Milk's life and his impact in local politics, particularly his involvement in the Castro District. Through my readings I became familiar with the ethnic and economic makeup of other neighborhoods in San Francisco, but I don't profess to be able to speak intelligently about them if Milk had no direct involvement in them. I can see, by reading this article, how it might be very similar to an article on San Francisco politics in the 1970s. In that case, I would certainly agree that not enough emphasis is given to George Moscone, Dianne Feinsten, Willie Brown, Art Agnos, Quentin Kopp, or any of the other key players in the political scene. However, the scope for this article has to be narrowed to what was significant in Milk's life as presented by reliable sources.

The question of Dan White is an interesting one. Again, this is a unique article because the subject was assassinated by another politician, and his assassination led to a high-profile trial with a dubious outcome followed by rioting by his supporters. Sources have not been able to provide any solid reason to why White shot Milk and Moscone. It's not that they can't agree, it's that they all say - I don't know why this occurred. No one has been able to say with solid reason why Dan White killed Milk and Moscone. He was uptight, and hated losing, and was maybe homophobic, and was under an extraordinary amount of stress, and maybe had tried bully tactics in his campaign with the Sons of Sunnydale, and went on this odd crusade against the Youth Campus in Portola Heights against the wishes of the nuns who would run it... I agree that White should be a three-dimensional biography, but that should go in his article. It was a decision I made to exclude further detail about White other than what directly involved Milk.

If Milk was elected, or gained popularity in part due to (other than the growing power of the Castro District) an ongoing political system that gave rise to political clubs and had factions fighting against each other, then I am very interested in the source that says that. I'm open to the possibility that Shilts, who was living in Eugene, Oregon when Milk moved to San Francisco, was not particularly familiar with political tradition in the city, but I need a source that points to the cause and effect relationship between political clubs and Milk's rise. If you know of one, I'll ask for it tomorrow.

Are you looking for a citation for Foster's importance in the San Francisco gay community, or his involvement in Alice? I used two corroborating sources: Shilts and Our For Good by Dudley Clendinen and Adam Nagourney. Both state Foster founded Alice with Stokes and Goodstein, and both point to his primary role in local gay politics that was partly based on his pioneering representation of gays in a national forum.

I encountered similar comment when I wrote and nominated Everglades National Park for FA. At that time, the Everglades article stunk. It was nine uncited paragraphs and had really no detail in it whatsoever. How can an article on the park be featured when the article on the wilderness it protects contains no descriptions of anything outside the park? Similarly, how can Milk's article be featured when the article about the assassinations, Moscone's, White's, Feinstein's, Agnos', and other politicians tangential to Milk's life are B, C, or start class articles and there is no article that discusses the political history of San Francisco? I ended up several months later writing four articles to expand the Everglades because that was a genuine problem. If I have understood your objections clearly, what is warranted more than adding information to this article about San Francisco politics in the 1970s, is constructing an article to discuss these issues where Milk would be a relatively minor player. This article essentially illustrates the cart without the horse. However, Wikipedia allows and encourages that.

The lead: I place this last because when I write articles, the lead is the last part I write. If we end up agreeing on or altering the details of the article highlighted above, it may be reflected in the lead then. However, as to the length of the lead, per WP:LEAD, it should match the length of this article. I read various encyclopedia articles about Milk, both biographic political and LGBT sources, and they mirror the points made in this lead. Milk was not an activist all his life—he became one after experiencing the counterculture and becoming fed up with the political climate in the early 1970s. Agnos isn't mentioned in the lead, but that Milk ran for the State Assembly was. And whether the source considers it hyperactive shouting or charisma, Milk had something that made his campaigning successful. The source for his success should definitely be mentioned in the lead.

Again, I appreciate your reading and commenting on the article. I enjoy discussing the details with editors who are knowledgeable and open to such intercourse about the subject. I am not at all closed to the idea that it has areas of improvement. There would be no end to my mortification if it appeared I missed a huge aspect of Milk's life or misrepresented something in the article that might warrant either its being de-featured or not deserving of appearing on the main page. In light of the small body of material that represents the literature produced on the life of Harvey Milk, I am not yet mortified. I appreciate your response. --Moni3 (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a response to your reply in the next couple of days when I have some time. Thanks. Old64mb (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the following for a cut down on the intro. A lot of the info in the current intro should be in the main article, especially the quotes about Milk. Generally, a lot of quotes shouldn't be included in introductions. The material that I cut from the new version below can be put into the main article. Remember, this is just a suggestion, and I'm putting it here as opposed to editing the article directly so others can add input.

Harvey Bernard Milk (May 22, 1930 – November 27, 1978) was an American politician and the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California, as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Milk first ran for city supervisor in 1973, though he encountered resistance from the existing gay political establishment. Milk was elected city supervisor in 1977 after San Francisco reorganized its election procedures to choose representatives from neighborhoods rather than through city-wide ballots.

Milk served almost eleven months as city supervisor and was responsible for passing a stringent gay rights ordinance in San Francisco. On November 27, 1978, Mayor George Moscone and Milk were assassinated by Dan White, another city supervisor who had recently resigned and wanted his job back. Both Milk's election and the events following his assassination demonstrated the liberalization of the population and political conflicts between the city government and a conservative police force.

While established political organizers in the city insisted gays work with liberal politicians and use restraint in reaching their objectives, Milk outspokenly encouraged gays to use their growing power in the city and support each other. In 2002, he was called "the most famous and most significantly open LGBT official ever elected in the United States".[2]

If we need to add something about his charisma/attitude/etc, it can probably be added in a sentence in the middle of the last paragraph.-- eb3686 | talk 05:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I do not understand the objection to the length of the lead. Compared to any other Featured Article, the length is appropriate, and it summarizes the article well. --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put this in a blind edit and originally decided not to include it because he wasn't arrested, just detained, and certainly not convicted of anything. It is not clear in Shilts if he was detained for soliciting a police officer or for being in the cruising area of Central Park. In such a long article, Shilts or no one else connected the interaction with police to anything else in Milk's life. Without that, why should it be included? --Moni3 (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall it in both the book and the documentary based on "Life and Times of Harvey Milk". It also seemed to have an impact on Milk later in his life, and was a major reason he never returned to the city of Albany, where he'd spent his formative years. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any source stating that he never returned to Albany, or if he did why that was. It could have been because he was assassinated and just didn't make it back. It's a pretty significant point to make and it needs a reliable source. --Moni3 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read this just before it went live on the front page and was very impressed. Well done folks and good timing! Eusebeus (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well done! --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source that he practised the Jewish religion? I know it says he came from a Jewish family background. And could somebody please translate this into English: "gay rights is ot archaic"? I realise it is probably a typo, but what for? PatGallacher (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not archaic. The infobox, which I was never excited about, simply states Milk's religion was Jewish. That is cited. What other kind of proof or reliable source were you looking for? --Moni3 (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "gay rights" is not archaic then can we use it here, it's "LGBT" which could be ahistorical here? I have looked over the article again and I do not see anywhere where his Jewish religion is cited, it just mentions his Jewish family background, not the same. Can you show me where this is cited? PatGallacher (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism did not seem to be a significant factor in Milk's life in the material I read. That could be because most of the material written about him was completed by non-Jews. However, I learned from his nephew that Milk's grandfather started at least two and perhaps three Jewish congregations in the Five Towns area of Long Island. During a phone call, Stuart Milk also connected his great-grandfather's involvement in those congregations to his emphasis on supporting civil rights for all people, that may have motivated Harvey. But this was only brushed upon in Shilts' biography, so I can't use it in the article. A point Shilts did make was that in Milk's early life he was riled only once in political discussions - during a dinner party some guests talked about how Germans didn't know the Holocaust was occurring. Milk became very agitated and screamed at them about the ridiculousness of such an idea, embarrassing Joe Campbell. --Moni3 (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this may be perfectly true, but it does not add up to evidence that he ever practised Judaism. PatGallacher (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. How is it you are the one to determine over the reliable sources used, that despite his own identification as a Jew that he wasn't a practicing Jew? How often did he have to participate in Jewish ceremonies or rituals for him to qualify? Once a month? A few times a year? Once a week? He came from a strong Jewish family. His nickname growing up was Yiddish. He recounted to Eve Merriam and others his transformation from a middle class Jewish kid from Long Island. His memorial service was at a synagogue, presided over by the first openly gay rabbi in San Francisco. All that is in the article. He belonged to a Jewish fraternity in college - not in the article. But you require a citation for Religion: Jewish? --Moni3 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these matters might justify this claim about his religion, but others are not decisive e.g. that he came from a strongly Jewish family (maybe Martin Luther came from a strongly Catholic family) or had a Yiddish nickname, or had a memorial service in a synagogue (presumably a decision taken by his family). Others which might back it up ought to be more clearly cited. PatGallacher (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think we need a direct, strong, reliable citation that he was either a practicing Jew, or believed personally in the Jewish faith, for a significant part of his adult life, before we say he had the Jewish religion. That's a general point about all biographies and all religions. Just because someone is born into a faith or practices as a child does not mean that they are that faith growing up. True, by Jewish tradition he is considered Jewish due to his mother's religion. But by that theory he is probably Mormon as well because they've posthumously converted him. Religious categorizations are better done using external objective factors, not the "in-world" standards of the religion. Also note that Jewishness is a mixture of heritage, ethnicity, culture, identification, and religion. Thus a reference that he was Jewish does not without more show that he is of the Jewish religion. Wikidemon (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion categories are quite strict for BLPs but certainly less so for historical figures. That his funeral was held at a synagogue seems telling. I smell a Jewish summary footnote might help here. -- Banjeboi 18:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the "intuitiveness" section of Wikipedia's piped link guideline (sorry, couldn't resist the nerdy joke there) would it not be best to either include some descriptive text in the link to the Moscone–Milk assassinations, or use a "main article" template instead of an in-line link?

The reason I ask is that User:842U, one of our better copyeditors, just changed the reference from were assassinated to were assassinated. In my opinion that creates an "easter egg" where the reader expects the link to point to the article on assassinations in general, which is probably uninteresting to most people reading about Milk so they won't click it, rather than alerting them to the fact that we have a fine article specifically on Milk's and Moscone's assassination.

Thoughts? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I linked "were assassinated" originally. I'd prefer it back that way since assassination is a link to another unrelated article. As to the main article template, there is on at the top of the Black Monday section. Is that what you were referring to, or am I misunderstanding? --Moni3 (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Perhaps a better solution is to redo the sentence a little so that there is a somewhat more descriptive thing to grab onto as a link text than "were assassinated". Maybe turn it into a noun somehow, e.g. "the assassination of Milk and Mayor Moscone". Wikidemon (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's all the piping that's creating the problem. To follow the Easter egg thinking, what is a reader supposed to imagine this single hyperlink is going to mean: George Moscone were assassinated? It looks like one hyperlink, poorly crafted. It is in fact two hyperlinks sitting adjacently, but the adjacency obscures that there are two hyperlinks, not to mention the meaning of either. I do see the points others are making here... as mentioned, perhaps there could be a another way that the two hyperlinks are not sitting right next to each other under the caption "George Mascone were assassinated." 842U (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the ridiculously wide (my opinion) photo of Baden's Harvey Milk mural at the bottom of this article. I was bold and made it a more reasonable (my opinion again) size for this context, but someone changed it back. I know it's pretty, but is 400px to 500px not big enough? It seems like it was placed at the end of the article (just before the "Notes section") as a "cap" of sorts on the whole thing. In theory, that makes sense since the mural is a tribute and the last section used to be the "Tributes and namesakes section." But the "Tributes and namesakes section" is no longer the last section. So why is the image still there at the end of the article? Furthermore, while "capping" an article is, in a way, symmetrical, I've never seen articles on Wikipedia "capped" by wide images before. "Article capping" isn't (as of now) in Wikipedia's standards of format. Lastly, this just isn't the right context for that kind of personal emphasis, like a fansite would be.

In my opinion, the image should, at least, be put in the "Tributes and namesakes section," where I believe it belongs. And I think it could use a re-sizing too. Personal emphasis like this should not come across in any element of a Wikipedia article. These are just my opinions, so please don't take offense. Personally, I would be happy to hear the opinions of anyone else interested in this article. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! Cheers, ask123 (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article, and I took the image. Been sick for the past few days, so sorry for taking long to respond. For all the reasons in the first paragraph, I decided to make the image a wide span one. I've seen it done in some FA state and national park articles and thought it could be used in others. --Moni3 (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm indifferent about the image use in the article (it is a lovely image, but I can see the argument that its use would be more appropriate for an homage than an encyclopedia article), but I will say that I tested it in a number of different browser engines and couldn't find any WP:ACCESS problems. I know you aren't suggesting this, but just noting it for the purposes of discussion. Protonk (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a fine image at the full size and at the end of the article - it's a nice treat after a lot of information. -- Banjeboi 18:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several different users have changed the subheading titled "Heroic things" with quotes to "Outing Sipple" without quotes starting the day the article appeared on the main page. I've reverted them because 1. The subheading of the text is a direct quote from Milk, 2. It does not state that what Sipple or Milk did was heroic, so no POV issues are relevant, and 3. using "Outing Sipple" when Sipple was only briefly mentioned puts undue weight on Sipple's role in Milk's life in this article. Rather, the section is there to prove Milk's own clout in San Francisco, and his growing influence as a spokesman for the gay community since that job previously fell to Jim Foster and Alice. Some spacing is also breaking apart paragraphs, and the section loses integrity when that is done. I'm bringing this here since I don't wish to continue blindly reverting without discussion. So let's discuss it. --Moni3 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never see a quote used for a heading or a subheading and I have no doubt there's a good reason for it. --Voooooh (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Manual of Style there is nothing forbidding it, and in fact I have used them in other FAs I have written, including Stonewall riots and Mulholland Drive (film). If you have no doubt there is good reason to have "Heroic things", why do you continue to change it? I do not understand your reasoning for doing so, which is why I am asking you to state it. If you continue to do this without discussion, you will be in breach of the edit warring rule. Please discuss it here before changing again. I do not feel "Outing Sipple" is appropriate at all, but I am not married to "Heroic things". If we have to come up with a 3rd idea, that is possible. --Moni3 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried putting in a different heading but you didn't like it. --Voooooh (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested heading had neutrality issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did you insert "Outing Sipple" once more, you removed the topic sentence for the section. By doing this, you are changing the purpose for including information about Sipple in Milk's article. The reason it is here is to illustrate the rise of Milk's profile in the city. Your reverts change it to make it seem as if Milk's outing Sipple had no connection to anything else he was doing, and weights it randomly. And entire section dedicated to Sipple? He was not that important in Milk's life. Any reference to Sipple in the subheading is inappropriate. --Moni3 (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, looking at this neutrally, that the section in question is manifestly about Oliver Sipple, and is not at all about Milk's role as a spokesman. It just isn't. Without the "topic sentence", there are 9 sentences in the section, and all 9 of them pertain to the Sipple case. Several of them are simply explanations of what occurred and don't even pertain to Milk directly. The "topic sentence" is not appropriate there since, well, that's not what the section is about. "Outing Sipple" is probably the best section heading - it's short, to the point, and accurately describes the content of the section. I don't see the objection to it. An alternative might be something like "Role in the Sipple case" or simply (in the context of the larger section title "Campaigns") "Oliver Sipple". --MCB (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input, MCB. If the section does not read as if the incident reflected upon Milk's political role despite the topic sentence, then this should be taken into consideration. Two sources state that Milk contacted Herb Caen during a campaign that was not as successful as he had hoped. And I think it has been made clear in the article that Milk used the press to his advantage at every opportunity. I tried to keep the sections succinct and topical, and worried that too much tangent would be confusing. However, I wonder if taking the first two paragraphs from Race for State Assembly and placing them before the Role as a spokesman section, and integrating the two would strengthen the point of Milk's rising profile during the State Assembly race and avoid the issue of the subheading altogether. --Moni3 (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable idea. I agree that a whole section about Oliver Sipple is undue weight in this article (while a whole section about Milk is fine in Sipple's article). So a section that is about Milk's rising profile during the State Assembly race is definitely preferable to what's here. My point was only that a section that was about outing Sipple probably should be titled that, not something elliptical. (I admit I liked "Heroic things", though!) --MCB (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did too. Brilliant and compelling. Ah, well. I'll work on the section today. --Moni3 (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new "Race for state assembly" section looks great. Good work! --MCB (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's settled then the section is about the outing of Sipple and the subheading should reflect that. --Voooooh (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you see, the Sipple material has been combined into a more relevant section about the state assembly campaign, where it makes much more sense. --MCB (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Sorry to jump into this one on such minor issue, but calling the Tenderloin (TL) "sleazy" seems a bit POV to me. The TL has a load of problems, but I'm trying to think of a better word to sum it up(seedy, impoverished?). Is there a way to describe how/where Sipple was living? Was he living in a single room occupancy hotel/supportive housing? Or would it be ok to remove that altogether? I'm not sure if "sleazy" even needs to stay in to describe the TL to people unfamiliar with it. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now located in the Assembly race section, "to keep the gay community free itself of anointed gatekeepers and machine politics" needs a citation. It also looks like it needs a correction because as written it's not grammatically correct. Otto4711 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you pulled the statement from its citation in the Tributes section. And since that quote cannot be traced back farther than 2008, I'm questioning if it should be in the Race for state assembly section. Furthermore, the Times of Harvey Milk was based on Shilts' biography, and you just removed that. --Moni3 (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quotes need to have a citation directly following them in most or all cases. It was very unclear that the footnote at the end of the sentence is associated with the quote. Given the ungrammatical nature of it I wonder if the quote really adds that much value in either location. And I certainly did not remove the information about Shilts's book. The sentence reads "The Times of Harvey Milk, a documentary film based on the book's material, won the 1984 Academy Award for Documentary Feature." Otto4711 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, jiminy. Citation 154 a link. Click on it and search for the quote with the ctrl+F feature. But I maintain that there is no verification to state why the Milk Club was organized in 1976. That quote was written in 2008 as far as I know. --Moni3 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying and I know how links work and I see the quote on the Milk club's website. What I'm saying is that having the quote away from its attribution is confusing. It is not clear from the article as I found it, which read A Democratic organization more liberal than the Alice B. Toklas Memorial Democratic Club organized in 1976 "to keep the gay community free itself of anointed gatekeepers and machine politics". It changed its name to the Harvey Milk Memorial Gay Democratic Club in 1978 and boasts that it is the largest gay Democratic organization in San Francisco.[153] that the note is associated with the quote. They aren't even in the same sentence. Do you not see that readers may find that confusing? I don't understand your statement that the quote doesn't speak to the club's foundation in 1976 because you used it to explain why the club was founded in 1976. Otto4711 (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's a matter of preference as to seeing citation immediately after quotes and facts. I generally tend to cite quotes, but when the same source is used in the next sentence, I also stretch it out. It's cited, this one in particular (obviously) by a quick link to check to see if I made it up. Were it a print source, I may have structured the sentences differently. However, the point about placing the quote in the Race for state assembly section is that, because this is a chronological article, the quote is being used to say that people in 1976 were saying why they were starting a new gay democratic club. But in actuality, the quote is attributed to the organization 30 years later. Ideally, a source is needed by the folks who started the club to say at the time why it needed to be started, not why it was started in retrospect. In retrospect, its placement is appropriate in the Tributes section. --Moni3 (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't want to get into a big argument about it. I've pulled it from the Assembly section. I don't think it adds anything to the Tributes section so I'm not going to re-add it but of course won't revert you if you do. I do think the rest of the sentence reads better the way that I have it so I hope you won't revert the entire edit. I still believe that if the quote is in a separate sentence it needs a separate citation per Wikipedia:When to cite. Otto4711 (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the paragraph currently in the tributes section that details the various books, plays, films, etc. written about Milk ought to be moved to the legacy section. These really aren't tributes to Milk. Shilts especially, who strove so much for impartiality that he refused to take an HIV test until he'd completed "And the Band Played On" to avoid having his status color his judgment, would IMHO rankle at the notion of his book being deemed a tribute. I didn't want to move it without discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]