Talk:Harry Hay/Archive 2

A proposal for new lead, and other additions
Henry "Harry" Hay, Jr. (April 7, 1912 – October 24, 2002) was a prominent activist in the Sexual Revolution, because of Hay's role in the American LGBT rights movement by writing "The Call," and co-founding the Mattachine Society. Early in life, Hay became a skilled dancer and musician. Hay played the organ in the Gnostic Mass for the Agape Lodge; a precursor to Hay's advocacy of homosexuality being related to spirituality. Hay rebelled against privilege and social hierarchies in accordance with Marxist theory. Hay drew from experience as a political activist in the Communist Party USA and the People's Educational Center by co-finding the Mattachine Society in 1950, which is the first enduring LGBT rights organization in the United States. The Mattachine Society is a precursor to the Gay Liberation Front, which was responsible for the Stonewall Riots in 1969. After Hay's ouster from Mattachine leadership in 1953, he largely withdrew from organized LGBT activism until the late 1970s. Hay would become a controversial advocate of anti-assimilation, specifically advocating against the exclusion of the North American Man-Boy Love Association from the LGBT movement. Hay also criticized other groups such as ACT UP. In 1979, Hay and his life-long companion, John Burnside, co-founded the Radical Faeries. The group would study radical homosexuality, non-conformity, neopaganism, and Native-American rituals in New Mexico. Hay and Burnside promoted the formation of the group as a, "Spiritual Conference of Radical Faeries."

(This line can be added to either the lead or the section about the Radical Faeries) According to Stuart Timmons in Counter Punch the group was a, "movement affirming gayness as a form of spiritual calling."

(This line should be included under Early Life) Hay played the organ in the Gnostic Mass for the Agape Lodge; a precursor to Hay's advocacy of homosexuality being related to spirituality (Source: The Trouble with Harry Hay, Stuart Timmons, 9781555831752).


 * Caveats

Numerous sources refer to the Radical Faeries as radical, non-conformist, and neopagan; including the Wikipedia page about the Radical Faeries.


 * Sources

http://www.counterpunch.org/timmons1025.html

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/queer-spirituality-radical-faeries.html

Radically Gay, pg 170, Beacon Press, 9780807070819

The Trouble with Harry Hay, Stuart Timmons, 9781555831752 24.23.171.236 (talk)
 * Sources do not support calling Hay any sort of activist in the Sexual Revolution. Timmons does not state that Hay played at the Agape Lodge, nor does it support the notion that Hay's experiences there, which included openly mocking worshipers by playing satirical songs during Mass, influenced his thinking about homosexuality. Mattachine was not a precursor to the GLF and since the GLF did not form until after the Stonewall riots it cannot have been responsible for them. Sources do not support placing Hay's music and dancing so prominently in the lead. No one knows what "The Call" is so plonking it in the lead is unhelpful, as noted in the third opinion offered elsewhere. Sources do not support the notion that Hay drew specifically on his experiences in CPUSA or at the PEC in formulating his ideas about homosexuality. I have no idea what p. 170 of Radically Gay, which is an excerpt from an open letter written in 1967, is supposed to tell us about the Radical Faeries which were formed a dozen years later. Buzzle.com is not a reliable source since anyone can write for it and there is no indication of editorial oversight or control.
 * Overall the proposed lead is poorly written, factually inaccurate, misrepresents available sources, places emphasis on aspects of Hay's life that are relatively unimportant and does not serve as anything approaching an adequate summary of the article. I am unalterably opposed to it and I believe that the current lead serves the article and the reader much better. Since your interest clearly lies more with the Faeries and less with Hay per se I suggest that you devote your time to working on that article, where the emphasis on the faeries and their spiritual underpinnings is more appropriate. 76.201.158.49 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Harry Hay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130816143523/http://politicalaffairs.net/the-communist-movement-and-gay-rights-the-hidden-history to http://www.politicalaffairs.net/the-communist-movement-and-gay-rights-the-hidden-history/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090329000719/http://spectator.org/archives/2006/10/05/when-nancy-met-harry to http://spectator.org/archives/2006/10/05/when-nancy-met-harry
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624112054/http://advocate.com/news_detail_ektid13958.asp to http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid13958.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5347/haypics1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5347/haypics2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The Paedophilia excuses here are disgusting
The attempts at justifying, excusing and ignoring the fact Harry Hay was a blatant paedophile are disgustingly repulsive. It has to be one of the greatest shames to the LGBT movement that support for paedophiles is seen as part and parcel to so many here. Please add a section to highlight the fact the man advocated young boys having sex with adult men. 86.2.213.86 (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Nambla as "as organization supporting the rights of teens"
this has been added to the article multiple time please provide a citation of this claimHowaboutudance (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * NAMBLA was co-founded by gay teens, Bill Andriette, was 15 when he joined. many were homeless sex workers who were disowned by their families. As "sleezy" as some of the early members may have been, for a homeless kid, making money off their body, at least they knew what was what, with these guys. Lost in the history, the sensationalized versions, is that the group set out to protect gay teens. Underagers were at the mercy of their parents, the church, and the courts, none of which were terribly open to a young homo. However, the organization was rightly seen as suspicious as there were pedophiles who ended up dominating the direction of the group, and refusing any compromise for getting rid of age of consent laws. LGBT groups agreed the law should be equal for LGBTs and straights. And many agreed it should, or could be lowered to 16, 15, or 14. Beyond that no one wanted to entertain having sex with children who had not gone through puberty, except some of the members of NAMBLA. Used to being despised as a rule, some would accept no compromise, and insisted on abolishments of all all of consent laws. They may have had great reasons for their arguments but no one wanted to hear them. I think it was Samuel Delaney who said that some of the groups writings was among the best he had seen on certain subjects dealing with children's sexuality. I haven't a clue, and generally the areas they write about, or used to write about, are prohibitively taboo to even discuss. It reminds me of Allen Ginsberg who defended the groups' right to free speech. I think we have to avoid misrepresenting why Hay defended their right to exist. It had nothing to do with an interest in sex with children, it was to help gay teens, likely because he was one himself. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I remember reading that in Delaney somewhere. Perhaps Times Square Red Times Square Blue?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the material in there is adequately supported at this point, and kudos to for sourcing it so well.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ginsberg was an admitted paedophile. He didn't join NAMBLA just to support free speech. He had sex with children. In his letter to Ralph Ginzburg in June of 1962 (collected in "Deliberate Prose: Selected Essays 1952-1995"), Ginsberg wrote "Prepubescent boys and girls don’t have to be protected from big hairy you and me, they'll get used to our lovemaking in 2 days provided the controlling adults will stop making those hysterical NOISES that make everything sexy sound like rape." 86.2.213.86 (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Jim Kepner Comments
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 -- 01:41, 4 July 2006‎ 131.172.4.44

Pedophile / NAMBLA advocacy
stop trying to whitewash this. Un-nominate him for the honors if you don't like this about him, rather than trying to hide it. Don't rewrite history. Hay himself was controversial, the fact that he was involved in this stuff isn't. Of course more mainstream groups that want to acknowledge that he co-founded Mattachine would prefer this not be mentioned. And now, due to that, many younger people don't know it. It's not some kind of right wing smear campaign. It's an ugly truth that those of us old enough to know, haven't forgotten. Like Allen Ginsberg always hitting on guys who were way too young, and at times criminally young. There's just stuff that everybody knew. This is one of those things. And yes, it's in the sources. Take the time to read them rather than wasting everyone's time trying to bury it. Or, worse, minimize it. Pedophilia is fucking horrible. Don't minimize what he was advocating. There's no way to make that neutral. We can write about it is as... NPOV a way possible. But here on talk. No, of course it's not OK. It's criminal. He should have done time for some of the things he did. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 18:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked you to provide reliable sources for your assertions and content that you have re-added to the article. No actual new content has been shown to exist and the POV content proves to not be supported by a few reliable sources.
 * Characterizing my conduct as creepy is a personal attack.
 * So is accusing me of minimizing or whitewashing content that you again allege I must have an agenda to do.
 * Another personal attack is to insinuate that I haven’t read the sources that have been presented. I have and we may simply disagree on how they can be used in a non-POV way, and specifically in context to his life without implying facts that are not in reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I added the Advocate article, and the full quote from Hay (which is also on the NAMBLA site itself, with his full speech, but I'd rather we not link to their site), which supports what was already sourced by the sources that cite this entire article. Your actions make it clear you're not reading the sources and are here to whitewash. Go read the FBI files on NAMBLA, specifically the child sex exploitation unit and the sex trafficking stuff. This is what he was defending. Yes, minimizing that is creepy. You are clearly involved in a POV push here. You showed up with a new account to remove stable, sourced content. You are basically a WP:SPA, focused on this small group of articles, generating positive PR for people, no matter what the full truth is. NPOV doesn't mean cutting out things that are controversial. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 22:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * More personal attacks.
 * I’m looking at the new sourcing now, it will take a while.
 * Is the FBI file available somewhere? Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of duplication, I'm adding some things from user talk here, as well, so other editors working on this article might stay in the loop.

I'm not the one who originally wrote or sourced the content about his support of NAMBLA, so I'd never vetted what sources had or hadn't been added, and I'd never checked to see what was available online about it until you started trying to remove it all. I still haven't gone through the books and periodicals I have here in hardcopy, though I'm sure I have some that source all of this, as well.

The surprise you felt reading about his support for NAMBLA, as I've said, is because it's now clear to me that some people have been trying to bury this, and that has led to those newer to the community having never learned it. It's clear from looking online, and seeing how most leftist sites leave it out, and right wing sites include it, that people are being selective in how they memorialize Hay. I think that if everyone who nominated him for this National LGBTQ Wall of Honor knew about his involvement in NAMBLA, he wouldn't be included. I think it's the reason Allen Ginsberg didn't make the list. The two were very much the same in their advocacy and proclivities. But I guess more people know about Ginsey. The most honest and unbiased sources on Hay are those who were writing while he was alive, and shortly after he died, who are/were honest journalists in the gay press who care about documenting things accurately. That's why sources like Bronski, and the Advocate article, are so important. Michael Bronski, author of A Queer History of the United States was in the thick of gay journalism, writing for both the gay press and later the left-leaning mainstream press. He personally knew pretty much everyone in the community, and wrote about everyone at some point. So, imagine how disorienting it is when someone shows up calling him an "unreliable source." - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 23:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ve never heard of Bronski so thank you for that info, I still think editorial sources need to be presented clearly.
 * Again you allege I was trying to remove it all while it’s actually factual that I was merely giving it NPOV treatment for the sourcing presented and a look at what I could find. I have continued to do exactly that. It’s not that there was too many to look at, there were too few. And the vast majority of those repeated the same three connections: his protesting the group being banned from 1. 1986 LA Pride parade, 2. 1994 Stonewall 25 parade, and 3. his speech where he recounted his positive sexual experience as a 14 year old, and said that every gay teen would benefit from the same. These three were spun and respun but together still don’t support pedophile advocacy, they do support a connection but not much more. And contextualized they better support Hay’s belief that no one who says they are gay should be banished from free speech rights, or outcast like drag queens and leathermen had been. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, you're mistaking the fact that these are four examples (two pride parades, the "molestation" speech, the rebranding speech) that are discussed in detail for the fact that his biographers, including people who were in some of the same radical groups as he was, said he was advocating for NAMBLA "consistently." This is why I say you're either not really reading the sources, or you are choosing to misrepresent them. I can't tell which it is. You take four examples and claim it's the only four incidents that ever happened, when that's not what the sources say. I don't know if the problem here is perceptual or representational, but you're not being accurate. This has long passed the point of disruption and time wasting, all you are doing is dragging us in circles here. Please stop this and move on to something productive. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 00:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You yourself admit the sourcing was minimal and the content predated you, it’s vastly changed as a direct result of me questioning the content and how to present it NPOV with reliable sources. You can stop trying to wave me off looking into this controversial content that had been presented in a POV way with sources that didn’t support the assertions made.
 * I’m still looking at the current sourcing to see where it stands. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did I say "minimal"? Nothing has "vastly" changed. Your work here has been pretty thoroughly disruptive and a waste of time. Why are you so invested in protecting this guy? You have consistently tried to minimize how horrific this stuff is. That is in no way NPOV. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 01:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Again questioning my motives.
 * I meant minimal from where this started. And it has vastly improved with better sources and more NPOV content, at least in the article part. Hopefully even more reliable sourcing can be found to bolster the many claims you’ve made. I’m still checking the present sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

More photos, etc
I really didn't want to link to them, but here's - https://www. nambla. org/hay2002.html NAMBLA's index on their Harry Hay materials. This page has - https://www. nambla. org/sanfrancisco1984.html photos of Harry Hay speaking on a NAMBLA panel in 1984, in San Francisco, under their banner. And again in 1986 in Los Angeles (no photo). Ick. OK, I can't post the link because, understandably, the site is on the blacklist. I will break up the url. You will have to copy and paste, and take out the spaces, to see it. Ick again. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 02:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you sharing these but they don’t seem to change what we already have documented. Assuming they’re accurate, they only prove that he spoke at some of their events. In one speech he simply talks more about his own personal experiences as a boy with older men. I don’t think these help. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

One, Inc. 1952 co-founder
We seem to be missing Hay’s Co-founding or involvement with One Incorporated. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I’ve added the NPOV tag until the NAMBLA material is presented in an accurate NPOV way as verified by reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the NPOV tag for the moment. It seems more like a content dispute about the proportionality and importance of Hay's support for NAMBLA. I'm also having a hard time understanding your challenge of the reliability of the recent sources added. All the ones I see are pretty standard reliable sources: obituaries, the subject's own words, photos of Hay, etc. The proportionality or importance of the subject seems to be the issue, not the sources on the subject. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s the proportionality of the article’s content of the NAMBLA material, plus the lack of NPOV in reporting what’s in those very few sources. Additionally there’s a bit of original research and then to make the casual reader believe this is a major component of Hay’s life it takes up a fourth of the lead. Out of many obituaries, one mentions this, and only that Hay supported the group not being banned from two Pride parades, one in 1986 the other in 1994. We have reliable sourcing for those. Outside of those two parades there is almost no reliable sources to prop this all up. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, obituaries are tricky since they tend to be more laudatory than critical. Controversial aspects of obituary subjects' lives are often smoothed over and sometimes omitted completely. Bronski's obit is critical and includes his real life interactions with Hay. This is also not unusual for an obit. What I see going on is you pushing a POV to minimize this part of Hays' life. The sources seem fairly solid to me. The growth of this part of the lede actually looks like other editors are trying to satisfy your persistent judgment of the inadequacy of the citations. All the sources I've seen on NAMBLA and Hay in the article conform to reliable source standards. I've linked to the policy because I think it would be good for you to read it thoroughly. I don't mean that to sound condescending but your arguments show a lack of comprehension on the subject of reliable sourcing and application of citations. As to violations of no original research, I'm not seeing it. The citations paint a pretty clear picture. I can understand not wanting Hay associated with NAMBLA but he was and the sources show this. I might even say it was one of the most defining issues of Hay's public image/life in the 1980s-90s along with his association with the Radical Faeries. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insight and take on this, the take on obituaries is helpful. I think we certainly agree that there is an association but how to present that, as a defining aspect of his overall legacy, or something else is core to this issue. We also seem to agree that pretty much anything on NAMBLA is contentious and controversial. I hope we agree that it needs to conform to being NPOV and reliably sourced. For instance, if none of the reliable sources state he had romantic affairs with pre-pubescent boys, we should avoid stating that outright or even implying that he did. The reliable sources we have so far, confirm solidly that he protested 2 Pride parades, not all pride parades as Wikipedia now states. We also have sources to state why he did. I have no issue with the article (not the lead) presenting that NPOV. Then we have, in the lead, “Controversially, Hay was an active supporter of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a pedophile advocacy organization.” No reliable source affirms “active supporter”, two sources state he did support them being in the parades, the Stonewall 25 parade had many gay rights leaders stating the same thing. Wikipedia and right wing blogs stand alone on this point. There are some other issues but they can wait, hopefully more people will check out the sources and determine if we are on target or not. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

YouTube video copyright
Hi, the YouTube channel "Gay Fairfax" is obviously not operated by the same outfit that ran the public-access TV. It's "dedicated to those volunteers" but it's clearly just someone who frame-grabbed from an old VHS and put it up without permission. Elizium23 (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the contrary this YouTube channel is in fact operated by the show's original producers.  The founder of Gay Fairfax promoted the YouTube channel during a public event last month and informed attendees that the content was converted from the original master tapes.  The channel attempts to make this local history/content more widely accessible.  No copyright violation here. — H ip L ibrarianship  talk 05:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, my bad. I am glad you are able to come up with evidence. Lacking a "verified" or blue checkmark does not look good on social media these days. Elizium23 (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible sourcing for NAMBLA content
[This is from the lengthy NPOV noticeboard section trying to resolve how to deal with NAMBLA allegations on this biography. These are the sources found. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)]

Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
 * - from The American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord writes as a political commentator, and has a track record of controversial writing. I suspect this is not a reliable source, the chief purpose of the article is guilt by association attempting to connect Nancy Pelosi to allegation of pro-pedophile advocacy. But they do use the quote taken from NAMBLA’s website. The speech was mainly Hay sharing his own positive gay sex experience with a man when he was 14. This assessment of this source might prove helpful, “I agree that The Specator should not be cited, or more accurately Jeffrey Lord should not be cited. That's not because he's a conservative, but because he has a documented history of saying utterly ridiculous things about anything he perceives as liberal. He's a political strategist, not an academic or a journalist, and his expertise is trying to make opponents look bad.
 * [Box 2/folder 21] Lesbian and Gay Academic Union Records, Coll2011-041, ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives, USC Libraries, University of Southern California., this was added to the article here but despite several requests there remains zero evidence the quote is contained there in any form, as it’s administrative records about the conference there is still the possibility a copy was included.
 * - just added. Biographer Vern L. Bullough writes, "Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate." Of interest to note is that the same organizers who didn’t want any NAMBLA recognition did want Hay himself. Also interesting is the omission of context for Hay’s wanting to wear the sign from the previous but uncited sentence, wearing the sign was ”an action he took because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world.” This is in alignment with the few NAMBLA-documented speeches Hay gave as an invited speaker where he didn’t advocate for the group but instead talked about his own experiences. This source also helpfully points out that the 1994 Stonewall march was also protested for its commercialization and that Hay helped lead the counter-March with almost 7,000 participants.
 * - which points out he tried to be in the parade implying he didn’t succeed in some way, This is unneeded.
 * , a reliable source that confirms the two signs were worn in the LA Pride parade.
 * Bronski, Michael (2002-11-07). "The real Harry Hay". The Phoenix. - (Copied here) -  In an obituary, LGBT history academic and writer Michael Bronski wrote, “He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment, as when he consistently advocated the inclusion of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in gay-pride parades.  HAY’S UNEASY relationship with the gay movement — he reviled what he saw as the movement’s propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability  —  didn’t develop later in life. It was there from the start.” He helpfully contextualizes why he thinks Hay advocated for inclusion in the two parades, although he doesn’t provide anything to prove his assertions.
 * - This affirms Hay was never a member, and contextualizes the Stonewall 25 episode. Additionally it notes exactly what I’ve been seeing: Allegations that Hay was a supporter of pederasty was “a staple of those members of the right-wing establishment who are bent on destabilizing the Obama Adminstration and destroying the careers of members of his administration through guilt by association.” (Specifically Kevin Jennings). This is unneeded.
 * - In 1994, he joined the The Spirit Of Stonewall, instead of the official pride march and controversially supported inclusion of NAMBLA. “He felt that silencing any part of the movement because it was disliked or hated by mainstream culture was a seriously mistaken political strategy. ... He saw that eliminating any “objectionable” group, like drag queens or leather enthusiasts only pandered to the idea of respectability.” This is unneeded.
 * - This was Just added, although it only supports some prominent gay leaders such as Harry Hay have supported NAMBLA's right to participate in gay rights marches, it is use in the lead falsely to bolster that Hay was “an active supporter“, which no reliable source has yet to verify and the entire lead paragraph hinges upon. It’s not needed.
 * - he was speaking at a nambla event and said they should consider a name change because “boy lover” had negative connotations like “homosexual” did in the 1950’s. I’m not seeing any other mention of this. This mentions Hay but does so trivially. Hard to believe if there was more connecting Hay it wouldn’t also be included.
 * Hay, Harry, "Focusing on NAMBLA Obscures the Issues", Gay Community News, Fall 1994, pp. 16, 18. As cited in - Just added to the reference section. This source, likely an opinion piece by Hay, comes just after the Stonewall 25 events where both ILGA, and Stonewall 25 organizers banned pro-pedophilia groups from participating. It likely reaffirms his already reported reasoning, included in proposed content, behind supporting the group being allowed to march. This is a primary source, a section of Hay’s SOS speech reprinted, a primary source.
 * gives only one quote from that Hay-authored piece right above but it’s certainly relevant, "I am not a member of NAMBLA, nor would it ever have been my inclination to be one." This has obvious contextual relevance and likely should be included.
 * , this was just found and is the first to assert that Hay advocated for NAMBLA among other groups. It being the only source that offers this blanket statement lends to the point that this subject area is not yet proven to have such a weight in Hay’s life to warrant anything in the lead. The author doesn’t offer any information to corroborate the assertion.''
 * - Here is a helpful comment so far: “Beacon Press is a department of the Unitarian Universalist Association, somewhat of an advocacy publisher, but still potentially useful. ... I'd be hesitant to use the Beacon book, as both the publisher and the editor you linked have long histories of being activists rather than dispassionate scholars, but it could be useful for simple factual statements, e.g. "Hay did X in year YYYY".” This source reprints Hay’s Spirit of Stonewall speech from their press conference.
 * - After paging through this the “two contrasting interpretations of Hay's support for NAMBLA” were a sentence each: “outspoken advocate for” vs. “alleged advocate of”; both useless as neither provided any information to affirm the statements, Here is a helpful comment so far: “Left Coast Press is an imprint of Routledge/Taylor & Francis, a globally prominent academic publisher. ... Conversely, anything coming from T&F is highly likely to be reliable both for simple statements of fact and for theoretical analysis, and I'd need to be given a solid reason to doubt them before I advised someone to be careful using it.” This source delved into Hay’s using his coming-of-age story as a 14-year-old with a man in his twenties, and why he shared it publicly.

Proposed content for article body
This comes from Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

{this would replaced the content in the body of the article; after reading every reliable and non-primary source it’s apparent this was a minor aspect of Hay’s later life. Accordingly I feel anything in the lead would be WP:Undue and violate WP:RSUW.}}

When Hay died, Michael Bronski’s obituary mentioned his “late-life defense” of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a group that is synonymous with pro-pedophilia activism. Initially in the late 1970s NAMBLA was accepted as one of many fledgling LGBTQ groups, at least as a fringe one, for its advocacy of gay youth, and civil rights for the teens and pedarists, who had sex with teenaged boys. Quickly though the pedarists were in the minority as the group became controlled by pedophiles—attracted to children and pre-adolescents—who insisted on abolishing all age of consent laws without compromise, eroding all mainstream LGBTQ support. Hay was never a member but did defend them from being expelled from LBGTQ events which was characterized by Bronski as politically embarrassing, and Jacobin’s Ben Miller as “eccentric and troubling,” but “a small piece of Hay’s long life of writing and activism.”

Hay’s favorite story, of his coming-of-age, “which he repeatedly told to audiences in later years and refered to ironically as his ‘child molestation speech,’ in order to emphasize how sharply different gay life is from heterosexual norms,” recounted his time as an emancipated fourteen-year-old (circa 1926) pursuing sex with a man in his mid-twenties who assumed Hay was of the age of consent. He shared the story “specifically to contradict entrenched stereotypes and to caution against uncritical generalizations so common in reference to pederasty.“ The man gave Hay “tips” as to how gay men should act, which ‘inspired Harry almost as vividly as the erotic memory’.”

In 1986, Los Angeles Pride wanted Hay to march, but they had banned NAMBLA, and negotiated for him to carry only a sign, rather than a larger banner, to protest the action. Hay wanted to do so “because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world.” He ended up wearing two posterboard signs; one for Valerie Terrigno, a recently disgraced lesbian politician also banned from the parade, on his front, “Valerie Terrigno walks with me"; and on his back, “NAMBLA walks with me.”

Eight years later, in 1994, Hay was again defending the group: ILGA (now ILGBTIA), the-then only group representing gays and lesbians at the United Nations (UN) banned them and two other groups from membership; and Stonewall 25 organizers, producing the 1994 twenty-fifth anniversary of the Stonewall riots in New York City, the largest LGBTQ Pride event in the world as of then, banned the groups from the Pride protest march, that purposely re-routed to use First Avenue going past the UN, reflecting the event’s international focus on LGBTQ issues. Hay was among 150 “activists, scholars, artists, and writers” who publicly signed to support Spirit Of Stonewall (SOS), an ad hoc group that felt the banned groups had free speech, and association rights. Hay delivered “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” speech at a SOS press conference, and later reprinted in Gay Community News, where he stressed organizing principles from the formation and growth of the LGBTQ movement he used since the early 1950s:“...we wouldn't censor or exclude each other. If people self-identify themselves to me as Gay or Lesbian, I accept them as Brothers and Sisters with love. ... [We] integrate [into the mainstream] on our own terms, as we saw ourselves and with our own set of values. ...[And] we no longer permitted any heteros ... to tell us who we were, or of whom our groups should or should not consist”. Hay helped lead the counter-march with almost 7,000 participants.

Comments / questions
An excellent suggestion was made to simply stub the Lead down to a few sentences, update the article content with this proposed content; then ask GOCE to look at cleaning up the entire article including rewriting the Lead to standards. In that way a neutral party is deciding what belongs in the lead. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No, this is just the same POV push that you have forum-shopped for months, focusing on your POV and leaving out key points. Leave it alone already. You have pushed and pushed but have received no consensus to change any of it. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK and let the facts stand about Hay's NAMBLA advocacy. It was what it was. Sometimes the truth is not pretty. But our job as Wikipedians is to just document it. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Definitely not. I agree with CorbieVreccan. Both the body's and the lead's discussion of this matter should stay the same. This is a whitewash and contains plenty that is WP:UNDUE. This includes whitewashing early NAMBLA, committing what appears to be WP:SYNTH in saying that it was originally pederasts but was taken over by pedophiles, and using the WP:PROFRINGE source Censoring Sex Research by the author at the center of the Rind et al. controversy. It is indeed time to drop the stick. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * CorbieVreccan, it would be more constructive if you avoided WP:Aspersions and assuming bad faith. You have repeatedly invited me to not pursue this, yet funny enough, the threads I pulled quickly dismantled the narratives that this was central to Hay’s life, presumably the subject of the article, or that any reliable sources believe that. Additionally, what is currently in the Lead is propped up by trivial mentions, and NAMBLA itself. I’m fine presenting the facts, we currently are not doing that. Hay wasn’t an advocate for NAMBLA, he did however fight for their first amendment rights based on the same principles he used in the earliest days of the Mattachine Society. It’s OR to present narratives that aren’t supported by reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Crossroads, early NAMBLA was to support the teenage rent boys who were being harassed by the police, many of whom were homeless, as well as their johns. It came later that a subsection of the group took hold opposing *anything* but the removal of age-of-consent laws. Those that disagreed apparently left the group.
 * I believe the use of Censoring Sex Research is done correctly but we can get more eyes on it to see what others think. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I support Corbie and Crossroads position. The lead and body content should stand. Indigenous girl (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So to be clear, you’re okay with violating WP:Lead, WP:Original research, WP:NPOV, and WP:Verifiability? Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm okay with preventing whole sale white washing and that it is time to drop the stick. Indigenous girl (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s funny, I thought we are always improving on content, often by the very policies I presented, but violating those are more important than allowing reliable sources to dictate what is used? That seems counter to serving the readers with the best content possible. I’m glad this is on record though. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That we are violating those policies is just your opinion. I say that your proposal violates WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:SOAPBOX. It's time for you to heed WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT: In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you....Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with". Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is....If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I look forward to more of the community looking into this content, and if the present version aligns with reality and reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You've been on this for over 6 months now. The community clearly rejects it. Stop wasting our time on this. It may be time for a topic ban on you of some sort. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see evidence of a few editors determined to not allow these changes but I’m convinced the article will improve anyway.
 * It’s your right to try to get me banned. My record on this content is consistent for asking for it to be presented NPOV including Due weight as reliable sourcing leads. But if the community says that’s not what it wants then let’s get that on the record. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: The lead is fine as is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ”spoke at several NAMBLA meetings, including panels in 1984 and 1986” is sourced only to NAMBLA itself. Does that seem appropriate? This was by all accounts a very small part of Hay’s life. Why does it take up 1/4 of the lead? Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is sourced to an article in The Advocate, not NAMBLA. Why are you saying something that is not true? -Crossroads- (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Read the Advocate source and see what it actually says; by the way it also *doesn’t* say Hay strategized with NAMBLA, that’s WP:Original Research. I think you’ll find every source on the matter doesn’t say much on the subject as Hay is not known for this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Gleeanon blocked as pedophile advocate sock
The Gleenanon account is now once again indef-blocked as part of a massive sock drawer.
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi/Archive.

Noting he blanked his past pedophile advocacy on this talk page before returning here with the Gleeanon sock to start it again. As he was evading an indef-block with the Gleenaon account, any of his disruption in the articles or on talk can be deleted, by anyone, without discussion. I was about to do so, but it may be useful to have some of this crap up on talk for the record, as he's already returned with additional socks. I still may delete some of his obscene and absurd talk page rantings, and just leave a link for anyone following up. Or if someone else wants to, feel free. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing the archive, Crossroads. You're right, it is the better way. Just in case. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Better to keep documentation of his lies and disruption, but have the discussions "closed" in the archives. And I see in Archive 2 he was pushing for the same POV under the Sportfan5000 account. When you said "he's already returned with additional socks", do you mean there have been additional socks since Gleeanon409? Crossroads -talk- 01:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If I had looked more closely at Sportfan at the time, who was the one I had in the back of my mind as the same person, we could have nipped all of this in the bud. It's so damn obvious. Gleeanon was quacking, but I just hadn't taken enough time with it. He had archived this talk page to hide his tracks, and I forgot to follow up right then. I haven't looked through the whole Dec update to the SPI; I just saw that there have been concerns and suspects. Well, even if those didn't/don't pan out, there will be more. He doesn't seem capable of stopping. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 01:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Gleeanon409 did set up the archive bot, first thing: Sneaky. And original Benjiboi was also at the page:  I don't doubt he'll be back someday, perhaps years later again. Crossroads -talk- 01:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)