Talk:Harvey Milk/Archive 5

first openly ...
I'm completely new to Wikipedia and it's going to take me a while to figure out the editing features. In the meantime, could someone please help me fix the first paragraph of the Harvey Milk article? The Time magazine reference is quoted accurately, but Time was factually incorrect.

Harvey Bernard Milk (22 May 1930 – 27 November 1978) was an American politician and gay rights activist, and the first openly gay city supervisor of San Francisco, California.[1] He was, according to Time magazine, "the first openly gay man elected to any substantial political office in the history of the planet."

I would just like to add a parenthetical note along the lines of: "Time was wrong. At least three openly lesbian or gay officials had been elected to office prior to Milk. In 1975 Elaine Noble[link] was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives,  Kathy Kozachenko[link] was elected to the Ann Arbor City Council in Michigan, and Allan Spears[link] ran successfully for the Minnesota legislature.  Spears held office for 28 years, eventually serving 8 years as President of the Minnesota Senate." Smartypants211 (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Smartypants211


 * I'll look into into it. Banj e  b oi   09:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually they got it right. first openly gay man is accurate as those two women, of course, are not men and Allan Spear came out after being elected. "First elected in 1972, Spear came out publicly in 1974 after feeling "lousy" for staying silent about his sexuality during the debate for an antidiscrimination bill." Banj e  b oi   09:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sipple section
On September 22 1975 former marine Oliver Sipple saved the life of President Gerald Ford, for which he was highly praised by law enforcement and the media but only a personal letter from the President instead of a visit to the White House. Sipple, who was closeted in his hometown of Detroit had met Milk back in New York and had participated in San Francisco's gay pride parades and gay rights demonstrations. The incident came just three weeks after Lynette Fromme's assassination attempt on Ford so reporters hounded Sipple who at first didn't want his name used, nor his location known. Sipple had worked on Milk's campaign and the two were friends, Sipple would also be later described as a "prominent figure" in the gay community who had worked in a gay bar and was active in the Imperial Court System. Milk, however, reportedly outed Sipple as a "gay hero" to San Francisco Chronicle's columnist Herb Caen in hopes to "break the stereotype of homosexuals" of being "timid, weak and unheroic figures". Gay liberation groups petitioned local media to give Sipple his due as a gay hero. Caen published the private side of the former Marine's story, as did a handful of other publications. Sipple then insisted to reporters that his sexuality was to be kept confidential. Later, when Sipple hid in a friend's apartment to avoid them, the reporters turned to Milk, arguably the most visible voice for the gay community. The reporters had already labeled Sipple the "gay ex-Marine" and his conservative Baptist mother disparaged and disowned him when she found out about his sexuality. Milk's precise role in the outing remain somewhat cloudy as Sipple's active participation in the gay community suggests that his sexuality would have been revealed and reported even if doing so was seen as unethical.

This section seems to violate undue as outlined in the recent RfC, trim it down and move relevant content to the Sipple article. Banj e b oi   12:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Was there an RfC on the Sipple material? I think the material could be trimmed by 1/3 to 1/2 and be just as encyclopedic by eliminating unnecessary detail and commentary like "arguably the most visible voice for the gay community" and "Milk's precise role in the outing remain somewhat cloudy"...that whole last sentence is rather unencyclopedic opinion and analysis.  The event does seem rather notable, though.  Milk's primary legacy is as an icon and proponent of gay rights, so his outing of a famous person seems relevant on the substance - and it has also gotten quite a bit of press, to confirm that it does deserve some weight.  Wikidemo (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree and the silver lining in the Peoples Temple saga is that I've pretty much stopped all other work on the article including trimming and reinserting this section. The break has given me time to simply step back a bit and have fresher eyes to re-read sources and content. Once the Peoples Temple issue is resolved, on this article at least, I'll resume and the Sipple content is first on the list. Banj e  b oi   05:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop Edit-Warring
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | This discussion has been collapsed.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Benjiboi: you have again deleted the entire section. This edit warring lead to the entire page being locked for 2 days before.

This time, the section you deleted wholesale was only a 1 sentence summary and a link to the main article on political alliances, as discussed above in the prior long section.

This one sentence is the ONLY mention at all of Milk's support of Jones. You are now literally deleting every single mention of the matter at all.

If you wish to gain consensus on such a deletion of sourced now very summary (literally 1 sentence) material, please do so. It is most certainly not even arguably "UNDUE" by any stretch of the imagination in its current 1 sentence form. To be blunt, it wasn't before either, but the continued edit warring just wore everyone else who weighed in on the topic down and I don't really have the patience to continue some bizarre edit-war on the matter. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mosedschurte, there is no reason that the same material be in two places in a single article. I think thats Benjiboi issue. CENSEI (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It wasn't if you read what the newest verstion of the section had in before it was wholseale deleted AGAIN.


 * Rather, in its now almost non-existent form, it was merely a one sentence summary of the Milk support of the Temple and attacking of the CR leader.


 * A link was provided to another article with the actual statements. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * CENSEI: I just noticed what you edited and that was a different matter. That was Jones support of Milk in the 1975 election.  That text is in a paragraph of the Public Office section.  While certainly interesting, that was not the notable text at issue.


 * I was referring to the then tiny 1 sentence mention and link on different matter (the opposite): Milk's support of Jones during the investigation into the Peoples Temple and attacking the Concerned Relatives group. In its current almost nno-existent form, it provided a 1-sentence summary and a link to another article started by Wikidemo on the matter. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mosedschurte, I appreciate you believe this content is important and everyone agrees that a mention is certainly acceptable, and guess what, we already have three sentences devoted to the connections between the two. They are NPOV and well-sourced as well. You do not have support to add additional content let alone a whole section devoted to this. I was the one who added the present content specifically to address your concerns and I requested the link to the new article also be included. You may want to re-read that Carter letter. If it is genuine, which I don't know for sure, it includes statements that the entire Board of Supervisors endorsed the churches work as did the California Senate. it also states that Jones is highly regarded by church, labor and civil leaders. Instead you're painting Milk as being aligned with Jones when there's no evidence he was.
 * CENSEI, I appreciate the effort but the version before Mosedschurte's additional section was neutral. Having a separate section is indeed undue and POV. Banj e  b oi   16:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not accurate. You added a brief sentence of Jones support of Milk in the 1975 campaign.


 * You have literally deleted every single reference to the opposite: Milk's support of Jones during the Peoples Temple investigation and attacking of the leader of the Concerned Relaltives group. In fact, not just once, but likely now double digit times.


 * Moreover, you have not just edited any mention, but deleted every single section wholesale, even when a majority of those in response to your own Rfc said NOT TO DELETE the older far more extensive section.


 * You have now most recently begun the same process with even just the 1-sentence summary.


 * Most shockingly, even with literally just this one sentence, you stated in at least one deletion that even this one sourced NPOV sentence was somehow "UNDUE." Mosedschurte (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have again tried to neutralize this material and even added two new refs to add the context for including it. Although the time article is a reliable source all it said was that milk spoke at political rallies at the Peoples Temple - this seems quite unremarkable that a politician spoke at a church's political rally, it would be more remarkable if a politician refused to speak at a public rally. Also I still question if the "Carter" letter is a reliable source but since you seem determined to use it let's examine what it actually says rather than scandalizing Milk by mis-characterizing the content. The letter first explains how Jones was widely respected and honored by political, civic and religious leaders across political lines including unanimous support for a Board of Supervisors proclamation and recognition from the California Assembly. Right there we dismiss the concept that Milk solely supported Jones. The issue of the letter is not to "extricate relatives" but to deal with Timothy Stoen and the child that Jim Jones had by Stoen's wife, Grace, apparently by Timothy's permission. Milk also provides some sources, namely that Herb Caen, the most prominent columnist in San Francisco printed Timothy's sworn testimony to refute what Timothy was apparently now telling the State department. We need to be accurate and neutral especially with controversial material.  Banj e  b oi   00:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Re "Right there we dismiss the concept that Milk solely supported Jones. "

->Again, no one is saying that Milk solely supported Jones or the Temple. That is nowhere in the article. In fact, the new breakout article makes it very clear that Milk was one of a number of persons to support Jones and the Temple.

You've continued (repeatedly) to try to make additions/deletions a matter of defending/attacking Milks character/reasons when the article does not even venture into these waters. This is an encyclopedic presentation of events, not a puff or attack piece.

Re "The issue of the letter is not to "extricate relatives" but to deal with Timothy Stoen and the child that Jim Jones had by Stoen's wife"

-> Interesting you should take Jones side of the dispute -- Jones claimed he was the father -- but the article doesn't state that the letter is to "extricate relatives." Rather, it states that Milk attacked the leader of the Concerned Relatives attempting to extricate those relatives.

In fact, Stoen actually wanted to go before CONGRESS on behalf of the Concerned Relatives to testify on the matter, and it is here that Milk stated that Stoen should not spread his "apparent bold-faced lies." I actually didn't elaborate on this in the Milk article because of you repeated edit-warring over frankly now laughable claims of "undue weight."

The letter is quite clear.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mosedschurte, Wikipedia goes by verifiability not truth, what you know to be true about Timothy Stoen is unlikely to be swayed by a wikipedia article but neither is an article to be swayed simply by what you know. We go by what is reliably sourced. The Raven book now seems to be the one source so could you please provide a word-for-word quote as that book is out of print and online verifiability seems unlikely. That will help other editors assure we are only accurately representing what these sources state. We should also reconcile that with other sources, specifically biographies on Milk, in contrast with ones on Jones, that are in sharp disagreement with the statements you are making. Again, you may be true but we need reliable sources for the contentious material and it certainly seems to be given undue weight. Also please do not accuse me or infer I'm taking anyone's "side" - I'm not. I'm trying to keep the POV issues off this article. Its seems completely unnotable that Milk spoke at political rallies at the church - so what? This only shows that he was either trying to get elected or was doing his job. If we include it then there's no reason to include the dozens if not hundreds of other venues where he also spoke at political rallies. "extricate relatives" is plural, Milk's letter concerned one child and characterizing it as an attack is quite unencyclopedic. Also, "Milk stated that Stoen should not spread his "apparent bold-faced lies."" is also untrue. Milk didn't write that Stoen should not spread his "apparent bold-faced lies." You may want to read the entire letter and properly characterize the content and not just use the scandalous parts. Also, although an entire section devoted to this certainly is undue, I'm still unclear why you insist on titling the section as Peoples Temple investigation as if Milk was investigating them or they him or what are you trying to convey with that? Banj e  b oi   01:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: "What you know to be true about Timothy Stoen is unlikely to be swayed by a wikipedia article but neither is an article to be swayed simply by what you know. We go by what is reliably sourced. The Raven book now seems to be the one source so could you please provide a word-for-word quote as that book is out of print and online verifiability seems unlikely."'

---> First, we don't even go into the background of Tim Stoen's custody dispute in this article, so I have no idea why you'd want to go into it. Second, Raven isn't the only book on the topic, it was covered in detail in literally hundreds of books and newspaper articles.

Re "Its seems completely unnotable that Milk spoke at political rallies at the church - so what? This only shows that he was either trying to get elected or was doing his job. If we include it then there's no reason to include the dozens if not hundreds of other venues where he also spoke at political rallies."

---> This take, if made in good faith, sees rather incredible. The Peoples Temple turned out to be one of the most notorious American civilian organizations in history. Please read the article about it.

Speaking at rallies there is notable simply as is the history of any other figure speaking at the rally of other notorious organizations.

And Milk's speaking at political rallies there is literally limited to SIX WORDS in the Milk article: "Milk spoke at Peoples Temple political rallies"

Re "'extricate relatives' is plural, Milk's letter concerned one child and characterizing it as an attack is quite unencyclopedic."

---> This makes zero sense. In fact, the article doesn't say Milk was against the extrication of any relatives, much less one (or still less, plural).

Rather, it says he attacked Tim Stoen, "the leader of the group attempting to extricate relatives". Stoen is famous for having led the "Concerned Relatives" group attempting to extricate relatives -- plural -- of several of the groups' members from Jonestown. This was the subject of what Stoen wished to speak about before Congress.

As to the title "Peoples Temple investigestion" it is because this section is devoted to Milk's support of the Temple, especially during the investigation. This is different than Jones support of Milk during the 1975 election, which has by the way been entirely deleted from the Milk article.

Mosedschurte (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So in answer to a reliable source we should just accept that this is in "literally hundreds of books and newspaper articles"? Could you provide at least one? And if we can't verify the Raven book we might have to replace that as a source as well. Timothy Stoen material is what the "Carter" letter seems to be about and yet you're using to support "while stating that the leader of the group attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown was spreading "apparent bold-faced lies."" When the letter talks about Stoen, his contradictory statements and the child involved. I think "involving a child-custody case" is more neutral and accurate. If you want to use this as a source we shouldn't misrepresent its content. And no, Milk spoke at political rallies at the church seems wholly unremarkable. The mass suicide/murders were notable and we have articles now devoted to them but that politicians spoke at political rallies at a church before all that happened - not notable. And yes, every time I've tried to address these issues I've attempted to do so in good faith that you believe these things are true in some form and that the material is somehow helpful to this article. And no, the information, the neutral and well-sourced content that is, from the early section is still there.

Amongst Milk's supporters was the controversial religious and political figure Jim Jones, who is best known for the Peoples Temple church he headed and the Jonestown mass suicide he orchestrated after the group relocated to northwestern Guyana from San Francisco.[5][6] The charismatic Jones could direct "hundreds of [People's Temple] volunteers who could work tirelessly for the candidates of his choosing".[2] Milk, like Moscone and Milk's opponent Agnos, had help from their volunteers in his campaigns - Jones supported both candidates in the same race.[6][2]
 * Once this is over I'll look to cleaning this all up further but as you've reverted even archiving old talk threads I can wait until we get this section cleaned up. Banj e  b oi   02:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Re "So in answer to a reliable source we should just accept that this is in "literally hundreds of books and newspaper articles"?"


 * On Tim Stoen's custody battle? Several San Francisco Chronicle articles, San Francisco Examiner articles, Reiterman's Raven, Layton's "Seductive Poison" and others come to mind.


 * As well as chronicled in pretty much every single documentary about Jonestown, and most TV news reports at the time.


 * Just to let you know, though this is not in the article, Temple member Tim Stoen was appointed Assistant DA relatively soon after Moscone's election. When he broke away in 1977 and led the Concerned Relatives group against the Temple in late 1977 and early 1978, it was the source of wide scale media coverage well before anyone at all died.  Grace Stoen's attempt to get her son back was also in the famous investigatory New West Magazine article -- the story of why it was there and not the San Francisco Chronicle is somewhat amusing by the way -- that sent Jones and the Temple members fleeing to Guyana.


 * More to the point here, your request is utterly bizarre where the Stoen's custody dispute (in the Carter letter or otherwise) is not even in the Milk article.'


 * Re: "Timothy Stoen material is what the "Carter" letter seems to be about and yet you're using to support "while stating that the leader of the group attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown was spreading "apparent bold-faced lies."


 * This is because Tim Stoen was the leader of the Concerned Relatives.


 * I didn't think it was necessary to get into the details of the Stoen custody dispute here -- especially since virtually every sentence added has been deleted by you in this article. Repeatedly. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't followed this closely (edit warring and sparring among editors is very unpleasant to follow, and one quickly forgets who is right or wrong and just wants to avoid the fight). But however we got here, the version currently in the article is the worst of both worlds.  It's short and doesn't provide a whole lot of useful detail.  But what's there reads like a POV / coatrack litany of arguments why Milk is at fault in his dealings with the temple, and the heading makes it worse  If you were going to write a couple sentences pus a link this is hardly the best way to present it.  The dispute tag shows we're heading in the wrong direction.  Wikidemo (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your insight but that section is what I think should be removed. I wrote the paragraph above it to tried to get this moving along just as I wrote the three sentences from the first rounds of this ... issue. I've asked for a reliable source to support "supported the controversial Temple during investigations of criminal wrongdoings" and am still waiting. There also seems little need to mention that Milk spoke at a political rally simply because it was held in their church and the only answer Mosedschurte offers is that the Peoples Temple was later disreputable. The "Carter" letter is being used poorly as well. In it Milk cites widespread support for Jones pre-tragedy and then appeals to President Carter, who Milk regularly wrote, to intervene in some fashion in a child-custody case of Stoen, a temple member who apparently provided his wife to Jones to impregnate. Did I really want to swim through all that to, again, get this material cleaned up? No. But here we are with an undue, POV section with sourcing issues. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   06:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Benjiboi, I am having trouble understanding how three sentences can be "undue weight" in a biographical article of this length. Undue weight is an issue of proportionality, which surely is not the case here. And the letter to Carter pretty much speaks for itself, and since it is cited directly as a primary source readers can come to their own conclusions about it. I agree that the huge section authored by Mosedschurte was undue and inappropriate, but a sub-section which is well sourced should be fine, even at greater length than it is at present. One thing to remember is that this Peoples Temple was a major, major news story at the time. (I was a law student in San Francisco in 1978, and one of my classmates and friends was a close associate of Milk's.) In local (and to some extent national) media, the only event that exceeded it in intensity of coverage and discussion was the 9/11 attack. The connections between local politicians and Jim Jones/Peoples Temple were exhaustively investigated and had a lasting effect on politics in San Francisco. Milk's strong support for Jones, embarrassing though it is in retrospect thirty years on, is nonetheless an encyclopedic topic. --MCB (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of this commentary is rather stunning given the history of this section as evidenced in the prior Talk.

Examples of support of the Temple after the 1977 investigations started is, just to name two examples, his attendance with Agnos at the post-exodus August 1977 Temple rally and the February 19, 1978 Carter letter. Both of which are sourced in the article and in the separate article now linked.

None of this is in any way in factually in dispute, by the way.

This is simply a lie: "because it was held in their church and the only answer Mosedschurte offers is that the Peoples Temple was later disreputable. "

I said it was because they were notorious -- the Peoples Temple engineered the largest loss of American civilian life (outside natural disasters) until 9-11.

Thus, like any other political figure, speaking at their rallies is notable, to severely understate the matter.

And to be clear, it is a whopping six word mention in Board of Supervisor member Harvey Milk's article as is: "Milk spoke at Peoples Temple political rallies"

That's it.

Re: ''"The "Carter" letter is being used poorly as well." ''

If by quoting it directly word-for-word you mean "used poorly", then yes. I wouldn't have a problem with more elaboration

At this point, with the entire section now cut to a one sentence fully sourced NPOV summary, the quality of these generated complaints in this seemingly never-ending campaign are becoming rather silly.

Frankly, I can guarantee that quoting more of the letter would run into even more objections from you. For example, this is word-for-word the entire concluding paragraph of the letter:

'''"Mr. President, the actions of Mr. Stoen need to be brought to a halt. It is offensive to most in the San Francisco community and all those who know Rev. Jones to see this kind of outrage taking place." --Harvey Milk, last paragraph of February 19, 1978 article to Carter'''

Note that this is not even in the Milk article. Mosedschurte (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * MCB, it is undue, mainly at this point, because it's in its own section as if this were a major aspect of Milk's life, it wasn't. The Carter letter material is presented quite POV; the first half of the letter explains that Jones has widespread support throughout city and state government, local civic and religious leaders yet only a cherry-picked quote from Milk that Jones is of the highest character - thus discrediting Milk is used. It would be neutral to state "Milk cited widespread support for Jones..." or similar. The second half of the letter concerns Timothy Stoen, who Milk writes is discredited in the press and has given contradictory information about a child, apparently fathered by Jones via Stoen's willing wife, Grace. Instead of summarizing this information we read that Milk writes "that the leader of the group attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown was spreading 'apparent bold-faced lies.'" The letter says nothing about a group or that they are extricating anyone. It sounds like Milks a big meany when his stated concern was for the welfare of the child and the diplomatic relationship with Guyana. It's much more neutral, but less titillating to write "wrote a letter of support for Jim Jones involving a child-custody case".
 * Mosedschurte, you seem to be exchanging quality of discussion with quantity. Instead of detailing how this material is well documented you could produce that documentation so that others can also see what content is supported. That the church was notorious is still beside the point when in the context that 1. He was either a political candidate or professional politician speaking at a political rally and 2. That's what politicians do. The Carter letter details how Jones had recognition of the Board of Supervisors and the California Senate. This sure makes Milk speaking at their political rallies seem not notable. Piled onto that is Milk's own words - "I'll take his workers, but, that's the game Jim Jones plays" - in speaking to a campaign staffer about Jones calling to offer volunteers after Jones had already strongly backed Milk's opponent Agnos. And the previous quote about the church members being weird and dangerous so you do what they say and always thank them. The Carter letter too was written nine months prior to the mass murder/suicide, nine months is a long time in politics and it was only a month prior that Congressman Ryan's fact-finding mission was actually happening. In hindsight yes, more people should have figure out what Jones was about before it was too late but Milk, like everyone else was going on the best information he had at the time. Out of context, yes, Milk sure seems guilty by association, he wrote a letter of support for a guy who helped him get his job and, at that point, still exerted a hefty amount of sway in local politics. This is not an expose, this is an encyclopedia. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   09:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Re This sure makes Milk speaking at their political rallies seem not notable.

You keep asserting this, but it's certainly not convincing given the notariety of the Peoples Temple. The argument simply that its not notable because its a political speech and that "that's what politicians do" is hardly convincing, to say the least.

In any event, there is zero expansion of the point in the article as is. It merely notes that Milk spoke at Temple political rallies. It's 6 words.

Re ''The Carter letter details how Jones had recognition of the Board of Supervisors and the California Senate. This sure makes Milk speaking at their political rallies seem not notable.''

Regarding the first sentence, of course. And, in fact, more than that.

The second sentence makes absolutely zero sense following the first. Milk's support and statements re Concerned Relatives leader Stoen are notable on their own. Whether or not President Carter (or any other President) were even best friends with Jones (which they weren't).

Re ''Piled onto that is Milk's own words - "I'll take his workers, but, that's the game Jim Jones plays" - in speaking to a campaign staffer about Jones calling to offer volunteers after Jones had already strongly backed Milk's opponent Agnos. And the previous quote about the church members being weird and dangerous so you do what they say and always thank them.''

I actually think these quotes are interesting and put one in the linked article. They provide potential reasons for the relationship and actions that followed.

However, you keep pushing them forward as some reason why the other facts are not "notable", which logically doesn't follow. This isn't a debate about Milk's character, but rather an encyclopedic article.

Re The Carter letter too was written nine months prior to the mass murder/suicide, nine months is a long time in politics and it was only a month prior that Congressman Ryan's fact-finding mission was actually happening.

I have no idea what you're getting at here. In fact, I can't even construct a possible relation to which you could be inferring regarding the Ryan visit and its announcement (around November 1).

As a sort of timeline, Jones and most of the Temple members had fled to Jonestown in mid-1977, after multiple media publications regarding alleged criminal and cult activities. I'm not sure what this has to do with the plans for Ryan's visit later.

Re ''In hindsight yes, more people should have figure out what Jones was about before it was too late but Milk, like everyone else was going on the best information he had at the time. Out of context, yes, Milk sure seems guilty by association, he wrote a letter of support for a guy who helped him get his job and, at that point, still exerted a hefty amount of sway in local politics.''

You seem to be viewing this entire exercise as some sort of character defense/attack of Milk.

I have no idea if Milk is "guilty by association" of anything at all. Nor have I come to any conclusion regarding whether he should have seen anything in hindsight.

These seem like areas of debate and discussion. Not the reasons for inclusion of anything in a Wikipedia article.

Re he wrote a letter of support for a guy who helped him get his job and, at that point, still exerted a hefty amount of sway in local politics.

By February 1978, Jones had virtually zero sway in American politics. In fact, he had fled to Guyana half a year earlier with his entire high level staff and was in the process of attempting to sell the Temple buildings in many locations, while infrequent speeches to very few people by others continued in other buildings.

I hesitate to provide information in this discussion, because it is usually just spit back at me followed by some odd entirely unrelated assertion of "undue weight" and the like, but there seems to be a timeline understanding problem. Briefly: --Late 1976-early 1977 - media scrutiny continues, with some articles published detailing potential issues. Jones believes the IRS is investigating his religious exemption (thinks they will yank it) and several relatives are concerned about Temple members. --Spring 1977 - Marshal Kilduff prepares a huge expose interviewing several former Temple members regarding allegations of criminal wrongdoing and cult activity. He is going to publish it in his paper, the SF Chronicle, but is receiving resistance from SF Chronicle City Editor Steve Gavin and Jones somehow knows about the expose. On a tour of the Temple, Kilduff notices Steve Gavin in the front pew. Uncomfortable situation, of course. Gavin admits he's long been attending Temple services. Kilduff alternatively goes to New West magazine. --July 1977 - The night before Kilduff's piece runs, editor Rosalie Wright calls Jones (after receiving pressure from Jerry Brown and Moscone) to read him the entire article over the telephone. After hearing the contents, Jones flies into a fury and tells Temple members they're leaving to Jonestown that night. Jones and hundreds of Temple members immediately flee to Guyana --Late July 1977 - Jones resigns as San Francisco Housing Commission Chairman over the phone to Moscone from Georgetown, Guyana. --Beginning of August 1977 - a large rally is held at the Temple against enemies purportedly "attacking" them in the Kilduff piece. Jones plans to speak via loudspeaker. They get Willie Brown and Harvey Milk, who've both said glowing things about Jones in the past, and Art Agnos. Speakers are set up and Jones talks to the crowd from Georgetown rallying the troops against said "enemies" (former members and relatives of current members, along with "reactionaries" in the U.S. government). --September 1977 - The Stoens lead a group of relatives and former members bringing civil suits against the Temple. One of these efforts is a custody hearing in Georgetown in which a judge issues a show cause order re custody of John Stoen. Jones freaks out. He initiates the so-called "Six Day Siege" where Temple members surround the camp with machetes and rifles and talk of revolutionary suicide. They broadcast a mass suicide threat over the radio to the government of Guyana regarding the Stoen OSC. Guyana backs down. Very few politicians remain Temple allies. --Fall 1977 - several more articles are published. Civil suits by relatives and Temple members increase and Stoen acts as the lawyer for many of them. Jones and the Temple worry that some sort of pressure may be put on the government of Guyana. They begin exploring options of moving to the Soviet Union (the Temple was ardently communist), which they might be able to pull off because the Soviets can use them to talk about the West's problems to combat internal dissidents, and they have money. Extensive talks with the Soviet embassy begin. --December 1977 - Congressman Ryan had read an article titled "Scared too Long" in the Examiner (article was Nov 13th) regarding death of Temple member Bob Houston back in 1976. Ryan writes to Sect of State Vance to investigate whether they can do anything about Jones even though he is in a foreign country. --January 1978 - the Stoens themselves travel to Guyana. When they return unsuccessfully, they attempt to bring pressure on Congressman to investigate Jonestown. --February 1978 - the IRS begins formal investigations into Temple activities while Tim Stoen lobbies House Committees to investigate Jonestown --February 19, 1978 - Harvey Milk writes a letter to President Carter praising Jones and claiming that: "It is outrageous that Timothy Stoen could even think of flaunting this situation in front of Congressman with apparent bold-faced lies." "Mr. President, the actions of Mr. Stoen need to be brought to a halt. It is offensive to most in the San Francisco community and all those who know Rev. Jones to see this kind of outrage taking place."
 * I again encourage you to consider brevity as volume isn't swaying my opinion on this. Instead of providing how you see a timeline thirty years after the events we have to write encyclopedicly on Milk's biography what he did and keep that in context. The source, Time magazine, put this as a passing mention - Milk... "who had spoken at political rallies at the Peoples Temple". This doesn't state he spoke at the churches rallies once they were scandalous, disreputable or notorious, to imply otherwise is misleading at best. Whether or not it's six words or 6000 you're still inferring something that your source doesn't support. I've asked numerous times now but will be more clear. Please provide the direct word-for-word quotes from the Raven book to support that Milk "supported the controversial Temple during investigations of criminal wrongdoings". If we are unable to verify that source the sentence should likely also go. The line "stating that leader Jim Jones was known as 'a man of the highest character'" is cherry-picking a quote out of a letter that seemingly is used to scandalize Milk while conveniently overlooking the extensive support spelled out in the first two paragraphs of that same source. The line "while stating that the leader of the group attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown was spreading 'apparent bold-faced lies.'" is also using that source out of context and applying that quote for other purposes - the letter is about the custody case of one child not about "the leader of the group attempting to extricate relatives". Your source speaks only of the discredited Stoen, as evidenced in the letter itself, causing problems for Jones and diplomatic relations for Guyana. This needs to be cleaned up for POV and sourcing problems or removed entirely. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   21:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Re I again encourage you to consider brevity as volume isn't swaying my opinion on this.

--> The "volume" was a background of information for your own benefit that I thought I would provide for context. I did this because you appeared to not know the history, thinking Jones still had significant political sway in the U.S. as late as February 1978. Note that I don't blame you for this. I thought I would provide more information on this discussion page.

Re Instead of providing how you see a timeline thirty years after the events we have to write encyclopedicly on Milk's biography what he did and keep that in context.

---> This is ridiculous. I didn't provide a timeline for encyclopedic presentation in the discussion above. Nor have I suggested it for presentation in a Wikipedia article. I listed it to provide context for you since you clearly didn't know the history, thinking Jones still had significant political sway inside the United States as late as February 1978.

Re The line "stating that leader Jim Jones was known as 'a man of the highest character'" is cherry-picking a quote out of a letter that seemingly is used to scandalize Milk while conveniently overlooking the extensive support spelled out in the first two paragraphs of that same source.

---> Bluntly speaking, this isn't just ridiculous, it's nonsensical.

(1) The Milk section isn't about Jones' other support. It's about Milk's support. It would make zero sense to include the other portions in the letter. (2) In fact, the linked article Political alliances of Peoples Temple‎ DIRECTLY ABOVE the quote goes into detail about that other support. (3) Moreover, you've already claimed even the one sentence as is "undue."

Re ''Milk... "who had spoken at political rallies at the Peoples Temple". This doesn't state he spoke at the churches rallies once they were scandalous, disreputable or notorious, to imply otherwise is misleading at best.''

---> It is a virtual word-for-word quote from the San Francisco Chronicle Article:

SFChronicle article: :Harvey Milk, 48, who had spoken at political rallies at the Peoples Temple" Harvey Milk article: "Milk spoke at political rallies at the Peoples Temple"

Re ''Please provide the direct word-for-word quotes from the Raven book to support that Milk "supported the controversial Temple during investigations of criminal wrongdoings". ''

--->Instead of battling over the word "support", I have now changed the sentence to reflect the exact actions taken, with sources.


 * Michael Bellefountaine is not considered a reliable source although I believe he was considered an AIDS denialist and honorary Peoples Temple member before he died. He repeatedly suggested there was controversies of all sorts of issues yet was unable to prove anything. You can also stop insinuating that my asking for brevity is anything but to keep this talk page from ballooning out of control. I'm still unclear why you edit warred over past threads being archived since you seem quite willing to repost the same ideas repeatedly, but oh well. You could also now stop suggesting that insisting on NPOV and reliable sourcing is either ridiculous or nonsensical. It's policy. I see other editors are following this now and trust this will be corrected soon enough. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)