Talk:Harvey Milk/Archive 6

Improvements
I just want to thank everyone involved recently for getting more citations and for cleaning up the wooden text. Keep at it, and let's avoid another edit war Bearian (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Harvey Milk is my next project to cover. I just rewrote Stonewall riots, and I plan to do the same with Milk's article, using immaculate references, and hopefully making this argument over the how much of the People's Temple should be mentioned here void. As I usually do, I'll start rewriting Milk's article in a sandbox to where it is around 90% of what I want it to be, then post it to the mainspace. It may take me around a month or more to get to it, as the process to escort an article through to FA takes several weeks. --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To Bearian, you're very welcome although if Moni3 gets a hold of this it will soon be a different article altogether - which is a good thing - and all the edit-warring should melt away. Banj e  b oi   09:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Diversity of sources and proper weight
Ok. I've read Shilts' biography of Milk, and I'm in the process of trying to obtain as many diverse sources as possible, which may take me a while to do. It is noteworthy to say that Shilts' treatment of Milk's involvement of the People's Temple was minor. He delivered campaign information to the People's Temple and worked with Jim Jones, as recent demographics changed the racial make-up of San Francisco, making African Americans much more of a minority in the city. They were consolidated within the People's Temple, and Milk saw them as a necessary group to campaign to, but deeply distrusted their organization. Volunteers reported back to Milk after dropping off campaign brochures that guards were posted at doors within the church. Milk advised his volunteers and campaign workers to be nice to them, but not to trust them, according to Shilts.

Although I'm doing the best I can to get articles from the 1970s from the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Examiner and the Bay Area Reporter, it seems from Milk's most comprehensive biography that his views and interactions with the People's Temple probably wouldn't warrant more than a few sentences in other paragraphs about groups he had experiences with. The news bomb of the mass suicide at Jonestown is irrefutably connected with Milk's and Moscone's assassinations, however. So it will be mentioned again in that section. --Moni3 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop Moving the Milk-Peoples Temple Info Into the Briggs Initiative Section
It makes zero sense being in the Briggs initiative section.

And I included your explanatory language ("well fuck him") quote and language from your other parts, and deleted the reference to attacking Stoen, as you did in your change.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text
Your proposed text:
 * 1) While serving on the Board of Supervisors, Milk attended and spoke at at the controversial Peoples Temple, including after Jones and many Temple members fled to Guyana following allegations criminal wrongdoing.
 * (, Reiterman, Tim and John Jacobs. Raven: The Untold Story of Reverend Jim Jones and His People, Dutton, 1982, ISBN 0-525-24136-1, page 327 and VanDeCarr, Paul "Death of dreams: in November 1978, Harvey Milk's murder and the mass suicides at Jonestown nearly broke San Francisco's spirit.", The Advocate, November 25, 2003 Note: Given the political alliances of Peoples Temple, Milk's relationship with the Temple was similar to other politicians' in Northern California. Jones and his parishioners were a "potent political force", helping to elect Moscone (who appointed him to the Housing Authority), District Attoney Jose Frietas, and Sheriff Richard Hongisto.(Jacobs, John [November 20, 1978]. "S.F.'s Leaders Recall Jones the Politician" The San Francisco Examiner, p. C.)


 * 2) Although Milk defended Temple leader Jim Jones in a letter to President Jimmy Carter in 1978
 * , he and his aides distrusted Jones.


 * 3) When Milk learned Jones was backing both him and Art Agnos in 1976, he told friend Michael Wong, "Well fuck him. I'll take his workers, but, that's the game Jim Jones plays."
 * (Shilts, p. 139.)


 * SG response
 * 1) Wholly rejected as non-notable synthesis. That Jones was active in SF politics, and Milk spoke at a rally is unconsequential, or at least you have not demonstrated that any reliable sources considers it noteworthy.  The Time article doesn't establish it as a notable event in Milk's life (although I'm open to proposals for how to incorporate the Time content), please provide a direct quote Reiterman and Jacobs (and why you consider that a high-quality source), and please provide a direct quote from the Advocate article.  The construct of the entire sentence, adding in the SF Examiner quote, is synthesis.  Unless you have one source that makes these connections and establishes them as notable in Milk's life, they aren't worthy of inclusion.  In fact, the very fact that the note is needed shows that undue weight is given to this text.  That a book was written by Reiterman about Jones might make that notable in Jones articles, but why here?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 2) Can Moni please address more about the book used to back the Jimmy Carter info? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 3) Follows from point 2. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The only impression that I've gotten here is that you are attempting to make Milk appear as a Jones' supporter, but your sources don't even support that. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mosedschurte, can you please stop repeating things over and over? Your editing style makes it very hard for others to participate.  I specifically broke out the sources and the paragraph by sentence for discussion; you've now created more verbosity that obfuscates the discussion.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you had added those various points in chunks, instead of one large addition, and I clicked on the Talk Page just seeing one of your edits with only a portion of the added text, and appeared tobe a serious formatting error. So I added the complete text.


 * I just deleted what I'd added (the complete text). Mosedschurte (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

1) The SF Examiner quote is in a footnote, not the text, and was added originally by moni3. Your copy of the text delete the footnote ref.  I have no problem with deleting it, but it did further explain the events.  As to the 3 sources merely supporting that Milk spoke and attended rallies at the Peoples Temple:"Milk spoke at a service for the last time in October 1978. He had been enthusiastically received at Peoples Temple several times before, and he always sent glowing thank-yon notes to Jones afterward. After one visit, Milk wrote, 'Rev. Jim, It may Lake me many a day to come back down from the high that I reach today. I found something deal' today. I found a sense of being that makes up for all the hours mad energy, placed in a fight. I found what you wanted me to find. I shall be back. For I can never leave.' (VanDeCarr)"Regarding the one July 31 post-Jones exodus meeting for which Raven is still cited for this particular text, this is precisely what the book states. Here is quote from pages 327-8: "Lavish expresssions of solidarity marked a July 31 rally designed to unify Temple members and their supporters." The book then goes into an extended quote of Jones speaking via telephone over speakers from Guyana, to which he had just fled. It then states "When Jones finished, State Assemblyman Art Agnos, who was visiting for the first time, turned to county supervisor Harvey Milk, 'Harvey, that guy is really wild.' Milk smiled, 'Yeah, he's different all right.'" Regarding the Time magazine article, it states: "Supervisor Harvey Milk, 48, who had spoken at political rallies at the Peoples Temple, had candidly proclaimed his homosexuality and won election to the city's eleven-member governing board.

2) I'm not sure what the concern about the Carter letter is.

3) The Shilts quote was added by moni3 to further explain Milk's belief that he didn't trust Jones, I believe.

4) Regarding your claim that "The only impression that I've gotten here is that you are attempting to make Milk appear as a Jones' supporter, but your sources don't even support that."    Although I don't see any point harping upon it in this article, Milk was quite openly a Jones supporter, while at the same time believing him to be dangerous and untrustworhty.  For example, following one visit to the Temple, Milk also stated (not in this article):"'Rev Jim, It may take me many a day to come back down from the high that I reach today. I found something dear today. I found a sense of being that makes up for all the hours and energy placed in a fight. I found what you wanted me to find. I shall be back. For I can never leave.' (Harvey Milk)"After another, he wrote a handwritten note:"''my name is cut into stone in support of you - and your people.'(Harvey Milk)"In his February 19, 1978 letter to Jimmy Carter, which was only released by the FBI in a FOIA requiest in the 1990s by the way so it wasn't in earlier Milk or Jones bios, Milk stated:"'Rev. Jones is widely known in the minority communities and elsewhere as a man of the highest character.'(Harvey Milk to President Jimmy Carter)"Note that these textual quotes are not in the article as it stands or even in my proposed tiny text.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jones represented disadvantaged people; your quotes show that Milk supported disadvantaged people that Jones represented, as any politician in that position would have. The synthesis and OR the edits you've included so far are not supported by the sources AFAICT.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (Trying to keep up with these multiple sections and write comprehensive responses): Time merely mentions Milk attended a rally. VandeCarr's article is a recollection of the entire month of November 1978 as an emotionally devastating time for San Francisco (I have the article if anyone is interested). VanDeCarr treats Milk's experiences with the Temple as an odd coincidence, and a very minor mention in a much larger piece about Milk's and Moscone's legacies. Coleman's book is about copycat crimes. In the entire book Milk has barely a mention, and confirms only that Milk sent a letter to President Carter. Again none of these authors states information about Jones and Milk is important, or suggests that Milk's relationship with Jones was nothing more than politics. None of them connect Milk to a larger idea that he may have believed in Jones' philosophies, he may have condoned Jones' methods, or disagreed with the San Francisco Chronicle (Kilduff was the lead writer for the Chronicle, whose article was in New West. He would certainly be able to connect Jones to anyone else in the city or mayor's suspicions about Jones.) I included sources that state that many politicians were connected to Jones and Milk didn't trust Jones at all. Again, why is the information notable?
 * Jones is the reason this is being included. Because Jones is so notorious. But there's not evidence to say any significant connection between the two existed. --Moni3 (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the consensus before (to create a sub-article and link to it) was adequate and fair, and has been done. We should be finished here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the former RfC
New to this discussion, I've seen several references to an earlier RfC, which in addition to being populated by responses from IPs and redlinks, suffered from the same unreadability as this talk page. Of note, I found this comment from an independent observor, weeks ago, that still sums up the current status: "I just came here after a quick review, based on the AN/I report. If the status quo is that the material was not in the article, the burden is on whoever proposes to add disputed material to establish consensus, and there's no consensus to include it. If the material has been in the article long term (as opposed to edit warred over long term), I'd say that the RfC discussion establishes consensus to trim down or remove it. Personally, I find it undue. It's fairly typical that a corrupt person or organization that's a major part of city politics will have the support of local politicians. That's especially true of a church that is central to the community and deals with underpriveleged people (meaning, it avoids a lot of scrutiny and is dealing with a lot of people with unsavory backgrounds) then becomes a cult. For it to be notable to a particular politician's bio you'd have to show that the connection rises above the normal level that exists between any institution and any politician. Milk probably wrote 'I support you' letters on behalf of lots of people. I think the sources do show that Milk was a bit of a special patron of the church, so it's reasonable to give it some mention. But a whole heading and longish paragraph is undue weight. I'd trim it to a sentence or two. However, the subject of support for the church by local leaders and politicians is an interesting one. It might merit its own article, or at least a lengthy section within the article about the cult. That's a better place to put it anyway, and you could use one of those tags to refer the reader to that. Incidentally, I do find Mosedschurte's comments here to be unnecessarily confrontational, and uncivil in accusations of vandalism and bad faith. Plus edit warring and some WP:OWN issues. Not good from anyone, and particularly not a WP:SPA whose main purpose on Wikipedia seems to be spreading the world about Jonestown. I'd suggest some cooling down. Wikidemo (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)" So, previous independent editors have already noted the editing affecting this article. It's time to move on and get back to writing a high quality article.  The independent article was created, and this article links to it (Wikidemo's suggestion of a main template would be a misapplication of that template, in fact, since it is used for summary style).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First, that was when the proposed Milk-supporting-Peoples-Temple text (not that other way around) consisted of a much larger, and separate, section in the Milk article. This is what Wikidemo said in your quote above:I think the sources do show that Milk was a bit of a special patron of the church, so it's reasonable to give it some mention. But a whole heading and longish paragraph is undue weight. I'd trim it to a sentence or two. (Wikidemo - in your quote above)
 * What Wikidemo suggested is exactly what was done. It was taken out of it's own section and trimmed to a sentence or two.Second, others weighed in differently to even that Wikidemo suggestion (which I later followed), and this was when the Peoples Temple material was its own independent section:"I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"I think this is worthy of a paragraph and perhaps a short subsection in the article. Milk was heavily involved in the People's Temple (as well as a number of other well known activists who would also like not to be remembered for it), there appears to be plenty of documentation on this, and it would certainly appear to be notable and noteworthy. CENSEI (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"However, it seems to me that three well-sourced sentences about People's Temple in a biographical article of this length is clearly not "undue weight", and a similar treatment of Oliver Sipple would be appropriate as well. --MCB (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)"

"I agree with this writer. Please do not delete. It is true there is no consensus to delete the section emerged." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramia3403 (talk)

"Given the context and timing, the Peoples Temple section is far too important in this article to delete or merge. Especially the letter cited in the article attacking people calling for an investigation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.197.82 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

" This material seems perfectly fine and weighted ect. Please do not be put off by editors who appear to own articles as is the case here. Good luck, --" 72.209.9.165 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Jones section has to stay in a page like this. It's way too big if its true. I don't know why it would be cut. The part about Harvey being scared of him should be added to it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.117.116 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Finally, the entire Peoples Temple involvement, even with Jonestown literally dominating the Bay Area and Milk's key support, is only a tiny (6%) portion of the article, thus there is no undue weight issue. As well, included is only a tiny portion of Milk's involvement with the Temple." - me. Mosedschurte (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary of feedback

 * (after another edit conflict) I've now reviewed the archives, and as far as I can tell (if I've gotten it all, and in spite of reading the same arguments repeated multiple times), we seem to be beating a dead horse here.  Please supply anything I've missed in this summary from ANI, RfC and current discussions: please note that SPA redlinked accounts first time posters and IPs are not included (as they were above by Mosedschurte):

In favor of text:

Remove text per some version of undue, OR and synthesis, a sub-article has been created, a link and due weight text is already included in this article:

Unclear (because comments pertained to an earlier version, since addressed by creating a separate article which is linked back to here):

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First, in all fairness, you've misstated WikiDemo's position, because he wanted to cut the large section that used to be in the article on Milk's support of the Temple to 1-2 sentences. Not delete it entirely. In fact, most of those on the first list only commented on the far longer separate Milk-Peoples Temple section that existed at the time, not the small paragraph that exists now.


 * Second, you included yourself in the first list but left me out of the second, along with the other comments above.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are included, your position is listed. I don't believe I've misrepresented WikiDemo, based on the lengthy quote above.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Except Wikidemo wanted the prior long section cut to 1-2 sentences, which I did. In fact, if you look through the history, most of those commenting wanted some combination of either (i) the large section that existed then, or (ii) cutting Milk's support of the Temple to 1-3 sentences.


 * This is precisely what I did. In fact, I had cut it to one sentence and moni3 added some language in a move explaining Milk's potential motivation for supporting the Temple, which has now been kept in the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not precisely what you did: you added a separate heading, separate section, which was removed per consensus that it was undue.  The sub-article is linked in the text in the "Race" section.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Moni3 did it. And it's linked.  Your edits added an additional undue, OR, synthesis section.  The sub-article is created, it's linked.  You are advocating for additional undue weight synthesis material that creates a specific impression of the Milk-Jones relationship.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Noting that you edited your response after I replied to it; please stop doing that, use the preview button. Your editing style makes it hard for others to participate, and altering your comments after others have responded alters context.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The RfC was completed before the rewrite. I made a very conservative statement during that RfC to attest I did not believe it was notable based on what I knew about Milk. Not that I have rewritten the article, I am certain it does not belong in the article. Mosedschurte is only interested in information about Jim Jones, not accurate and due weight about information in Harvey Milk. --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * RE:"No, Moni3 did it."
 * No, I did it. I have repeatedly cut the old prior section then, after it was deleted, I added a tiny one sentence (at the time) piece of text at the end of the "Supervisor" section.


 * Are you claiming that you added/wrote the text in "Race for state assembly" ? The text added to "Supervisor" is the disputed text; the text added to "Race" is not.  I'm unaware who wrote the "Race" text. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, of course not. That text relates to Temples support of Milk (pamphlets, volunteers).  I had written the much longer section before about Milk's support of the Temple, then cut that section down repeatedly, and then when Moni3 cut it entirely, instead of re-adding it in some edit war, I added a tiny one sentence (at the time) piece of text at the bottom of the "Supervisor" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosedschurte (talk • contribs) 23:15, September 17, 2008


 * So are you saying that you didn't add an entire undue section under the heading "People's temple investigation", in spite of no consensus for a separate section on this?  Certainly if you can show me a diff indicating someone else added an undue section, I will stand corrected.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, and you're not even reading what is just stated. Of course I added it.  I just stated above " I had written the much longer section before about Milk's support of the Temple"  I then cut it down, and finally turned it into a tiny one sentence piece of text in the Supervisor section just a few days ago after the entire thing was deleted by moni3.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you said earlier you had done exactly as WikiDemo recommended in the old discussions; if you added an entire undue section under its own heading, it doesn't appear that you did that. Since I wasn't here then, I just wanted to make sure I understood the history.  Now that I do, we should drop this, and focus on the text.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Moreover, the claims on the Wiki Admin board about me "edit warring" now are ridiculous where I have not added it back into the article after it was deleted in its entirety. In fact, I think you, SandyGeorge, were the one who deleted the entire thing.  Despite that wholesale deletion, I'm discussing a possible addition on this board.  Ditto for the claims days after the fact on that board that I "personally attacked" moni3.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying someone is "flat out lying" is a personal attack. Re-inserting the text the second time, right after it was deleted and in spite of no support for your version, is edit warring.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, deleting it in the first place was "edit warring", but I have NOT added it back as of now. So there isn't currently edit warring.


 * In fact, the last "edit warring" that has occurred is by you and moni3 simply deleting the text and all sources wholesale, which is the current state of the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mosed, can you please humor me and present one diff from this talk page supporting the addition of that text? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can do much better than that. First, this text has changed and was just-added a few days ago.

Here were comments from months ago when a much large section on Milk's support of the Temple were in the article:"I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"I agree with this writer. Please do not delete. It is true there is no consensus to delete the section emerged." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramia3403 (talk)

"However, it seems to me that three well-sourced sentences about People's Temple in a biographical article of this length is clearly not "undue weight", and a similar treatment of Oliver Sipple would be appropriate as well. --MCB (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)"


 * I think this is worthy of a paragraph and perhaps a short subsection in the article. Milk was heavily involved in the People's Temple (as well as a number of other well known activists who would also like not to be remembered for it), there appears to be plenty of documentation on this, and it would certainly appear to be notable and noteworthy. CENSEI (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Given the context and timing, the Peoples Temple section is far too important in this article to delete or merge. Especially the letter cited in the article attacking people calling for an investigation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.197.82 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

" This material seems perfectly fine and weighted ect. Please do not be put off by editors who appear to own articles as is the case here. Good luck, --" 72.209.9.165 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Jones section has to stay in a page like this. It's way too big if its true. I don't know why it would be cut. The part about Harvey being scared of him should be added to it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.117.116 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Finally, the entire Peoples Temple involvement, even with Jonestown literally dominating the Bay Area and Milk's key support, is only a tiny (6%) portion of the article, thus there is no undue weight issue. As well, included is only a tiny portion of Milk's involvement with the Temple." - me.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop repeating text we've already read, particulary when most of it is from new accounts, SPAs and IPs who had never edited before.  All of that was before the sub-article was created.  I asked if you can show me one diff, please, from this talk page supporting the text you added after that sub-article was created and after Moni3 wrote the "Race section".  Can you show me one editor supporting you re-adding that text after I deleted it, based on consensus, the first time.  There has not been, to my knowledge, a single editor in this discussion supporting your re-addition of that text, and there have been many opposed.  Please stop replaying text from before the sub-article was created and a link to it was added.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Rfc, when there was a large Milk-PT section, was well before moni3's re-write. Pretty much the only people who have commented on the page are you, Benjiboi, moni3 -- the same 3 editors who have repeatedly deleted the text, and it stands deleted as of now.


 * But the substance of the other comments, that Milk's support of the Temple should be included in the Milk article, clearly stands. I'm not even sure how one argues that this isn't notable, and despite all explanations and sources provided, I've seen no argument so far except that it wasn't in Randy Shilts biography.  A rather bizarre attempt to support an argument.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So have you not read the current comments (since after the sub-article was added and linked, on this talk page and on the Fringe noticeboard) from Itsmejudith, Slp1, Dank55 and Steven J. Anderson? Have you seen one person weighing in on the current article who supports the undue, synthesis, OR text you were adding?  Do you see there are at least seven who argue it is undue?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mosedschurte, edit warring goes both ways and generally disputed content is to be left out with the burden of inclusion on those who wish to insert it or re-add it. My guess is that you have re-inserted this content about two dozen times by my count. With about 6-8 different editors removing it. Wildhartlivie supported at one time only because it was no more offensive than the Sipple content at that time - it was a good point and that Sipple content has since also been fully vetted and combined appropriately in context to the current content. -- Banj e  b oi   23:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Benjiboi: it's been mostly you that's deleted every single variation of text added, or one of the 3 editors that have repeated this delete-everything dance over and over.


 * In addition, neither Wildhartlivie's comments about its notability and inclusion, nor the others', relied solely upon the Sipple comparison.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I said NONE of the sources I used - the most comprehensive of which was Shilts' biography - supported the claims that Jones and Milk had a significant relationship. Shilts' book actually flat-out denied it. --Moni3 (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No text to be added has stated they had a "significant relationship." I have no idea why that would be raised.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we've established that no current (and probably no previous) editor supports an undue original research section on the relationship between Milk and Jones; what was supported in earlier discussions was a brief mention and a link to the new sub-article, which Moni3 has provided. Now can we get back to writing an article? We should be done here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That comment seems bizarre given that you've "established" nothing of the sort. Its just the same 3 editors who have commented.


 * Not one month ago, several other editors supported inclusion of a much larger section on Milk's support of the Temple. The language was quite clear, such as " I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." (Wildhartlivie); "I think this is worthy of a paragraph and perhaps a short subsection in the article. Milk was heavily involved in the People's Temple (as well as a number of other well known activists who would also like not to be remembered for it), there appears to be plenty of documentation on this, and it would certainly appear to be notable and noteworthy. (CENSEI); and "it seems to me that three well-sourced sentences about People's Temple in a biographical article of this length is clearly not "undue weight", and a similar treatment of Oliver Sipple would be appropriate as well." (MCB)


 * Moreover, to be blunt, you keep falsely asserting "original research" where absolutely no claim can be made. These are all secondary sources.  Nor it is even arguable that there is "synthesis" where zero "conclusion" is at all made.


 * I keep pointing these facts out, and the argument is dropped, with the assertion repeated. And, of course, all text deleted by one of the same 3 editors.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I'm a rather patient person, I'll ask one last time. Have you not seen all the comments, added here and on the Fringe noticeboard?  That would be SandyGeorgia, Moni3, Benjiboi, Itsmejudith, Slp1, Dank55 and Steven J. Anderson: did you see all of those?  Has there been one person in favor of the text?  Do you understand that synthesis is stringing together facts from several sources in a way that no secondary, reliable source does?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you not see all of the prior comments? The ones you listed were only in the last few hours and day, while most of the prior editors likely had no idea this was occurring.


 * There is no "stringing together facts from several sources in a way that no secondary, reliable source does?" All of the secondary sources cited state simply that Milk spoke at the Temple, some make clear after the Jones exodus.  This is in no way a disputed fact, nor is stating such "stringing together" anything.


 * There seems to be a very odd implication that the mere mention of this speeches and the Carter letter is a "conclusion," when absolutely zero such conclusion is reached or even implied. And that they any such facts must be deleted from the article, regardless of the notoriety of the events, the high quality of the sources or the tiny size of the text mentioning it.  Again, this seems rather bizarre. Mosedschurte (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting dilemma. The posts are right there, provided by you. Do you not see that all of the input from before 1) is outdated, but 2) led to the creation of a sub-article, that 3) is linked in the article, accorded due weight, in a small section, as requested? Task completed, discussion of improvements always welcome, but ...  You then added a new, undue section with a separate heading, calling attention to a non-notable relationship.  Now, all of that is history; please, back to discussing reliably sourced additions to the text.  If you can produce a source that elevates the importance of the relationship between Milk and Jones to anything more than a run-of-the-mill political acquaintance common to any SF politician at the time, please do that, and we can all consider it.  You've not yet demonstrated why a politician responding to disadvantaged people in his realm of influence implies more than ... well, just that.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sandy, this is frankly ridiculous: "If you can produce a source that elevates the importance of the relationship between Milk and Jones to anything more than a run-of-the-mill political acquaintance common to any SF politician at the time, please do that, and we can all consider it."


 * There simply wasn't another SF politician that was still speaking at the Temple in October of 1978 and writing letters to President Carter in 1978 defending the Temple and attacking the leaders of those trying to extricate relatives. If you can find one, please, by all means, add that to the discussion.  SEVERAL other editors have stated that it is notable and mentioning it is NOT "undue weight."   I don't know how to put it more bluntly than that, but those are the facts.


 * Moreover, let's say there was: Who cares for purposes of inclusion in a Wikipedia article?  This is not a political debate, but an encyclopedic history.


 * Re: "You've not yet demonstrated why a politician responding to disadvantaged people in his realm of influence implies more than ... well, just that. "


 * Sandy, this isn't a political argument. I didn't even begin to go into whether Milk was "responding to disadvantaged people in his realm."  In fact, I've attempted to steer clear from that sort of political speculation.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If what you say is true, then it should be very easy for you to find a preponderance of reliable sources that link Milk to Jones in a notable and distinct way, beyond the common relationship between politician and constituents. I happen to believe Moni3 when she says she has scoured all sources and hasn't found one, as I know the caliber of her research.   I'm going to unwatch now because this discussion is going in circles and is keeping me from many other things I need to do; if sources are found, I'm sure someone will ping me.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: "If what you say is true, then it should be very easy for you to find a preponderance of reliable sources that link Milk to Jones in a notable and distinct way,"


 * Every single thing I stated above was true. I have provided not just sources, but good sources, for each.  I have no idea what to do at this point.


 * Frankly, the defense that "I happen to believe Moni3 when she says she has scoured all sources and hasn't found one" is not only bizarre, but completely beside the point of the actual sources that I have provided. Moni3 is simply not the final word on Wikipedia -- the site has standards for sources and notability which have been thoroughly met here --  and she has frankly stated flat our false things about me personally on the Admin board about which I'm probably going to start a new comment on that board.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Mosedschurte, the sources - that are reliable - you are using to support the content you wish to add cover material that is either already in the article or isn't notable. This has taken up plenty of time from several editors including myself detailing each and what they might support. You seem terribly interested in this subject and there are plenty of websites devoted to theories and the very content you wish to share. One of those would welcome such original research and wouldn't blink at using sources that don't meet the requirements here. Unfortunately, for the content you insist is noteworthy, it fails the policies governing reliable sources and notability. I do however thank you as without your energy this article would have limped along in the condition it was in and now, instead, it is greatly improved and all the dubious content removed. It is indeed much better. -- Banj e b oi   01:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree that Time Magazine, Reiterman, VanDeCarr, Shilts and Coleman are unreliable sources, but I've aready gone over that.
 * I've kind of given up on trying to improve the article. There is a formatting error in footnote 3 you might want to look at.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)