Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Gay bathhouse

Gay bathouse
This is a self-nomination; I researched and wrote the bulk of the article as it now stands. If I may give my own work a glowing appraisal, I think it's a damn fine article. It's well written, interesting, informative and complete. It flows nicely from start to finish, is just long enough, fits in nicely with other extant articles, and has references. There are, admittedly, no images, but I think that an image is not strictly necessary for this article, besides which there are probably very few available images of the interior of gay bathhouses -- likely to be what most people would want to see -- that are not part of individual bathhouses' promotional materials: taking photos in bathhouses is pretty much universally frowned upon. Anyway, the problem, if it is one, of the lack of images is easily solved by lifting, under fair use rules, an image or two from some of the bathhouse websites. Exploding Boy 11:36, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Oh come on. Why did it take you so long -- hours after you first posted here -- to add those bits about it being "poorly written" and "not featured article quality" if those are really your objections? Exploding Boy 19:17, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Support. I think it's a decent article; a couple of problems, though. Large sections aren't Wikified (e.g. Gay_bathhouse). Also, in once place there seemed to be too much trivial detail...e.g. Gay_bathhouse Quote: some men choose to wear slippers or similar footwear and some bathhouses require it...floors are usually carpeted; this also prevents customers from slipping.. &mdash; Matt 12:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Added more wikification. Details help to create a picture of typical bathhouses.  Exploding Boy 13:16, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Those details just seemed a little dull to me (compare "living rooms in the United Kingdom are usually carpeted..."). "Creating a picture" of a typical bathhouse is a good idea, of course, but I would recommend an actual photograph, if possible, rather than an overly careful description; "a picture's worth a thousand words", and all that. &mdash; Matt 13:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Objection has been addressed, and the relevant parts rewritten. Exploding Boy 08:30, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I know I'm going to regret this, but the article needs a picture. &rarr;Raul654 21:54, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Seriously people, every article doesn't need a picture. Right.  I'll see what I can do. Exploding Boy 22:00, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * As the one who picks articles for the main page, I like seeing that all our featured articles have pictures :) &rarr;Raul654 01:49, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Well written, interesting. Moncrief 01:14, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. The article is well written, but a poor topic if I may say so. Whatever, I find this article bizzare, but it seems enough people like it. cbraga 02:39, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added two images and made some small changes to the text to address Matt's objections. As for being a poor topic, if it's encyclopaedic enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, then why can't it be a featured candidate?  Exploding Boy 11:48, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Those pictures are completely generic -- it could be anywhere -- and the one of the locker room is particuarly poor. Better no pictures than bad ones. -- Viajero 13:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but exactly what would you prefer? Some action shots?  The photos accuretely represent the inside of a gay bathhouse in a manner that's appropriate for an encyclopaedia.  If you have a better idea for images, or have better images, please replace them.  Exploding Boy 08:30, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * LOL. While I'm inclined to agree that the locker photo is a bit generic (that could be my high school), the other one is suffecient for me. &rarr;Raul654 17:43, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Very well written (and made me smile a lot). Great NPOV too; not sure why it'd be a "poor topic". OwenBlacker 12:22, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that bizarre objections can safely be ignored. Markalexander100 01:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Bizarre objections? What about a bizarre article? "Customers who have rooms may leave their room doors open to signal that they are available for sex." (YUCK!) cbraga 01:53, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I second Cbraga; what are we going to have for a featured article next? A 'loving' article on sex with animals or what not? Anyway though I think my (our) objections will make very little difference. Mandel 14:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Did you just compare gay sex with sex with animals? Of course these two objections are entirely irrelevant and should be ignored.--Eloquence*
 * Dear Eloquence, the problem is not gay sex but the casual, indiscriminate sex portrayed + the pretty explicit language, which is offensive to some people. Clearly I'm not the only one offended.  I'm saying where is the line to be drawn? It gets broader and broader each time. Who says "sex with animals" won't get nominated next? Mandel 17:09, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * If there was an article on sex with animals, and it was encyclopaedic (probably unlikely), interesting, exceptionally well written, NPOV, and otherwise above average, I'd support it. Wikipedia wants to record human knowledge; gay bathhouses are part of the human experience. Exploding Boy 17:16, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, your point is taken. I'll leave it to the rest, only because I have been unfairly badsmear by a Wikipedian above.  I have stated my case &#8211; feel free to overrule me.  It seems as if being conservative and stating it out loud nowadays is a crime. Mandel 17:48, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I support this type of article, I'm just hesitant about putting it on the main page because of what some conservative people or uptight academics are going to think about Wikipedia when they see it. AndyCapp 17:28, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * There actually is an article zoophilia, although it is nowhere near featured status. Who's to say that it shouldn't be a featured article one day?Eloquence* 17:21, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and who's to say that it wouldn't be morally shocking to fuck in the bus? There is still a boundary between what you can do in the gay bathtub privately and what is tolerable in public. Mikkalai 19:46, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * And just when I was about to say I bet Raul wouldn't ask for a picture on that one, I open the article and there's one already there! And it's not a bad little article either. Exploding Boy 17:25, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'd feature that on the main page and then hide for about 24 hours while the flack flies. &rarr;Raul654 17:46, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a very well-written article.  It reminds me of last summer (when I read And the Band Played On, of course).  Acegikmo1 05:21, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Object, not NPOV, poorly written. Such a clearly objectionable subject needs ALOT more balance. I would have placed a dispute header, but I didn't want to spend the time discussing such a distressing topic. Also, this is not the sort of thing we want to have people greeted with when they are first coming to the wiki, is it? I'd say not, I'd have left if this was on the main page when I first pulled up the wikipedia. This is simply NOT featured article quality. Sam [Spade] 16:34, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * In what way is it non-NPOV? Why is it objectionable?  And "distressing"?  Don't you think that's going a bit overboard?  It appears to me that you (and a couple of others) are objecting to this being a featured article not because you feel it's non-neutral, poorly written or incomplete, but because you don't like the topic, which is really not fair.  I suggest you have a look at What is a featured article for a little clarification on what makes an article suitable for selection as a featured article.  Exploding Boy 16:47, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * And why do you think it is *not* distressing. DIfferent people react differently to sexuallly-explicit material. For example, I hate nude pictures, because I hate to be aroused without my intentions. I feel like being raped. I am distressed. So don't explode here please against other's opinions. Mikkalai 16:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's distressing precisely because it's not sexually explicit. And I know more than a few people who'd be "distressed" by your comparing seeing nude photos (and by extension, reading this article, since you posted the comment here) to being raped. Exploding Boy 17:01, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. Different people are distressed by different things. Hey, we are voting here after all. Why are you so biting? In any case it seems that gays have strong majority in wikipedia (at least among those who discuss the corresponding topics) and you will win the case even without your persistent bullying of others opinions. Mikkalai 18:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Our society still has taboos. While some of them may seem superficial or encroach on the freedom of speech, I would respect the (dis)tastes of the majority of population. There is plenty of well-written neutral but provocative articles of wikipedia. Do we really want to turn this tool into the moral shocker? Mikkalai 16:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Object, despite the fact I found it a well-written article. I have never considered myself interested in LGBT topics, yet I found this article to be relatively well-written, informative, and a valuable addition to Wikipedia.  However, I must object to featuring this on the main page because there are those that will be offended by it.  AndyCapp 16:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * (Speaking as the one who picks those articles) - This has come up before, when the James Bulger murder case was featured on the main page. The short of it is, wikipedia is not bowlderized or censored, and being a controversial topic is not enough to exclude an otherwise well-written article from being featured on the main page. &rarr;Raul654 17:05, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Are people not also offended by slavery, by war, by genocide? Should the articles on these matters also be precluded from featuring? Or are we making an exception only for homophobic sentiments (see Mandel's comment)?--Eloquence*
 * Dear Eloquence, why do you want to make it into a homophobic issue? I've given adequate underlining above &#8211; continue misrepresenting and badpainting me and others this way and I'll demand an apology.  I'm simply being brave by stating this article offends by some standards.  I don't judge people by their sexual orientation. Anyway go ahead and feature it; but please don't treat people with a more conservative frame of mind as ignoramus.  Mandel 17:48, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, feature it on the main page if you want. I am not offended by it, nor am I a homophobe.  I'm just warning you that if my 75 year old White Christian conservative grandmother comes to Wikipedia and sees an article on Gay Bathhouses on the main page, she's going to be turned off to Wikipedia. AndyCapp 17:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * The ignorant will always be turned off to knowledge. That's why they are ignorant in the first place. The solution is not to eliminate knowledge, but to make sure that people are exposed to it while they are still open minded.--Eloquence*
 * There is nothing ignorant (nor homphobic) about being offended my the subject of a gay bathouse. If there was a bathhouse where straight people left doors open and had sex w random people (we call it a whore house), that would also be distressing. It would need to be handled in a vastly more NPOV manner as well, as should this article. And putting it on the main page would be equally questionable. What is ignorant is to think that other editors (and even grandmothers or children who came across us as a reference?!?!?) should gladly embrace the discussion of depraved lifestyles such as these. Good lord... Sam [Spade] 17:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Prostitution was a featured article on the Main Page. You still have not raised a single concrete NPOV objection about this article.--Eloquence*
 * Prostitution was a different subject, not synonymous. And the NPOV objection is obvious to anyone who views this subject in an even manner: It fails to sufficiently address the abundant objections to these sorts of activities, objections held within the gay community and without, BTW. Who condones rampant anonymous sex??? Very few people. This is a controvercial subject. That doesn't rule it out of featured status, but means it deserves a very different treatment. The article is POV, not some single sentence or phrase within it, but generally, overall. Sam [Spade] 18:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * How would you know not having read it? The article would be non-NPOV if it promoted or encouraged people to use bathhouses, or said they were great, or said there was nothing wrong with using them.  It does not.  It discusses bathhouses dispassionately and includes information about the negatives.  Exploding Boy 18:25, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you still think I havn't read the article? Sam [Spade] 19:15, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd just to add that (ironically) no one really complained about the prostitution article on the main page. &rarr;Raul654 17:54, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, when I saw that article on the main page I was pretty surprised. AndyCapp 17:59, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I actually voted against that article at one point if I recall correctly. There were parts I didn't think were all that well written.Exploding Boy 18:04, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, a whore house is a completely different kettle of fish, as you'd know if you'd read the article. You've still not explained your claim that the article's not neutral, either (though how you'd know, not having read it, I don't know).  It's not up to Wikipedia (or you) to judge whose lifestyle is depraved.  And the argument about kids reading the site has been dealt with before.  Carry on.  Exploding Boy 17:33, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I read the article as far as I was able, and plenty far enough to see it fails at NPOV. The casual dismissal of complaints is not becomming for someone who assumes their article so fine in quality as to be an example for all others. Sam [Spade] 18:09, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * You haven't really made a complaint. It's been asked what part of it is NPOV. You simply say "all of it." That is plainly not true. You need to make specific criticisms. Snowspinner 19:18, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ahem. I'd just like to apologize for the "kettle of fish" thing.  A bit of an unfortunate choice of words.  And, wow.  I never thought this would arouse (woops, I did it again) so much controversy.  Exploding Boy 17:56, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Well written and NPOV. Guanaco
 * Support. The article describes in a detached manner what goes on, and clearly addresses the risks and dangers. Depravity is a wholly subjective judgment, and should be left to the reader to discern, much like "evil." Those inclined to think that the gay lifestyle is depraved will find this article a description of depravity. Those not so inclined will not. This article is a model of NPOV. Snowspinner 17:33, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * The subject of extreme promiscuity is synonymous with the subject of homosexuality? I thought some homosexuals desired monogamy so strongly that they desired changes in marraige laws? Model of NPOV??? Please...Sam [Spade] 18:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Sam, please stop before you start becoming seriously offensive. It's well known you have a problem with homosexuality and gay-related topics, and you're clearly unable to approach them neutrally.  If you have not read the article in its entirety then you shouldn't be commenting here.  I've not dismissed your complaints casually, as you claim, I've simply been unable to respond to them because they're not specific (that is, all you've managed to say is essentially "it's not NPOV").  Exploding Boy 18:14, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Please take a moment to think about who has consistantly been suggested to have edited POV into articles regarding homosexuality. It is extremely disingenuous for you to be questioning my neutrality here. Sam [Spade] 19:19, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe it was you who said I was not neutral about gay-related topics. While many others have disagreed, many more have said that you are biased. In the meantime you've added an NPOV dispute to this article page but have still not explained it. Exploding Boy 19:22, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Whatever lifestyle is in question, this is not an article about promiscuous sex itself - it's about a particular institution. Just like Punctuated equilibrium does not discuss creationism, this doesn't need to either. It should be detached and descriptive, which it is. Snowspinner 18:59, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey fellas, let's not get too uptight about things and start calling each other's names. It seriously is childish.  Anyway I think Sam is entitled to his own viewpoint - he's explained it well enough, IMV.  He doesn't seem dogmatic in any case.  If you don't agree, just outvote him.  There's no need for coercive-sounding words.  Be more gracious in taking criticism. Mandel 20:00, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support but I find it too much USA centered. This is very decent when compared to the rest of the internet so why the big deal? Andries 20:28, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. The objections to this are not to any problem with the article itself, but rather, to an objection to the topic. Wikipedia is not about censorship, and we already have the James Bulger and Prostitution precedents. Ambivalenthysteria 03:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I would never have thought that this subject could be written so well in NPOV, but the proof's in the pudding. --TreyHarris 08:39, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bottom line: As long as there's an ongoing NPOV dispute about this article, it should not be featured. When and if this dispute is resolved, the objections that the topic itself is "offensive" can safely be ignored as they are not relevant in the context of our featured article guidelines (in the context of an article itself, offensiveness does matter to some extent, of course, which is why there are no photos of sex acts in the article - but an article which is generally agreed to be safe for inclusion in Wikipedia is also a valid FAC).

Otherwise we might as well stop featuring any articles about religion because they may be offensive to atheists. In analogy to this article, if an article about religion has unresolved NPOV issues, then of course it should not be featured. If it does, however, not have these issues, and there are no objections to the actual content, then "offensiveness" alone is irrelevant.

I believe the gay bathhouse article should talk a bit more about the moral issues because in its present state it is a bit difficult to understand why there needs to be a "Legal issues" section in the first place (i.e. why gay bathhouses are controversial). Much of this, however, can be resolved by adding a prominent link to homosexuality and morality.--Eloquence*


 * You state: "an article which is generally agreed to be safe for inclusion in Wikipedia is also a valid FAC". Well, by watching the discussion I can hardly see the connection there. Moreover, you can't say that an article staying buried within a hundred thousand other articles and putting it in a prominent place are the same thing. I myself don't really care one way or the other, just wanted to point out this non-sequitur in your reasoning. One more thing, I don't think anyone is really offended by the article per se, only that it depicts a practice not accepted by any society (promiscuous sex with total strangers) and that for that reason it's best left where it is. cbraga 17:18, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that featuring an article is a mechanism for identifying encyclopedia articles of a high standard; standards of writing, illustration, and NPOV, that is, independent of the morality or "luridness" of the subject matter. Why should the ethical judgement of society be relevant? Would an article about, say, genocide also be unsuitable, because it's a practice considered unacceptable by society? &mdash; Matt 18:02, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Wrong analogy. Genocide is about history and crimes of war. Promiscuous sex with total strangers falls is about objectionable (objectionable meaning self-destructive through risk of death by AIDS) things people do. Other examples would be drug use and needle swapping. It's my belief that articles about these topics, well-written as they might be, would be best not brought to attention. cbraga 20:12, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. We're an encyclopedia, not a morals clearing house. If it's a well-written, accurate article on a subject that people would find interesting, then it's a fair candidate for teh frontpage. Snowspinner 20:22, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * a subject that people would find interesting -- I think that's the weakpoint in your argument. How many people (that do not already know the subject well) would find the article insteresting instead of bizzare? Anyway, about the moral issues, you have a point but the fact of the matter is that many people have already objected to the article on moral grounds and this can't be ignored. I don't care much if the article is featured, what's bothering me is that some people are trying to push it past those moral objections and ignoring them because, of course, they can't argue about that. Is it morally right to shit on the sidewalk? Probably, but the police will still come after you. Same thing about featuring this article: if enough people find something objectionable then it probably shouldn't be done no matter how much you or anyone else think it's O.K. cbraga 20:36, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

The fundamental issue, IMO, is not so much whether this article is well-written, but whether we want to use it to represent ourselves to the world at large. The article is generally well-written and informative, and covers its subject well. For those who are interested, it's a good read. However, it is somewhat special-interest. The article goes into fairly minute details of a culture many people are completely unfamiliar with, and that many will find objectionable. I think that too many people simply would not want to read this article. I think it could be listed as a featured article, but I think it would be a bad idea to put it on the main page.

Also, the article needs more discussion of why such establishments are controversial. After all, some segments of the gay community have tried hard to distance themselves from stereotypes involving rampant anonymous sex. Homophobia and public health issues are not the source of all objections to such establishments. Isomorphic 19:16, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that Isomorphic makes a good point when he writes that articles that deal with a very special interest subject, no matter how well written they are, should not be featured. I remember a featured article candidate about a certain model of a car which I think is too specialized to be featured. But this article is okay, I think. Andries 20:53, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Absolutely 100% disagree. You're saying that we should not only exclude articles of objectionable morality (something I disagree with but can respect), but that anything of too specialized an interest should be excluded too. I completely, totally, 100% diagree. The idea of the featured article on the main page is to bring attention to particular articles we think are good, regardless of how specialized the interest might be. Respectfully, your position is ludicrous and I think most of the people here would disagree. &rarr;Raul654 21:03, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * well, may be I am wrong, but I thought one of the reasons of the featured articles was to interest and to attract people. This won't work if the subject is uninteresting, unimportant and very specialized. I support gay bathhouse by the way.Andries 21:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it could be listed as a featured article, but I think it would be a bad idea to put it on the main page. -- I would find that to be a good compromise. cbraga 20:12, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I support this proposition to feature it without putting it on the main page. AndyCapp 20:46, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Some of this discussion is about whether this article should go on the front page, and what kind of impression it might give of Wikipedia. However, neither What is a featured article, Featured articles nor this page mention this as consideration for a featured article. Perhaps we could either (A) clearly state that a featured article is one that is suitable for the front page or (B) have a separate (hopefully lightweight) process for deciding which featured pages should go on the front page. I'd lean towards B ... I think it would be a shame if a quality article can't be recognised as such because some consider it (morally etc.) inappropriate for the front page. &mdash; Matt 21:07, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Support (still). I'm not so enamored by that compromise, tbh. Many of the objections seem to be Puritan obejctions to the subject matter, rather than to do with the article itself. There's very little discussion about the molarity of Prostitution in that article. I find cbraga's comments particularly offensive (they evidently didn't notice the mention that saunas and bathhouses tend to encourage safer sex, for example. I really don't think there are any NPOV issues with the article; it's well-written, balanced and fair and I don't think we should avoid featuring articles just because some people might find them offensive. I find it hard to believe that most of these objections would be made if the article wasn't about something that "dirty fags" do. OwenBlacker 20:34, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I offended anyone. The fact is that the very article portrays patrons of gay bathouses as 'dirty fags', as demonstrated by this sentence: Customers who have rooms may leave their room doors open to signal that they are available for sex. Please explain to me how this leads to safer sex. I'd really like to know, and perhaps the explanation should be included in the article as well. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you, but I can't say I enjoyed reading the article either. cbraga 20:41, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I don't necessarily expect people to enjoy reading articles about subjects that can evoke strong motion, such as sexuality. FYI, saunas tend to make condoms and lubricants easily available (usually with wall-mounted distributors, in London). People can pick them up easily and gratis. If someone goes into a room and makes it apparent that they want sex, it's quite usual for them to have brought condoms and lube into the room with them first. There's nothing about saunas and bathhouses that intrinsically prevents safer sex from occurring there; it's no more difficult to be safe than not to be, in such premises. OwenBlacker 20:53, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * One more point, irrelevant to the quality of the article. Since wikipedia doesn't provide parental control tools, I would think that after featuring a couple of "XXX-rated" articles on the front page, the whole wikipedia will be in danger of being routinely blocked by XXX-control tools. By the way, how about nominating the Penis article? Pretty well-written IMO. (By the other way, vagina sucks. Male (or male gay) chauvinism?) Mikkalai 00:19, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Penis is brilliant. Furthermore it has a photo which would definitely make an impact. Your point is taken. Mandel 11:19, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Living as I do in basically the opposite time zone, I'd like to address the objections that have appeared since I've been away.

A featured article (please read what makes a featured article candidate) is one that is well written, neutral, complete, and has references. It is not one that is on a topic that will not offend any users. It is not one that people will not find morally objectionable. If you check the list of past featured articles you'll discover that the only sexology topic that has been featured has been the article on prostitution. There's a good reason for this, namely that many of the sexology articles suffer from a general lack of good writing.

Wikipedia aims to gather human knowledge. There was no article on gay bathhouses, a global institution that has been very important to gay people for many, many years, so I wrote one. When I came accross it a few days ago I thought it was a good candidate for a featured article because it's a little-known (outside the gay community) topic, the article's interesting, complete and well-written. It was never my expectation or desire to stir up a bunch of controversy, though it's probably a good thing if it leads to some sort of general understanding about what articles are eligible for featuring on the front page.

In terms of the objection that the article does not discuss the moral issue, frankly I found it unnecessary. The article does not say that bathhouses are a good place and that everyone should visit one. There are few anti-bathhouse activists within the gay community itself (and there is a section on them). Bathhouses in many cities, in fact, in most of the places where they exist legally, are good community citizens that are welcomed or at very least tolerated by the local business community. Legal challenges have, as mentioned in the article, generally found in favour of bathhouse owners. In other, basic words, businesses that provide a safe place for customers to have sex with each other but do not encourage prostitution are legal. I'd also point out that there are non-gay bathhouses (though they are rare), swinger clubs (much more common) and sex clubs (very common). Places like this are not just a "gay thing," but gay bathhouses such as the article discusses -- as opposed to swinger clubs and sex clubs -- are largely peculiar to gay culture. It should be easy to understand that legal and moral objections stem from homophobia and/or moral issues with sex and sexuality. That has been more than amply demonstrated even in this small forum.

cbraga says that the article "depicts a practice not accepted by any society (promiscuous sex with total strangers) and that for that reason it's best left where it is." This is quite untrue. Prostitution basically amounts to "promiscuous sex with total strangers," yet the prostitution article was featured on our front page, and prostitution has been a feature of nearly all societies and is accepted in many cultures. Furthermore, as the article clearly states (but not that it should make a difference), not all bathhouse sex is promiscuous or with total strangers. As for the user's definition of "objectionable" ("self-destructive through risk of death by AIDS") I'm afraid that one person alone cannot redefine words in the English language. What "objectionable" in fact means is "offensive." By the way, we have articles on drug use too (another example you mention). Should they be banned from featuring on principle too? Why should such topics not, as you say, "be brought to attention"?

As for arguments that the article goes into "minute detail," in fact, it doesn't. Much detail was purposely left out in order to make it encyclopaedic and not lecherous. No one's forcing anyone to read the article, even if it does become a feature. Wikipedia is not about censorship or morals. It's not about deciding what is and is not appropriate for people to read.

Listing the article as a featured article, but not putting it on the main page would not be a "good compromise." An article that is not featured on the front page is not a featured article.

Exploding Boy 03:04, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% w that conclusion, and state once more that this is simply not featured article material, by any measurement. Sam [Spade] 03:10, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I too agree with EB's conclusions. Wikipedia is not bowlderized, and Prostition and James Bulger murder case have already been featured, so it wouldn't be without precedent. &rarr;Raul654 03:11, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sam, if you continue to refuse to come to the appropriate talk page and enumerate your issues with this article clearly, I'm going to list you for comment. Exploding Boy 03:18, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with everything Exploding Boy has written thusfar; and I do believe the article to be featured-worthy – by any measurement. I don't understand Sam Spade's apparent issues with just about every gay-related topic. OwenBlacker 03:24, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral; mildly leaning towards support. Some phrasings are vague, and the article in general seems dated - the gay bathhouse phenomenon has (to the best of my limited knowledge) fallen out of vogue, though this isn't really reflected by much of the article. -Sean Curtin 08:47, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, it's pretty much still going strong. Exploding Boy 14:10, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yup, definitely still popular here in Britain, at least. OwenBlacker 14:19, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

A Conclusion?
Article is NPOV disputed, and listed on requests for comment and  peer review. Now is not the time to feature this article. Sam [Spade] 01:40, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that was your intention all along wasn't it? Meanwhile, you continue to be the only user who disputes the neutrality of the article. When are you going to remove your ridiculous objection and get on with editing articles you know something about? Exploding Boy 06:44, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * review my edit history. Sam [Spade] 06:48, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What for?

I'm still inclined to agree with Exploding Boy on this one. I've yet to see any objections that don't seem to stem from puritan objections to the subject matter, rather than objections to the article itself or its NPOV-ness. OwenBlacker 14:19, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * he attempted an ad hominem/Red herring (fallacy) suggesting I was overly pre-occupied w this page specifically, or perhaps an anti-homosexual agenda generally. I suggested that anyone interested in the basis of such a claim might like to review my edit history. If you fail to understand the specifics on why the article is unnaceptable for featured status, I suggest you try talk:Gay bathhouse. Sam [Spade] 15:01, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why bother since still you are the only one disputing the article's neutrality. It's also been listed for a week on RFC and Peer Review with no comments. Your edit history only shows that you've run into similar problems with other articles. Exploding Boy 15:17, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * (OwenBlacker moved comments by Pollinator to "New objection" below)


 * try scrolling up and reviewing other objections. I am aware of your attempts to marginalize all objections and push this article thru w the assistance of raul. If you do it will be a sad precedent indeed. Sam [Spade] 16:02, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly appreciate that remark. It doesn't help your case one iota, and in the future you might want to consider the long-term reprecussions before insulting the people who are trying to help you. &rarr;Raul654 16:25, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * I will clarify in case of confusion: I do not suspect conspiracy nor bad faith on the part of Raul or EB. Sam [Spade] 17:32, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The other objections were not on the basis of neutrality. Honestly I don't even care so much about the article being featured, though I believe it deserves to be. I mostly object to your attempt to characterize it as non-neutral in order to block it from becoming featured. Check the article's talk page: you are the only user who objects to its neutrality, and your objections are groundless. Exploding Boy 16:07, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Sam [Spade] 16:12, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, and a stitch in time saves nine. Good grief. You make absolutely no sense. Exploding Boy 16:23, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Why is this already archived? Aren't FAC debates supposed to last a month? This was nominated less than two weeks ago. -Sean Curtin 03:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Never mind, Feature article candidates and Wikipedia maintenance seem to disagree on the length of time required. -Sean Curtin 03:21, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And who archived it? It clearly says that debates continue for a month. I'd like it moved back. Exploding Boy 04:09, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Likewise; this should be moved back (imho). My watchlist suggests it was moved by Sam Spade, which doesn't pticly surprise me. A request for arbitration has been made and I feel this discussion touches on that quite heavily. &mdash; OwenBlacker 11:57, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

New objection
(Discussion moved to Talk:Gay bathhouse) OwenBlacker 10:09, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Stop posting here please
This is an archived debate. Discussion should be on the article talk page dont you think?