Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-18 Harvey Milk

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Harvey Milk
Status	closed
Request date	03:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Moni3 (talk · contribs) Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) Benjiboi (talk · contribs)
Mediator(s)	Xavexgoem (talk)
Comment	compromise reached.

[[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal closed cases|Harvey Milk]][[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal maintenance|Harvey Milk]]

• Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

Request details

Statement from Moni3

This is a content dispute about the due weight of information in Milk's biography regarding his involvement in the Peoples Temple and with its leader, Jim Jones. It is my assertion that the sources about Milk's life reflect the most important and significant events that shaped the gay movement in San Francisco, as well as his legacy. Mosedschurte has been asserting that any sourced information about Milk's involvement with Jones belongs in the article.

Statement from Mosedschurte

I think the above was written by Moni3, and I agree that the dispute is over WP:Undue weight over a prior section (and then it was reduced to a paragraph) in the article. It has since been deleted in its entirety. I do not agree that "Mosedschurte has been asserting that any sourced information about Milk's involvement with Jones belongs in the article." That is not, nor has it ever been, my position. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement from Benjiboi

I see this as an ongoing content dispute perpetuated by one {{SPA}} to re-insert scandalizing, disputed, POV and questionably sourced content over a 3-4 month period. The only reason we finally got the disputed content off the article was that it was fully rewritten to a near-featured article level by Moni3. Prior to that I had vetted and added RS and NPOV content but the same editor insisted on re-adding content that was anchored by sources that are generally unacceptable and didn't support that weight of the content continually re-added. In the final version before the rewrite seen here you can see six NPOV and RS sentences in two areas concerning Jim Jones/Peoples Temple. Right below the second set you can see the separate section added in which duplicated and then expanded in POV manner what was already in the article. Every attempt to reason with this user was generally met with circular and verbose arguing despite policies being linked thus filling up the talkpage and repelling other editors' participation. The RfC that I hoped would resolve this was corrupted by more SPA's and only admin board postings have gotten results bringing us to this point. Since the beginning of this the content has marginally improved yet still utilizes a primary source hosted on a dubious website and mischaracterizes the other sources sythesizing several of them to imply scandal and associations that even the sources cited don't support. -- Banjeboi 12:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are the involved parties?

• Moni3 (talk · contribs)
• Mosedschurte (talk · contribs)
• Benjiboi (talk · contribs)

What's going on?

Statement by Mosedschurte

Brief History Before Sept. 15: The article contained a section on Milk's support of the Peoples Temple titled "The Peoples Temple" (see this version). After further discussions from a wide variety of editors, including discussion after a Request for Comment was made, that section was trimmed to the following one paragraph section titled "Peoples Temple investigation." (see this version) As well, Wikidemo created a new article Political alliances of Peoples Temple, addressing more comprehensively the political alliances and interaction of the Peoples Temple, and a "main" link was included at the top of the "Peoples Temple investigation" section.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Moni3 Rewrite: On the night of September 15, Moni3 then conducted an, objectively speaking, excellent re-write of the Milk article(see this version). She did this to prepare the article for FA or GA status. In doing so, she deleted the prior paragraph on Milk's support of the Peoples Temple, but did add part of a sentence describing the separate facts of the Temple's support of Milk pamphletting and volunteering on his campaign.

Adding Back Deleted Material: I then added back some of that material describing Milk's support of the Peoples Temple, and it was eventually left as a paragraph in the "Supervisor" section. This was deleted, and much argument has ensued over the material. While several editors weighed in last month on "Undue Weight" concerns, only four editors have over the last day. The other three editors (I'm the fourth) have stated that they are against including this text in the article. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Current State: All information regarding Milk's support of the Temple has been deleted. A short section added by Moni3 discussing the Temple's support of Milk (pamphletting, campaign volunteers) remains along with two unfavorable quotes by Milk about the Peoples Temple and Jones.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What I've Done Wrong: The Template said to include this, so I am. I unknowingly included as a source an apparently unreliable author (Michael Bellefontaine). I since deleted his refs from all versions of the article I have proposed. In addition, I improperly formatted some Talk comments. To be honest, I engaged in sniping that I should not have as well, though in fairness to me the direction overall of such sniping has been decidedly from the other side. But I do take the blame for this in part because I have, objectively speaking, been somewhat combative about attacks on me and the remaining sources.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement from Moni3

On May 10, 2008 Mosedschurte inserted this section into Harvey Milk's article. Benjiboi considered it undue weight and asked for a Request for Comment, and eventually an ANI thread.

As part of the resolution to that comment, the section was trimmed, a new article was created titled Political alliances of Peoples Temple, and I began rewriting Milk's article with the intention that it would be featured.

I posted the expanded version with full citations on September 13, 2008. Mosedschurte added material that is questionable in its integrity is unconnected to the rest of the article. It violates WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. It has been removed by me, SandyGeorgia, and Benjiboi, only to return in various incarnations. Moseschurte is not familiar with the sources I've used to write the article. He has built the foundation of his argument on 4 - 6 sources that are neither comprehensive about Milk's life, or authoritative about the relationship between Jim Jones and Harvey Milk. Mosedschurte works only on articles about Jones. According to Mosedschurte, because Jones was notable, it belongs in the article. For an article going to FAC, this will be certain failure. These unrelated facts also suggest relationships that did not exist, and can be roundly denied by my sources. I am happy to give as much detail as necessary.

We've filled up an astounding length of talk pages on the article talk page, WP:Fringe, and now ANI and this has yet to be resolved. -- Moni3

Statement from Benjiboi

I generally agree with everything in Moni3's statement and dispute the characterizing of the situation and levels of support in Mosedschurte's statement. -- Banjeboi 12:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

Statement from Moni3

I would like the circular arguments to stop. I would like to take Milk's article to GA or FA, which - that ship has sailed, sadly, as long as this mediation is open. I had thought it possible to get it featured to appear on the main page by late November, in time for the Gus van Sant film to be released. Now, I'd be happy simply for it to be accurate. I would like editors who are interested in improving the article to become familiar with all of its sources, and not ones that attempt to prove a point. Indeed, I would like all of the editors who are interested in improving its quality to be familiar with simple Wikipedia policy about biographies.

Statement from Mosedschurte

I believe that moni3 wrote the above text. I would like:
(1) For the arguments to stop as well.
(2) For the article to go to GA and FA. Moni3 has done a truly outstanding job with her rewrite in my opinion.

(3) To add back at the bottom of the "Supervisor" section of the article the following well-sourced and NPOV phrased two sentences of text:

---

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

---

Note that this would be only a 3 line addition to an already 77,000 byte article on Milk. Just for context, note as well regarding the group's notoriety and activities that the Peoples Temple perpetrated the largest non-natural disaster loss of American civilian life in U.S. history before 9-11 at Jonestown. This included the only murder of a U.S. Congressman in the line of duty in U.S. history. And, of course, no one is stating, or in any way implying, that Milk was involved in either of those activities (he most certainly was not).

Also note that the article Political alliances of Peoples Temple, which is linked in a footnote, contains much more information on the topic. Also note that the text in the footnote comes largely from an addition by Moni3 earlier.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement from Benjiboi

I would like Mosedschurte to take their enthusiasm for all things Jim Jones/Peoples Temple off Wikipedia until we are guaranteed every source they cite actually states what is being supported and also doesn't violate NPOV/Undue and RS policies. As long as it's mentioned, Political alliances of Peoples Temple is a NPOV and OR nightmare - it should be merged into the main Peoples Temple article. The same content that seems terribly POV and undue has been inserted on other articles so they should likely all be looked at. I imagine this mediation only covers the Milk article but all the problematic content sits comfortably with even more troubling content on Political alliances of Peoples Temple.

Concerning the Milk article, I trust Moni3's research, which now covers all the sources that Mosedschurte was using, and have yet to be convinced that anything more than what is presently in the article concerning Jones/Peoples Temple is needed. I'm open to new sources that definitely prove some significance beyond what we have but have seen no evidence of such. -- Banjeboi 12:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediator notes

Alrighty, I'm thinking I'm gonna open this up. I'd prefer to keep discussion on this mediation page. Not typically my style (I prefer to stay on article talk), but ANI, RFC, etc, etc, tends to dilute things and makes for more frustration than necessary. So keeping discussion here makes for a cleaner slate.

Couple of ground rules. Y'all know what they are, but they tend to get lost in the muck:

• Assume good faith - we all have different ideas on what improves the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean all ideas are super amazing, it just means we're all trying to help.
• No personal attacks - content, not contributors. No one is trying to intentionally misrepresent another editor's ideas. With that said, try not to misrepresent another editor's ideas :-p In essence: don't focus on what the editor is doing wrong, focus on what the content is doing wrong
• WP:WOTTA - please please please try to avoid saying "it violates [[WP:Policy]]"; be more specific. In my experience, the terseness of this approach can come across as patronizing. We know what undue and synth (et alia) is; if you can say how something is undue or synthesis without linking to a policy page, excellent.
• AGF - bears repeating ;-)

* You're all FA folks: does et al means "and everything else", or does it refer only to people? I've never found a good answer to this...
**Beg pardon, but one of us is an FA folk. "et al" means "and others". --Moni3 (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
**Agreed. Moni3 is the only FA folk here, I'm more the GA variety and Mosedschurte is an {{SPA}}. et al covers people, et alia covers inanimate, genderless objects. -- Banjeboi 12:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Points of contention and agreement

• Is Milk's relationship to the Peoples Temple relevant? To what extent?
• Is the contentious material original research? To what extent, and how does the content reflect that?

I think that covers neutrality and original research (verifiability is entangled in both, and I'd rather avoid a Sourcing Discussion From Hell)

Anyway, assuming everyone is in agreement to the above guidelines and points of contention (suggest more, please!), sign here so I know we're all on the same page:

• Xavexgoem (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Mosedschurte (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• --Moni3 (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• -- Banjeboi 12:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes

• link to original request (added for readability) Xavexgoem (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Mediator Point#1: Is Milk's relationship to the Peoples Temple relevant? To what extent?

(I hope it's proper to create subtopics for the two points -- if not, obviously edit as appropriate)

Mosedschurte View: I would characterize Milk's visits and support of the Temple overall as not taking up anything close to significant portions of Milk's life. However, Milk's support of the Temple is certainly, in my view, notable enough to receive mention in a Milk article. A 1-2 sentence mention, as others have stated in the past, and as the proposed text add back would state. Note that this is separate from the Temple's earlier support of Milk (though pamphletting and volunteer work), though they could be topically merged.

A much more thorough examination of Milk's interactions with the Temple can be found here. Note that I do not suggest that that material be repeated in the Milk article, including Milk's long favorable quotes about Jones and the Temple.

I would suggest that helping the notable nature of that support is the notoriety of the group. The Peoples Temple perpetrated the largest non-natural disaster loss of American civilian life in U.S. history before 9-11 at Jonestown. It was 9-11 before 9-11, especially in the Bay Area. Those actions included the only murder of a U.S. Congressman in the line of duty in U.S. history. Milk's (i) speaking at the Temple, especially after Jones had fled to Guyana following criminal allegations, and (ii) defending the Temple to the President, including opposing the leader pressing for investigation, are notable.

It would be as if a New York City Councilman spoke and attended functions at a local religious or political group including Mohhamed Atta and the 9-11 bombers (obviously without knowledge of any criminal intent) and then wrote the President praising them and opposing an investigation of them prior to the 9-11 bombings. The Councilman clearly would have no knowledge that any crime would be committed, but that support and involvement would be notable. In fact, even interaction with far less notable groups than the Peoples Temple, such as Manson's Family, can be notable in rather large sections, such as in Dennis Wilson's article, though Wilson broke off contact before the group was under any investigtion for criminal wrongdoing.Mosedschurte (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Moni3: I don't know, honestly, what more to state after Mosedschurte's first sentence. It's not significant in Milk's life. No other criteria is necessary, other than it being verifiable and reliable, for material to be included in a biography article.

It would be a fallacy to engage in the hypotheticals presented above. I will stick to the facts based on the sources used to write the article.

By promoting a non-notable event in an article, which ideally should summarize the best sources of the subject's life, the material gains prominence - no matter how small or large the detail - with the rest of the material in the article, particularly in that section. In time frame in question, 1977 - 1978, Milk was heavily involved in galvanizing the gay community in San Francisco against an Anita Bryant-inspired attack on civil rights, getting elected as the first openly gay man to political office in the U.S., and passing legislation for which he got national press coverage for. His assassination earned a volume of news coverage both national and international.

To include an insignificant relationship with Jones, when it ties into nothing else in the article, has no bearing on Milk's role in Jonestown, nor Jones' role in Milk's political legacy, undue weight is placed on a non-notable event. No available sources make a larger connection between Jones and Milk: there are no historians or journalists who have documented a reason to explore Jones' and Milk's sporadic communications. It was a typical San Francisco political relationship marked by public back slapping and private disdain. At best, the inclusion in the article is confusing and distracting; it begs the self-evident question of why the material is in the article in the first place. It is not evidence of Wikipedia's finest work, and were I to review this article for FA status, I would demand its removal. At worst, it suggests by its mere placement next to momentous occasions in Milk's life, that a more significant relationship existed. This is patently false, and verified in sources I used.

What is notable in the life of Jim Jones, or even an interesting coincidence, is not the standard for inclusion for Harvey Milk. The material certainly belongs in the Political alliances of Peoples Temple, even Peoples Temple, and a passing mention in Jim Jones. It does not belong in the article about Harvey Milk.

• Reply: Re: "I don't know, honestly, what more to state after Mosedschurte's first sentence. It's not significant in Milk's life."

That's not what I said. I said it didn't take up a "significant portion" of his life. Which it clearly did not. But that's clearly not the standard for notability for a Wikipedia article.

Re: "No available sources make a larger connection between Jones and Milk"

No "larger connection" is in the proposed text that was deleted to be added back. Rather, it is exactly what is stated -- attendance and speaking at the Temple and defending Jones to President Carter. That is the only thing in those two sentences.

Re: "It was a typical San Francisco political relationship marked by public back slapping and private disdain"

I wouldn't go as far as to conclude that -- in fact, Milk was the only politician I've seen in any source to speak at the Temple as late as October of 1978 (one month before Jonestown) and the only one I've seen in any source to write President Carter defending Jones and attacking Stoen. More importantly, however, I don't think that a comparison to other officials in this instance is important for Wikipedia notability purposes. Mosedschurte (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Milk's assassination was also not a significant portion of his life, although it got covered by press and copious reliable sources. On the other hand, his life from 1930 to 1972 was fairly unremarkable, but had little bearing on the last portion of his life, and he is not widely remembered for anything he did before he became a politician. My points above stand. Not notable. --Moni3 (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course Milk's support for the PT is not as notable in his life as his assassination. No one has argued anything remotely like that. Which is why only two sentences are suggested to be added back into the article (that were deleted on your re-write). Moreover, another issue in terms of media coverage, media coverage of the Temple's political connections began in the week after the tragedy and continued for months, actually years, well after Milk died, so far less media was focused upon it. In fact, while this is not worth covering in the article but it notable as a talk aside, the Milk Carter letter wasn't produced until the 1990s, when it was produced in response to an FBI FOIA request, so none of the earlier books, including Shilts, could have covered it. That's why you don't see it mentioned until books in the 1990s. Mosedschurte (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi view: No one disputes he got support from them , as did his opponent before him - in the same race. But no meaningful connections to suggest a deep alliance. we have a reliable source that Milk found them creepy and dangerous - guarding a church with armed guards. But politicians also are slow to bite the hand that feeds them and Jones supported Milk with volunteer power in an election. Milk wrote thank you notes and a letter of support - this seems quite in keeping with his job. No reliable source has shown anything exceptional. Not when I was searching for it and not now when Moni3 has - bless 'em - poured through endless amounts of material to suss out what sources were available and what they stated.

To be more clear if we include Mosedschurte's proposed changes it gives weight to this issue that just wasn't there - why not include other tangentially related groups or controversial subjects? We all get that the mass suicide at Jonestown was a big deal - and guess what? the Jonestown article clearly states it - but this article is about Milk and his life. It just wasn't a big deal - if it were we should cover it appropriately. -- Banjeboi 14:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reply: I actually don't disagree with much of what you stated, but as described above, I think it is notable enough for two small sentences. In fact, I think that's pretty much a slam dunk for just two sentences on the topic, but I understand that we diverge on that view.

As for what the sources state, there is simply no question: they state virtually exactly the text that precedes them. We have to disagree there. A more thorough explanation is contained below. Mosedschurte (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "To be more clear if we include Mosedschurte's proposed changes it gives weight to this issue that just wasn't there - why not include other tangentially related groups or controversial subjects?"

Simply because Milk didn't support any other groups as notorious as the Peoples Temple. In fact, there arguably weren't any in the United States until Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 bombers arrived 14 years later.

And, to be clear, no one is saying it should be a major portion of the article. Just 2 sentences. This is, in fact, far smaller than the prior entire section on Milk and the Peoples Temple in the article about which there was a prior Rfc.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have complete confidence that Moni3 who is quite experienced in matters of controversial subjects and writing some of Wikipedias finest content can properly digest and work and relevant cont into the article. Mosedschurte seems to think that WP:Undue concerns are met if there is only two sentences - that's not how we do it. This isn't a big tent article where there is room for every idea some editor has. Unlike most articles Mosedschurte has been editing, this article is being written to a much higher standard. Even if it wasn't we should avoid adding POV and sythesized content whether it be two sentences or twenty. -- Banjeboi 02:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediator Point#2: Is the contentious material original research? To what extent, and how does the content reflect that?

Mosedschurte View: Here, I think the answer is a most definite "no." This is all secondary sourced material. No conclusions are drawn from it. In fact, the stated text directly matches that stated in the secondary sources. The two suggested sentences to be added back to the article state:
Sentence#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."
SOURCES:
(1) VanDeCarr: "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."
(2) Time magazine:"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."
(3) Reiterman: Merely that Milk attended the July 31st Temple rally, which it states.

Sentence#2: "Although Milk defended Temple leader Jim Jones in a letter to President Jimmy Carter in 1978, he and his aides distrusted Jones."
SOURCES:
(1) Coleman: "In a letter to President Jimmy Carter, Supervisor Harvey Milk defended Jones as a friend to minority communities."
(2) Shilts: Cites the "Well fuck him" quote along with the "creepy and dangerous" quote
ACTUAL COPY OF THE LETTER I DELETED: I deleted a link to the actual copy of the February 19, 1978 Milk letter to Carter, even though it was cited by secondary source Coleman, in which Milk states: "Rev. Jones is widely known in the minority communities and elsewhere as a man of the highest character" and "[i]t is outrageous that Timothy Stoen [leader of Concerned Relatives] could even think of flaunting this situation in front of Congressman with apparent bold-faced lies."Mosedschurte (talk)

Moni3: I actually wrote the sentences in question here, trying to come to an agreeable solution that 1) somehow tie the material into the rest of the article, and 2) put it in proper perspective. They were, in my edit, in a footnote, where they belonged if included at all. Mosedschurte, however, reverted the edits to appear in full text. That is unacceptable. I will agree to placing these issues again in a footnote. They do not belong in full text alongside truly notable events in Milk's life. --Moni3 (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reply: Well, full disclosure here, I actually wrote the original sentence on the Carter letter, which was in this version. You then deleted it and put the above sentence in a footnote. I then took the sentence you wrote, in the hopes of a compromise, and put it in the paragraph in the "Supervisor" section. Which you then deleted.

In any event, addressing the Mediator's #2 point, it is not original research, as demonstrated.Mosedschurte (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

---

To Mosedschurte: What is wrong with the compromise here? What would be better? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

3 issues with that:

(1) It was in the "Briggs Initiative" section (the Peoples Temple had nothing to do with the Briggs Initiative) rather than the "Supervisor" section;

(2) If you look closely, the only Milk support of Jones sentence (the Carter letter sentence), is jammed in a footnote, not the text (look at the edit, it is in the ref note section); and

(3) It deleted the entire first sentence stating: "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." That's not there.

Note that I actually took the second sentence to use in the text to add back. But it was then deleted. In terms of what would be better, I used some of that text in the two proposed well-sourced add back sentences I proposed:

---

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

---

Mosedschurte (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So it's all or nothing? :-/ Xavexgoem (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, definitely not. That compromise was just in the wrong section (Briggs Initiative), used only 1 of 2 sentences, and it even jammed that in a footnote. The rest of the text was just flat out deleted from the old article.

I'm definitely open to compromise. If you look back to a month ago, several other editors supported a much larger Peoples Temple section in the Milk article that used to be there. The tiny text I want to add back (it's all been deleted now) is already a major compromise, but I'm fully willing to compromise further.

I'm also still waiting to hear how these secondary sources comprise "original research" and I haven't heard Moni3 make that argument yet.Mosedschurte (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It was in the Briggs Initiative section because the VanDeCarr source stated Milk attended a rally opposing the Briggs Initiative. I was attempting to compromise here, and still keep the ideals of Featured Article writing in mind. (Get Tony1 to look at this section. He's going to turn blue and die.) It has to fit. I has to flow somehow.

I like that. Jammed in a footnote. Awesome. See entire point above about weight and notability.

That sentence: 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. will not survive FAC. It is grammatically incorrect (Milk attended including after Jones?), it states that Milk attended the Temple (on a regular basis?), and by the inclusion of the "fled to Guyana following allegations of criminal wrongdoing" - what does that mean? That he supported the Temple despite Jones' erstwhile admission of guilt (fled)? What is criminal wrongdoing: shoplifting? laundering money? attempted murder? Why is this sentence so vague? Why single out one political appearance among hundreds while Milk was supervisor? What kind of significance does that hold? Why juxtapose Milk's appearance at a rally (at which many other politicians were also present) with Jones and his Temple's criminal activities? Couldn't you also state that Milk attended a rally at the Temple after they gloriously went forth to their new utopia? Did Milk know Jones was a criminal, or believe he was a demigod among men? Does it really matter? No, because it's not verifiable or notable in this article. You think this is nitpicking? This is the nature of Featured Article writing, and honest neutral reporting. It's a bad sentence on many levels and should be thrown out. --Moni3 (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reply:Re: "It was in the Briggs Initiative section because the VanDeCarr source stated Milk attended a rally opposing the Briggs Initiative."

That was one meeting in one source and even VanDeCarr wasn't clear that the Briggs initiative was discussed in that last speech Milk gave at the Temple in October 1978. To include the Peoples Temple meetings and Carter letter in the Briggs Initiative section would just be inaccurate. They had nothing to do with the Briggs initiative.

Re: "It is grammatically incorrect (Milk attended including after Jones?)"

Okay. That's a good point. Change it to "Milk attended and spoke at at the controversial Peoples Temple at various times, including after the date that Jim Jones . . . "

Re: "it states that Milk attended the Temple (on a regular basis?)"

No. It does not state that at all. We could change it to "attended meetings" to clarify the phrase.

Re: "and by the inclusion of the "fled to Guyana following allegations of criminal wrongdoing" - what does that mean?"

That was a summary. I'd be more than happy to expand upon the actual allegations (assualt, kidnapping, fraud, extortion, etc), but didn't want to go into it for fear of complaints that the additional text would mean "undue weight." If you'd like me to do this, I'd be more than happy to include examples of allegations made against Jones instead of summarizing them generally as "allegations of criminal wrongdoing."

Re: "Why juxtapose Milk's appearance at a rally (at which many other politicians were also present) with Jones and his Temple's criminal activities?"

Glad you asked if you didn't know. Because most politicians stopped dealing with Jones soon after these allegations arose and Jones fled to Guyana. That's yet another reason why the Milk support is notable, by the way, which I haven't even gone into.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So you say it's notable. Let's quote you. That'll be a case clincher. Does anyone with any kind of authority say it's notable? Thank you for defining Original Research. --Moni3 (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We should stop the sniping and I was as guilty as anyone before, so I take some blame for it now.

It's notable, like any other item that is notable on Wikipedia, because of the actual facts. Not because I say it is, or you say it's not. There is a long explanation regarding its notability int he first section above (Mediator Point#1).Mosedschurte (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi View: Certainly seems to be. OR policy states Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. None of the sources support these positions, it is string of cherry-picked items and statements inferring some significant connection - and no significant connection seemed to exist. Every source including the wobbly Bellefountaine "call for more investigation" and the Carter letter are notable that they don't show any significant connection beyond a politician, Milk, doing their job in relation to a political figure, Jones and his Peoples Temple church. I think Moni3's compromise to allow the footnote is very generous and I don't envy them having to explain its inclusion going through the FA process. I'm also troubled that this forum needs to go over every aspect which has previously been discussed, this concern has been raised in every forum previously because this user (I'll quote from the ANI discussion) "has a talent for it's disrupting, frustrating and delaying every good-faith collaborative editing process available on Wikipedia." If Mosedschurte isn't willing to accept a very reasonable compromise then I don't see them successfully editing in the topic area of Jim Jones/Peoples Temple anymore and given their troubling inability to correctly interpret policy and accept input from some of Wikipedia's best editors - those who specialize in FA articles - I don't see them as having the capacity to edit here without doing more harm in the process. My impression is they are terribly naive about the complexities of Wikipedia and simply don't realize they are belittling some of the most authoritative editors available in ascertaining the quality and substance of sources. I invite expeditious handling of concerns as Mosedschurte's content is hinged on circular logic and not supported by reliable sources. They can do whatever they wish offsite but we have policies in place to stop original research. -- Banjeboi 15:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: None of the sources support these positions, it is string of cherry-picked items and statements inferring some significant connection - and no significant connection seemed to exist."

This is just not true. In fact, the sources state almost exactly the text that precedes them. I actually took the time to go through this in detail above and here it is if you'd like to discuss it:

"Sentence#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."

SOURCES:

(1) VanDeCarr: "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."

(2) Time magazine:"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."

(3) Reiterman: Merely that Milk attended the July 31st Temple rally, which it states.

Sentence#2: "Although Milk defended Temple leader Jim Jones in a letter to President Jimmy Carter in 1978, he and his aides distrusted Jones."

SOURCES:

(1) Coleman: "In a letter to President Jimmy Carter, Supervisor Harvey Milk defended Jones as a friend to minority communities."

(2) Shilts: Cites the "Well fuck him" quote along with the "creepy and dangerous" quote

ACTUAL COPY OF THE LETTER I DELETED: I deleted a link to the actual copy of the February 19, 1978 Milk letter to Carter, even though it was cited by secondary source Coleman, in which Milk states: "Rev. Jones is widely known in the minority communities and elsewhere as a man of the highest character" and "[i]t is outrageous that Timothy Stoen [leader of Concerned Relatives] could even think of flaunting this situation in front of Congressman with apparent bold-faced lies."Mosedschurte (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Every source including the wobbly Bellefountaine"

Bellafontaine simply isn't a source.

Re: "If Mosedschurte isn't willing to accept a very reasonable compromise then I don't see them successfully editing . . . and given their . . . I don't see them as having the capacity to edit here without doing more harm in the process. . . . My impression is they are terribly naive "

Who in the world is "them"? There are just 3 editors at issue: you, me and Moni3. We really need to cut the snipes and personal attacks. I have tried very hard not to comment upon your "comments" about me on the other board. I'm not going to go into that here. Let's please just stick to (i) the statements and (ii) the sources, as framed by the two Mediator Points.Mosedschurte (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Sadly I expected this. Mediator, here is a link to the review of what these sources have to offer this content - I did this for the fringe noticeboard. I can post it all here if you would prefer. -- Banjeboi 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I provided exact quotes from each of the sources above. I'm not sure what you're arguing.Mosedschurte (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Compromise (I admit my approach was probably wrong)

• Comment: I think I might be going about this the wrong way, and the circling around each other isn't helping. I really don't want to hold up the article, but I do think the points are pretty clearly notable enough for at least some mention.

But my approach, objectively speaking, seems to be raising more confrontation than moving forward, and that means it is likely my fault in at least some respect.

How about this for a compromise: Moni3: Try writing a piece of text to go in the "Supervisor" section or the "Race for the State Assembly" section that includes in the text (not a footnote) both: (i) the Milk attendance and speaking at the Temple; and (ii) that he defended Jones in the Carter letter. And have an internal link on a phrase (as it is now) -- any phrase you want -- with the link to the sub-article (Political alliances)

Word it exactly how you'd like. It doesn't even need to be its own paragraph. Put it anywhere you really think it would best fit. You can stick it in the middle of the paragraph with the Temple volunteers for Milk (State Assembly section) if you think it fits better there. Place the sources links where you think best, order it how you think best, and include any explanatory text (the "Fuck him" or "dangerous" quotes) along with it.Mosedschurte (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

After the sentence that quotes Milk in the "Race for state assembly" section, I will agree to placing the following in a footnote:

Milk's relationship with the Temple was similar to other politcians' in Northern California. According to The San Francisco Examiner, 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. Milk visited the Peoples Temple in July and October 1978. Although Milk defended Jones in a letter to President Jimmy Carter in February of the same year, he and his aides deeply distrusted Jones. 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." --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but isn't that nearly the exact same footnote you had added before? All text deleted, what remains jammed in a footnote, with not even a mention speaking or attending at the Temple?Mosedschurte (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I just noticed that even that nothing footnote was deleted yesterday. Right now, after that delete, the article literally has not a single mention of any of these facts.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In what way is Milk's letter to Carter related to Milk as a supervisor? Xavexgoem (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, he was a Supervisor when he sent it.

That and he actually sent the Carter letter using the letterhead of the "San Francisco Board of Supervisors"

The letter also starts "Dear President Carter: I am the Supervisor for District Five in the City of San Francisco."

One thing we know for sure is that the letter had nothing to do with the "Briggs Initiative."Mosedschurte (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Was there any brouhaha? Xavexgoem (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by brouhaha. If you want to know what was going on in the background, the leader of a group of relatives was attempting to press Congress and the the Administration to investigate their relatives they alleged were kidnapped in Jonestown. People such as the leader, Tim Stoen, was arguing such using his child, John Stoen, as an example.

The Milk letter to Carter attacks the leader, saying Stoen was using "bold faced lies" to Congress and "pressured" Congress into "unwitting compliance" with potential State Department investigations for which Stoen was pressing. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

By "brouhaha" I mean did it make a lot of news (wikt:brouhaha) ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The letter, like many other of the documents, wasn't made public until 20 years later, in the 1990s. There was actually a large court case over the matter on what the FBI could withhold from FOIA requests. President Clinton ordered many of the documents declassified in the 1990s.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. It's only a notable event in the 90s? Why put it in the supervisor section? If there was no news whatsoever about the letter during his tenure (indeed, his life), then how could it be notable in the 70s? Xavexgoem (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It occurred when he was a supervisor: February 19, 1978 to be exact. The article is in chron order, so that's the section in which it would go. Milk was dead by the 1990s.

He also wrote it as a Supervisor, specifically mentioning that in the letter. It just wasn't made public until later. Letters to the President aren't known or made public unless the White House publicizes them.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How much attention did it receive when it was released? Most google hits for "Harvey Milk" "Peoples Temple" refer to the closeness of the massacre to the assassination. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, I swear to all that is Good and Holy... I am doing my damnedest here, and I have reached and passed my level of frustration. You are witnessing a Featured Article writer's worst nightmare. I don't know what else to say about this. These events in the 1970s were not newsworthy. The sources that Mosedschurte is using mentions them in passing. They did not make news in the 1990s. No book, article, or expose has been completed on them. No historian or journalist says Milk's letter or visits to the Temple were extraordinary or had any impact on anything. The day after the Jonestown suicides were reported, stories ran in the San Francisco Examiner recounting Jones' clout in San Francisco. Milk was not included in that story; Moscone, Supervisor Quentin Kopp, Sheriff Richard Hongisto, and District Attorney Jose Frietas were. Milk was a media panderer, a front page darling. He said outrageous things, and the papers loved it. He mastered the art of the news bite and was able to place himself in front of cameras at perfect moments. He was no stranger to the newspaper, and they would have certainly included him in their stories. I'm getting microfilms (did I mention that for this article I'm scrolling through 200 microfilms of newspapers in San Francisco so I can give as round and accurate portrayal of Milk's life as possible?) from the San Francisco Chronicle for 1978 soon. I'll read those stories too.

Randy Shilts interviewed 140 people for his book, mostly close friends and political aides. One of those aides typed that letter to Carter. One letter among hundreds. Some of his aides not only no doubt made the appointments at the Temple, but accompanied Milk to the functions. Is this a conspiracy to hide information about Jones? In a book that admitted Milk was a slut? A marijuana smoker who stayed stoned from 1969 to 1973? A closet case for the first part of his life? Ambiguous about being Jewish?

I am offering...offering...a compromise. For a footnote. For information that does not belong in the article. To have it then negotiated to include more... in the text... is unacceptable. I find this point of view pushing deeply offensive, both to the quality of the article and the comparison of research I have done. The amount of time, effort, and space wasted on this has reached the sublimely ridiculous. I am not bleaching this article of Milk's involvement in the Temple. I am not peacocking his legacy or exaggerating any other issue in this article. The article I wrote reflects the priorities of Harvey Milk, both in perspective during the time in which he lived, and in history. I have invited Mosedschurte to verify this by becoming familiar with the provided sources. I am at sea, completely confounded, utterly nonplussed. Do not equate long periods between my posts as agreement or disinterest. I'm trying not to swear. --Moni3 (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This can take time. We're all up at different hours; I'm just talking to whoever is available (and I don't go for fast-paced, so I don't expect everyone to be yammering at each other in the span of an hour :-P). I'm not endorsing or encouraging anyone's version (would take the neutrality out of mediation).

I understand this process well. Have some faith :-) For now, I need to sleep. I'll be up around 4 UTC. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Note on syn (though see above)

The contention, as I see it, is that the quote poisons the well by implying that Milk was in cahoots with Jones or the Church. I'm sure if there were a reliable source that said that Milk, as a public official, was willfully supporting the Church's criminal activities (right now the secondaries do not say that as I've read them), then this would be obviously notable to the extent that it would likely eclipse all else; otherwise, it would be a gaffe. Will we ever know one way or another with Milk?

• If we knew it was intentional on the part of Milk to support the criminal Church, we'd have a major SNAFU. Being that the Jonestown Massacre is second only to 9-11, the association of Milk and the Church would be front and foremost (e.g. ...also, first openly gay politician).
• If we knew it was unintentional, the issue would look like a political gaffe among many.
• If we don't know the intention, we can't say to what extent Milk was involved with or supported the criminal aspect of the Church. Therefore, to say that that the relationship was contentious (X involved with contentious Y - but we don't know to what extent X believed Y was contentious), and to add afterward that the church did such and such has more than a whiff of coatracking. That is, it's fine to say, in an article about X, that X had an association with Y, and then go on about X; it's entirely different to say, in an article about X, that X had an association with Y, and then go on about Y.

The sources do not indicate intention.

The sources say that Milk's association with the Church was primarily because of its attitude towards minorities - the Carter letter says it outright, though I figure it's much of the reasoning behind the VanDeCarr quote; that seems equally plausible, and indeed the sources (save two) mention the "good side" of the Church ... and explicitly begging the question inside the article would certainly not be neutral.

Finally, the "creepy and dangerous" and "fuck him" quote (the saved two): if we don't know the intention, nor the true feelings Milk had, why would we associate the bad side or the "good side" of the church with Milk?

I hope this clears up the SYN issues. And I agree: stop sniping at each other (deep breathe, deep breathe :-). Personal attacks get us nowhere! Xavexgoem (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. It's impossible to know the true intentions, especially given the support at different times.

I tried to steer clear of intention -- including implications -- and am completely fine with including the "dangerous" and "fuck him" quotes to provide a counterbalance if need be so that Milk's intentions aren't implied either way. That's not so much a compromise, but just based on the feeling that it's impossible to really know, so leaving it unstated is best.Mosedschurte (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to make clear that, in dealing with the Temple, Milk was not necessarily dealing with constituents in his district.

The Temple was actually not even located in Milk's district.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with him as supervisor of his district? Why mention it in that section, then? Xavexgoem (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it was when he was a Supervisor (the article is chronological) that the events occurred. The article is chronological and the events occurred during this time period.

And he wrote to President Carter on the basis of his Supervisor position. Not that the Temple was in his specific district -- they actually weren't, and he spoke there and wrote Carter anyway.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Xavexgoem, I very much appreciate you digging into this. These issues about this content and these sources have been discussed with this user previously across multiple forums but if you can get them to now see Wikipedia's policies clearly please go for it. Please feel free to ping or prod me as I see this page, sadly, filling up as has every previous discussion. If you have any specific questions for Moni3 or myself please obviously state them as otherwise they likely will be drowned out. I'm happy to respond to your concerns but would rather not further entertain what, IMHO, has been endless and fruitless circular discussions. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, How About Just 8 Words?

The fact of the matter is that Moni3 is an incredibly experienced and valuable Wikipedia editor, while I've pretty much done nothing in my few months on Wikipedia except improve several formerly sourceless long Peoples Temple related articles with various incorrect facts (like the wrong country) and wacky assertions (including crazy CIA conspiracy theories), along with a few minor edits on various Gallic Wars topics. And manage to draw some Wikipedia stalking when I was drawn into a fight on the Milk article months ago.

In reality, Moni3's opinion does, and should, carry more weight than mine, especially on a topic like Milk. Objectively speaking, that should be the case because of her experience and judgment on issues. That said, I still think the fact that Milk spoke at the Temple right up until the time of the Jonestown massacre and wrote the President of the United States defending Jones and opposing those pushing for an investigation are noteworthy enough for at least two brief very well-sourced sentences in the article text. The only reason I had continued with the point is that I think the notability compared to many sentences in the Milk article is a relative slam dunk, and I'd found the attempts to delete these undisputed facts from the article text and put one in a footnote somewhat bizarre.

However, taking a step back, although a few editors agreed with me before (Wildhartlivie, MCB, CENSEI) when there used to be a large Milk-Peoples Temple section, most of them haven't weighed in the last day and they aren't part of this mediation. That leaves me. One man does not a consensus make. My attempt at consensus building has gone over about as well as Galileo at the Vatican -- real bang up job I've done ;) In any event, here is the current text in the article now.:

---

Current Article right now: He distributed his campaign literature anywhere he could, including one of the most influential political groups in the city: the Peoples Temple. Milk's volunteers dropped off brochures there, but came back with vague feelings of apprehension. Because the Peoples Temple leader, Jim Jones, was politically powerful in San Francisco (and supported both candidates), Milk was happy to allow Temple members to work his phones. But to his volunteers, he said, "Make sure you're always nice to the Peoples Temple. If they ask you to do something, do it, and then send them a note thanking them for asking you to do it. They're weird and they're dangerous, and you never want to be on their bad side." 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."

---

Instead of adding sentences to the "Supervisor" section, or any sentences anywhere, I suggest just adding these 8 words at the end of one sentence in the current "Race for the state assembly" section (see underlined and strike words for changes): suggest the following here:

---

Suggested 8 word addition and old Moni3 footnote: He distributed his campaign literature anywhere he could, including one of the most influential political groups in the city: the Peoples Temple. Milk's volunteers dropped off brochures there, but came back with vague feelings of apprehension. Because the Peoples Temple leader, Jim Jones, was politically powerful in San Francisco (and supported both candidates), Milk was happy to allowed Temple members to work his phones, spoke at the Temple and once defended Jones. But to his volunteers, he said, "Make sure you're always nice to the Peoples Temple. If they ask you to do something, do it, and then send them a note thanking them for asking you to do it. They're weird and they're dangerous, and you never want to be on their bad side." 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."

---

The footnote above would be exactly the footnote Moni3 had before, cutting the now repetitive sentence from the FN that she had already put in the text (see above), along with with the following 5 wordsin the footnote (Time magazine cite) to back up the new sentence text. And a few typo corrections:

---

Moni3 foonote with change for text support:Milk's relationship with the Temple was similar to other politicians' in Northern California. According to The San Francisco Examiner, Jones and his parishioners were a "potent political force", helping to elect Moscone (who appointed him to the Housing Authority), District Attorney 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.) Although Milk spoke at the Temple ("Another Day of Death", Time Magazine, December 11, 1978) and defended Jones in a letter to President Jimmy Carter in 1978, (Coleman, Loren (2004)., The Copycat Effect, Simon & Schuster, 2004, p. 68.), he and his aides deeply distrusted Jones. 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.)</ref>

---

Mosedschurte (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Fuck him" quote can go in the footnote, otherwise it's a battering ram. I would add to this sentence (to put in chronological perspective): ...Temple members to work his phones, and later spoke at the Temple and defended Jones. This is a sound and accurate portrayal of Milk's experience with the Temple, according to sources. I will agree to this. --Moni3 (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Is this agreeable to everyone? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes for me. Also, I apologize taking up more of Moni3's time than was necessary with the way I went about the discussion on the Talk pages. Mosedschurte (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems good. Motion to close? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Close. Thank you, Xavexgoem. --Moni3 (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)