The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Moni3, Dank55

On February 4, 2008, I stood at the corner of 19th and Castro Streets and watched a film crew park the most hideous vehicles in the history of mankind along the street in preparation of the day's filming of Milk. It was a coincidence that I was there during filming, and I kind of forgot about it for a few months. This article was on my radar to rewrite for various reasons, but was not so fun for me to take on. A bit of a bipolar journey: both very inspiring and profoundly saddening. I would appreciate your review of the article for Feature. Watch the trailer for the film for inspiration if you need to. I hope you find the article an engaging and perfectly human story, and, as ever, accurate. Thank you for reading it. --Moni3 (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewers: at first glance, the goings-on mentioned in Early career may seem a little soapy and unconnected ... but keep reading :) It's a small world after all. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
• Refs #1, 8, and 159 are missing a last accessdate.
• Ref #2 needs an en dash for the year range. Also, the link to that ref is dead.
• http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-01-30/news/white-in-milk/1 (ref #112) seems to be reliable, but another opinion would be appreciated.
• http://www.spur.org/documents/000501_article_01.shtm Ditto with above.

• http://www.spur.org/about.shtm is a non-profit, public policy think tank. For many purposes, it would not be a reliable source. It is reliable for the text it is citing: "Where Market and Castro streets intersect in San Francisco flies an enormous Gay Pride flag, situated in Harvey Milk Plaza, which doubles as the Castro District San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) station." (In fact, the statement is so non-controversial that it shouldn't even require citation.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Shall I just remove the citation then? --Moni3 (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pointing that out, Sandy. That bit of information seems non-controversial enough for the source to not be a problem. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't hurt to keep the citation; I'm less sure about the text cited to sfweekly.com, and unclear why Julian struck it, unless he knows something I don't know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa. That's an interview with Ray Sloan, Dan White's second campaign manager and then political aide. Not sure how that would be unreliable. --Moni3 (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just that I've not encountered sfweekly before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) That was actually erroneous striking, sorry. In any event, Moni's argument seems convincing, but I'm still concerned about that source. Ealdgyth, thoughts? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I dug a bit further: sfweekly.com is owned by the Village Voice, and the author has written for several well known publications, including the LA Times, so he should be able to conduct an interview :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. :-) I re-struck that. Thanks for the help, I'm still somewhat newbie-ish at reviewing sources. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The publisher for ref #136 is simply FindLaw.
• Ref #153 is missing publisher info.
• Otherwise sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, and I'm quite sure the two in question are reliable. --Moni3 (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article is a fascinating read. But when I was finished, I was troubled by questions regarding attribution. Look forex at this sentence: "San Francisco, a major port city, was home to a sizable number of gay men expelled from the military who decided to stay rather than return to their hometowns and face ostracism." The nearest cite is one (long) sentence later, ref #15 to Clendinen p. 151. Am I to assume this info is from Clendinen p. 151? I tried to poke around on the (dearchable) Amazon page for this book, searching for this info, but was unable to find it. That doesn't mean it isn't there, justthat I didn't find it. But if the info is not in Clendinen then it is WP:OR; if it is OR then I think I see several other questionable passages. Please shed some light on this. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is from Clendinen, probably pulled from Alan Berube's book Coming out under fire: the history of gay men and women in World War Two. Clendinen summed up the factors that led to San Francisco, and the Castro District in particular, to become the first gay neighborhood in the US. Berube dedicated an entire chapter to it, to my memory. If you want me to use Berube, I can. Let me know any other places where the attribution seems spotty. --Moni3 (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than a few places where a sequence of sentences seems unattributed—but on closer inspection, the nearest subsequent cite usually goes to a page range rather than a lone page. It seems likely that the sequence of sentences are all drawn from that source and that page range... The "port city/navy/expelled" one just jumped out at me 'cause it's a lot of info (gay bars, hippies, Victorian houses, Kinsey Institute, etc.), and the cite only mentions a single page. Can you scare up the exact text of that cite (or a unique-looking chunk of it)? That would help me find it online, I think. Thanks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh. Give me a few hours. The book is at home and I am not. --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it better to attribute that sentence After reading it, it looked odd. So there's a citation there now. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to make things clearer. --Moni3 (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—(And the "theater" edit was my glitch) Tony (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)1a. This is an entirely worthy, fascinating and culturally important topic. I saw the film at a time when it was still a little naughty. But the writing is a significant problem. While it shows skill at the clause level (aside from the irritating repetitions), it suffers from the writer's knowing too much about the topic, being too close to it. The result is unreasonable assumptions WRT the unfamiliar reader (even the familiar one), ambiguities, and unintended POV. There's definitely a need to find fresh eyes to copy-edit this carefully and thoroughly from that "distant" perspective. I've looked only at the lead, and what I've written here is nearly as long as it.[reply]

• "Milk was born and raised in New York, where he acknowledged his homosexuality early, but chose to pursue relationships with secrecy and discretion." The reader will have to assume that "secrecy and discretion" refers to his adult period in New York, having introduced the statement in terms of being "born and raised". You'd need to mention the vital fact of when he "came out", surely, as a bridge between these two statements. "Relationships" needs to be explicit (not business or political relationships).
• "moving frequently"—does this mean moving house within New York City?
• "Milk joined the counterculture of the 1960s, shedding many of his conservative views, and moved to San Francisco in 1972."—Can you let us know first that he came from a conservative background?
• "earning their resentment"—nope, you could earn their respect, but here a positive metaphor is mixed up with a negative epithet.
• "He was brash, outspoken, animated, and outrageous." Is this WP speaking? Sure, claims can be made in the lead without citation, as long as they're not too interpersonal (a grammatical term, which certainly applies to "outrageous", and probably to the other terms, too) or contentious, and are cited further down; but this looks like a highly subjective framing; at the very least "he gained a reputation among [blah] for being ...".
• "Equating politics with theater, Milk earned media attention and votes, although not enough to be elected."—This equation earned him votes? Can you find a more straightforward way to put it? We're left to make the leap from his inner equation to his attitudes to his outward methods or style to his votes. It's all too much. And we have "earning" ... "earned" in the space of three sentences.
• "He campaigned again in the next two supervisor elections,... and also ran for the California State Assembly"—just checking that he did run simultaneously for both offices in those two elections. I shouldn't have to wonder whether a supervisor is a civil servant or a politician, since officers other than politicians are elected in some US jurisdictions. I still don't know which.
• "He became increasingly popular, taking the role of a leader in the gay political movement in fierce battles against anti-gay initiatives." Can't it be simpler? "He became increasingly popular and led the gay political movement in fierce battles against anti-gay initiatives." Just a few words to make explicit what these intitiatives were (referenda?).
• He was elected to the state assembly or as supervisor in 1977? ... I suppose I got it after re-reading the sentence.
• "chosen from neighborhood districts rather than on city-wide ballots"—on --> through.
• The lead could do with some trimming: the end of the second para could go, presuming that it's discussed further down.
• City-wide ... city-wide.
• "In the 1960s and 1970s, the largely working-class city had a conservative municipal government and police force, but quickly gained a diverse population, including a gay community well-connected both economically and politically. These developments were supported by a liberal city government but resisted in a number of ways by the police." This essential background needs to come earlier. I hate "in a number of ways". Does it add anything useful?
• history ... historic
• "gay ... gays ... gays ... gays" in the one long sentence.
• "his most comprehensive biographer"—that's WP speaking is it, privileging one biographer over others? Just checking that it's not contentious/POV, since there's no citation or "in the words of blah,". Otherwise, just "biographer Randy Shilts".
• "Writer John Cloud remarked on his influence, "After he defied the governing class of San Francisco in 1977 to become a member of its board of supervisors, many people—straight and gay—had to adjust to a new reality he embodied: that a gay person could live an honest life and succeed." It's not the smoothest lead I've seen into a quote. More seriously, I worry about the word "honest"; does it mean that gays were inherently dishonest? You see, I think the writer uses "honest" in a very particular sense, like "an honest day's work", and here means "mainstream, public, straight". But through the veil of decades and varieties of English, this is going to be misconstrued as offensive by some people (I almost did). One option is to paraphrase this bit. And the bit about defying the governing class of SF seems to need to go earlier; you could break up the quote and use it in two places, one directly and one paraphrased. I'm unsure. Tony (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to the lead, hoping it will read better. In the structural changes, I hope the POV issues have been addressed. I don't think the lead is POV, but shifting some of the information around should have taken care of most of that.

I hope the changes made clarify the areas you highlighted. --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to add that no lead has ever given me so much difficulty. In everything I've read about Milk, no one wants to give a comprehensive summary of his impact without sucking in Dan White, George Moscone, the entire city of San Francisco, the AIDS crisis, or Jesus...anything else. I cannot find a quote that speaks about Harvey Milk in all the stuff I read. I have changed that last quote 5 times (either saved or not). Maybe his legacy is the utter ambiguity his life inspired. How can one man's life puzzle so many people so perfectly? --Moni3 (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead is much much better. I don't get "Milk outspokenly encouraged gays to seize their growing power in the city and support each other.", specifically, "seize their growing power". Do you mean "use their growing power"; or "seize power"; or "translate their growing social movement into political power"?
• "Milk outspokenly encouraged gays to seize their growing power in the city and support each other.
• "Milk was the subject of teasing due to his protruding ears" --> "In childhood, Milk was teased for his protruding ears"
• "Very guarded secret" ... I'd remove "very".
• One remembered, "He was never thought of as a possible queer—that's what you called them then—he was a man's man".[9] The "One" is the author of Ref 9? This is an odd way to cite. Better, "One of his classmates ...".
• "Milk soon joined the U.S. Navy during the Korean War."—Soon is odd here; what does it mean?
• deep-sea diver
• "aboard" is funny in the statement that he was a diver. Just "with"? Or "on"?

• Aboard is proper to describe his service there (Diver or not). We could have a discussion as to whether or not it is too nautical (yarr!), but I feel that it is ok. Protonk (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "after fewer than six years" --> "after only six years"
• "untethered" is rather loose in this register. It's a metaphor that some readers (esp. non-natives) won't understand.

That's the next bit; it was easier to write than the lead, of course, but still shows that someone else needs to go through the whole text with a fine comb. Tony (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I did make some edits, but I have to ask - one of your changes to the lead altered "compared to theater" to "compared a theater", and I don't know what that means. Were you trying to say "compared to a theater"? More on further copy editing soon. --Moni3 (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tony, "his metamorphosis from a middle-class Jewish boy" was added; I'm inclined to say that you have to morph from something "to" something, but on the other hand, he morphed into a lot of things; is this a case where the vagueness of the topic sentence is completed sufficiently by the paragraph, or does the sentence need to be expanded? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tony, is "uptight" okay, or would "rigid" or "rigidly conventional" (I'm stealing that from MWOS) be better? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC) I think we can get away with "uptight", seems to be global enough. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Weak oppose This is a fascinating article which left me wanting to learning more, but there are a few little loose ends that need polishing.

• The writing at the beginning of the article, up until "Broader historical forces", is much more uneven than the rest of the article. After that point, it becomes truly brilliant and gripping. Can we not make the earlier parts of the article flow just as nicely? Here are some examples:

• He opened a camera store and ran for city supervisor in 1973, where he came up against the existing gay political establishment. - The "where" implies he came against the establishment in his store - should it be "during which"?

• Both Milk's election and the events following his assassination demonstrated the ongoing demographic shifts in a growing liberal population and political conflicts between the city government and a conservative police force. - I think this is a little wordy - could it say "...demonstrated the ongoing liberalization of the population..."?

• Milk has become an icon in San Francisco and "a martyr for gay rights", according to University of San Francisco professor Peter Novak. - Is Milk a gay icon or an icon to all of SF?

• According to biographer Randy Shilts, Milk's legacy was representative of all gay people: that he struggled, had faith, and showed that it was possible to win, at least for a while - This seems facile - must we repeat it?

• Campbell and Milk split up after fewer than six years—his longest relationship. Milk, once again bored and untethered in New York, offered to marry a lesbian friend in Miami in order to "have ... a front & each would not be in the way of the other".[11] However, he remained in New York and chose to pursue relationships secretly. - "homosexual" or "gay" relationships?

• Milk abruptly moved from his job as an insurance salesman to become a researcher at a Wall Street firm named Bache & Company, where he was frequently promoted despite his tendency to offend the older members of the firm with his brash speech - "brash speech" seems a little awkward

• In the late 1960s, two organizations in San Francisco, the Society for Individual Rights (SIR) and the Daughters of Bilitis (DOB), began to mount defenses against the persecution of gay bars, police entrapment, and lack of legal rights for gays and lesbians coming out of divorces. - awkward wording

• In the late 1960s, two organizations in San Francisco, the Society for Individual Rights (SIR) and the Daughters of Bilitis (DOB), began to work against police persecution of gay bars, entrapment, and to represent the rights of gays and lesbians coming out of divorces. - sentence lacks parallel structure Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• One day in 1973 a state bureaucrat entered Milk's shop, Castro Camera, saying that Milk owed $100 as a deposit against state sales tax. Milk was enraged and got into a screaming match with the man, and eventually got the deposit shaved down to $30 by complaining for weeks at state offices. - "get/got" is a vague word - I've replaced some of the instances in the article - please do a quick check and replace with more precise vocabulary.

• One of Milk's first displays of influence was with organized labor. - a bit vague - I think this could be worded more strongly as well

• The "Tributes" section feels a bit long and at times trivial - must we list everything that has been named after Milk? I would suggest cutting back on this section so that it appears more substantial.

• Link for footnote 11 doesn't work.

• Just needs to be rewritten (see below). Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is footnote 39 from an subscription online database? If so, it would be helpful to provide the link and record number.

• Tell me how the documentary fits under WP:RS and WP:NOR - I just want to make sure we are being rigorous in our use of sources here. :)

• This link isn't working for me.

• This link doesn't support the statement in the article - is there any way to get a direct link so the reader doesn't have to search the site?

• Image:Robert and Harvey Milk 1934.JPG - Don't we technically have to take this image out until we get the OTRS ticket?

• Image:Harvey Milk with Audrey Milk 1973.jpg - Again, don't we technically have to wait for the OTRS ticket before we include the image?

I am confident that I will be able to support this article soon! Awadewit (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To Awadewit. I've made some changes, even after I saw your edits yesterday. What you read yesterday may not be the same, so to point out: I've edited the lead several times - just now specifically addressing your points. I removed Shilts' quote because it's in a different part of the article.

• The lead looks much better, yes. Awadewit (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just like Milk's life, the article rambles until it finally gets some direction. I can claim that's deliberate, like thematic and all...but instead I'll work on it. I've already made changes since yesterday.
• On Milk's being a gay icon: that's ambiguous. See my comment above about trying to find a sharp comprehensive quote about his legacy. It seems the annals of gay history can't summarize Milk's life without it being infused with Dan White, the failings of the justice system, the entire city of San Francisco, what Milk may have done during the AIDS crisis, or quite honestly, feeling really sorry that they lost their only voice and can't seem to find anyone to replace him. I spent hours looking for a good quote about his legacy and finally had to embrace all this other stuff about it to add a paragraph in the Legacy section under Politics. It's fodder for a good academic paper: "Communal Depression and Confusion and the Memory of Harvey Milk". Let's write it together! However, he doesn't have the adoration that Barbra Streisand or Madonna has. Some people have referred to the cleansing of his story as "Saint Harvey". I would consider him a hero to gay people, but at the same time, Professor Novak was reported in that story saying the young people in his classes have never heard of Harvey Milk or George Moscone. Historian John D'Emilio said the memory of gay people lasts only a generation. So...unh?

• I understand all of that - makes perfect sense. I just wanted to make sure we weren't missing out on a great link. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The documentary includes interviews with Milk's aides, political colleagues, television coverage of the events during his career, the assassinations, trial, riot, etc. I don't have access to local television news reports that are included in the documentary. If you want to take a peek, the documentary is in installments on YouTube with a Japanese translation to boot.

• I think the documentary is a primary source, since there is no real oversight of it (to what extent was it fact-checked, for example?). In particular, I am worried about two statements:

• An 11-year-old neighborhood girl joyfully ordered gay men and older Irish grandmothers to work on the campaign, despite her mother's discouragement. Milk himself was hyperactive and prone to fantastic outbursts of temper, only to recover quickly and shout excitedly about something else.
• Milk had been a rousing speaker since he began campaigning in 1973, and his oratory skills only improved after he became City Supervisor.

The other statements are either direct quotes or have another source to back them up. Awadewit (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Medora Payne, the 11-year-old assistant campaign manager, is in Shilts, p. 133-137, as is Milk's temper. But the documentary had his friends talking about how he shouted at everything, talking a mile a minute.
• Both Shilts and the documentary address how he was a charismatic speaker when he started and that he improved after he became supervisor. If you want me to change the citations, I can. I used the documentary for more eyewitness account. I can get direct quotes if you wish.--Moni3 (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why don't we just add the Shilts references to both of these instances, then? It will be more precise than referencing an entire movie, anyway. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I replaced it with another. I'm trying to diversify sources beyond Shilts. --Moni3 (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know why footnote 10 (was 11) or http://www.spur.org/documents/000501_article_01.shtm don't work for you. They do for me. Anyone have any ideas?

• It must have been a momentary thing. It works now. I believe the footnote should be rewritten as well. Note that the website says "This article first appeared in the May, 2000 SPUR Newsletter". Shouldn't that be reflected in the note somehow? Awadewit (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm using the Oscar website to cite the fact that the film won an Oscar. That site is time-limited. I could look up ... nevermind. I found a better site. I hope the link works for you. I tried it and it worked for me.

• Looks good. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll leave a note on Elcobbola's talk page since he can retrieve permissions emails now. I hope the OTRS tickets will be placed in those images today.
• Thanks for reading it. Let me know if you need me to do anything more. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On citation 38: I did get it from an online biography, but through a university database. I'm trying to access it when not logged on through the university and it's not successul. Ideas? --Moni3 (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think more could be done in the Tributes section, I agree with Awadewit that it's not quite punchy enough. I swapped the first two sentences and deleted a phrase, but I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better if we move the whole first paragraph down into Note 9 with the rest of the list of "things named after Harvey". The other material in the section seems stronger to me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was emailed the OTRS ticket numbers and I expect the image pages will be updated soon. --Moni3 (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, double check the last paragraph before the "sincerely" at the bottom of the OTRS response. Эlcobbola _talk 14:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be so bold to make a suggestion. The important part of the email replied to an editor should be at the top, not resting underneath forwarded correspondence with the copyright holder, with "Thank you" heading the reply. Sorry for sounding like a prat... I am really tired today. The amended statement has been sent to permissions. --Moni3 (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement here. Images are tagged. Эlcobbola _talk 16:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to support this engaging article, but could someone fix those two footnotes I pointed out? :) Awadewit (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! I believe you're referring to the two things that we were relying on the documentary for that are also in Shilts (which Moni engagingly misspelled at one point). Moni, do you have page numbers? Okay, now I'm not sure what Awadewit wants. The sentences about the 11-year-old girl and the oration have been given better refs, and the last note doesn't contain a link to spur.org any more. A little help, Awadewit! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a crackpot theory that what we mistype is the unconscious coming forth. I challenge anyone to type "Shilts" 300 times and not misspell that to a more common term in English. You're freaking me out with the missing page numbers, Dan. Is anything missing? I answered Awadewit on my talk page referencing citations 151 and 38. If there's another, I'm not sure which. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The issues resolve around my unstruck comments above - having to do with two small unresolved citation issues. Moni3 and I are currently in consultation on her talk page. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Other than that, Moni and I have tweaked everything we can find to tweak. Anyone else want to give this article a read-through? There's sex, violence, sordid love affairs, and backroom politics. What more could you want? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Full Support for a full account of the life of a culturally and politically important man. Clearly, the article has been thoroughly researched—I do not think there are any problems with neutrality and the sources are reliable. The prose, on the whole, is engaging. I liked the restricted use of the verb "to be" in all of it's disguises (was, were, be, being, been) that often spoil biographies. But, I have some (minor) criticisms.

• It would be nice not to see split up, put off, dropped off, cleaning up, cleaning up after and so forth.
• I didn't like instrumental in organising - how about a simple "helped"?
• Some work is required here: To make a point to McKinley, Milk took him to the hospital to show him an unsuccessful suicide: Milk's ex-lover Joe Campbell made an attempt when the man he was in love with, Billy Sipple, left him. Should it be "a hospital", and "suicide victim", "who made an attempt"?
• Is this an American expression: had for decades been a blue-collar Irish Catholic neighborhood identified with the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Parish. - the "identified with" sounds odd to me.
• Here "workers" or "employees" would be better then "jobs" I think: Many of the blue collar jobs—and Alioto's supporters—were forced out by inflation due to the influx of white-collar jobs.
• This is also odd: McKinley was offered a job with the opening of Jesus Christ Superstar in New York City - did he get a production job, how about "was offered a job on JSC
• Here:- Milk's role speaking for San Francisco's gay community expanded during this period - "role speaking" sounds odd.
• I had to think about this The biggest targets of Milk's ire were large corporations and real estate developers. - what exactly does "ire" mean here?
• ..and instead of poop can we have "droppings" of even "feces"?
• I didn't like seven and two thirds years - "of a year" or why not convert the 2/3 to months?

That's all. Thanks for a damn good read. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the Prepositional Promotion Society of America, I am personally offended that I had to change all those phrases. But I did it anyway. Because the source identified Milk's sentence as seven and two-thirds years, I'm hesitant to change the wording of that. How do people in Britain pick up dog poop if not cleaning or picking it up? I'm just curious.

Ire in this instance means anger and wrath. He really hated real estate and commercial developers. But he told them so when he gave speeches at their meetings. They thought it was refreshing not to get stabbed in the back by a politician. He called them "bloodsuckers" in the press and in other instances. Thanks for the review and comments, Graham. Let us know if we can do anything else. --Moni3 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Moni, that's all from me. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC) (P.S. I don't know—I have a cat, but I have seen people bag-and-bin the stuff).[reply]

• "but check please": done, the edits are good, thanks Graham. Everyone else in the world seems less interested in gerunds than Americans are; I'll remember that next time around.
• Weak Support Can be summarized as: "So you see, this is why Tony is a much better FAC reviewer than I am". When I was reading this article, I kept having this nagging feeling that something was wrong, but I couldn't put my finger on the reason why. It wasn't really an obvious POV thing, mmm, not exactly a prose thing..mm.. it just feels... kinda... loosey-goosey (hardly an actionable term) or... chatty.. or... informal.. or.. friendly.. or.. something. I think Tony hit the nail on the head when he said that the editors are a little "too close [to the topic]... The result is unreasonable assumptions WRT the unfamiliar reader (even the familiar one), ambiguities, and unintended POV." I don't feel I can Oppose, but am hesitatnt to Support.. so I'm doing a gut-check, and I perceive that the Support voice is just a little stronger than the Oppose. Hence weak support. I hope y'all won't freeze-dry the article if it is promoted to FA, but will continue to consult copy editors to tighten it up. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We might consider the possibility that the editors are reflecting the sources. Awadewit (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec - freaky!):* Let me think about this. Of course, I'd love to have everyone strong support everything I do. I had particular difficulty finding a variety of sources for Milk's life that did not reference Shilts' biography. Although it was a really good book, it has been used and cited as the standard of information on Milk. Shilts knew Milk fairly well, reported on him in some of his first stories as a reporter, and clearly - wrote his first book about him. Shilts was in the Castro when it was becoming the country's first gay neighborhood. What was happening to the city was happening to him as well. I wonder if I took Shilts' tone in some of what he was describing. Is this what you're referring to? If so, I need to look at this from a fresh perspective tomorrow. --Moni3 (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me admit first that I'm a bit sleepy tonight, but I'm thinking about this. Sometimes I notice I channel the tone of whatever source I'm using at the moment. That could be POV without something to balance it out, and then it's accuracy with solid sources. Perhaps it's QED (or fatigue) that I'm not able to tell if I'm channeling Shilts' often chummy tone, or if I'm accurately reflecting the subject who was extraordinarily irreverent by all sourced accounts, impulsive, loud, manic, and quite a few other things I declined to include in the article. I do my darnedest to add energy to each article I write, whatever energy comes from the sources, and I am unable to address an article unless I have some kind of connection to the energy of the subject. Sorry to get esoteric, but if Tony can put into words exactly what brilliant and compelling writing is, he'd make a lot of prospective FA writers happy. I simply define it as energy transferred from the subject and sources to the article - and hopefully to the reader. So, kind of like a thought that isn't quite fully fleshed out, I see the point that I may be too close to the subject, but in that case, just about everything I read about Milk reflects that he was half a nutjob and a lovable one at that. Maybe this is why there are so few quotes that are able to summarize his impact. How much of an impact can a lovable nutjob have? --Moni3 (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with awadewit here. Some of the sources, like Karen Foss, built their look at milk on the fact that he was something of a hyperbolic personality. The flavor bleeds into the sourcing and it is sometimes hard to drain it out (woo, methaphors!) when putting together the text. but yes, tony is a much, much better reviewer than I am as well. Protonk (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To anyone who's read the whole article carefully: have you formed an impression of the quality of the writing, even if you're not willing to weigh in on all the WP:WIAFA criteria? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The quality of the writing is excellent, I did go through most of the article, and I don't want to weigh in on all the WP:WIAFA criteria. My reaction lines up with that of Protonk who expresses it more colorfully than I can. I lived in San Francisco, in fact in a section near Castro St., in Noe Valley, during some of that time. Until I read this article, I had not fixed in my mind that Milk's primary identity as a human being was that he was gay. I accept Awadewit's view that the article writers are reflecting their sources and that not much else is available. I can't help wondering though that if it were not for Dan White, would there be a long and detailed Wikipedia article on Milk today, despite the "hyperbolic personality" then? In fact, is this article about Harvey Milk the man, or about a figure conceived of and used by a group? I don't feel the presence of the man. There is a sense, as Moni3 says above, that the article "isn't quite fully fleshed out", although I am sure everything has been said that can be. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was referring to a thought that wasn't fully fleshed out, not the article. However, the point you make is understood. I can't describe the importance of Harvey Milk without addressing the changes San Francisco was going through in the 1970s. I can't write about his life and not about his death. I can't ignore what reliable sources have made from his memory. I think it's a travesty that his legacy will always be associated with the Twinkie defense and a man so confused and out of place the only way he could make things right was shoot people. Milk's history was being written during the biggest crisis the gay community has ever known, and it is apparently impossible to separate the two. I can't say that Milk's primary identification was that he was gay, but he certainly was a very sexual person. He did not take on the identity of the persecuted or the victim (unless he could use it to his political advantage). The concept of gay identity at the time was being developed - in the Castro, actually. Milk was considerably older than the average age of the men pulled to the city, so he wasn't one of them, but he allowed them to be themselves. When they all started dressing alike and behaving alike, forming new modes of communication and subculture, he told others who were surprised at it that it was a natural reaction to being free for the first time. --Moni3 (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think of Milk first as gay, but the second sentence of this article jumps right into his sexuality. This not being typical of biographies, does emphatically underline the importance of Milk's sexual orientation to the article and causes all else to pivot around it. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I first read this comment, I thought, "Being gay is the most relevant context". But then I read the second sentence: "Milk was born and raised in New York where he acknowledged his homosexuality as an adolescent, but chose to pursue sexual relationships with secrecy and discretion well into his adult years." I think Matisse has a case here that this is a little off the point for the second sentence. That is, this is an article about how this man influenced, and even had a hand in creating, a community and a social movement. On the WP:NOTCENSORED theory and for many other reasons, we don't want to hide the active sex life; on the other hand, is it really the second most important thing about him, requiring a place in the second sentence? I don't have a position; I'm just musing. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the issue really sentence placing? Because the placing of his sexual orientation is in the first sentence. If the next suggestion is to move it from the first, then I gotta say I disagree. Who was Harvey Milk? He was an influential gay politician in San Francisco. --Moni3 (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also a good point. No, I think "gay" in the first sentence is perfect; and I also don't want to get rid of the second sentence. Matisse, you're asking for the second sentence to slide down a bit, maybe to the first sentence of the second paragraph, so that the first paragraph can cover what you consider to be his most important legacy, right? Again, I think we're twiddling here, which is fine, and not super-important. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Per the concerns about the tone of this article, I consulted a graduate student that I know who is studying 20th-century gay culture and we discussed Milk, Shilts, et. al. for quite some time (it was absolutely fascinating). I am convinced that any problems in the tone of this article stem from the sources themselves. I am not sure that we can totally drain the tone and POV from the sources without totally distorting them, particuarly Shilts. Hopefully, in the future, more reliable sources will be published. Anyone? Anyone? Awadewit (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • If he had not been assassinated by Dan White, if he had lived a natural lifespan, how important would he be today? I'm not saying not at all, but there were a great many "hyperbolic personality" personalities in San Francisco in those days; they just were not dramatically murdered with a "Twinkie defense" that made endless national headlines. This is one of the reasons why I wonder if the article is really about a person, or about a confluence of factors, including the aftermath of the 1960s, that ballooned and are now being seen, by this article's sources, through the prism of Milk's life. Perhaps Maralia can clarify this in the readthrough. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • But Milk was assassinated. The SF culture, the subsequent AIDS debate and the 1980s backlash all influenced the people writing about Milk. However, the sources do not say "I am influenced by the AIDS debate and the 1980s backlash" - they reflect those issues. We have to wait for further sources to be published and point out the POV of the ones that this article is using. For right now, though, I am confident that the article reflects the current sources available on Milk, which is all we can ask as Wikipedia editors. That we are unhappy with the current state of those sources is a different problem entirely. My friend is unhappy with those sources, too; that is why he is entering the field. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I quite understand that this article is more than Milk's biography. It's quite long and encompasses history, law, and all sorts of other things. But the majority of reliable sources refer to Milk in the terms of the article. Milk's life was representative of what was happening in San Francisco at the time, and that's not just me saying that - reliable sources say it. Milk was elected because the Castro District was invaded; within 10 years it became the largest gay community in the world. That's historic, and that community was responsible for electing Milk. Milk was assassinated in part due to a clash of values the city was experiencing. The article addresses his ambiguous legacy due to his assassination. He was made a martyr. These cannot be divorced from his life. He was effective because the gay community grew so fast. He was killed at the height of his popularity, and no one took his place. Mattisse, what would you suggest doing to the article to improve it? Or is there anything that can be done to the article to get your support for its promotion to FA? --Moni3 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note—I'm planning to give this article a readthrough today. I have previously copyedited it (twice, I think) but it's been over a month since, so hopefully I'll have the mental distance to ponder the tone concerns brought up above. Maralia (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: A supremely thorough treatment of Milk's life, comprehensively referenced and written in a style that is at once compelling and accessible. Moni and I seem to disagree somewhat on the topic of how much context is fitting for biography articles, but I can't agree with Mattisse above. I feel that all biographies are about a confluence of factors to an extent, and people who meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (all humans, really, but that's something to debate off-wiki) are often important precisely because they brought certain things together in certain ways. (To put it in the words of The Big Lebowski: "Sometimes there's a man.. Well, he's the man for his time and place.")

Take Balzac, if I may be permitted to ramble about him yet again. He was a great writer, but he is important to us not only for the sheer quality of his writing, but also because he coalesced Napoleon's vision, the aftermath of the French revolutions, Swedenbourgian philosophy, and the relentless social drive so prominent at the time. Similar threads were tied together by Chinua Achebe. Thus I don't think an article like this is in error if it spends time on those "background" elements. I personally feel that Moni has done a great job balancing the personal and the public, but of course those of us in the struggle know that the two are very rarely separated – even more true for a person like Milk, who made his personal life so very public. (And thank the gods he did!)

So yeah. I support. =) Scartol • Tok 18:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guilt is beginning to overwhelm me. I'm thinking I should go back and rewrite Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley, and the lot and try to explain Romanticism, the Age of Enlightenment, the French Revolution,...but I despair. Awadewit (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • (ec) Since there seems to be general acknowledgment that the sources are POV, then it seems like the article should take care in this regard.

• Examples:
• The section "Heroic things" could be eliminated. Its only relationship to Milk is that "Oliver "Bill" Sipple, who had left Milk's ex-lover Joe Campbell years before" happened to be the "bystander" who grabbed Sara Jane Moore's arm when she tried to shoot President Ford. Does this warrant a section? It actually has nothing to do with Milk and seems to gratuitously include a famous event just for the sake of it. We all can come up with relationships we had with people who later became famous for various reasons having nothing to do with us.
• "Scholar Karen Foss attributes Milk's impact on San Francisco politics to the fact that he was completely unlike anyone else who had held public office in the city." - "completely" seems like one of those words to which Tony would object. Isn't "he was unlike anyone else" good enough?
• "White showed no remorse for his actions" - This is Court TV and Nancy Grace, a newspaper/TV type statement. It means nothing in terms of the psychology of Dan White or other criminals about whom this statement is regularly made. It seems to carry an implication, but in reality it is meaningless.
• Why have so much about Dan White and his trial? I think most mental health professionals would agree now that his motivations were complex, and that he was psychologically fragile. A good case can be made that he had a mental disorder in the legal definition, but these types of assertions are very unpopular with the public. (Witness the public outcry over John Hinckley, Jr.'s successful insanity defense which precipitated changes in the U.S. Penal Code and many state laws, tightening the rules of evidence for an the insanity defense.) Sometimes juries really do make the right decision in the face of public opinion and pressure and cries that someone is getting away with murder. This could be one of those cases. Even your article details contradictory evidence regarding his behavior. He did kill himself. Why not just have some discussion that the verdict was seen as unfair or prejudiced or whatever, giving the reasons supporting the public's view, rather than trying to second guess juries and psychiatric witnesses.
• In fact, why have so much about White anyway. You spend a great deal of the article building a case against White (I guess that is what you are doing) and trying to explain his motivation. For what reason? Why does it matter? Again, a few statements that people doubted that he was mentally ill or fit the definition of diminished capacity or whatever. (The diminished capacity article calls the Twinkie defense an urban legend. See: Myth of the 'Twinkie defense' This article says that Herb Caen coined it. The public perception of the reality of the evidence in these cases and the psychology of the defendant is usually wildly off base. In any case, such crimes can never be fully understood. See Ted Bundy. Why try here except to make a point that might be made better other ways.
• "California voters decided to change the application of "diminished capacity" as a result of Dan White's trial. In 1982, the term was clarified to "not guilty by reason of insanity", and evidence of a defendant's mental state became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial." - This is a misstatement in that an insanity defense is an excuse offered during the trial, in essence a "not guilty" plea. If it is successful, there is no "sentencing phase of a trial".
• These are examples of what bothers me about the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On Heroic Things, I disagree. Milk was primarily responsible for outing Oliver Sipple. By doing this, he raised his own profile as a spokesperson for San Francisco's gay community, and all over the country.
• I can get rid of completely. Foss' words say the same, but God forbid I use her quote that says Milk was a "political maverick". So many computers would be ruined by vomit on the keyboards.
• I don't understand why an article about someone who was assassinated by someone he knew - by someone who had a relationship with him - should not discuss that relationship and the motivations (muddy as they are) for the assassination. Furthermore, as a former policeman who was interrogated by a detective who knew him, White's arrest and trial was indicative of the values of the police in San Francisco. Gracious, Dan White received voluntary manslaughter for murdering two public officials witnessed by some of the most reliable witnesses in the city. What did the police do when Harvey Milk was murdered? Joked about it and patted Dan White on the ass for it. Why would he show remorse? The last two years of Harvey Milk's life were spent making homosexuality an issue in the public eye across the state. When he was killed, there was no justice for his murder. The clash of cultural values made painfully clear what the priority of the San Francisco police were.
• Did you just say that Dan White's verdict was the right decision? If so, the people of California have emphatically disagreed. For the record... I do too. If not, feel free to clarify your comments.
• According to my sources, Herb Caen did not coin the term "Twinkie defense". I don't understand your comparison to Ted Bundy: the serial killer or the B-class article? The Twinkie defense, admittedly, has not been put into legal books in the State of California as a law or practical courtroom defense. But it came about because of Dan White's trial. Another example of a joke spawned from a faggot getting shot in the head. It's not really important to discover why such simplifications have been made about Milk, but Dan White ate some junk food and killed some people. Then he got five years. That's hilarious. No more dissection is necessary. Again, I disagree. — Moni3 19:33, October 24, 2008 — continues after insertion below

• Sorry that the B-class of the article means that it is not worth considering my point. My reference to Ted Bundy was meant to point out that even when a great deal of study has gone into understanding a killer, in this case, years of study by foremost professions in interdisciplinary fields, as well as others (like people who knew him), in the end it is not understood "why" he committed his crimes. There can be endless rationales, but in the end "science" (which I know is irrelevant here) does not have an explanation why certain people kill and others don't. I know it is much nicer to rely on sources that agree with you, but that is the cold reality. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I just didn't understand if you wanted me to follow the format of Bundy's article or make draw a comparison between Bundy and White as murderers. Regardless, as my sources as a group never came to any conclusion about why White killed Milk and Moscone, I was pretty careful to include diverse theories but not to come to a solid conclusion. I don't think White knew why he did it, but I don't doubt it was premeditated. --Moni3 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The California Penal Code disagrees with you: Notwithstanding the foregoing, evidence of diminished capacity or of a mental disorder may be considered by the court only at the time of sentencing or other disposition or commitment. — Moni3 19:33, October 24, 2008 — continues after insertion below

• You are confusing diminished capacity with "not guilty by reason of insanity". They are not the same thing. Please carefully read your sentence then carefully read California Penal Code. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm comfortable and confident in the content of the article. It draws from the material of reliable sources, placing appropriate weight on the events that led to Milk's election, and the events the spawned from his assassination. --Moni3 (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "California voters decided to change the application of "diminished capacity" as a result of Dan White's trial. In 1982, the term was clarified to "not guilty by reason of insanity", and evidence of a defendant's mental state became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial." - This is a misstatement in that an "not guilty by reason of insanity" is an excuse offered during the trial, in essence a "not guilty" plea. If it is successful, there is no "sentencing phase of a trial". Please seek to understand. "diminished capacity" does not equal an "not guilty by reason of insanity". You are confusing them. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick response. - Actually, being a forensic psychologist, it is plausible to me that the verdict, however imperfect, was not wildly off base. There are indications even in your article of the incongruity of his behavior. And his subsequent suicide in not characteristic of a psychopathic killer. The public always disagrees with this sort of thing. You are giving a general layman's view, popular at the time, and apparently not reevaluated since. John Hinckley, Jr. is another example where the public thought the outcome was incorrect and the public perception resulted in massive law changes that restricts the insanity defense. The "Twinkie defense" is referenced in my statement above to a relativity recent newspaper article, See: Myth of the 'Twinkie defense' SFGate (The San Francisco Chronicle - Sunday, November 23, 2003. But I can see you are very emotionally involved in this perspective and it is your article. Just an idea. I like having different perspectives, as once a piece of information enters the general culture, it is hard to dislodge it.
• I think you have lost perspective over the Dan White issue and have personalized it. My opinion only.
• You say in the article: "California voters decided to change the application of "diminished capacity" as a result of Dan White's trial. In 1982, the term was clarified to "not guilty by reason of insanity", and evidence of a defendant's mental state became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial." -
• Please be clear that not guilty be reason of insanity defense is not the same as diminished capacity. If the law was "clarified" to not guilty be reason of insanity, then if the defense is successful, there is no "sentencing phase of a trial" because the person has, in essence, been found not guilty.
• I believe that your sources, although correctly reflected by you, are POV. Apparently there are no new assessments available of that period with a fresh perspective.
• You are free to disagree with me. You asked what concerned me and I responded. Sorry to have a different view. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Myth of the Twinkie Defense" article by Carol Pogash is used as a source in this one, btw. Historians and journalists make conclusions based on their knowledge and experience, making most sources POV. Pogash herself makes some POV statements. If I've accurately reflected what the most authoritative sources say about a notable individual without making conclusions myself, but reflecting theirs, then I've done a good job.
• I am emotionally involved in all the articles I bring to FAC. None of them are mine. Writing this article has illustrated the joy of community like no other. --Moni3 (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, you have written "I believe that your sources, although correctly reflected by you, are POV. Apparently there are no new assessments available of that period with a fresh perspective." - It seems that your problem is with the sources' interpretation of events, not this article. You must therefore take your dispute off-wiki to the authors of those sources. As Wikipedia editors, we are forced to summarize and present what is published - that is the essence of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I have often been forced to write articles using sources I violently disagree with and include interpretations of literature I believe to be completely unwarranted, but I never complain about that because our policies our sound. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia can only summarize the published secondary material. I hope someday to publish books and articles that will challenge the interpretations I have been forced to include here so that my own views can be included, but that will have to wait. Awadewit (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I merely responded to Moni3 request. I realize that the standards for these articles are not very strict and do not match the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles), for example. However I do think the sentence that is incorrect should be corrected: "California voters decided to change the application of "diminished capacity" as a result of Dan White's trial. In 1982, the term was clarified to "not guilty by reason of insanity", and evidence of a defendant's mental state became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial." This is a misstatement.

As I pointed out, an editor is confusing diminished capacity with not guilty be reason of insanity. This is a misstatement. An insanity defense is an excuse offered during the trial. It is in essence a "not guilty" plea. If the not guilty be reason of insanity is successful, there is no "sentencing phase of a trial". Therefore the part of the text that says "the term was clarified to "not guilty by reason of insanity", and evidence of a defendant's mental state became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial" is a mixed up statement, whether or not it is in one of the article's original sources.

Flat out misinformation, whether it is in the sources used by this article or not, should be corrected. The source provided in the article (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/25-29.html) does not say that a person found not guilty be reason of insanity will have evidence of his mental state provided only at sentencing. A person found not guilty by reason of insanity is not sentenced. That is what "not guilty" means.

It says: "In any criminal proceeding, including any juvenile court proceeding, in which a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is entered, this defense shall be found by the trier of fact only when the accused person proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense." (from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/25-29.html which is used as the source in this article). This quote, from the California Penal Code, has nothing to do with a sentencing trial. This statement pertains to the trial determining whether or not the person is guilty.

This type of misinterpretation makes me fearful of either the sources or the editors' interpretation of the sources. This is the third time I have brought this misstatement to the editor's attention. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of getting drawn into this relentless back-and-forth, let's see if we can parse and remedy the precise problem, which appears to be based on the following two sentences:

California voters decided to change the application of "diminished capacity" as a result of Dan White's trial. In 1982, the term was clarified to "not guilty by reason of insanity", and evidence of a defendant's mental state became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial.

My first question is about the phrase "...as a result of Dan White's trial". Source #143 refers to the California penal code, so I'm interested to know if we have a specific source indicating it was a result of voting related to White's trial. This is related to my next point.

How about we rephrase these sentences? Seems like there must be a way to make it match both Moni's sources and Mattisse's understanding of the law (to which I'm inclined to agree, since I assume good faith that s/he is a forensic psychologist). How about:

In 1982 the California penal code abolished "diminished capacity" and allowed a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity" only when the defendant is "incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong". Evidence of mental disorder became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial.

I've tried to stick as close as possible to the wording of the penal code text, which seems like a good course of action here. (If we have sources indicating that this change was a result of voting related to White's trial, we can add that info back in. Otherwise it seems best to leave it out, with an implied connection left to the reader.) Thoughts? Scartol • Tok 12:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After getting the advice on wording from two attorneys, both suggested it should be changed to something similar: As a result of Dan White's trial, California voters changed the law to reduce the likelihood of acquittals of accused who knew what they were doing but claimed their capacity was impaired. Diminished capacity was abolished as a defense to a charge, but courts allowed evidence of it when deciding whether to incarcerate, commit, or otherwise punish a convicted defendant. I wasn't too far off, but I'd rather be accurate. --Moni3 (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me (I'd like to see the bit about it being pursuant to White's trial cited). Mattisse? Scartol • Tok 15:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left a message on your talk page too to clarify: is this what you wanted to see (and have cited?) The San Francisco community and the broader California populace reacted with outrage at what was perceived to be a gross miscarriage of justice. This outrage led to demands for abolition of the "diminished capacity" defense, the expression generally used to describe the defense raised by Dan White. (Mounts, 33 U.S.F. L. Rev. 313) --Moni3 (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The citation obviously covers the change in the law, but I'd like to see something verify that this change was specifically in response to White's trial. (And that it was something decided by voters – aren't such changes in the law usually enacted by legislatures?) Scartol • Tok 23:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Diminished capacity is not and "expression", it is a legal term used in laws, statutes, penal codes, etc. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The text I just posted above is from the source, verbatim. That's what I would use to confirm White's trial was a significant factor in the abolishment of diminished capacity. The same source states: Section 25 was added by the voters through the initiative process, where Section 25 is the abolition of diminished capacity. Are you ok with using this source to cite what you're looking for Scartol? --Moni3 (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. As you can see in the statute, "not guilty by reason of insanity" is still an available defense in the California statute. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of not guilty by reason of insanity in the California statute: {"incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong") is typical wording, originating in English common law. Therefore, I doubt that part was new to the statute. Most states add, "due to mental illness". Like all NGRI statutes, California's definition excludes personality disorders, voluntary intoxication, etc. that are typically not considered a "mental illness". What apparently is new to the California statute is the restriction on presenting evidence of "diminished capacity" to the sentencing phase. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm losing track of the requests for clarification and citation. I understood Scartol's request as asking for a citation that confirmed Dan White's trial was somehow significant to the abolishment of diminished capacity, and that it was a voter-approved initiative. Are you asking for another clarification to be made? The wording in the section now does not mention "not guilty by reason of insanity". --Moni3 (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (outdent) No, that is fine. Sorry! I was reacting to the following statement above:

In 1982 the California penal code abolished "diminished capacity" and allowed a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity" only when the defendant is "incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong". Evidence of mental disorder became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial.

This made it sound like the "not guilty by reason of insanity" wording was added at that time, when the quoted part is the typical definition, and "only when the defendant" makes it sound like this definition is restrictive, when it is not. It also incorrectly stated, "Evidence of mental disorder became admissible only during the sentencing phase of a trial." I was pointing out that this NGRI standard is old, and less restrictive than "diminished capacity", and was not added in place of "diminished capacity". I urge you not to make too much of this issue of law change as it seems more an example of how frenetic the politics of those times were than a significant change in mental health law. It shows how the transitory politics of the moment drive lawmakers. Looking at the law, it leaves "not guilty by reason of insanity" intact, which some states have abolished, and does still allow "diminished capacity" in the sentencing phase. True, it was a citizen driven initiative (political) at the time. I agree that it was. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm very happy with the current wording and citations. Thanks for adding the cite, Moni, and hopefully Mattisse is okay with the new wording too. Everyone's happy, right? (forced grin) Scartol • Tok 14:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not even going to look at the current wording. Too frustrated at the defensiveness making difficult the correction process and sick of defending accuracy against opposition. I bow out. Whatever you have probably fits with the article, so I no longer care about its accuracy. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Did something just happen? I am completely out to sea here. --Moni3 (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I'm confused too. I hope I didn't muddy the waters with my attempt at humor with the (forced grin) thing. Just trying to lighten the mood. Sorry if I made things more complicated or appeared defensive. (I was just trying to develop a compromise – honest!) I think we all want to be accurate, so I'm not sure where the problem came from. Scartol • Tok 16:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support After a re-read, I am confident that this is among our finest work. I had previously noticed some of the issues others commented on (informality, and a little lack of context/presumption of familiarity in places), but I don't see those now; I think we took care of them during the string of copyedits performed during the FAC. As to the tone concerns, the article certainly isn't dry, but neither was the man; I don't see anything that I would consider unencyclopedic or gratuitous. Regarding the POV concern a few people have raised: thoroughly covering Milk requires adequately covering White and the effects of the assassination; while the presentation of White is rather unflattering, it appears consistent with that offered in the vast majority of published material. Maralia (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I have short attention span issues but finally got through most of it. Eventually some of those sections may make good spin-out articles as well. I have a few wording comments which I put on the talkpage. Overall an excellent article. Makes me want to read some of the other FA's as well. -- Banjeboi 21:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Great article but can I just say - as someone with no prior knowledge of this subject, that this sentence in the lead struck me as a bit incongruent: He opened a camera store and was compelled to run for city supervisor in 1973..... Fainites ^barley 23:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tweaked. --Moni3 (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. (I would support except that seems a bit cheeky after having just only read it as compared to the serious, in-depth reviews above). Fainites ^barley 17:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeky? If you think the article is excellent and you have no objections to its appearing on the main page (indeed, even think it would be great to see it there), and if the writing is of high quality, citations are in order, nothing seems uncited or inaccurate, support. If not, then make suggestions about how to make it better. I'll do my best to meet them. Don't fuss about what other people here have said. Balls to conformity. --Moni3 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.