Talk:Gay bathhouse/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

NPOV Poll

I've read the discussion here carefully and have come to the conclusion that attempts at dispute resolution have stalled. I believe that First resort has failed, as has Discuss with third parties. I have not participated in this dispute up to now (but in the interest of disclosure I will say I supported this article as a featured article candidate). So in accordance with policy, I hearby call for a poll on the dispute.

Following the polling guidelines, the poll to be decided must first be agreed upon, and we should "[a]llow about a week for this process." It is now Tue 15 Jun 2004, so let this process conclude at 00:00 Tue 22 Jun 2004 UTC.

Below is a first draft of the poll. Please comment below and/or edit it as you see fit.--TreyHarris 07:00, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

The following is a proposed poll. Please do not vote on the issue.

Please sign your name below the position you support using an octothorpe and three tildes (#~~~) on a line by itself, possibly adding brief comment afterwards. The choices below are mutually exclusive, so do not sign your name in more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion".

• Keep the NPOV dispute notice on the article Gay bathhouse until major changes have been made

1. TreyHarris Placeholder, this is not a vote.

• Remove the NPOV dispute notice on the article Gay bathhouse now

1. TreyHarris Placeholder, this is not a vote.

Discussion

Should a choice "keep the NPOV dispute notice on the article permanently" be given? It seems to go against the philosophy of Wikipedia, but perhaps it should be there for completeness. Or perhaps "until major changes have been made" should go, and people can assume what they will about the notice's duration? --TreyHarris 07:00, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Um, no, there should be no choice to keep the NPOV dispute notice on the article permanently. Why should there be? This entire poll proposal is suspect, and frankly I doubt anything'll come of it given the article's been listed on Peer Review and RFC for going on 2 weeks and still, STILL, Sam Spade is the only user who has a problem with it. Exploding Boy 07:04, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

This entire poll proposal is suspect

What do you mean by that? If you're correct that Sam Spade is the only user who has a problem with the NPOV-ness of this article, then the poll will put the issue to rest. --TreyHarris 07:08, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think any user has the right to keep a tag on an article "permanently" regardless of the article in question. -Sean Curtin 07:21, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I fully agree, but my position here is to come up with a poll that everyone will agree on, not to take sides, and as I said, the suggestion was "for completeness," even though I thought it went against the philosophy of Wikipedia. But I'll strike my question above, as this is not a debate that needs to be waged. --TreyHarris 07:28, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Suspect's maybe not the right word. But go ahead with the poll. Exploding Boy 07:23, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a poll is necessary, frankly, but this issue does need resolution. I'd suggest the formal mediation process, as it still strikes me that Sam Spade is the only user who has any serious objection to the article and my opinion is that those objections are entirely based on the subject matter. I resent more than a little that he has unilaterally decided to move the FAC nomination to an archive section.

I believe, quite strongly now, that this should go through the formal Mediation process; I don't believe that a poll is likely to come up with anything more than we've already had. This needs sorting and it needs sorting soon. I'm getting as frustrated as Exploding Boy seems to be.

If we really do want a poll, I'd suggest that it should cover the FAC status as well, though. — OwenBlacker 09:42, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but who's going to go into mediation? The problem is not with me, it's with Sam's insistence, against all other users', that the article is non-NPOV. I don't see how mediation will change that essential issue. Exploding Boy 09:58, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but if Sam Spade will agree to go into mediation (with any of us, frankly) and agree to abide by the decision, then fair enough. And, if that fails, there's always Wikipedia:Arbitration, which is mandatorily binding on all parties, if I understand it correctly. I think the only way we'll resolve this — to anyone's satisfaction — is by going through the whole dispute resolution process step by step. Frustrating and time-consuming, yes, but at least then we can get to a point where we know that noone can continue bitching about it without being told that the process has run its course. OwenBlacker 10:39, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Looks like my suggestion's been shortcircuited:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sam_Spade — OwenBlacker 10:42, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hello I've come here because I was invited to give a neutral outsiders take on this dispute. I've had a quick readthrough of the dispute, to be honest things look solvable to me. I have seen soooooo much worse on other talk pages i'd be amazed if we can't get a resolution fairly quickly. But as for the poll. Am I right in thinking you are having a poll as to whether you should remove a npov dispute header? (as you can see I get confused easily, the poll seems nuts to me, why not be bold, remove it, and if anyone adds it back in they have to explain themselves on talk?)theresa knott 15:03, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There's a new objection (see FAC/...#New objection), so I sha'n't remove the NPOV note for now (which I was intending to do this evening). Thank you very much for taking time to comment, though Theresa, it's very much appreciated, at least by me. — OwenBlacker 21:00, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

OK but be aware that standards for featured articles are necessarily much higher than normal standards. My own personal opinion is that the article is not up to FA standars yet, but there is no need for a NPOV header. theresa knott 07:50, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I just posted to the FAC discussion, I've just removed the NPOV header tag. See my comments a minute or two ago at the FAC discussion for the context, please, but don't worry, I really amn't gonna get into an edit war about this. — OwenBlacker 12:40, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

To much talk and not enough editing

It seems to me that there has been an awful lot of discussion, but not much actual editing of the article. So despite my complete lack of knowledge on the subject (but also, in my favour, a complete lack of emotional involvement in the subject) I've been bold and made a start by editing the first paragraph. Well actually I've just cut stuff from it - of course it's gay men who patronise gay bathhouses - we don't need to state the obvious. As for speculation why it's not popular with women, I don't think we should have any speculation in the very first paragraph. Normally intro's contain factual info only, speculation should only come later in an article. theresa knott 07:59, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Theresa,

I agree entirely that there's insufficient editing of the article considering how large the talk page has grown. However, I must object to your excising the sentence, "(note that not only men who identify as gay patronise gay bathhouses)" from the article. I think the point of this statement was that in some cases men who do not self-identify as homosexual still make use of gay bathhouses. I too don't have any firsthand knowledge of the subject, but that's the understanding I've developed from what I've read, and I think that it's a fairly significant fact that should be included. Perhaps it should be placed further down in the article and better explained. I agree that the speculation about women should remain out the article unless someone can expound on it.

Cheers,

Acegikmo1 08:31, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I misread the sentence :-( - I thought it was saying 'only gays patronise' instead of ' not only gays patronise'. It probably needs to be reworded so that idiots like me don't make the same mistake theresa knott 08:51, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've done it theresa knott 09:20, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Acegikmo1 is spot on as to the implication of the sentence — some men who would consider themselves straight frequent saunas for sex with men, in just the same way that some men who label themselves straight use public toilets for the same purpose. Looks like you've done a good job editing it, though, Theresa. — OwenBlacker 11:37, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Intro

So far I've only looked at the intro, but it's a bit weasly and i can't fix that because i don't know enough. What I mean is - instead of "some bathhouses do this - but some don't" or "In some countries this is practiced in others it's illegal" it would be better to get ride of all the some/many/ a few etc and replace them with actual examples -In France Germany and most of Europe blah blah blah, but in Canada and USA it's not common and in Blah blah blah it's illegal. That sort of thing. theresa knott 09:20, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. If noone beats me to it, I might do a little research and try to nail this down a little. It's worth bearing in mind, though, that I've been meaning to rewrite and merge the entries on British decimalisation for a few weeks now, so I mightn't be all that quick at it. :o) — OwenBlacker 11:37, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'll keep nagging on this talk page until someone does it. <yet more constructive critism> this sentence "Some bathhouses hold occasional "leather", "underwear" or other theme nights." doesn't sit right where it is. it looks like it's been tacked on at the end of the intro, it should be moved somewhere else IMO but I'm still reading the article so I'll not move it yet. If someone else beats me to it - so much the better (lazyness is one of my most important attributes) theresa knott 11:51, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

moral opinions?

OK i've finally read the whole article, and I've now learned quite a lot but there is still an awful lot I don't know. I don't know anything about common opinions of the morality of gay bathhouses. the Bette Midler quote is good but surely we can find some others? Sam has opined that he finds sex with strangers in this kind of place "disgusting". I cannot believe he is the only person ever to hold this view, are there any prominant people who we could quote with a similar opinion? Also what about prominent gay activists, have any of them ever said anything about bathhouses? - (I suppose I'd better get of my lazy backside and do some research myself) theresa knott 12:16, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just to let you know I reverted your last edit because you changed some things that were part of a direct quote. When you add or remove things from direct quotes you must use square brackets, not parentheses.

OK fair enough - it's just that square brackets reminds me of wiki markup theresa knott

As for your comment above, it's not the morality of bathhouses that is in question, it is the sex that goes on in them. A redirect to promiscuity should be fine. Perhaps one to homophobia might be a good idea also...

Yes but i've been reading stuff on the web and some bathhouses have been raided and people have been arrested for just being there. (presumably because they weren't caught having sex at the time). theresa knott 12:53, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)Most of the opposition to bathhouses has come from the AIDS panic people, as mentioned in the article.

Exploding Boy 12:26, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I've been trying to do a websearch and it's virtually impossible to find anything without the A word. I can't help but think that the AIDS issue is used a cover for deeper beliefs though - "I dissaprove of these places but am too scared to out and out say that, so I'll use AIDS as an argument instead" Of course this is just my personal opinion based on what i've read so far - I'm not saying we should put that in the article! theresa knott

Yes, that's certainly the impression I got, not least from the film And The Band Played On (which I think should be mentioned somewhere in the article; I'll see what I can do after watching the DVD again). — OwenBlacker 12:40, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Check the archives of this page, Sam's talk page, and my talk page (among others) for more discussion of this. Basically what I've said is that bathhouses are not a big issue generally. Many non-gay people don't know about them at all, and within the gay community people tend not to moralise on the issue. If they do object, it's on the grounds that people can have unsafe sex there. A very small minority of gay people object in this way, largely because we know that shutting down gay bathhouses will not stop people from having unsafe sex (especially since bathhouses are one of the major places that safer sex info is disseminated to gay men). Exploding Boy 12:39, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough but I'd like to read for myself what some of that very small minoritory have to say. Also some straight people must know about them and have something to say - police chiefs, mayors, MDs, moral crusaiders. There must be something? theresa knott 12:44, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying not to. Try Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage for a start. Exploding Boy 12:47, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

OK I'm off to do some reading, <Terminator> I'll be back!</Terminator> theresa knott 13:02, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)