Talk:Gay bathhouse/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

editing the article

I don't understand what you’re talking about. I was trying to edit the article, and was twice reverted, both by EB within a short period of time. That tells me not to edit the article. Edit wars are bad. I have abandoned nothing, but I certainly intend to. One of two things is going to happen in short order. Either the article is going to be mended to some degree of satisfaction (some significant progress towards NPOV) so that I can leave it to your devices, or I am simply going to give up on it, as I have other articles where POV has overridden an editor’s willingness to improve. One of the less thought about benefits of the group editing process is mortality. The average lifespan of a wiki is 6 months. I'll probably either outlive you or leave, and either way I can't say I care that much about this article as to waste much more time saying the same things in different ways when you won't listen. You told me I am ignorant of the topic, and your right. I said I am probably the last person who should be editing this article, and I was right. At best I will try rewriting the article once more, assuming there is the same steady lack of progress made. No promises, but maybe. Sam [Spade] 05:52, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was referring to Raul's request that you post to talk what you think the first paragraph should look like. Snowspinner 06:01, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're talking about. What you have done is place an NPOV dispute message on the article, rant for a while, and then leave. You should of course feel free to edit the article, but expect any nonsense to be reverted immediately. If you don't care about the article, are ignorant of the topic, and feel you are the last person who should be editing it, then don't do it. Remove your dispute so the rest of us can get on with it. Exploding Boy 06:02, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Improve the article and quit crying. Sam [Spade] 00:39, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But the point is, though, Sam, that some of us (certainly myself and EB, at least) don't believe there is anything that particularly requires improvement in the article (and, for the little it's worth, I don't see anyone crying here).

You've raised objections above, which have all been answered. Perhaps you could enumerate your remaining objections, including any above that have not yet been addressed to your satisfaction. I'm really not trying to be arsey, but I honestly don't know what it is that you find objectionable in the article. If you could make some attempt to explain your objections, perhaps we can try to resolve them. Unless it simply is that you find the subject matter offensive and so don't want to countenance the article being Featured? — OwenBlacker 00:48, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

As a neutral party who just read this discussion today, it's more than obvious that Sam Spade is uncomfortable with the subject matter. Based on his notoriety as a page diva, perhaps he shouldn't even be on the wikipedia. There are probably hundreds of articles that would make him similarly ill at ease. The bathhouse article is one of the better articles in the wikipedia. It's informative and historically accurate. As various contributors have mentioned, it's not about promiscuity, it's about one place where promiscuity is practiced, and that, for gay people, has had significant social and cultural importance. As far as I'm concerned, the validity and importance of Sam's argument vanished early on when he described bathhouses as "disgusting." How would it be if we all went to every page that made us uncomfortable and did the same thing? The wikipedia would be a complete waste of time. When I find a page that, for whatever reason, makes my stomach turn, I leave it. I assume that it's important to other wikipedians, and that they will edit it and keep it neutral. If we don't trust other users, then this whole project is a farce. Leland 09:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Non of Sam's objections has been valid. Most of them barely made sense. If the NPOV dispute remains much longer without any further action I'm removing it. Exploding Boy 00:32, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

• Wikiquette

• Wikipedia:Civility

The technique of driving off criticism thru usage of ad hominem attacks is all to common on "sexuality" topics. Probably due to quality editors being too squeemish to bother with them. As I said I'll consider a final attempt, and then I'm off. Logic always defeats rhetoric in theory, but in practice things all too often boil down to an ad baculum test of nerves and endurance. Some of you seem to feel your only "stick" is incivility. Sad that. Sam [Spade] 00:44, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

a review of [1] might also benefit. Sam [Spade] 01:16, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Only one of the links you provided is about gay bathhouses specifically - and even then it's not about bathhouses in general, but about one specific scandal at one specific bathhouse. -Sean Curtin 04:49, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also, I've not been trying to "drive off criticism." On the contrary, I've been welcoming useful, constructive criticism. Exploding Boy 06:40, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)