Talk:Gay bathhouse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Split

Much of this article deals with bathhouses (sp?) in general and not specifically with gay bathhouses. Maybe it should be split in two articles (one on bathhouses and one on gay bathhouses)? -- Kimiko 21:19, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What? Everything in the article is specific to gay bathhouses. There really is no non-gay equivalent. And the spelling looks weird but is correct. Exploding Boy 21:37, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

In my experience non-gay bathhouses are not called as such, they are private saunas. This I feel has something to do with the association bathhouses were given in the early 80s with the spread of AIDS. Graham  :) 21:45, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alright then. But maybe you could make the non-existence of non-gay bathhouses more clear in the opening paragraph then, as the following paragraphs only talk about "bathhouses" and don't seem very gay-specific to one who is not familiar with the phenomenon.
Also, "sauna" is a word for a kind of bathhouse that is definitely not gay-specific. Maybe the bolded term should be "gay saunas" then? -- Kimiko 22:39, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not necessary to use "gay bathhouse" in every instance of the word in this article because it's clear that the article is about gay bathhouses. A sauna is not really a bathhouse, and if it is it's not the same type of bathhouse and it's not for the same purpose, ie not a gay bathhouse. A gay sauna is a gay bathhouse, and the latter term is more common. Exploding Boy

Regarding your edits, then... the rephrasing to the bit about condoms serves only to remove information, and replace it with statements that have less clear connections. The section is simply better written in its previous form. The change of "men" to "homosexual men," aside from going against the style manual (As you well know) is needlessly redundant. It's not as though straight men are going to go to bathhouses for sex with other men, now are they? The statement about homosexuality's illegalness/hostility is needless - it adds nothing. Bathouses are advertised within the relevent subcultures. The clarification about prostitution is irrelevent - the legality/hostility has no connection to safety issues. The changing of "public humiliation" to "punished" is deletion of information - shaming is a particular type of punishment. I will, however, grand that the parenthetical "and sexy" is probably unnecessary. As for what this has to do with NPOV... it seems as though the main effect of these edits is to repeatedly remind people that homosexuality is condemned by some people. What does this achieve? We don't mention creationism repeatedly in punctuated equilibrium, nor do we mention that people think Hitler was evil every few sentences. Present the facts. Let people draw conclusions from them. Snowspinner 19:33, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Not in the UK it's not. Graham  :) 11:33, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Still, a gay sauna is different from a sauna, right? Exploding Boy 11:39, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

*wicked smile* Indeed it is... Graham  :) 11:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The current edit war

In the name of starting a discussion instead of just having this go back and forth, I'd like to note that I think that Sam's edits are largely not improvements upon the article, and that the article is NPOV in its current form. Snowspinner 18:42, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

It's not an edit war. I've reverted some inappropriate edits. One example: Sam changed "Men still use bathhouses..." to "Homosexual men still use bathhouses...". I changed it back as it's at best incomplete. Exploding Boy 18:46, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

What aspect of this article is not NPOV? Snowspinner 19:13, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Well, you could review the edits I made which the pages 'owner" reverted as a starting place. Also, it is largely POV by omission, with ordinary (not extremely promiscuous) views unrepresented. Additionally there are numerous stylistic and sentance structure deficits which I was beginning to mend before he reverted me. Sam [Spade] 19:23, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're making no sense at all. You made a bunch of edits which left the factual accuracy of the article in tatters, and ruined the flow of the writing. I reverted them. You freely acknowledge that (1) you have no knowledge of the subject and (2) you have a problem with the whole concept -- the words you used were "objectionable," "distressing," "depraved," "whore house," "pro-promiscuity advertisement." I don't know how you can claim to be neutral with a straight face. Exploding Boy 19:28, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your edits, then... the rephrasing to the bit about condoms serves only to remove information, and replace it with statements that have less clear connections. The section is simply better written in its previous form. The change of "men" to "homosexual men," aside from going against the style manual (As you well know) is needlessly redundant. It's not as though straight men are going to go to bathhouses for sex with other men, now are they? The statement about homosexuality's illegalness/hostility is needless - it adds nothing. Bathouses are advertised within the relevent subcultures. The clarification about prostitution is irrelevent - the legality/hostility has no connection to safety issues. The changing of "public humiliation" to "punished" is deletion of information - shaming is a particular type of punishment. I will, however, grand that the parenthetical "and sexy" is probably unnecessary. As for what this has to do with NPOV... it seems as though the main effect of these edits is to repeatedly remind people that homosexuality is condemned by some people. What does this achieve? We don't mention creationism repeatedly in punctuated equilibrium, nor do we mention that people think Hitler was evil every few sentences. Present the facts. Let people draw conclusions from them. Snowspinner 19:33, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to offer to mediate this dispute. I haven't read the article much beyond the intro (My opposition vote at featured articles was a result of Minimal evaluation). I did see a few things that (I think) are slightly POV, but nothing greatly so. →Raul654 19:35, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Additionally:

• Not only homosexual men use bathhouses, as written in article.
• Bathhouses are advertised, as written in the article.
• You're misinterpreting the "and sexy" phrase.

Raul, thanks for the offer but really this is just another example of Sam's rabid anti-gay bias. He has created similar disputes on who knows how many other gay-related pages. Particularly offensive is his insistence on inserting the word "homosexual" into articles where it is not needed or not appropriate (see edit on this page). If you saw something non-neutral please post it here and let us address it. Exploding Boy 19:39, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider Raul help though ? SweetLittleFluffyThing 19:52, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

EB: Sam has agreed (on my talk page) to allow me to mediate between you two. Along with Anthere, I strongly suggest you agree too. I disagree with your assertion that Sam has a "rabid anti-gay bias" - as a neutral observer, I must say that on occasion, I have agreed with him. →Raul654 23:01, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

I advise mediation as well. I am also willing, if EB is not interested in working with Sam himself, to be the mediating party for the view that the article is of high quality in its current form. Snowspinner 23:05, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Listen, thanks for the offer, but I really don't think mediation is needed here. What's needed, as a first step anyway, is for people to make a clear statement -- preferrably here -- about what, exactly, they see as non-neutral, and let the discussion take it's course.

The trouble is, as he said himself on Raul's talk page, Sam's an "especially poor choice for editing this article." This is because he's biased against homosexuality. Sam's attitude is summed up in the following comment about editing gay-related topics: "I have been chased away by rabidly pro-homosexual [sic] editors, who make up the vast majority on these pages. I think this is a serious NPOV issue. Non-gay editors probably don't seek out to edit these pages anyways, but I can guarantee that if they do, and don't share the pro-gay POV slant, they will have a heck of a time of it."

As to whether I'm "biased in favor of homosexuality," I'll say clearly that my point of view is that homosexuality is natural. This does not mean I'm "in favour of homosexuality." It does not render me unable to write neutral articles on the topic. It does not mean that I try to insert pro-gay propaganda into such articles. Sam, on the other hand seems to believe that if every neutral statement is not countered by a negative one, that constitutes pro-gay bias. It's no wonder that people get upset by his edits. Due to a simple lack of knowledge on the topics he claims to be trying to make neutral, he frequently introduces bias and removes important information (see his edits to this article). Another issue is failing to follow the style manual. People get upset about that, and justifiably. Everyone has a few articles they watch and work on regularly. Those regular contributors, who often have extensive or specialized knowledge, work hard to develop a manual of style. A clear example is the word "homosexuality." The style manual says that "gay" is the preferred term. There are varied and important reasons for that, which have been hammered out at considerable cost in terms of personal time and effort. When people refuse -- perhaps due to bias, perhaps to lack of knowledge -- to use the agreed-upon terms, yeah, people get upset.

In terms of this article, Sam sees (or seems to see; he's yet to be clear) bias in the fact that only a small part of the article is devoted to opposing views. This would be a valid point if the rest of the article was devoted to views in favour; it is not. The balance of the article provides a description and history of gay batthouses, and some discussion of their modern form, as well as some information on legal issues.

Sam's main objection to this article being featured is that it's an "objectionable topic" (while he's also said he finds the article to be "less than "brilliant prose" generally," everyone else who commented on that aspect on the FA page disagreed). Whether the topic is inherently objectionable is clearly a matter of point of view, but whether or not he thinks it's objectionable is clearly not at issue; if the article is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, it's suitable for featuring on the front page.

Exploding Boy 01:25, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with your last assertion - we have a number of articles that I would never think of putting on VfD that I also never think will or should go on the front page. That said, I would join those suggesting you accept mediation - it's the process through which specific objections can and will get worked out, Raul is a reasonable guy, and refusing mediation, quite honestly, makes your case look a lot worse. I agree, it's early in the process for a mediation request, but that doesn't make the mediation request invald. And, looking at how things are going so far, I can't see the situation not degenerating to the point where mediation is necessary. Better to start the process while tempers are long instead of short. Snowspinner 01:37, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. That's really the problem: there are no specific objections, just vague, general ones. Anyway, I haven't refused mediation. I've just said I don't think it's needed at this point. Exploding Boy 01:53, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Presumably, specific objections would come up in mediation, and, if they didn't, that this would be taken as indicative of a lack of any real problems beyond a vague and general discontent with the article as a concept. Snowspinner 02:10, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

In that case why deal with them in mediation rather than here, where everyone can post their opinion? Exploding Boy 02:16, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Summary of my views

I don't accept the summary of my views above, but I do do think I have made myself clear here, in raul's talk, and in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Any one who is interested in comparing my views to those of EB can review those sources, so I need not repeat ad infinitum. My summary of his views would be that there is no problem with his all-round excellent article, and that I am meerely a lone homophobe on a rant. I think if anyone (including himself if he can emotionally detach a moment from "his" article) reviews my edits, they will fail to find examples of harassment or cultural vindictives on my part. It simply is not my focus, and I am on no special mission against it. I complain here, and will complain elsewhere, of the petty ad hominem of "homophobe" being used so often in this debate, which I interpret as a policy violation. Sam [Spade] 03:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh god... Fine. If you want mediation that badly, fine. I just wish that instead of pushing for that you'd enumerate your problems with the article clearly instead of these continued vague pronouncements. But whatever. Mediation it is. Exploding Boy 03:09, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I don't insist upon mediation, but I will accept it. Seems hasty to me, but w raul willing enough?

I apologize BTW for the use of Homosexual rather than gay in those instances. I should have remembered that from previous discussions with snowspin, but it’s not my habit. Homosexual is to me a clinical term, and thus more dignified/polite than "gay" which is used generally for anything disliked, or more classically to mean a general state of joy (I read allot of 19th century literature, so I see it in this use often enough). I agree that the style guide says to use "gay" in the sorts of sentences, my intent was to clarify who attended these houses, not to cause insult. Sam [Spade] 03:13, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, mediation is fine. Otherwise this will go on forever and I'm already tired of it and would rather just work on the Japanese tea ceremony article. Exploding Boy 03:24, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Clarification

Maybe I should clarify what this entails - this is *not* mediation as per the Wikipedia:dispute resolution guidelines. I'm not a member of the mediation committee, there has not been a request for comment filed, and if it falls apart, the next step is not the arbitration committee. This is me, helping you two (Sam and EB) try to talk out your problems and get you to come to some kind of agreement for how to write the article. It's basically what EB described - using the talk page to talk out your differences - only with assistance. What I'm offering is a fair and impartial third-party point of view. Now, if the both of you are satisfied with that, I think we can begin. Sam and EB - is this satisfactory to you both? →Raul654 06:30, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Oh.... Um. Hmm. Well, if you can get Sam to actually clearly explain the specific points he feels are non-neutral -- something he still hasn't done -- I suppose that would helpful. Given that Sam himself has said he's not the best one to edit this article I'm not sure what difference it's going to make though. Exploding Boy 06:51, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

That was also how I understood Raul offer EB. He was not suggesting formal mediation, but just suggesting to provide help in this public discussion, because clearly Sam and you are going no where :-) Anyone can do this at anytime. Not the mediation committee. All you have to do is to welcome him here on this page, and Raul to try to help you figure out the issue, perhaps by straigthening and organising a bit the points discussed, and you both to agree for a third person to help you organise your thoughts. Mediation is nothing more. May I suggest (as an external observer) that everyone is welcome to edit this article, whether they are gay or not gay, pro or con-gays, user of bath or non user of bath. Everyone has a piece of information and a different perspective to bring; That is the mixing of all of our contributions, so yours and SS ones that will give this article all its flavor. Perhaps the best way to proceed would be to start acknowledging this. Just my opinion :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 07:13, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've already agreed to it several times. Exploding Boy 07:24, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

On the use of the word "sexy"

I think people are misunderstanding the sentence "...a cheap (and sexy) alternative to hotels." The word "sexy," here, does not mean "appealing" ("generally attractive or interesting"), but "sexually suggestive or stimulating." The word "sexual" does not work in this sentence because it seems to suggest that a bathhouse is a sexual althernative to a hotel, which makes little sense. Exploding Boy 03:13, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

I understand your meaning, but I think the phrasing is too confusing, and it comes off as very unencyclopedic. Snowspinner 03:47, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to rephrase it, but not with the word "sexual" which just sounds weird. Exploding Boy 03:50, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)