Talk:Gay bathhouse/Archive 5

message: (Following discussion moved from FAC/Archive/Gay bathhouse) OwenBlacker 10:09, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
OK, I'll add myself as disputing the article's neutrality. The article is an informative piece of journalism, but it's what I call "gee, whiz" journalism, because it is shallow. And it is saturated with POV - that "anything between consenting adults...," a POV that may be popular with some but is far from universal.
When you purchase a product at the store, the price you pay is often not the only price involved. There are other prices paid by society, in the form of disposing of the packaging, cleaning up pollution involved in the manufacture, etc. That there are manufacturers, who for profit, are only too happy to pass the hidden costs to society is a given. And that there are gullible consumers who will even use products that are hurtful to them, then turn around and try to pass off the consequence on others is likewise obvious (witness the recent events in the tobacco industry). 
The author of this article shows his POV, as well as awareness that there is another price, by empasizing the "safety" measures taken, but avoids any further (depth) analysis of the true safety and the end consequences of failure. It's a commentary on our ability to compartmentalize that we are becoming increasingly aware of hidden consumer and environmental costs, but, because of the arguable POV aforementioned, the hidden health and social costs are simply glossed over when promiscuous sex is involved. 
Oppose Pollinator 20:06, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC) 
: I just moved Pollinator's comments and any subsequent discussion to be a new section, not least for legibility's sake; apologies if this puts anyone's nose out of joint.
: I was under the impression that we don't bowdlerise or moralise in Wikipedia. The article already links to promiscuity and makes references to safer sex. I'm not sure anything more should be expected within an article that, frankly, isn't about these things, it's about an aspect of gay culture. OwenBlacker 20:56, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
I'd like you to be more specific, if possible.  Exploding Boy 23:48, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
: For clarity, do you mean me or Pollinator, EB? — OwenBlacker 07:47, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
Pollinator.  See, I think people are confusing the content, purpose and scope of this article with that of several others.  Pollinators comments, which essentially echo Sam's, are basically that there is not enough discussion of the potential ramifications of promiscuity.  This article is not about promiscuity.  The promiscuity article is where those issues need to be discussed in depth.  This article is about bathhouses.  Some people have promiscuous sex at bathhouses; others do not.  But either way, that's not what this article is about.  Exploding Boy 12:23, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
: As I'm sure anyone who's following this discussion would guess, I'm entirely inclined to agree. I don't believe it's the place of Wikipedia to moralise in its articles, I believe that would be POV, rather than a failure to do so being. My understanding of WP:NPOV leads me to believe that's Wikipedia's formal policy, too.
: Having given it some thought, over the last day or so, I'm actually going to remove the NPOV header on the article now. If someone wants to readd it, please detail your specific objections (preferably on Talk:Gay bathhouse, in a new section entitled something like "Restored NPOV header" or something) and I'll not revert it until I'm satisfied that the objections are dealt with or that the community agrees that the objections are inappropriate. — OwenBlacker 12:32, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
::Not so fast! You haven't dealt with the objection, nor have you shown that it's NPOV. Instead you've given further evidence of the POV agenda you have. You applied a label (moralizing - which it's not) to my post and then ignored the issue. The inability or more likely refusal to distinguish between common sense and moralizing is evidence of POV. Folks who could comment here are likely to be intimidated by the labeling, the ridicule, the marginalizing, and otherwise general bullying that has already occured on this talk page.
::While browsing through the articles on mining, I noticed that there was nothing on the coal mining pages about black lung disease. Anyone who's ever known any coal mining families would agree that an "encyclopedic" article about coal mining that did not refer in any way to black lung, would be a pretty superficial entry.
::Interestingly when I added a link and stub on black lung disease, there was no post to call defenders of the coal mining page to come to see what I had done. There was no immediate attempt to marginalize the post I made. Just about anyone would agree that this is a hidden cost of coal mining, and the issue should be faced squarely and honestly. The bill for result of coal mining is ultimately paid by the families, insurance policyholders and taxpayers.
::Based on the talk pages here - the intensity of the personal investment, the eagerness to gloss over any consideration of the larger picture, and the abuse and/or marginalization of the opposition, I'm going to have to revise my assessment of this article as "Gee whiz journalism," and instead think of it as -- propaganda. Pollinator 22:42, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
:::"You haven't dealt with the objection, nor have you shown that it's NPOV."  The user who added the NPOV header was unable or unwilling to cite what, exactly, was POV about the article, despite being asked to do so several times. The comparison to coal mining and black lung is a bit odd when one considers that there's a five paragraph section on "gay bathhouses and STDs" in the article already. -Sean Curtin 23:31, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Gay bathhouse|FAC/Archive/Gay bathhouse]]