Talk:Boise homosexuality scandal

Untitled

Why is "the city's newspaper" not identified at first mention?--Wetman (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Tag added

This article reads as if it was a summary taken from a single source (the book by J. Gerassi). Since this book seems to have a very specific POV regarding the relationship between the sex scandal and the whole political scene of Boise at the time, it is very unlikely that the resulting article be fairly balanced. Fi11222 (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just because the article relies heavily on a single source doesn't mean that it is unbalanced. If there are specific things that you believe are POV, please cite them. Otherwise your assumption that balance is "unlikely" seems insufficient to justify the POV tag. Otto4711 (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• I will be removing the tag at least as long as the article is linked from the main page. I see this as no different that "this article is written by a single user, and I believe them to be biased". Use of a source is not proof of NPOV violation, and not a sufficient basis for the tag. Complaints should be specific and actionable. Savidan 17:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• This paragraph, for example, is a very specific POV on the incident: "journalist and academician John Gerassi suggests that the investigation began as a means for the wealthy elite of Boise to assert and maintain economic control of the city and the state. He asserts that a gay millionaire known as "The Queen" was the target of the probe, although he was never charged. With the son of the loudest proponent of the investigation implicated, Gerassi suggests that the forces behind the probe realized that homosexuals were at every level of society and that their wealth and power would not necessarily insulate them, leading them to quietly halt the investigation." It is full of weasel words and asserts the existence of something like a conspiracy which, of course, cannot be proven. Since no other POV is quoted in the article, it means that the whole of it becomes nothing more than a reflection of the personal interpretation of the issue by J. Gerassi. This is not acceptable in an encyclopedic context. Fi11222 (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nonsense. The paragraph merely reports, with sourcing, what one person concluded about the root cause of the scandal based on extensive research and is supported by interviews with a number of people closely associated with the investigation. If the article asserted as fact that there was a conspiracy then that would be non-neutral. It doesn't. Otto4711 (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, then, at the very least, the paragraph quoted above should be removed from the introductory section at the top and put in a separate section of the article with a suitable warning that this represents nothing more than one possible viewpoint on the issue and not the underlying theme of the whole article. Putting it so prominently at the top makes it sound like it is the key assumption that the rest of the article is there to support. An effort should also be made to quote other material than Gerassi's book and in particular some of the contemporary newspaper articles. Fi11222 (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:LEAD, the lede section has to adequately summarize the contents of the body. Without that paragraph the lede does not adequately summarize the contents. The article currently quotes eight contemporary newspaper articles, including two that are reproduced verbatim in Gerassi, and two national magazine articles. Material from books other than Gerassi's is all derived from Gerassi, because his is the seminal work on the subject.
• More fundamentally, I believe you are misinterpreting WP:NPOV. Yes, the article discusses Gerassi's theory of the motive. That's because Gerassi's is the theory that's out there. If there were other extant theories that I excluded, that would be an NPOV violation. There aren't and I didn't. I presented Gerassi's theory clearly as a theory, attributed to him, with no endorsement or repudiation. Saying that's an NPOV violation is like saying that we can't write about movies if there's only been one review or we can't write about a scientific concept if there's only one theory behind it. That's not what NPOV says and it's not what it means. Otto4711 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV says, among other things that "Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)". Note that this says that ALL sources are biased. It is therefore very difficult to be neutral if one uses only one source as an interpretive guide. I am not saying that Gerassi is wrong. It is interesting to build interpretative theory on observable facts. But this should not be the basis for an encyclopedic article which must strive to be neutral. If there is only one theory out there, it is all the more advisable to exercise caution and treat this theory at arms length. By having a special section titled "sociological interpretations" or "political analyses" for example. But this should not be treated as the core of the article and therefore not appear in the lead section. Fi11222 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• But I am not interpreting Gerassi's theory, merely presenting it and clearly noting that it is a theory along with the research that he presents in support of it. If I were presenting his theory as fact, then yes, it's POV. I didn't. His theory is not the basis of the article. The facts of the incident, as verified in multiple reliable sources beyond Gerassi's book, are. If someone other than Gerassi were to develop an alternate theory of the investigation, NPOV would mandate its inclusion subject to WP:UNDUE. No one to the best of my knowledge has and it is impossible to require that the article include something that simply doesn't exist. The theory must appear in the lede per WP:LEAD to adequately summarize the article. If the theory information were removed from the lede the article would fail WP:LEAD. If the theory information were removed from the lede in favor of a separate section within the article it would fail WP:LEAD by an even wider margin. Otto4711 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. I think we have both stated our views and we are still in disagreement. Would some form of arbitration please step in ? Fi11222 (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have placed notes on the involved Wikiproject's talk pages and also noted the NPOV dispute in the peer review request. I hope we will get some feedback over the next couple of days. Otto4711 (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• I read the article over, and agree with Savidan. Contoversial topics should be covered by reporting notable opinions (rather than stating them as facts), but this has been done here. This does not consistute a POV violation, and imo the NPOV template is not warranted at this time. Of course, expansion with any other notable and sources opinions would be great, but do not merit templating, particular as Otto4711 has searched for other viewpoints and not found them (i think we can AGF on this, considering his experience as an editor). Unless other notable views are shown to exist, it is not UNDUE weight to rely on the one in depth analysis.YobMod 08:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• I did not support the NPOV tag while this was linked from DYK and do not support it now. In my opinion, Fi11222 does not display sufficient understanding of the policy. All of his examples above have been attributed, not stated as objective fact. The only remaining basis that could possibly justify a NPOV tag at this point was if Fi11222 demonstrated that reliable, published other sources with the opposite POV exist and have not been represented. These sources, if any, must be pointed out specifically for the tag to persist. Savidan 09:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Otto4711 and I tend to write similar articles. I've seen references to the Boise scandal of 1955, which is almost always tied to mention of the Lavender Scare, a movement in conjunction with McCarthy's Red Scare. The private lives of many thousands of Americans were investigated to confirm they had ties with communists, or in this case, homosexuals. Just now reading the article over, one of my suggestions is to link this to the national moral panic over homosexuality in the 1950s. The issue at hand here, however, seems to be that all sides are being represented equally. What side is missing? A justification of a witch hunt? I don't imagine any sources exist to do such a thing. I'm for removing the tag, but continuing to add well-cited info to the article as applicable. --Moni3 (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I do have a link to the Lavender Scare in the "story breaks nationally" section, discussing "Bill Goodman" being hired by the city. It's a bit of an Easter egg though. I haven't seen any other material that explicitly ties this scandal to the wider socio-political climate. Otto4711 (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of what I read was in books about the overall tenor of the nation regarding homosexuality in the 1950s. I'll see if I can find some stuff, though I'm in the middle of a few other things so it may take me a bit to get to it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article I had no idea existed, although I knew that 18 University of Florida professors were fired for having some ties to homosexual something or other in the 1950s. --Moni3 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've run across references to this investigation before. I think Rita Mae Brown talks about it in her autobiography and alludes to it in Rubyfruit Jungle. Otto4711 (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• The comparison to the Red Scare is interesting. For a long time in the 1970s and 80s, many writers, including many from academia, wrote lengthy analyses about something they described as a completely fabricated panic started without any basis by malevolent reactionaries bent on discrediting honest and progressive intellectuals and artists. Then, with the end of the cold war, the Venona decrypts and other sources were made public and it turned out that many segments of American society, including academia, had indeed been heavily penetrated by Soviet intelligence in the 1940s. All the supposed martyrs, including the Rosenberg, turned out to have been actual soviet spies. I think this is a lesson in caution, as far as interpreting recent history is concerned. Reporting a theory is fine. Highlighting it in a lead section with just enough weasel words to be able to pretend that it is only being "reported" is quite another matter. Fi11222 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• To Savidan: condescension is never a good idea when one is trying to mediate a dispute. Especially when said attitude is demonstrated by an undergrad student ... Fi11222 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you identify which words in the lead are weasel words, per WP:WEASEL? --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• My bad. They are not WP:WEASEL but WP:AVOID kinds of words. Words that imply "a point of view [...] by using loaded synonyms for the verb "to say"", such as "suggest" or "assert", in this particular case. Fi11222 (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• When used actively, as these verbs are, their use is appropriate (Expert X suggests ... is not the same as saying "Action X suggests motive Y" without a cite or an expert to say that), if "suggest" is changed in the lead to "writes" would you feel ok with removing the NPOV tag? If not, what other parts of the article need to be changed? Please be specific. --Moni3 (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I was quite specific above: remove the third paragraph of the lead section and put it in a separate section with a title that clearly indicates that its contents are a somewhat speculative theory, such as "sociological interpretations" or "political analysis". That section should also contain some material about the background of J. Gerassi (academic discipline, career, what other topics he wrote about, etc) so that readers may get an idea of where he comes from. Fi11222 (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• If article text covers what the author of the book has posited as a motive, that should be covered in the lead per WP:LEAD. Gerassi is mentioned a few places. This objection is not a case of being not neutral, and since I do not know how else it can be categorized suggest unless you can justify the neutrality tag with something that adheres to WP:NPOV, the tag should be removed. Other than being the author of what I believe is the only book-length treatise on the scandal, what more do you suggest should be added to Gerassi's expertise? Historian? Academic? Professor? --Moni3 (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

I see that my position needs to be explained in more detail.

In my view, the article as it stands contain two unacceptable paragraphs: The third of the lead section and the third of the section titled "Investigation and first arrests", which is a slightly expanded version of the former. These paragraphs are unacceptable because they state what amounts to a conspiracy theory, without indicating it as such. Expressions such as "the wealthy elite of Boise", "a gay millionaire known as "the Queen"" and "the forces behind the probe" are vague stereotypes typical of conspiracy theory writing.

Since they are vague, there is no way that the rest of the article can support them and in fact it does not. In order to do so, a list of names of members of "the wealthy elite of Boise" would have to be provided and credible witnesses quoted who would establish that these people actually coordinated their efforts to drive the investigation and then curtail it. The article as it is does not do that and the book probably does not either as such things are obviously very difficult to obtain.

In their absence, the content of the paragraphs in question remains nothing more than the mention of a conspiracy theory and should be indicated as such. Many articles of Wikipedia report such theories but they always identify them for what they are. Thankfully, there are no articles in Wikipedia on Sept. 11th or WWII which contain paragraphs in their lead sections stating that "XYX, a respected mullah, suggests that the attacks were planned and conducted by the MOSSAD" or "XYZ, a respected independent researcher, suggests that the war was started as a result of an international Judeo-Bolshevik plot". Even though these theories might contain a grain of truth (who knows), they are at the moment entirely unsubstantiated and therefore belong in the "Conspiracy Theory" section.

Concerning J. Gerassi, a quick Google search shows that a recently published collection of his writings calls him an "Unrepentant Radical Educator" ([[1]]). For the sake of honesty, I think that the article should indicate that, possibly just by mentioning a list of his main works.

I reiterate my earlier proposal: move the 3rd paragraph from the lead section and the other similar one from the "Investigation" section into a separate section within the body of the article together with a few lines on the "Unrepentant Radical Educator" background of J. Gerassi. To be absolutely fair, this section should be called "Conspiracy Theory" but, in an effort towards compromise, I suggest instead again to call it "Political Analysis" or "Sociological Interpretations" or anything similar. Hope this helps. Fi11222 (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• You want the title of Gerassi's own book on a different topic to be a reliable source on what kind of expert he is on this topic? What does Gerassi mean by "unrepentant radical educator"? The NYU Library is a much better source: [2] and has text we can actually read: Journalist, scholar, professor, academic.
• A conspiracy theory is such because there is a perceived underground and secret movement to suppress the truth by authorities who have promoted another that is more widely accepted. The Boise scandal lacks this in that it has been forgotten: there is no authority (i.e. the Boise police, the Idaho Legislature, etc) that has posited what happened and why. Even LGBT writers have clearly not focused on this issue, which is not uncommon when addressing a history of shame in pre-Stonewall events.
• I wrote Stonewall riots, in which there are two theories about why the bar raid took place in Note 2. These are historians' opinions based on their research and interviews. They should be presented because they are part of the body of literature on the topic. To include one and refuse to include another is POV. In a similar article I wrote, Rosewood massacre, there are apparently two separate realities of what actually transpired. Both must be explained and given due weight as reported by the sources. This is what neutrality is.
• The September 11 Attacks have 42 separate articles, but the main one certainly does address the motivations of the hijackers. If it's not in the lead, it certainly should be. However, comparing massively publicized events such as 9/11 and World War II to a regional sting operation in 1955 to arrest homosexuals when homosexual behavior was illegal in every state but Illinois is a poor analogy. Like this event, the Rosewood massacre was widely reported by shaky sources at the time, then forgotten and left out of history books. Speculation on ulterior motives by someone who has thoroughly researched the event should be in the article.
• I know there is more to find on this topic, because it is quite a young article. I am still having difficulty seeing your point and I am agreeing with others that the NPOV tag does not apply on the criteria you have presented. --Moni3 (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• A conspiracy theory, as the name implies, is an unsupported assertion (a theory) that a certain event was the result of a conspiracy. By definition, a conspiracy is secret so there is always some amount of information suppression involved in order to keep the plot secret. This definition certainly fits the way the events in Boise are presented in the paragraphs in question.
• Another aspect that is also often present in conspiracy theory writing is that "hidden forces", more powerful than official authorities, are at work to control events. This also fits the material presented here.
• The material presented below seems to add balance to Gerassi's views, in my opinion, as it presents the idea that the whole affair might be a case of "spontaneous combustion" triggered, in a very volatile atmosphere, by a relatively limited initial incident (the PI investigation initiated to settle personal scores). This idea should be presented as an alternative to Gerassi's theory that "the wealthy elite of Boise" orchestrated the events. Fi11222 (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As you can see below, it was not just Gerassi who formulated this opinion. The statement below is from a primary source. In your opinion, taking into consideration that an academic and a primary source assert that police and political corruption were the primary motivations behind the scandal, what would it take to make this article neutral? --Moni3 (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• The material below DOES NOT support the view that "the investigation began as a means for the wealthy elite of Boise to assert and maintain economic control of the city and the state". Quite the contrary. It shows that the events started as a result of an inquiry aimed at settling old scores between two local politicians. How does that support the idea that "the wealthy elite" had an agenda as a group ? On the contrary, it shows that they were at each other's throats.
• In my view, the material below shows that there was so much uneasiness about homosexuality at the time that the slightest incident was able to trigger mass hysteria. Apparently, NO ONE controlled the process, which is often the case with mass hysteria and scares. It develops on its own and the higher strata of society generally act to calm down things rather than fan the flames. Which seem to be the case here: two senators came back from Washington, etc ...
• I think this material would be very useful to improve the article as it balances out the views of Gerassi. Fi11222 (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Katz, Gay American History

I knew I had seen something specific about this. Jonathan Katz covers this in Gay American History, published in 1974. He interviews one of the men who was arrested and jailed in 1955. It's a 10-page interview, so it may take me a few hours or days to get it all. Feel free to apply it where you wish in the article. In summary, the interview says

p. 110:

Boise was a small town controlled by powerful churches, namely Mormon and Catholic. A Boise city councilman wanted to smear a political rival whose brother was known to be a "wild, nelly, flitty thing". He and an attorney friend hired a private investigator who released what he found to the city attorney. Most of those arrested were from a lower socioeconomic class. The newspaper emphasized that young boys were being seduced by older men. Newspaper stories were inflammatory: "it was like they struck a match to a bonfire". Two thousand people were questioned in Boise; hundreds of gays left town in fear. Two senators had to return from Washington to allay public hysteria.

p. 111:

Newspapers across the west coast covered the scandal. The interviewee moved to California and was staying at the YMCA in San Francisco. After hiring an attorney to approach the Boise Police to see if he was wanted, he continued to work at a hotel. The Boise sheriff came to arrest him one day. The SF police were surprised that the interviewee was being extradited on such a charge; it was not standard procedure in California. He and his parents hired an attorney in Boise, and planned to meet him at the police station, but when the interviewee arrived, he was taken to "Bill Goodman"'s house. He was deliberately rerouted from consulting with his attorney.

p. 112:

The interviewee was brought in because a young man he had slept with years earlier was the brother of the councilman's rival. They had slept together, and the youth was claiming the interviewee held a gun to his head. The interviewee wrote a statement, but did not sign it. Nine hours lapsed with the police before he was allowed to call his attorney. There was a twelve-year age difference between the interviewee and the youth, and the interviewee claims to have been in his late twenties at the time of the sexual encounter. The interviewee corrected the false allegations in the youth's statement. He was taken to jail and fingerprinted, then bailed out. He was charged with "infamous crimes against nature". The youth's parents pressured the judge to sentence the interviewee to life in prison.

p. 113:

Bill Goodman's method of interviewing suspects was to give them false statements about past relationships. Those who were being interviewed would correct him about the names of men they had slept with, giving Goodman more information. Goodman did not use pressure, but the interviewee says he was "very slick, very clever". The interviewee's father was dying of cancer at the time of the interrogations, then his grandfather had a stroke, both died. At a hearing, the DA told him he should have kept his mouth shut.

p. 114:

The assistant prosecuting attorney flaunted their success a bit, saying they had run out every homosexual in town. The interviewee's mother replied, saying they missed one and that he should go home and look in the mirror. The youth's parents found out that their son was homosexual and agreed to ask for leniency in the interviewee's case. The interviewee's attorney advised him to act ashamed in court. In the hearing, the interviewee answered questions about his past, including having homosexual relations in the Navy, with his psychiatrist, who was gay. The judge found him guilty, but his attorney advised him to wait for a psychiatrist's report before sentencing.

p. 115:

He was sentenced to three years' probation after 6 months in county jail. The assistant prosecuting attorney was promoted, and intervened to ensure the interviewee was getting no special privileges in jail. The prosecuting attorney told the interviewee that he would be sent to state prison. Bait was sent; first, a deputy sheriff who showered twice a day and walked around nude in front of the interviewee. Then they offered to take time off of other prisoners' sentences to get the interviewee to make a pass at any of them. Then they put an 18-year-old kid in his cell.

p. 116:

The interviewee had sex with the 18-year-old several times before another prisoner took a picture of him performing oral sex on the 18-year-old. The interviewee was re-arrested and sent to solitary confinement. The prosecuting attorney told the interviewee's mother and attorney several days later, that she would thank him for sending him to prison for life. She hit the prosecuting attorney and sent him across the room. The prosecuting attorney asked for the interviewee's probation to be revoked and the original 7-year sentence to be instated.

p. 117:

The judge questioned why a prisoner had a camera - the prosecuting attorney's camera. The judge sentenced him to 7 years, and a guard told him it was "the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever heard in my life". To protect the Boise prisoners, they were sent to solitary confinement for six months. Prisoners with TB were placed in the deck below those in solitary confinement.

p. 118:

He had a series of lovers in prison. He spent 18 months total in state prison. When he was released, it was kept out of the papers. They were required to leave the state, not to return for at least a year. One of his friends went to San Francisco and drank himself to death in a few weeks following release.

p. 118 - 119:

The interviewee sums up: "The whole thing was horrible. I don't think there was any reason for it, only some people's personal gain, either power or some vindictiveness against others. I don't think it was conducted fairly. The people who went to jail took the bring of for several thousand. We were just the unfortunate ones."

Ah, what do you know. I finished it in one sitting. --Moni3 (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• The interviewee has to be Mel Dir. Some of the details don't quite align with Gerassi, though. Otto4711 (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

2018 time to update

D'Emilio and Freedman place the Boise scandal into national context, e.g. Cold War politics and changes in family life. I added summaries of their work to add balance to the article.AnaSoc (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

POV title: alleging that homosexual affair was penalized

It was not a homosexual scandal.

It was a paedophile, more precisely ephebophile, scandal.

Read here:

Why? Here’s the brief synopsis: Three men were arrested for engaging in what the Statesman described as “immoral acts involving teenage boys.” The arresting probation officer said the investigation had only “scratched the surface,” alleging that more than 100 young men and teenage boys were involved in sexual acts with a ring of adult homosexual men. 

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article41367867.html

And read the actual article and the court charges: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article41473071.html "with boys under 16".

So they were ephebophile homosexuals. Which is still a crime in 2020s.

-> let us change it to " Boys of Boise" or such.

Zezen (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Lies in the article

The mainspace article contained lies.

I read the original reports: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article41473071.html

They did not criticise as "scary monster" homosexuality as such. They warned about human trafficking and (granted, homosexual) child abuse.

I fixed but one false bit as am on mobile. Do dig for yourself: there was child pimping and worse, and fix the rest.

Red pill and such. Zezen (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)