Jump to content

Talk:Gay bathhouse/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Bathhouses outside of North America?

Can anyone add any more info about bathhouses outside the U.S. and Canada? It would seem to be relevant. I know they are huge in London, for instance, as well as in Turkey and certain Middle Eastern countries. I don't know enough, though, to write about it myself. 64.131.157.221 09:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We have bathhouses here in Japan. In Tokyo, perhaps the most well-known is kaikan 24. There is a location in Asakusa and one in Shinjuku that I know of. In Shinjuku, it is a 24-hour sexfest, more or less... slowing down between 9am and noon. There are "group rooms" which simply have beds and bunk beds lined side-by-side in big rooms. There are private rooms on the 5th (?) floor. There is a tanning room, a spa room with hot tubs, saunas, steam rooms, private shower stalls, and bondage room with a swing and sex chair. There is also a television room, smoking rooms, and alcohol vending machines. All body types and ages go there. It is 99% Japanese clientele. It's around $25-30 (US) for 12 hours.

Delisted Good Article

No images. And what's going on with the References section? joturner 16:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem with the referneces, exactly? If you're going to add that tag, you need to be a lot more specific. Exploding Boy 17:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It was obvious to me. What I was referring to was the ibid statements. joturner 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, still not obvious. What's wrong with ibid? It's accepted in all major styles. Exploding Boy 03:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, ibid refers to something I've never heard of. Can you enlighten me? And if there is a better alternative to ibid, I think it should be used as I am most likely not the only user that has not heard of it. joturner 03:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

?? Ibid is used in all major citation styles to mean "in the same place." It is a convention that eliminates the need to rewrite a citation when it is the same as the previous citation. I was going to say it's extremely common, but that's rather missing the point: it's standard practice in academia. I think it's time to reinstate the article. Exploding Boy 03:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can reinstate an article as "good", but I won't be doing it since I gave two reasons for delisting. Go ahead and add it to the self-nominations page and maybe someone else will re-instate it. joturner 03:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have removed it in the first place, and if you do remove an article you're supposed to contribute to reinstating it--it says so right in the info box. Exploding Boy 03:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to. And given that I don't have any pictures of gay bathhouses, I can't. joturner 03:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe next time you should try asking on the talk page before you delist an article. Exploding Boy 03:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Might try looking in a dictionary, too, if you encounter a word you don't know. And since images aren't required even for featured articles, they certainly aren't required for good articles. Getting a picture of the outside of a gay sauna shouldn't be a problem, but I think most patrons would be extremely angry to have someone taking pictures inside one that were going to be posted on the Internet. --Angr (tɔk) 06:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the listing. I'm not sure what the alternative to ibid is. "Ditto"? --TreyHarris 06:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The use of ibid is not standard across all disciplines, indeed the ACS (not relevant here!) explicitly forbids its use, as with idem. If it is necessary to cite the same article more than once, they recommend you use the same number (in this case (1)) over again. That would seem to solve the problem (real or not) in this case. As for images, my limited experience with FAs is that an FA without an image is very unlikely to pass; one I peer reviewed recently was criticised for only having 3 or 4 pictures in it! I certainly think a picture of the outside of a gay bathhouse would brighten up this article a great deal. Walkerma 08:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
"That would seem to solve the problem (real or not) in this case." Maybe we just need to change the article to use one of the standard citation templates, which would also have the effect of eliminating ibid and reusing the same citation number instead.
"I certainly think a picture of the outside of a gay bathhouse would brighten up this article a great deal." You haven't actually seen the outside of too many gay bathhouses, have you? "Bright" is not the adjective that comes immediately to mind. ;-) "Depressing windowless bunker" is more the archetype from the gay neighborhoods I'm familiar with. I hope the inside decor is usually more inviting..... --TreyHarris 16:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
From my experience with gay bathhouses (and they are somewhat distant in my past), taking photography is not really generally appreciated by the owners or the patrons. Something about privacy. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 15:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we went through all this a year ago (or was it even longer than that). If the person who delisted this article had troubled to read the talk page he would have known that photos taken from the websites of bathhouses of their interiors were not considered to be fair use (why, I'm not sure), and it was generally agreed that it would be impossible to procure a photo. Emails to website owners for permission were not responded to. The best we might be able to do is to get photos of the exterior of a few places, but as has been discussed above bathhouses are often entirely nondescript, making the photos really pointless. Exploding Boy 17:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I bet could draw a picture based on memory...but you have to realize that those days were tinged with a crystal methamphetamine addiction, and the picture would probably be somewhat abstract and hard to look at. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose a drawing might do, though I'm sure there are those who would still object. Exploding Boy 21:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There will always be those who object to the very existence of this article, with or without images. We needn't be concerned about them. --Angr 21:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
That's true, but I meant object that a drawing is not good enough. Exploding Boy 23:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: format of quotes

Quotes do not need to be--indeed, should not be--italicized. Blockquotes are formatted so that they stand out from the rest of the text anyway. Italics are used for specific purposes; this is not one of them. Exploding Boy 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Gender

Are women ever allowed into gay bathhouses (when men are in there), and if not (I'm assuming not), what about transgender people? Njál 20:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good questionJayKeaton 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Men and women do not "mix" in gay bathhouses. I know of no situation where a post-operative trannsexual woman would be allowed into a gay male bathhouse (or vice versa), since by definition gay bathhouses are male (or, far, far less commonly, female) only. That's why there are sex clubs, which are a different thing altogether. Exploding Boy 19:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

While it may not be what you meant, the article does reference the tradition of entertainment within certain U.S. gay bathhouses, in some cases by female performers — Bette Midler being arguably the most famous example. Lawikitejana 21:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger of Continental Baths article?

I am not the one who proposed the merger, but I arrived back at this Talk page because of a merger proposal at the Continental Baths article. So I thought I'd start a section for people to express their opinion on the idea, with a reminder that the usual way is to start your message with a bolded "Support" or "Oppose," then give a rationale of no more than one or two sentences so as not to bog down the page. That's not a policy, to my knowledge, but it seems to work well. Lawikitejana 21:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose the merger. The Continental Baths was a big place in history and people may want to read about the famous people there, how it opened, how it closed and what is happening with it today JayKeaton 15:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. It's a big celebrity topic in its own right and a slight diversion from "Gay Bathhouse" as a topic, you'll also note that gay bathhouse is getting rather large. NB: there's a very amusing quote from Clemons in "The Gay Metropolis" on pp120-121 about seeing Barbra Streisand at the Lion. -- Ashley VH 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

At least 1 reference doesn't check out

On February 21, 1903, New York police conducted the first recorded raid on a gay bathhouse, the Ariston. 26 men were arrested and 12 brought to trial on sodomy charges; 7 men received sentences ranging from 4 to 20 years in prison.[6] I just read the article used as the source of this reference, and there is nothing about this incident. Could someone clarify this for me? Jeffpw 11:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that the page has changed since it was accessed. That's the problem with internet sources, and the reason we should provide the date there were accessed for use a reference. Exploding Boy 06:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is now fixed by the reference to the book "Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World" which I've included. -- Ashley VH 23:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I can probably find pictures, but do they have to be non-pornographic? Zazaban 06:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this sort of dull photo of the outside of a gay sauna? wallyg's flicr photo which could be used under the Creative Commons rules so long as it's attributed?
Wrote to wallyg and he said he'd rather not have it used. Other suggestions? -- Ashley VH 14:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Added scanned in (reasonably historically interesting) adverts for Incognito and Sailors, I'm hoping these will remain okay under the "promotional" copyright template as both businesses are now closed.-- Ashley VH 04:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea other than perhaps Queer Theorists who could revise facts to be so boldly wrong. Perhaps the prime author forgot to read Randy Shilts "And the Band Played On," in which the Gay Community closed San Francisco's bathhouses with the epidemiology that they were by far the highest petri dish for STDs and HIV. The icon Foucault died from his visits to the Barracks and his rather unseemly S&M scene. I don't challenge any of the historical material, but all the epidemiological claims are roundly repudiated by San Francisco Public Health official Bruce Silberman, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, and the fact that San Francisco, one of the "gayest" cities in the world still have no bathhouses.

Dshsfca 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)dshsfcaDshsfca 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

query

I am not to keen on following from the article: There is likely some truth in this claim, at least in the early days of the epidemic, as condoms were rarely used between men before the early 1980s, and bathhouses served as a primary meeting point for same-sex (male) sex partners. It just seems wrong in several ways. First it seems like conjecture/conflation. The logic of the above comment would also apply to banning the sale of beds, in that much unprotected anal sex probably happenend on a bed. In any event, the logic used in this comment is not the same logic used when closing the bathhouses: I suspect they were partly closed because people suspected that AIDS was connected to gay male sex, but initially people did not know it was primarily connected to unprotected anal sex, and all and any sex acts were feared. Overall the above line looks at a reaction that today seems like an overreaction and one that would not prevent AIDS but the editor is nevertheless trying to reword things to make it somehow seem somewhat logical afterall. Asa01 20:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In London it was certainly true that in the 1980s when the gay saunas were constantly at risk of being raided, the owners were worried about being able to deny knowledge of the activities in their saunas in order to avoid being personally prosecuted. Consequently they tended to not supply condoms. If I find a suitable Gay Times reference I'll add it in... Started re-writing the offending paragraph and adding some more detailed references. -- Ashley VH 14:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That was a result of the lengthy and acrimonious Featured Article debate re: this article about 3 years ago. Please feel free to change it.

And also, with the recent great improvements and photos, I propose relisting this article for FA status in a few weeks. (The main agitator against FA status for this article has been now banned, by the way.) Exploding Boy 04:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I am wondering what happened to Bette Midler's quote re: getting her start in bathhouses. Exploding Boy 05:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If you checkout Continental Baths you'll find it much improved with Midler's quotes refined.-- Ashley VH 11:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's good for that article, but I think the quote is more than appropriate for this one, so I'm resotring it. Exploding Boy 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's a good quote. I've taken the liberty of adding it to Bette Midler as the Continental baths reference was a bit light and there was only one quote already on the bio page. -- Ashley VH 19:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, the source ref seems to have got mixed up. Does anyone know if this quote was from The Houston Voice, 23 October 1998 or somewhere else? -- Ashley VH 20:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Further work to reduce page size

With all the recent contributions and references, the page is becoming a bit long for normal Wikipedia page length. Some suggestions for trimming work, any thoughts or advice or perhaps the page is at the right sort of length for the subject?

  1. The Etiquette section could be slimmed a little considering that external guides are available, unless a Gay bathhouse guide seems appropriate for Wikipedia?
  2. The Legal issues section is heavy on Canada, perhaps a page similar to 1981 Toronto bathhouse raids might be appropriate if there's interest?
  3. I really enjoyed writing for the Famous bathhouse regulars section, it makes an interesting read, it does seem fairly self contained but I'm uncertain about breaking it out into its own page.

-- Ashley VH 19:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have trimmed down footnote text in line with the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates so as not to duplicate the information in the References section.-- Ashley VH 09:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations notice

Reagarding the notice about lack of citations in the "Bathouses today" section, what information, exactly, would whoever placed the request like to have cited? The section is essentially a general lead-in to the more specific info further down. Unless whoeveer placed it there 6 months ago would like to state his objections, I'll be removing the tag. Exploding Boy 01:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Replacement of San Francisco Bath Houses with Sex Clubs

When the Baths were closed in SF, sex clubs began to fill the empty niche. It would be nice to have a summary about the Gay Sex Clubs but limiting it to only those clubs that are replacements/alternatives for the gay baths.

There are many sex clubs for various groups: Swingers, S & M and others. They do not seem to share any history with the gay bathhouses and have a great variety of clientèle of many genders and orientations. I don't think those clubs belong on the Gay Bathhouse page.

In SF we do have some specific clubs that are serving a stand-in for the gay bathhouses. We could talk a little about the special restrictions - no doors, no private rooms, well lit, staff is expected to monitor activity (ignored in some, vigorously pursued in others)... Some have lockers and towels and the crowd generally walks around wearing towels. Some have a mix of patrons in street clothes, fetish wear, nude, towel only,... Most have a couple of showers but not a real "shower room", as the shower area and bathroom both have to play by the "no doors" rule. I've seen a couple of small saunas, but they also has to have a large window to eliminate private space. I haven't seen any of the other "bath house" amenities - whirlpools, swimming pools,...

Some cater to the Levi/Leather crowd with everything painted black. Chain link or bars to separate some play areas, elevated areas accessed by ladders also fenced in with chain link.

There are clubs with pretty decor. Pastel painted walls, comfortable furniture in the lounge area. In the large, well lit play room, there are beds, bunk beds and platforms of various sizes. Some with semi privacy because of light colored curtains hung around the area, even though other patrons can look behind the curtains or even enter the area.

There are a couple more that I haven't visited, one large and very well established and the other fairly new. A couple that have since closed, and the Powerhouse which is a different animal completely.

The Powerhouse is largely a gay establishment and was exclusively male for a while, with the occasional special night. They did introduce a general rule that women and transsexuals could use the first two floors but the top floor was limited to males only. I have only been there a couple of times. Once was a private party and the other was before the rule change, so I don't know if there is regular transsexual or female patronage. It is one of those interesting clubs with fantasy rooms (no doors). It is a huge building with three above ground floors and a basement level. I believe they do change the rooms from time to time. I've seen the following areas:

  • a military field barracks in a camouflage tent with army cots and draped all over with camouflage netting.
  • a dentist/doctor's office
  • an apartment or public laundry room (maybe their real laundry room but open for fantasy playing)
  • a campground - a huge floor space was set up with rows of tents and plants. It was kind of an interesting way of providing some privacy without violating the law. The tents had some mesh panels so complete privacy was not possible.
  • a room I can only describe as an African royal bed chamber. It had a large central bed elevated on a platform and lots of drapery. Decorations on the walls that would fit in a royal bed chamber in Africa. Zebra skins. I can't remember what else. It could probably be seen by someone else as a different room entirely - maybe in a 15th Century castle or something else.
  • an area that was like a dark alley in the basement. One wall was lined with dark cubby holes, only large enough for standing. Someone could reach out to invite someone to join them, or they could be ducked into if you had someone you wanted to have some private time with. They were pitch black inside and you could not see if anyone was in them. I haven't been in that area of the club in several years so they may be gone. It seemed like they would violate some of the rules.
  • there was a locker room set up.
  • there is a very large Disco, with a stage, large dance floor, disco music and mirror ball. It is frequently flooded with fog which then slowly dissipates. The fog is thick enough, that if you can stand breathing it, you can find some temporary privacy.
  • was there a jail at one point? or am I thinking of another club?

What do you think? I don't think this really belongs on a general Sex Club page as they are not an outgrowth of those clubs but a stripped down replacement for the gay bath houses.

There are gay sex clubs like this in other cities also. Some people prefer the open atmosphere and are not interested in the bath house amenities.

If the group thinks this is appropriate for the Gay bathhouse article, they can feel free to incorporate anything I've written here. SFHndymn (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The gay bathhouse article is generic and on the long side for a wp entry. Perhaps this is information for a new or more specific existing page covering the topic of "the cultural move to sex clubs" (not this is not strictly true elsewhere, in London the sex club scene was massive in the late 1990s and after an unpopular police clamp down they have been more hands-off seeing a resurgence of gay saunas and a slower growth in bar backrooms and sex/fetish clubs) or geographically specific "development of gay sex clubs in SF/USA"?—Ashleyvh (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest this actually would make a great article on it's own about the changing nature of sex businesses in San Francisco being one of the epicenters of the AIDS pandemic as well as having a reputation as a party town and sex-positive environment. Sections of how AIDS impacted the thriving gay bathhouses eventually closing them and up to including the current trend of people hooking up online and the circuit parties / Folsom Street Fair where various forms of sex-play and harm-reduction activities go on. Banjeboi 02:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


I think you meant "Power Exchange", since the "Powerhouse" is a bar, the Power Exchange is a sex club.

69.181.190.23 (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with any of the issues, leave a comment after the specific issue and I'll be happy to discuss/agree with you. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.

Needs inline citations

  1. "In New York City, the Everard (nicknamed the Everhard) was converted from a church to a bathhouse in 1888 and was patronized by gay men before the 1920s and by the 1930s had a reputation as "classiest, safest, and best known of the baths."" An inline citation is required after all quotes.
    Added duplicate cross-ref to same page of same book that already existed on the same paragraph.—Ashleyvh (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. "Though subject to vice raids these bathhouses were "oases of homosexual camaraderie" and were, as they remain today, "places where it was safe to be gay", whether or not patrons themselves identified as homosexual." If the source is from the one after the next sentence use it again after this one since it includes quotes.
    Added duplicate source as suggested rather than leaving it implicit.—Ashleyvh (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. "...in November 1994 the Incognito sauna made mainstream press as the gay sauna where a priest had died of a heart attack and two other priests were on hand to help out."
    Citation added. Originally the text referred to an inset advert for Incognito (included on the basis of historic interest and that the company closed years ago), when this was removed by deletionists the associated reference was lost.—Ashleyvh (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. "For similar reasons, some bathhouses require the presentation of identification, though the majority do not."
    Deleted as I can find no source. There is certainly never been a requirement in the UK to present ID apart from proof of age if you appear under 18.—Ashleyvh (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. "Bathhouses commonly advertise widely in the gay press and sometimes advertise in mainstream newspapers and other media."
    Why does this need a reference? I could add a reference to GT or Boyz etc. but it would seem pedantic. This is a general cultural observation rather that a statement that anyone could doubt.—Ashleyvh (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    I figured because it was mentioned that multiple bathhouses had been raided (although at past periods) that mainstream newspapers would likely not advertise them. Of course, this could be different newspapers and different cities/countries, so with your explanation, I could see a source is not necessary. Thanks for pointing it out. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. "They are usually laid out in a circular fashion, or in such a way as to allow or encourage customers to wander throughout the establishment; such a space is often referred to as a "maze"."
    Ref added. Dear Gawd this is the tedious way to do this! Banjeboi 10:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. "The room or locker key is usually suspended from an elastic band which can be worn around the wrist or ankle."
    Ref added. Banjeboi 10:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. "Some bathhouses require customers to purchase yearly memberships and many offer special entry rates to members or to students or other groups."
    refs added. Banjeboi 10:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. "Some bathhouses provide non-sexual services such as massage and reflexology."
    ref added. Banjeboi 10:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. "Customers who have rooms may leave their room doors open to signal that they are available for sex. An open door can also be an invitation for others to watch or join in sexual activity that is already occurring. In these situations, a partially open door often means that observation from outside the room is desired, but entry into the room is not wanted. A door that is completely open however, usually signifies that anyone is welcome to join in the activity inside the room. In all situations, it is considered poor etiquette to simply walk into a room without some form of invitation by the occupant. When a room is occupied only by a single person, some men will position themselves to suggest what they might like from someone joining them in the room: those who would like to be penetrated anally ("bottoms") will sometimes lie face down on the bed with the door open, while those who prefer to penetrate others ("tops") or to engage in fellatio might lie face up."
    1. I believe the ref I found is strong enough to strike this. Please feel free to revert me if you disagree. Jeffpw (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. "A nod signals interest, while looking away or shaking the head is usually enough to signal a lack of interest, though sometimes people misunderstand or refuse to take the hint. Such men are called trolls. In darkened areas of the establishment including the mazes, video rooms, group sex areas, and the saunas or hot tubs (but not generally in the showers, toilets, hallways, gyms, café areas and lounges), men are usually free to touch other patrons; it is expected and usually — but not always — welcomed. A shake of the head, or pushing away the other's hand, means that the attention is not welcomed."
    Ref added. It could possibly be used to ref other aspects. Jeffpw (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. "However, proponents of bathhouses point out that closing these facilities does not prevent people from engaging in unsafe sex."
    ref added. Banjeboi 10:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. "...some bathhouses now require customers to affirm in writing that they will only practice safe sex on the premises, and venues frequently provide free condoms, latex gloves and lubrication (and/or have them available for purchase)."
    refs added. Banjeboi 10:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  14. "In cities with larger gay populations, STD and HIV testing and counseling may be offered on-site for no charge."
    Refs added. Banjeboi 11:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  15. "This is a problem because the use of drugs and alcohol may make people more likely to engage in unsafe sex."
    ref added. Banjeboi 11:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  16. "On May 27, 2004, a judge ruled that the police had reasonable justification to raid Goliath's"
    ref added. Banjeboi 11:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  17. "They also pointed out that the police failed to call in the force's gay community liaison officer."
    Ref added. Banjeboi 11:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  18. "Haldane has stated that he will continue his fight, though he will now have to mount a new legal challenge."
    Duplicated implicit reference.—Ashleyvh (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  19. "The following year the New York City Health Department ordered that city's gay bathhouses closed; as an unintended consequence, heterosexual sex clubs such as the notorious Plato's Retreat had to shut down as well because the city had just passed a gay rights ordinance, and allowing the heterosexual clubs to remain open while closing the gay establishments would have been a violation of the newly-approved law."
    Duplicated reference from Plato's Retreat page.—Ashleyvh (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  20. "Sodomy was decriminalized in China in 1997."
    Added Washington Post reference.—Ashleyvh (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Other issues:

  1. "Records of men meeting for sex with other men in bathhouses date back to the 15th century though a tradition of public baths dates back to the 6th century BC and there are many ancient records of homosexual activity in Greece." Single sentences shouldn't stand alone, either expand on it or incorporate it into another paragraph. Fix the other occurrences within the article, including the next one in the "1876 Paris" section.
    Not sure I understand this observation. This is a list of the earliest existing legal records of gay bathhouse activity. If this were wrapped as a narrative paragraph it would still just be a list. Perhaps the section title should be "List of Early Records" to make this clear or perhaps you think this list of three items is a page in its own right?—Ashleyvh (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    If you meant that nowhere in WP should there be a one sentence paragraph, then I've fixed it. I would be interested in where WP guidance actually recommends that this should be a rule.—Ashleyvh (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    I don't remember specifically where this was stated (it was over a year ago), if it was in a guideline or from another reviewer. However, it is beneficial to expand single sentences because it provides more content for readers and prevents at times (not necessarily here) a random collection of facts that can become a list. Single sentences can be beneficial at starting a new topic intially, but should be branched out to include more relevant information. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    Sounds like it's debatable then. In this case the original item was more a sub-list of historical records and I was probably wrong to change the layout on the basis of this observation. I'll strike this one out and next time I'll double check WP:MOS before editing.—Ashleyvh (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. "The use of Crystal meth is also known to lead to riskier sexual behaviour, but since gay Crystal users tend to seek out other users to engage in sexual activity, they often prefer to make such arrangements via the Internet; for more information, see Crystal and sex." It appears that "Crystal and sex" was deleted, so this sentence needs to be reworded, or expanded if you want to include more information.
    Removed non-existent reference.—Ashleyvh (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. "...and marched to Metro Toronto Police's 52 Division (9)." Fix this inline citation as it does not redirect to anything.
    ref added. Banjeboi 12:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. "The raid caused much anger." To whom?
    Ref and clarity added. Banjeboi 11:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with the related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Since progress is being made, I'm extending the review time by another week for the remaining issues to be addressed. Please contact me if you have any questions over the remaining issues or if you finish early and I'll re-review it as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Good job on addressing the issues. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the online inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite sentence

"In some countries, most bathhouses are prohibited from selling alcohol, but in other countries, such as Japan, they are not." This sentence is very poorly written —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.255.84 (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and re-write it. :) —Ashleyvh (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think most editors will agree that some external links are an important resource for this page, in particular for readers wanting to find out what gay bathhouses/gay saunas are available in their country. Having these sections it is tempting for the list to grow into a directory of saunas and it would be useful to consider a general consensus on what sort of external link will be allowable and which should be removed as they may be considered advertising. In the long term we run the risk of attracting an endless list of gay saunas and falling foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

When it comes to specific bathhouses I would like to suggest that "noteworthy" means those that the article has already mentioned in some form and so the reader might enjoy reading more about that bathhouse (though one might argue to delete all for the avoidance of doubt and that if previously mentioned in the article they can be included as in-line references against the text). For example:

  • "Centurian Sauna" NZ - not noteworthy
  • "Chariots Health Clubs" London - noteworthy due to Justin Fashanu story
  • "The New Denmark" Brighton & Hove - an old sauna but not noteworthy
  • "Flex Baths" USA - not noteworthy

For Bathhouse Lists I suggest the rule should be that these are strictly lists of bathhouses not general gay information or gay sex websites. On the following list Squirt would be the only candidate for deletion as it does not provide a section specifically dealing with bathhouses/saunas (but instead relies on user search).

  • "BathhouseAddict.com"
  • "BathHouseGuide.com"
  • "Gay Sauna Guide Worldwide"
  • "International Gay Sauna and Bathhouse Register"
  • "Scene-OUT.com sauna reviews"
  • "Squirt.org"

Rather than deleting the suggested links immediately I suggest giving 7 days for feedback here before I go ahead. This of course does not preclude further discussion later.—Ashleyvh (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Now implemented, see diff.—Teahot (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "to find out what gay bathhouses/gay saunas are available in their country. " is clearly non-encyclopedic information. Most of the links also fall afounl of WP:ELNO (personal websites or sites whose primary purpose is commercial) The "Particularly noteworthy" is a coplete violation of WP:NPOV.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You appear to somewhat selective in your quote. The criteria above states that "noteworthy" means those that the article has already mentioned in some form so that an external link to an organization already mentioned in the article is germane and falls within the guidance of WP:EL. This criteria was established to avoid the external links section becoming a general directory of saunas and I would agree that external links to organizations not discussed in the body of the article should be removed; this was the whole point of the original discussion. If you insist on questioning the original concensus I am happy to invite further opinions on appropriate interpretation of WP:EL using the wp:3O process.—Teahot (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Note, this has now been raised at wp:3O.—Teahot (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion: I actually agree with RedPen on this. Most of the links right now do in fact fail WP:ELNO. For example, http://www.bathhouseguide.com/ most definitely comes off as a personal webpage, which violates #11 in the list, "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." And Wikipedia is not a directory. We shouldn't have lists for people "wanting to find out what gay bathhouses/gay saunas are available in their country." They can get that from a quick Google search or something. I think the list should include sites that are part of the main text, and sites likes scene-out.com do not fit that bill. As a side note, I'm somewhat concerned about Capital Xtra being used as a source so much. I know that it's a notable publication and all, but it just seems like it's being used to say a whole lot here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

External listings removed as recommended diff. Unfortunately as I cannot find a suitable equivalent to "gay bathhouses" in the ODP, I will not be able to add such a link as suggested by ELMAYBE instead.—Teahot (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC is the list of Famous bathhouse regulars encyclopaedic?

The following question was raised using the RFC process:

  • Is the list of famous bathhouse regulars contained in the Gay bathhouse article notable or encyclopaedic? Direct link here.—Teahot (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The resolution was that the list of bathhouse regulars is considered encyclopaedic. A separate issue of whether to divide the list from the article was not part of this RFC.—Teahot (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved
  • Support the list is well supported by reliable sources and contains interesting historical and newsworthy individuals, some of which are famous for writing or discussing about being bathhouse regulars. On this basis the list is noteworthy in content and encyclopaedic in format; Wikipedia would be diminished by its removal.—Teahot (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • oppose it is trivial and non-encyclopedic - like including a section "famous people who grow bonsai" or "famous people who knit" in those articles. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting counter examples, though they rather undermine your point considering that List of knitters in literature, Category:People in knitting and Category:Bonsai artists have not been considered non-encyclopaedic.—Teahot (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
And perhaps a List of people who frequent bathhouses or Category:Bathhouse users could be created within Wikipedia's guidelines, but its appearance in the main article is an invitation for non-encyclopedic listcruft detracting from the article itself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This last suggestion for a split is supported by guidance of Lists of people and wp:Embedded list. I have created article List of gay bathhouse regulars as being slightly more in line with the current text and avoiding any confusion about including people who happen to like using a sauna compared to the obvious sexual reasons for going to a gay bathhouse. Depending on the results of this RFC, the embedded list could instead direct to this article.—Teahot (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per Teahot. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • RfC comment. I would tend to support keeping the section, on the grounds that it is sourced, and is clearly relevant to the subject of the page. But I would also suggest that it would be made stronger if there could be more of a link provided to the significance of bathhouses to the person. In other words, saying that "person X frequently went to bathhouses (reference)" is not as strong as saying that "person X frequently went to bathhouses, and wrote about it (or painted it, or is described by a secondary source as having been influenced by it, etc) (reference)." I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, and possible split. I like it, and I think it should probably have its own article and category. Certainly more worthy than knitters in literature (?!?) Zazaban (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support retaining the list in the article. It does not need to be split out into a new article or a category. Where there are key historical figures where it has been documented they went to bathhouses, it is valuable to the bathhouse article. Attendance at a bathhouse was, many would say is contentious. It was possibly illegal too depending on date and region. Who attended bathhouses, which ones, and under what legal situation, illuminates the subject of bathhouses. The knitting and bonsai examples are not good examples because neither of those things are contentious, illegal, or particularly notable or uncommon. A famous person attending an illegal and stigmatised venue is notable. (By the way the section of the article in question is hardly what I would call a "list".) Format (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
With regard to a possible split, the article is at a size where the guidance of SIZE suggests that divisions are advisable. There is precedent with the section Celebrities and the Continental Baths where the body was split to a sub-article with a summary remaining in the main article. The RFC here was raised to counter potential deletion on the basis of not being encyclopaedic; a split may be seen as a reasonable compromise.—Teahot (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
If size is a concern, I suggest a much better candidate for trimming is the long list of items in the Layout and typical amenities section. Much of that does not really need to be listed, it could be explained in prose, and easily made much more concise. e.g. "Gay bathhouses typically contain the emenities of a traditional bathhouse. Some also have a small store selling pornography and sex toys. Format (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering the withdrawal of opposition, does anyone object to now closing this RFC? If nobody objects I shall remove the tag in the next day or so on the basis that the list is considered encyclopaedic. The decision to replace with a summary and point to the sub article List of gay bathhouse regulars can be a separate discussion.—Teahot (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't think splitting off to a sublist is the best way to go but also won't fight it. To me the section should have been converted to prose and woven into the rest of the article to show how bathhouse use is rather mainstream in gay cultures, frankly both Bette Midler and Barry Manilow should be mentioned there. Bathhouses pre-AIDS pandemic was a rich part of gay male culture parallel to gay bars. -- Banjeboi 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

List of gay bathhouse regulars to be deleted

This split article List of gay bathhouse regulars is up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_gay_bathhouse_regulars. If you have suggestions for a move that may avoid the word "regular", your input on that page would be welcome.—Teahot (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

List of notable gay bathhouse attendees. How's that? Zazaban (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems unlikely to get acceptance as so many now seem to think that it is in some sort of unspecified violation of BLP. Odd when it is so reliably sourced.—Teahot (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Remember, it's not a vote. It'll come down to whatever is deemed the rational answer. Most of the argument (well, all of it) to delete comes from the objection to the use of the word 'regular', anyhow, and that word is no longer there. Zazaban (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping to trim down and integrate the list embedded in this article and rely on the split out list for greater detail. This would have made for a better Gay bathhouse article without the detailed sexual/gay biographical information being lost to Wikipedia. Based on the rush of negative comments on the AFD, it seems that the reality of how gay bathhouses have been documented as part of people's lives is seen as rather edgy for Wikipedia even when well supported by reliable sources.—Teahot (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a shame if that's true, me being an opponent of censorship of any kind, but nothing's been done yet. Too soon to judge. I still can see the article surviving. Would probably help if we did attempt some kind of trimming here. Zazaban (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The following reference struck my eye recently: Tavia Grant (June 20, 2009). "COMING OUT; It was 40 years ago this summer that Canada decriminalized homosexuality". The Globe and Mail (Canada). 1981: Toronto police officers raid four gay bathhouses and arrest nearly 300 men, sparking the largest gay demonstration in Canada's history and marking a turning point for the gay and lesbian movement.

Seeing the reference to the Canadian 1981 demonstration as a milestone seemed a pithy way of representing it. The legal section is long and a bit indigestible. As I'm not that familiar with the legal/Canadian issues, perhaps someone would care to give these a significant trim?—Teahot (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Linking footnotes to references

(The following comment only relates to Harvard style footnotes, i.e. of the style (Smith, 1990)) I have linked footnotes to the references (effectively a bibliography) section using anchors and {{harv}}. To be consistent, harv should be used throughout which would eliminate the need for separate {{anchor}}s (the cite book template could be converted to citation templates or have ref=harv added).

I shall probably get around to this as a tidy-up action but in practice it makes no difference to the layout or citation style of the article. Any new full citations would be best added with the standard {{citation}} template so that future use of {{harv}} is straightforward.—Ash (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Notable Patrons

But Freddie Mercury's bio says he used to frequent them... so how come he's not mentioned here? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you got the bio? It would be reasonable to include something here if there is something notable about his attendance, or he had particular opinions of gay bathhouses or unusual experiences there. e.g. He might have opined they were the only good place he could meet people as in bars he had too much trouble due to his fame. His attendance can be mentioned - with a reference to the bio - but it is really is only worth doing if it illuminates this article and says something about bathhouses. You can make the edit it if think there is something worth adding. Format (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind adding it, but if it means having to include all those details... which I notice that Rudolf Nureyev doesn't have a fancy description explaining his attendance to gay bathhouses. It just says that he frequented them, nothing more. Isn't a reliable source saying a person used to/does go to them enough? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And I meant Freddie's article (that I linked to), not an actual biography as in a book written about him, sorry for the confusion. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You can include the information from the book that you see fit. I just think it is more interesting to add a bit of detail rather than simply state he went to gay bathhouses. Format (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Man's Country: Chicago and New York

The excerpt from Coronado's history of gay bathhouses is factually incorrect: The Man's Country that had the full-size truck model and jail cell was the Man's Country in New York. The two establishments used the same logo, but the New York one was under completely separate ownership from the one that still exists in Chicago. Since the excerpt is a quotation rather than an integral part of the article, I could only "correct" it by deleting the excerpt, and even then it would be based only on my personal knowledge rather than a citable source, so putting this note on the discussion page is the only alternative. Wbkelley (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Any one else have an opinion on the external links? I've been removing them (see [1]) per WP:SOAP and WP:EL as I think they are more advertisement than information. There also appears to be a conflict of interest here (see message on my talk page). I would like to hear from others to see if I'm way off base. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gay bathhouse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gay bathhouse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gay bathhouse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gay bathhouse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gay bathhouse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gay bathhouse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Gay bathhouse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gay_bathhouse/Archive_6&oldid=1140128853"