Talk:San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus

GALA Choruses

The correct abbreviation for the Gay and Lesbian Association of Choruses is "GALA Choruses" and not simply "GALA". Although some affectionately refer to the organization - and even its events - as "GALA," it is not the official abbreviation. I know this for a fact as I recently served on their board of directors and also participated in a discussion on the matter with current board members as recently as February 2007. It is also obvious on the website: www.galachoruses.org.

Clean Up

This page has been tagged for clean up, but as yet the "tagger" has not identified the specific reason/s. MusicMen 21:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I tagged this page for cleanup, as it, well, needs cleanup. It is ok up until the historic timeline. Although it's not technically proseline, it acts like it, and that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I think that it is well-written up until the timeline, but I don't think that most of that is important to the article. Maybe someone could pick out the most useful items and reduce the time line a lot. I believe that most of the information in this article would not be important or necessary to the article, and probably actually distracts the reader from the subject with a bunch of relatively useless facts. I'd say about 75% of the article isn't actually needed and is very distracting. Also the pictures need captions to go with them. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough. The historic timeline - or at least the bulk of it - will be removed to a different site. Captions will be added to the images. Thank you for your feedback. MusicMen 22:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Much better, thank you. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 17:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Linkfarm

the linkfarm tag was added because of the inordinate number of external references that have no relation to the actual content of the article. --emerson7 | Talk 18:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am in the process of fixing this. Many of the references listed were connected to content in the article, but that content has since been deleted. MusicMen 19:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought

One thing that would be good to have in the article is whether straight men are allowed to join the chorus. If not, how do they ensure only gay men join? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added this information. MusicMen 01:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent unsigned edits

Oops - I was logged out. Recent edits from 68.122.127.56 were made by me. MusicMen 17:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

After reading the article and editing slightly, I've come to the conclusion that the clean-up tag should be removed. In my view, the article is fine and doesn't need cleaned further. If there are any objections, please discuss, otherwise I'll remove it in a day. :) -- Marc 14:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Great! I look forward to seeing the tag removed. MusicMen 19:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Clean-up tag removed per Marc's comment. 68.122.124.103 02:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SFGMClogo.jpg

Image:SFGMClogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fair use rationale has been added. MusicMen 19:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SFGMClogo.jpg

Image:SFGMClogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070206224854/http://www.sfgmc.org:80/pub/about/ensembles.asp to http://www.sfgmc.org/pub/about/ensembles.asp

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"Controversy"

While the so called controversy has been covered by reliable sources and is definitely notable, I do not believe that using the term is helpful. Multiple discussions have already mentioned that a controversy impls the subject has done something that lead to major backlash, but from what I've seen, this story is about the chorus being attacked because conservative pundits made slanderous claims about them by grossly misrepresenting a satirical song of theirs. I feel like something along the lines of "social media harrassment" would be more in line with facts. They didn't generate controversy. The controversy was mostly astroturfed by outlets like Fox News, which for some reason was used as a source for the section before I removed it. Additional reliable sources on the subject would also benefit this article greatly.

Oh and by the way, it looks like the article is (predictably) being targeted by IP vandals. Protection might be required. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's be fair,this was basically expert-level trolling that got the reaction it was intended to get. That's not a criticism, I think it's hilarious, but let's not pretend they didn't know exactly what they were doing. Anyhoo, "controversy" is a relatively common section heading used when an article subject gets embroiled in any sort of dust-up, whether it is vastly inflated by fake outrage or not. That doesn't mean that's what has to be used here but I don't agree that "social media harassment" is a better section title. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Two things. First, it's not about what we think, or what we pretend. It's about what reliable sources say. Do reliable sources say they wanted to get the exact reaction they got, down to harrassment, death threats and false criminal allegations? Because without it, regardless of whether or not we approve, "they knew what they were getting into" sounds suspiciously like victim-blaming.

Second, right-wingers having a meltdown over pretty much anything, isn't a controversy. We just call that tuesday. Neither is alt right trolls from /pol/ falsely claiming that specific members of the chorus are registered sex offenders. That's just defamation. Do a significant percentage of reliable sources covering this frame it as the SFGMC "generating controversy"? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I for one would be totally fine with re-titling the section, I just don't think the alternative you proposed is very good. What abut something like "reaction to 2021 video"? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Or we could call it "A Message From The Gay Community". 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Are the "false criminal allegations" actually false? There appears to be some scrubbing of the group's website and a (likely) non-approved media outlet claims to have used the wayback machine and matched some "scrubbed" members fairly convincingly to the sex offender registry photos.

both of these claims on the current article need [citation needed], but I'm not sure of all the byzantine rules to make an edit that won't get immediately reverted 3x times by wokepedia's resident sock-puppets. 174.216.151.77 (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

3 names from the scrubed choire member list obtained with Wayback Machine match the state of California's Department of Justice sex offender registry, this is a fact. I checked, anyone else can also.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210708135054/https://www.sfgmc.org/roster

https://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/Search.aspx?l=&f=&streetNum=&streetName=&aptSuiteNum=&city=&zip=&r= Zephyrae (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

One does have a different middle name but his mugshot looks a lot like one of the people in the "We're comming for your children" video. Zephyrae (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem with your comment however is that the one who has a different middle name isn't the one who people say looks similar to the registry mugshot. The one that is pointed to that people say looks sort of like the David Eugene Wallace in the registry isn't David Shawn Wallace from the choir.... in fact David Shawn Wallace is the guy who is immediately to the left in the choir video panels to the one that was pointed to.... and he doesn't look remotely like the mugshot on the registry. I've personally been able to compare pictures of 19 of the 34 people on the Choir to the mugshots of people on the registry that have been claimed and have found exactly 0 matches between choir members and the registry so far. In fact 7 of the 34 when I was doing my checks were literal dead ends, they were claimed to be names and aliased on the registry, but don't match ANY names or aliases on the registry (in short they were completely fabricated and added purely to pad the list) There are 15 I have been unable to confirm only because I do not have any confirmed images of the specific person on the choir with that name.... but given what I have discovered so far I am disinclined to believe ANY of them are actually on the registry. Tekitron (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)