Talk:Stonewall riots/Archive 3

Questions on focus
The "Unlikely community" section seems fine except for the last paragraph. John doesn't like the focus; it was a lot of effort over a long time that led to changing the DSM, plus the perception by psychiatrists and psychologists that they were likely to get more gay clients if they stopped describing us as pathological. As with many groups who offered support or claimed to offer support at that time and since then, the motivation may have had more to do with resisting what were perceived as common enemies ... police in the case of anti-war protesters, and various sexually repressive forces in the case of psychiatrists and psychologists ... than of actual solidarity regarding gay rights or even liberalism and civil rights in general. Activists of all kinds often paint a picture that their work was what made the difference and solved the problem, generally because they believe that to be true, and sometimes it is true. But I think a more balanced picture would help here.

I'd prefer to drop the last two paragraphs in Gay pride, first as a matter of the weight given to Frank Kameny: 4 sections focusing on what he said and did seems like too many in an article that isn't about him. Also, I've never heard before of 2500 gay groups in the U.S. in 1971, and I'm wondering if anyone else said the same. Even if true, I think it's probably more a misrepresentation than a representation: I was often told by people a little older than me that it was very difficult to find gay groups of any kind in the southeast and midwest in 1971 outside of a few college campuses. Knowing something about the times, I think one thing that might have been going on was that sometimes gay men would mention a "group" in a classified ad as a more socially acceptable and possibly more successful way of finding dates. I wouldn't want to describe this as 2500 "gay groups", though. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am concerned about the Legacy section, and specifically the "Unlikely community" section. First, I'm worried about how the section reads to people who have no experience in the gay community. Too much detail? Not enough? Too focused on feminism? And for those who have a lot of experience in the gay community - too much of a downer? Didn't anything positive come of this? On including the APA: this I think should be left in because the zap somewhat initiated the immediate necessity for the APA to meet with gay activists.


 * I definitely don't think it's too focused on feminism; I think the references to feminists and transvestites help with balance. I don't think it's overly negative, either. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)


 * Although Evelyn Hooker had been working with psychiatry and homosexuality for years, and psychiatrists didn't change their minds overnight, the activism had a bit to do with the delisting of homosexuality from the DSM. If it would make you feel more comfortable, how would you feel about adding a phrase or sentence, linked to Evelyn Hooker or Homosexuality and psychiatry, so readers could go there and get a better story?


 * John has read a book on the subject, I'll ask him if he wants to weigh in here. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I also have some information on Hooker, and I saw a short chapter on the zap of the APA the other day, thought I didn't need it, so I put it back in the library. Dangit. I have to go check out another book, so maybe I'll peek at it again. And there may have been a book about psychiatry and homosexuality in the same section. I'll look at it again. If, say, the APA info is removed from the Legacy section, and the grassroots development that led to the Briggs Initiative and the Anita Bryant political pie-ing (I think the grassroots connection is fairly strong from the Stonewall riots, though), and all that remains in that section are the growing pains between feminists and gay men, does that balance the section and the article appropriately? I was going for a longer term trend of political development. (And, somewhat guiltily, I have to admit that the bitchiness that was borne of the post Stonewall early 70s, makes me want to show that something productive came from it. I mean, gay folks somehow learned to work together - how did that happen?) --Moni3 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Will consider what to do with the weight on Kameny. I'd appreciate your feedback too on the above issues. --Moni3 (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Adding my 2 cents: I think the APA material should stay (its frame is debatable, of course). Whenever someone gives a 5-minute history of gay rights, that fact appears in it. It is quite important. Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Homophile activism --> communists
I believe most, maybe even all the early homophile groups were continuous labeled communist, "communist pinkos", I believe, this may be good to bridge the idea from the early section. And it may also be true as they were friendly to other forms of understanding social structure, etc. Banj e  b oi   01:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Benji. Not following what you're asking me to add. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG! You're supposed to read my mind! Lol! OK, in the Homosexuality in the 20th century section you have "Spurred by the national emphasis on anti-Communism ..." the idea I was alluding to above is to bridge that thought in the last paragraph (of that same section) into the next section, Homophile activism, that most, maybe even all the early homophile groups were continuously labeled communist, "communist pinkos", I think was commonly used. Banj e  b oi   20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I get it. If I can find sources to back up that the early Mattachine, or even 1960s Mattachine, DOB, and other Homophile groups were labeled such, I'll add it in. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Once more, on Judy Garland
In the Peer Review for the article, Ruhrfisch has suggested taking the Judy Garland information out of the notes and placing it in the article. On the one hand, since three of the most comprehensive sources say there was never any connection other than coincidence, I'm not sure if non-issues should be brought to the fore. On the other hand, however, I did the same to the rumor that Truman Capote wrote or heavily edited To Kill a Mockingbird because the rumor is so pervasive. And the connections to Garland's funeral seem to be as ubiquitous as they are misguided.

Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there actually is more to it than just a coincidence but we go by RS's so ... However, the Judy Garland article handles it nicely, IMHO. Banj e  b oi   00:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC):

A connection is frequently drawn between the timing of Garland's death and funeral, in June 1969, and the Stonewall Riots, the flash point of the modern Gay Liberation movement. Coincidental or not, the proximity of Garland's death to Stonewall has become a part of LGBT history and lore.

I agree that something should be mentioned in the text, and your suggested text works for me. I think it has to be in the text because there are any number of ways that the death, and more importantly the funeral, might have influenced events. For instance, if it's true that someone in the police department got nervous and decided to close the Stonewall immediately, we'll never know why they chose that day. Perhaps the large turnout at the funeral scared them into thinking that there was some kind of shift in the balance of power in the works? If so, and if that's what made them act precipitously, then it turns out their anxieties were justified. But this is all speculation; the point is that I don't think the speculation is going to go away, so we should mention the death and the funeral. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, here's my opinion: In notes 2 and 6 are discussions of two theories on why the riots occurred that night. Neither of them have to do with Garland's funeral. I think both Carter and Kohler made good arguments in note 5 as to why Garland's death or funeral did not impact the events of the riots. Last night Anderson Cooper made my partner and I howl laughing for several minutes after he introduced Sarah Palin's daughter's pregancy coverage, then asked, "Should it be news?" My biggest issue is that the information about Garland's death will have to be introduced, then explained, then denied that it had any connection. If it had no connection, why is it being introduced and explained? If there are first-person accounts of participants that state that Judy Garland compelled them to go out and throw bottles and burning garbage at the bar, then the information should go in. But as yet, I have not read such information. I think mentioning Garland's death and funeral is no more connected than any other newsworthy event that was reported within days of the riot.
 * I think the connection between Garland's funeral and the riots is historical WP:SYNTH. Stating "Judy Garland's funeral was that morning. They rioted later that night." is not a cause and effect relationship. Repeating it here would prolong the falsehood. --Moni3 (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't feel strongly about it, but let me ask you a hypothetical (and it's probably not hypothetical, we can probably find a relevant article somewhere in WP): in an area with established apartheid, there's a funeral one day with a larger, more well-organized gathering of black people than the police have seen before. That night, the police show up to close down one of the local gathering places, and a riot ensures.  None of the police ever admit that there was a connection between the appearance of a growing movement and their precipitous action.  Shouldn't the article say that there was an unusually large turnout at a community funeral on the same day, even if the article doesn't draw any conclusion? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If reliable sources state that those who rioted were upset about the death, if those who participated in the riot either attended the funeral and spoke about or later wrote about how their pain about this leader's death was directed in anger toward the police, if bystanders heard comments about the death of the leader, if participants chanted his/her name during the riots...any of those issues would warrant its inclusion. But what exists is Garland's death, her funeral on the 27th, the riots the morning of the 28th, no written accounts of Garland in The Village Voice, New York Times, New York Daily News, New York Post, Mattachine newsletter, or information in the new GLF or GAA literature, or the dozens of leaflets or flyers that were printed and distributed by Craig Rodwell and other gay activists. A suggestion 6 months later that the reason for the riots was published in Esquire, but it was not considered serious by Carter.
 * Instead, participants and bystanders were angry at the police oppression, poor treatment, and the fact that the rioters were street kids and had nowhere else to go, would be considered lawless hooligans, and were being denied the only place they could gather and feel somewhat safe - all these are documented reasons for the riots.
 * At best, the inclusion will be confusing and odd. At worst, it will continue to propagate a snide comment made by Esquire, by continuing the connection to Garland's death and displacing emphasis on the participants' anger at the police. --Moni3 (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're answering a different question than I'm asking. You're talking about why people decided to riot.  The article details how this raid was different from others in a number of ways, and the ways in which this raid was different were potentially contributing factors to why people decided to riot.  The article suggests that the raid was different because the police had decided to close Stonewall.  Okay, why did the police decide to close Stonewall?  AFAIK, none of the police are on record saying if that was the decision, and if so, who made the decision and why.  So, back to my hypothetical analogy: a member of the black community dies, the funeral is more well-attended and more vocal than previous funerals, and the police pick that day to close a place where the blacks congregate, and there are riots.  Do we leave the funeral out of the article about the riots? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. To be clear: your point about Anderson Cooper is dead-on, and I'm not convinced by my own argument, yet. I just get the sense that this argument hasn't been considered, and it should be. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait. Are you suggesting that the police decided to shut down the bar because Garland's funeral was that day? I don't quite get that connection. Why would the cops care about Judy Garland? Seymour Pine has gone on record that he was told to shut the bar down for good. However, the reason for it was not clear to him. Only those who were involved with the Stonewall have speculated the reasons for the raid that night, which include the bootleg liquor theory and the theory that the cops weren't receiving payments from the bar owners' extorting their own clients. New York City, as you know, is a massive big place. Should we also include what made the front page of the papers in the article? If no one in the riots recalls being motivated by Garland's funeral, should we assume to connect it to something else? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're asking here. --Moni3 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If police are getting kickbacks for as long as they can intimidate a population, and if there are signs that the population is growing larger and more cohesive, then it's not unreasonable to believe that someone in the NYPD might make a decision to shut down a place where that community congregates. Obviously, none of the police are going to go on record about that, so we're not going to have a reliable source.  But is this a standard we use in articles on, say, apartheid?  If  a black community in a small town begins to congregate in large numbers at several different places and events, and is perceived to be reacting with great emotion, and if the police immediately take action to shut down one of the few places where they are allowed to congregate, do we omit any mention of the possibly precipitating factors, on the grounds that the police weren't willing to admit their motivation, so we don't have a reliable source?  I'm asking because I don't know: what's the standard in other WP articles that describe police actions and civil rights movements? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Had I no other knowledge about this issue, I'd go with what the sources weigh on the issue. Unfortunately, many uninformed sources (books on gay pop culture, amateur websites, blogs, etc.) connect Garland's funeral to the riots. Both historical sources, Carter's and Duberman's books do not connect Garland's funeral to the riots, and Carter specifically makes a point of discounting the funeral as the cause of the riots. Using your hypothetical, take into account generational and class issues as well. Would the connection between the funeral of a figure who is popular with older, wealthier blacks be automatically connected to the street kids who rioted later that night? Martin Luther King is a singular example. Not everyone would riot after the death of Ella Fitzgerald or Lena Horne. --Moni3 (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Light copyediting

 * I removed "In 1961 the penalty for sodomy ranged between states from a light fine and life in prison or castration." I have a feeling there will be multiple objections to that sentence at FAC, and maybe at GAN.  In a nutshell, it's the typical problem in the lead: a sentence that poses more questions than it answers, but if you clear up all the questions, then it becomes too long for the lead.  We could insert something longer into the (non-lead) text, or we could leave it out; this kind of information is covered in some detail in other WP articles.
 * I reworded "homosexuals themselves believed it [their pathology] to be true". If we have specific information on how many homosexuals believed this, and what they believed, that's great, but I'm aware that there were few or no useful surveys at the time on this topic.  If we don't know, then we shouldn't say anything.
 * I deleted "of establishments and events": it makes me wonder what establishments and especially what events. More detail would be fine, but just saying "subculture" is enough for me.
 * I left in "described by a newspaper story as", but we may have trouble with this wording at FAC per WP:WEASEL, or rather the spirit of WEASEL (a ghost weasel?) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the sentence about castration and prison should be left in. I'll cite it to the gills if you wish. I think it's significant to mention that gay people themselves thought of themselves as sick and tried in the early days of the DOB and Mattachine Society to resolve their self-perception of being mentally ill with being good citizens. It was a significant mindshift for gays to consider themselves actually quite healthy. If you want to reword this and I need to cite it, let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "gay people themselves thought of themselves as sick": I'm not clear on what your sources say, I don't have the books. Hooker's study "found no difference" in self-perceptions.  AFAIK, all published, peer-reviewed studies by psychiatrists had a bias that made them worthless for deciding this question: they surveyed only people who chose to visit psychiatrists, or were incarcerated or hospitalized.  If a source says that people that represented themselves as leaders of a movement said that homosexuals all agreed that they needed help, that's also not useful, because of the inherent COI: people who don't see themselves as needing help aren't as likely to join movements.  Another argument is the evolutionary one (this will come across as hand-waving to some, but if you know something about how often predictions made by evolutionary biology are validated, this will at least lend something to the argument): if our ancestors who felt and probably acted on same-sex attractions had been inherently less reproductively successful, and the ability to survive and prosper in the face of opposition is one of the prime elements of being reproductively successful, then there wouldn't be any homosexuals today.  Okay, enough hand-waving: do you know of any surveys such as Hooker's that have a solid claim that they surveyed a representative cross-section? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I recently received a book on evolutionary biology as a wedding gift. I had no idea it would come in useful. But there's a chapter on homosexuality and evolution where this view was considered among other, but definitely not the only theory as to why homosexuals exist in the evolutionary scheme of things. It's at home, but I think that's a tangent from the real issue.


 * It's true that Hooker's subjects were members of the Mattachine or friends of members - at least the Mattachine was involved in sending Hooker her contacts. However, it was not uncommon for the Mattachine and the DOB to ask psychiatrists to their meetings to get advice on how to adapt to society, or how to accept oneself as mentally ill. A watershed moment in Homophile meetings as Albert Ellis' talk in 1964 at the East Coat Homophile Organizations convention on how the unrepentant homosexual was a psychopath. This meeting in particular, someone spoke back and denied it and the room applauded. Otherwise, such meetings were regular occurrences, and the members listened politely. --Moni3 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Albert Ellis continued to cause trouble for a while, btw. That doesn't really answer my question.  There are reasons to believe that something in the general neighborhood of 3% of the American population has felt same-sex attractions, and that some have acted on it, over a long period of time, but how they felt about it and how they chose to act would likely depend on the times and their environment, of course.  What I'm getting at is that both people who represent themselves as medical professionals (such as psychiatrists) and people who represent themselves as leaders of social movements (and everyone, in one way or another) have inherent COI: they want people to need them.  I wouldn't be willing to try to make a definitive statement about whether homosexuals did feel that they needed these people based on the say-so of these people, or the say-so of their patients and followers.  For instance, Kinsey attempted to cast a broader net, but I don't remember if he asked about well-being; did he? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Kinsey's methods are called into question by some, but the impact of his study is actually listed by a few sources as a groundbreaking change in perception about sexuality, and I seriously considered including it in the article. Hooker's study specifically asked men about their own self-satisfaction and happiness. I get your point - at least I think I do, but Hooker's work is cited regularly as the beginning of a change in ideas about homosexuality. I'm reflecting Hooker's work with due weight since it is mentioned by the sources I read. I'll be happy to take ideas about wording and syntax, though. --Moni3 (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On the "castration" bit, I'm happy with leaving it in, I'm just thinking that by the time we've answered all the "Whaaa?" questions and objections, it will be too much for the lead and will have to move down into the text. (What's "sodomy"?  Was anyone actually castrated in the U.S. (the case of Alan Turing is famous in Britain), and, um, how and where?  In what parts of the country could you expect a "light fine" and in what parts could you expect castration?  Etc.)  I'll ask John when he gets home; he has access to most of the relevant information here in the house somewhere. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sip-in
Thanks for the info on the Sip-in, Americasroof, and nice job integrating it, Moni. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have to unwatch for a bit, the style guidelines are making my watchlist grow out of control. Someone give me a holler if there's copyediting work to do, please. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A detail
The final sentence of the "Homosexuality in the 20th century" section needs a little work, I think. "Most were forced to live a double life, keeping their private lives secret from their professional ones." -- As written, "most" seems to refer to those (in the previous sentence) who were arrested or otherwise interfered with. I think it's meant to mean "most homosexuals." But, if it means that, is it true? Is it verifiable? I think it would be fine to say "Many homosexuals," but "most" is a pretty specific and dubious claim. As is "forced." There are those (and I'm not saying I agree with them!!) that they had other choices -- celibacy, for instance -- in which case, "forced" is not literally true. A more delicate balance should be sought for the important concluding sentence of this important section. -Pete (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll work on the wording. Let me know if you have suggestions. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your edit addresses my concerns nicely. I was also wondering whether the word "coerce" might be appropriate in there -- not absolute like "forced," but still conveys the sense that they were reacting to strong societal and legal pressure. I'll leave that to your discretion -- just a thought. -Pete (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination
I'm happy to see this impressive article nominated for GA. I wrote a paper about Stonewall when I was in high school, and am glad to see that Wikipedia has such good coverage. I'm not really equipped to take on a full GA review right now -- and I see that Steven Walling is likely working on one anyway -- but I'd like to help out around the edges, and help address any concerns that come up. -Pete (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well... StevenWalling aka Vantucky is a respected GA reviewer, and very challenging, which is good. But he's also apparently very busy. He placed his indication that he would review the article underneath its listing on the GAN page a couple weeks ago, and it doesn't appear that he's made any edits for its GA review. Bummer. I just left a note on his talk page asking if it's still on his radar. If you have any suggestions, by all means, please give them. The article will be going to FAC after GA. I'm very happy that you like the article. It was a ball to write. --Moni3 (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, your comment on his talk page was actually what led me here :) Steven is a friend, I'll ask him about it when I see him next, if he hasn't done the review yet. -Pete (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pete, since you're knowledgeable about the subject, it's okay to just start doing some random part of the review that you're comfortable with, without signing on as the reviewer, if that's what you want to do. I wouldn't recommend that on every GAN article, but Moni and I are old hands and we aren't going to give you a hard time.  Vantucky, one of our most brilliant and experienced GAN reviewers (who I would NEVER suck up to), is a good source of information. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome…it might be a stretch to say I'm "knowledgeable" about this, high school was a while back…but, I will try to review the article in a little more depth and help out with the GA campaign. I'm involved in a lot of different wiki projects at the moment though, so apologies in advance if I go slow! -Pete (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Scartol!
Your edits are really improving the article! (And making me feel like a slacker!) One complaint; both regarding your edit in the lead and in the section just before "Stonewall Inn" (which is where you stopped, for the moment) that contains the phrase "other than bars", I think we should be clearer. The point here is that gay men and lesbians were prohibited both by the police and by the general public from congregating "openly" (opinions differ on what that means), except for a few bars at which they were generally abused and exploited. Perhaps we could be clearer about this. It's really pretty significant; oppressed religious and racial minorities certainly had a hard time in the first 2/3 of the 20th century in the U.S., but more often than not, they at least weren't prohibited from congregating. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've taken a few days to consider this. I can go either way. Though there is definite value in stating it wasn't only bars or clubs where gay people could go - parks and beaches and even private homes were often raided - it's quite clear in the Homosexuality in the 20th century section. All those places are included. So, it's still accurate for the lead because it's a summary, yet it doesn't exclude necessary detail in the article. So... whatever you want to do, Dan. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, dern it. I had an intelligent thought here somewhere, but I seem to have misplaced it.  I'm fine with how the lead currently handles this subject.  I just reviewed Scartol's edits, and I can't see that anything he did below the lead section is relevant to this question.  I guess I'm persuaded by your point, Moni, that by mentioning police entrapment, plus what we say in the lead, we get the idea across well enough. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, and thanks to Moni and others for the great article. (Don't feel "like a slacker".. Different folks add different levels of polish based on what's there when they come to it. Everyone plays their part.) Sorry that I didn't see this before; my Wikipedia time has been really spotty lately, and I had forgotten to watch the page. I don't think I added the phrase "other than bars", but how about we say "other than some bars"? That might provide some nuance. Or we can leave it; I don't have a strong opinion about that. Scartol  •  Tok  16:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)