Talk:Stonewall riots/Archive 5

Lead section too long?
I think the lead section is a little too long and focuses too much on details when it should try to give a broad summary of the riots and its effects. I propose replacing it with something like:

--$user log (Talk) @ 05:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree; I think the current lead is an appropriate length and level of detail for this article. Scartol  •  Tok  11:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article itself is detailed and long, and the lead summarizes that, appropriate to the length of the article. user log, I'm not sure why you think a more compact lead is desirable. --Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I too disagree; the current Lead is an excellent summary of this Featured Article. Graham Colm Talk 14:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Elliot Tiber info
I placed this contribution in a hidden edit. I'm not sure why it was inserted. There were a few participants who became famous for various reasons afterward, and it would be impossible to tell all their stories. Why this one? What does it to to help the reader's understanding of the Stonewall riots? --Moni3 (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He wrote a memoir specifically about Stonewall (that is going to be an Ang Lee movie). It places the events in context of Woodstock in the Summer of 69.  It couldn't get much more topical than that. Americasroof (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a citation? And does the fact that he wrote the memoir help the reader understand more about the riots? --Moni3 (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I put on two citations. You can read chunks of the book online via Amazon. (I also unhid it so the references can be seen).Americasroof (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I read the reference at cinematical.com. I'll read the book reference as well. I still don't have a sense that this information helps the reader understand more about the riots themselves. I'm leaning toward removing it unless either (or any) citation can be provided that gives insight that Tiber's role in the riots was unique, or his experience can give the audience a better grasp of the riots. It's relevant in that it's tangential, in the same way that Craig Rodwell took care of Marsha P. Johnson when Johnson was dying of AIDS in the 1980s. But that doesn't give us insight into the riots. FAs can be demoted if their quality is not maintained. I'm sure you can tell by this talk page that a lot of scrutiny went into this article to get it promoted to FA. The same scrutiny will stay with the article as long as it remains an FA. --Moni3 (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick. How many mainstream movies have been made about Stonewall?  It's a significant omission not to include it.  We're not talking about a memoir about events that occurred 20 years later.  We're talking about events that occurred within three weeks of each other in the Summer of 1969.  It's a significant dot to connect. Americasroof (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Americasroof, but any and all information in the article must answer the essential question: how does it improve our understanding of the riots? I am unable to view the Google Book, so I can't read what is in the book that may relate Tiber's experience of the riots. It's not available in my library either. The cinematical.com reference puts much more emphasis on Tiber's experience at Woodstock, and mentions only in passing that Tiber was at the riots, and nothing about his experiences there. The film appears to be in production still. I don't think this is the right time for this information. If more reliable sources connect Tiber's book or Lee's movie (similar to the film about Harvey Milk getting a mention in the Milk article), then it might be a good time to revisit this. But the way it's written now does not complement the article. --Moni3 (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're missing the forest for the trees. Here's the amazon link.  Do a search on Stonewall.  Here's a [=planetout link.  In both cases there are specific details of the riot by an eyewitness that was actually there rather than a history compiled later.  As mentioned, it's a significant omission not to include it.Americasroof (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My perspective, Amer: if it's to be included, we need to explain what Tiber had to say about the riots. Just mentioning that he was there doesn't seem supremely relevant. If you add some of the specific details you mention, I'd be more inclined to vote in favor of keeping it. Scartol  •  Tok  14:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

LGBT vs gay, homosexual, etc
An editor has replaced every instance of the words 'gay' and 'homosexual' in the article with 'LGBT', with edit summaries such as 'updating archaic, incorrect and non-inclusive language'. I have several issues with the edits:
 * The term LGBT is historically inaccurate for the referenced time period.
 * 'LGBT' is a much broader term than 'gay' or 'homosexual', and is therefore often not an accurate replacement, especially without comparison with sources.
 * The edits introduced a vast amount of overlinking.
 * Aside from the above concerns, several of the edits absolutely introduced changes in meaning/content:
 * "spurred by police who began to "bully" some of the lesbians by "feeling some of them up inappropriately" while frisking them" was expanded to
 * "spurred by police who began to "bully" some of the lesbians and bisexual women by "feeling some of them up inappropriately" while frisking them"
 * "it was known to be popular with the most marginalized people in the gay community: transvestites, effeminate young men, hustlers, and homeless youth." was expanded to
 * "it was known to be popular with the most marginalized people in the gay community: transvestites, effeminate young men, hustlers, and homeless youth primarily of colour."
 * "Tensions between New York City police and gay residents of Greenwich Village erupted into more protests the next evening" was expanded to
 * "Tensions between New York City police and LGBT residents and their allies in Greenwich Village erupted into more protests the next evening"
 * "homosexuals created the Mattachine Society in 1951" was changed to
 * "LGBT people created the Mattachine Society in 1951"
 * "The customers were "98 percent male" but a few lesbians sometimes came to the bar."
 * "The customers were "98 percent male" but a few lesbians and bisexual women sometimes came to the bar."

I would wholeheartedly support a careful review of terminology used in the article, but the wholesale replacement of terms without consideration of context and sources smacks of overeager political correctness, and is detrimental to the article's accuracy. Maralia (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what you say (everything except the "political correctness" part, which I always find a potential conversation-stopper). The edits in question constitute a major change to a very carefully worded article and really need consensus before being implemented, so I'm reverting them. Please let's discuss further. Rivertorch (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was the obliteration of every instance of 'gay' and 'homosexual' that made me feel it was agenda-driven, but on reflection, you're right that the observation itself was charged, and not helpful; I've struck it. Maralia (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for watching the article and reverting per sources. I used, as stated, language that was reflected by the reliable sources, and the changes made to be all-inclusive do so sacrificing accuracy. Thanks Rivertorch and Maralia. --Moni3 (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Peace people it was not and excess of political correctness that led me to make the changes. I changed it because language itself has changed and words that meant one thing at one time no longer do, and this can accidentally give a misleading view of history. Especially when sized upon by those who wish to promote a particular (and patricianly erroneous) point of view.


 * In doing this I was guided by other articles where language has been changed to current usage to make this clearer to contemporary eyes, (one obvious example is National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)


 * I'd guess most of us are aware that during the time of Stonewall and its immediate aftermath, the slogan "Gay Lib" was used to mean the ENTIRE Community that now might colloquially be referred to as perhaps "LGBT Community" or the "Queer Community" et. al.


 * Simply glancing at the posters of the time will show that this slogan was not at all adopted with an intent to imply (as some on other venues have suggested) that it was a movement primarily by and for Gay Men only, (and only those of a certain cast, class or ethnic background either). A movement that was then later somehow horned in on by a bunch pushy lesbian, unwanted bisexual people and weird transgender/genderqueer folk, et. al.  But rather looking at the photos we an see a deliberate wish to show a wide cross-section of different "types constituting the totality of the Community.


 * Sadly however, your wish to stick to slang terms that were in use around that era (umm, and actually I must say having been alive at that time myself, the terms "gay men" and "lesbian women" are more from AFTER the events in this article, their wider adoption in the Community having been as a radical statement in reaction to Stonewall and the "Women's Lib" movement, but whatever) has led to others deliberately misunderstanding your intent and misusing this article (among others) as a stick to beat their particular political hobby-horse.


 * So just as I see no widespread use of the word "inverts" (other than as a historical notation) in the articles on John Addington Symonds or Havelock Ellis I hope you can find a way to fix this problem and both indicate the language of the time but yet make the article clear and accurate for a modern audience.  CyntWorkStuff (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Were there really drag queens at the bar on the first night?
Elliot Tiber (who was inside the bar and is mentioned above) in his book Taking Woodstock ISBN 0757002935 on pages 77-81 describes the events inside and outside Stonewall on the first night (much of which is not included in this article). On page 80 he says this:

"For three more nights gay men and women demonstrated outside the Stonewall Inn. Many showed up in drag as overt way of demonstrating their homosexuality, but contrary to later accounts, there were no drag queens on the first night. On that night, ordinary gay men and lesbian women were just minding their own business and trying to have a good time--until they were told they couldn't."

There's a lot of self-promotion that came out of the riots and you can't 100 percent trust any history of the event as some people like to say they were there. The photo in this article shows no drag queens on the first night and the "kids" actually look quite "normal." Information from Tiber definitely needs to go into this article. Americasroof (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a rather...unique revision of events, and contrasts every other account of the events I've ever read, many from those who were actually there. Rebecca (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Tiber's input would then directly refute two very thorough accounts of David Carter and Martin Duberman. I'd like to read Tiber. I think it would be a good idea for you also to read Duberman and Carter. --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While it would seem to contradict the standard Stonewall stories, it is a referenced source and should at least be mentioned in the article. When there is contradictory information from referenced sources, Wikipedia is at its best when at least presenting the referenced contradictory information.  The photograph on day 1 shows no drag queens.  I'd be curious to know if news accounts on day one mention drag queens.  We have an interesting credibility issue.  Tiber certainly has reasons to embellish his stories (his descriptions of encounters with Rock Hudson, Tennessee Williams and Truman Capote along with his colorful accounts of backstage at Woodstock are no doubt what landed him a Hollywood contract to make a movie of his book).  And of course can we 100 percent trust accounts of drag queens who we all know would never embellish their stories. ;-)  History articles are usually more fun and credible when you present all sides of "the standard story." Americasroof (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree that it's often better to present contrary information, we run the risk of WP:FRINGE - presenting information that someone has presented, but is contrary to all other reports. Remember that even the New York Times reported on the drag queens that were present. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think SatyrTN is right on the money here. He's not just contradicting two other writers - he's contradicting practically every other account ever written of the riots. Every account I've ever read (and there's many) have said that there were drag queens there, and nearly all of those said drag queens started the throwing of objects. WP:FRINGE definitely applies here, especially since, as Americasroof himself stated, there are doubts about whether this guy is a reliable source. Rebecca (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Duberman and Carter, many of the street youths were "scare queens" and "flame queens", parlance that has since disappeared in gay vernacular. Though cross dressers, called transvestites in most accounts, were there and not allowed in large numbers in the bar, the scare and flame queens were kids who dressed partly in women's clothing, or in men's clothing but wore wigs or falls, had their nails done, wore make-up and fake eyelashes or otherwise had some kind of feminine element to their appearance. --Moni3 (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, just when I was going to write off Tibor's book as a gay Forest Gump, Moni comes through with an interesting tidbit that may well vindicate the claim. There's a subtle difference between drag queens inside and drag queens outside but it's an important difference It certainly colors the "standard" assumptions that most people make about the event. Anyway, here's another tidbit which I find interesting on page 77:

"At first, it was just another night of partying at the Stonewall. People were having a good time until about one-twenty in the morning when the bartender jumped up on the bar and shouted, "Hey the cops are coming! Quick, everyone grab a girl to dance with. No same-sex dancing, no same-sex dancing!" With that, the bartenders grabbed their cash boxes and ran out of the bar through a back door."

Americasroof (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That account contradicts the claims in both books as well. No one jumped up on the bar to announce anything, according to what I read. The lights went on. There didn't appear to be enough women in the bar for partners to switch. There were two bars, and the bartenders, doorman, and a black gentleman who watched the restroom were all arrested. There was no back door; the two female police officers in the bar during the siege had to get out using the fire escape, climbing up on the roof and down a connected building. Now I'm just curious about the other stuff he wrote. I'm going to try to get his book this week. --Moni3 (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
Intro says "spontaneous" riots. A few paragraphs down, the article used the phrase "a crowd that was incited to riot". Which is correct? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Spontaneous reactions have some event or series of events that incite people to react. However, most specifically, the first night was spontaneous. The second night was not organized, but people were already drawn to the Stonewall and when the police arrived, things went south from there. --Moni3 (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Jsdusty's question
In the first paragraph of this article it currently reads "They are frequently cited as the first instance in American history when gays and lesbians fought back against a government-sponsored system that persecuted homosexuals, and they have become the defining event that marked the start of the gay rights movement in the United States and around the world." This Sentence is unclear and confusing.

First of all who is "they"? This Sentence should read, "It is the first instance in American History when Gays and Lesbians fought back against a government sponsored system that persecuted homosexuals. The Stonewall riots became the the defining event that marked the start of the gay rights movement in the United States and throughout the world." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsdusty00 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They = the riots.
 * Your suggestion is not accurate. Riots took place in Los Angeles and San Francisco several years before. The Stonewall riots are cited as the first. This is addressed in the 2nd to last paragraph in the article that connects the annual Gay Pride march to how the riots were memorialized. --Moni3 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
This article, which is incredibly long (especially the background information), seems inherently biased in favor of the LGBT community. It reads like a nostalgic war-recounting. I propose that the background information be reduced to a more manageable size. I'd also propose that it be made to be more NPOV, but I wouldn't no where to start. Ejnogarb (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a Featured Article, and I wrote it. It reflects the weight of information reflected by the best possible reliable sources. It has been through an extremely rigorous peer review in the Featured Articles process. It is entirely within the guidelines per WP:SIZE and nowhere near other FAs listed on User:Dr_pda/Featured_article_statistics. I welcome comments on its accuracy, or if you know of any reliable sources that refute the information within. --Moni3 (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you've done incredible research and I can't imagine approaching its breadth. Considering that the main events transpired over the course of a few hours, dabbling into the history of postwar homosexuality and homophile activism seems excessive. Perhaps a better place for most of this information would be in a new article about the history of homosexuality in the United States. Similarly, you describe aspects of Stonewall in great detail, when perhaps the majority of those details belong in the main article about Stonewall Inn. While interesting, they aren't particularly vital to understanding the riots. Lastly, I know that these riots have incredible significance for some people. I gather that since you "have a stake in this" just as in Proposition 8, the article perhaps reflects the natural bias of its author. Ejnogarb (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the transformative event of the modern LGBT movement. An FA article would cover the subject rather than deflect readers elsewhere for salient background and political subtexts. There's plenty that isn't here, IMHO, that should be but the length is fine and a compelling read to boot. You may also need to take into account Wikipedia's massive worldwide audience that needs a bit more breadth to understand a subject fully. In an ideal world an article would liberally send readers to other articles in hopes that the relevant content was there but we know most articles are hardly in that good condition so that actually seems a disservice. I notice also from your user page that you identify as a Mormon, perhaps that is a bias as well seeing the prominent role the church played in Proposition 8. -- Banj e  b oi   08:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been on my watchlist forever, and there's no doubt it's one of the best articles I watch. It is far stronger since Moni rewrote it, and I see no NPOV issues whatsoever. (Vague accusations of "bias" are completely unhelpful.) To understand the significance of what happened at Stonewall, one must understand both what came before and what followed; this article facilitates that very well. Rivertorch (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a different stake. I got married in California in August 2008. I feel differently about Proposition 8, and consider the opposition to it completely unfounded and without merit. I am unable to approach it with any objectivity. However, the Stonewall riots just were. They are an oft-cited event in gay history and such a turning point that many cultural occurrences in the gay community are measured by pre-Stonewall and post-Stonewall. I was born post-Stonewall. For such a watershed event as this was, it needed to be rewritten. Included are things that are not particularly pleasant, but they happened: self-hatred, shame, the willing belief by gays that they were sick, the scruffy street fights, brawling, class and sex divisions following the riots, militant lesbian feminism... the article tells the entire story and no matter who you are, some parts will make you uncomfortable. I also wrote an article about another notorious police protest: Birmingham campaign. There are unpleasant aspects to that article as well, because these were clashes in values and change hurts a lot sometimes. The stake I have in this is as an FA writer, and I will defend its contents the same way any other FA writer would for their article. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, who am I to argue, then? It's a very well-written article and I agree that it is a compelling read. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Auto archiving
I'm boldly adding auto-archiving for threads stale 30+ days with a minimum 7 threads to be left so the page doesn't empty. -- Banj e b oi   08:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Homophile"
Why is the word "homophile" used so much in the article? I daresay it is not a word that most readers of Wikipedia will understand. I personally have no idea what it means; I thought it meant "one who sympathizes with homosexual political movements", but our own article homophile says it simply means "homosexual". That article itself notes that the term has been replaced with "gay", "homosexual", and a few other terms. So why don't we simply say the common English-language word "homosexual", for maximum understandability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.10.249.77 (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally an uncommon word is explained as it's first used so the clarity is there. Culturally gay means a different thing today than it did then so using the terminology they employed is more accurate. When needed we should explain when new terms came into use or the definition morphs. I'm sure Moni3 can offer a more substantiative reasoning but I'd be willing to bet that it was the term employed during this time and in regards to this event. -- Banj e  b oi   10:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Homophile is used to refer to organizations that worked for gay rights. They just didn't call them gay rights at the time. The article addresses 1. that "homophile" was the term used at the time, and 2. the vague names the gay rights movement used before Stonewall. The terminology of the gay rights movement changes through the article as issues became more accepted. The term "transgender" does not appear until the last section because it was not a term used until long after the Stonewall riots. I have not edited the Homophile article, so I can't account for what it says. Sorry. --Moni3 (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

First Demonstrations in Europe
I'm from Austria (german speaking), know the movement here well, and have also many information from Germany nearby (the "big brother" in some things), which have much more sources an ressources. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 18:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC) & Update the different movement in the Netherlands --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 00:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * United Kingdom:
 * 1970-11 London: torchlight procession (80 people)
 * 1972 London: Gay Pride march : The Gay Liberation Front organised the first marches in London. By November 1970 the capital had witnessed its first event - a torchlight procession consisting of around 80 out and proud participants. The first event described as a Gay Pride march happened when 2000 walked down Oxford Street to Hyde Park two years later.
 * Germany:
 * 1972-04-29 in Münster, first gay demonstration ever in Germany after WW II (i think there was one demonstration in Berlin bevore Nazi came to power 1933, but i have no good searches. Also i think from pictures i saw, the demonstration in Münster was like a picket, but in german we speak mostly from "Demonstration" wich means a picket and also a march.) S: Rosa Geschichten (Hrsg.): Eine Tunte bist du auf jeden Fall. 20 Jahre Schwulenbewegung in Münster, Münster 1992 &, , , This say 1970 or 1972, but most sources say 1972 ; Hergemöller, a well known historican says also 1972 ,
 * 1979-06-30 The first demonstration at Christopher Street Day with Motto "Gay Pride" or "Stonewall" in Bremen (800 people), Berlin-West (400), Stuttgart (400) an Köln., , (Sociologist and historican from Bremen), History CSD Berlin
 * In July 1979 takes also the biggest gay-meeting to this time, the famous "HOMOLULU" (Homosexual & Honolulu (gay dream, warm place on an Isle in the South Sea with palms; "Lulu" by oneself means in german also piss, childrenspeak. :-) ) in Frankfurt am Main. With Culture, Musik, own Newspaper, etc.
 * In Germany the law (Paragraph 175) changed 1969. The commercial subculture grows. The new, "gay", movement begins with the Film „It Is Not the Homosexual Who Is Perverse, But the Society in Which He Lives“ de:Nicht der Homosexuelle ist pervers, sondern die Situation, in der er lebt from 1971, in TV 1972. Filmmaker was Rosa von Praunheim, ideological background and autor was Martin Dannecker. It is a Film which display the homosexuals not from the best side, but the reality, place a mirror for self-reflection. The Homophile was against this film. After the movie screening there where many discussions and the building of the first Gay-Groups. The film was the priming. Tenor: "To make our situation better we must do something." or in the Film: "We gay pigs/swine/sods want becoming humans und thread as humans. We must fighting for this yourself. We don't want only toleration, we want acceptance." ("schwule sau" "gay sow/sod" is a very common swearword in german.) Many to this time, don't know that there was a movement in Germany before WW II, the first Book about this came from US in 1975. Und there was no really connection between homophile-movement and gay-movement. Most homophile-activits go in background shortly after 1971. To this time only some know about stonewall and what really happens there. Praunheim makes also 1971 a short Film (12 min.) "Homosexuelle in New York" ("Homosexuals in New York") with shoots from the parade in June 1971. I don't know where it was screened, it has no wide reputance.
 * Suisse: S: de:Geschichte des CSD in der Schweiz, de:Geschichte der Homosexualität in der Schweiz;
 * law change 1942, Suisse is one center of the homophile people with the magazin "Der Kreis" (1943-1967) and their parties/festivities, (another is Hamburg, Germany with IHWO) 1970 national homophile umbrella organisation "Schweizerische Organisation der Homophilien" (SOH, Suisse Organisation of Homophiles) but can not reach political left and students, 1971/72 film screenings "It Is Not the Homosexual Who Is Perverse ..." at the Univerties of Bern, Basel and Zurich, after this first modern gay groups in Zürich (HAZ), Basel (HAB then HABS) and Bern (HAB) "HA" = "Homosexuelle Arbeitsgruppe" ("Homosexual workgroup")
 * 1975-05-01 Basel within 1. May Parade
 * 1978-06-24 Zurich, Sit-in, "Christopher-Street-Liberation-Memorial Day"
 * 1979 first national gay march (come-together from whole suisse) in Bern (capital), 1980 Basel, 1981 Lausanne (french-suisse), 1982 Zurich, after Aids more less: Zürich 1986, Bern 1987, 1989 CSD Zürich (20 Years Stonewall), since 1994 (25 years stonewall) every year
 * Austria: Law changing 1971, but 4 new §§: a) against promotion of homosexuality, b) against association who promote homosexuality, c) higher Age of consense male-male, d) male-male-prostitution
 * There was some little association, sometimes within other left/student-thematic associations, but the first remaining was HOSI Vienna
 * 1980-04-26 first demonstration within a antifashist demonstration
 * 1980-05-01 first demonstration within a sozialist district organisation at the 1. May parade in Vienna; goes many years
 * 1981-06-27 Information-desk in a crouded subway & subway station Opernpassage/Karlsplatz, well known for mobile political Information-desk / infopoints
 * 1982-01-01 two naked man from "Rosa Wirbel", a loosely association, with banner „Menschenrechte für Schwule“ ("Human rights for gays (male)") on the Vienna New Year's Concert (It goes not in the world with TV, beacuse to this timepoint was an film insert with dancers. But in the Newspapers in Austria it was on the first page. One of the first mention of Homosexuals in Austria which was not from a crime)
 * 1982-06-26 a Gay-Pride-festivity and a torchlight procession to the monument of former monarch Maria Theresa of Austria (made first uniform law-code for whole empire with death-penalty for sodomites). the march repeat for some years
 * 1984-06-17/29 a "warme woche" ("warm week" / "gay week") with first day-march through the inner city. the march repeat for some years, next well documented in the whole medias was 1989 (10 years HOSI, 20 Years Stonewall) with a show marriage
 * 1996-06-29 first parade de:Regenbogenparade, held now every year
 * Primary Sources: a.) Michael Handl, Gundrun Hauer, Kurt Krickler, Friedrich Nussbaumer, Dieter Schmutzer (all Hg.): Homosexualität in Österreich, Junius, Wien 1989, ISBN 3-900370-84-2 b.) Ulrike Repnik: Die Geschichte der Lesben- und Schwulenbewegung in Österreich, Milena-Verlag, Wien 2006, ISBN 3-85286-136-5
 * France: fr:Marche des fiertés
 * 1971-05-01 withhin the traditional 1. May parade, the march repeat throu 1978
 * 1977-06-25 first autonomous demonstration on the Play de la Republique (like a picket), also 1979 and 1980
 * 1981-04-04 first marche (10.000 people) trhrou 1990 less and less people, 1990: 1.500, from 1991 on more and more people
 * Netherlands:
 * 1953 & 1955 first big gay Dance-clubs in Amsterdam. also very intersting for tourists, beginning of the (European) "gay capital"
 * 1960s sexual revolution make a big move (political goals from NVSH in 1967 for the time till 2000 are all implement only 10 years later). homosexual workgroups at some Universities, go outside, at the end of 1960s: dancing-activities in heterosexual Dance-Clubs, and integrative Dance-events, but in politics more integrative than COC, the homophile Club.
 * 1969-01-21 First gay demonstration in Den Haag. Against Artikel 248bis (homosexual age of consense of 21 years / hetero: 16) nl:Roze Zaterdag
 * 1971 law change, Article 248bis repealed; the students-more-integrative-politics is new politics from COC
 * 1973 COC not anymore the "motherhouse" of the movements. new coming: lesbian action-group "Violett September" (COC to women-unfriedly, critic against heterosexual feminists, because they go with the predator in bed :-) )
 * 1975 new coming: feminist lesbians "Lesbian Nation", new Red-Gays (communist/socialist) against integration-politics from COC, for all gay life included travestie, paederasty and sadomasochism / Interesting: Times where in US and little later also in Germany the movement is not more so agressive, a little more moderate.
 * 1977-06 First Stonewall demonstration in Amsterdam initiated from "Lesbian Nation"
 * Sweden: Stockholm: I have no information found yet. But i doubt 1971


 * Whoa. Ok. Those are sources. Thank you very much for providing them. Ok. The section in particular is about Gay Pride marches that specifically commemorated the riots at the end of June, or somehow were associated with Stonewall. There were a few demonstrations in the US of gays and lesbians, but the point of the section is that the Gay Pride events were associated with the riots. I need to read through your sources here, and it's entirely possible that mine are wrong because they did not focus on events outside of the US. I often find small discrepancies like these. So let's work through these for accuracy. Thanks again. --Moni3 (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)