Talk:Stonewall riots/Archive 6

extent of the riots
Did the Stonewall riots ever reach as far as the NYU campus or Washington Square Village? Just curious. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Stonewall Veterans Assn in External Link
Before an edit war occurs over this link, I need a link to the actual story regarding William Henderson.

David Carter discussed some issues with a bouncer, whose name I forget but may be Henderson, who was closeted but worked for the Mafia to pressure gay Wall Street customers in the 1960s. The bouncer later came out and pressed Christopher Street Liberation Day to be held on the block, making more money, and forgoing the Pride march. Drama ensued.

But the issue at hand is if the link to the Stonewall Veterans Association is an unacceptable link per WP:EL. The site does not appear to be spam, or an unreliable site. --Moni3 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strictly per WP:EL, I don't see any red flags. I will say that the site doesn't exactly inspire confidence; it looks and reads amateurish in the extreme. I'm becoming something of a link deletionist in my old age, and my view has pretty much become "if it's not a terrific site, why should a terrific article link to it?"—but that is nothing more than my personal opinion. Rivertorch (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any link to the LGNY story about Henderson, but I have a copy of the newspaper story and it is real. In fact, you could write to the reporter who wrote it. LGNY is now Gay City News, and Duncan Osborne who wrote the story is still there. He gave me a PDF of the story and if anyone wants to write to me or will give me their email address, I'd be happy to send them a PDF of the story, which was a cover story. I've heard Williamson talk, and he tells many lies. For example, I know the person who suggested he form the Stonewall Veterans Association because he believed Henderson was real back then, and that was in 1994. Now Henderson claims that the group was started in 1969, but there are no records of it before 1994 in any NYC gay archives, when the person I know says he suggested Henderson start it. Henderson then started a gay Democratic club, while simultaneously starting a gay Republican club: the guy does anything he can to get money and publicity. Also see Carter's book about his associate Storme DeLarverie. She has let Charles Kaiser claim that she was the lesbian who helped set off the riots, and Carter explains why she could not be that person. And Carter also satisfied himself that Sylvia Rivera was not at the Stonewall Riots the first night, and Henderson's colleague Jeremiah Newton has always claimed he saw Rivera there, and Bob Kohler, who was there, told me that Jeremiah Newton was lying about that.Samclem70 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that certainly is information about Henderson, but the issue in question is regarding the link to the Stonewall Veteran's Association. Why is this link inappropriate? The reasons are not clear, and claiming Henderson is a liar, though may be true, does not appear to impact the appropriateness of the link. --Moni3 (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That Henderson is a liar is relevant because he started and has always run the Stonewall Veterans Association and its Web site. The site has no authentic information about the Stonewall Riots unless it is something they wrote based on another available source. Henderson fabricates everything with no knowledge of or interest in history. If one visits the Web site one will see that it is all about promoting Henderson and his associates, who are also not genuine. They use the site to reach the media and get press coverage, distorting the historic record. One of their main ways of getting traffic is no doubt from this article, because when one does a Google search on Stonewall Riots, this article comes at the top of the list. Do we want to give highly significant support to such a group? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samclem70 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm agreeing that the Stonewall Veteran's site is poorly constructed, but it appears their mission is to provide an organization for participants of the riot to gather and continue their activism. According to the site, The STONEWALL Veterans' Association ("S.V.A.") is a not-for-profit, volunteer membership organization primarily for GLBT people and their non-GLBT friends, relatives and supporters. A link to an organization of participants appears on the face to be a legitimate external link. The website would have to prove somehow by appearance or statement to be inappropriate per Wikipedia's guidelines on which external links are not allowed, which can be viewed here. So, what I'm asking for is the same as a tag in an article: proof beyond the Stonewall Veteran's organization website, in the form of a reliable source that the website or organization is not what it appears to be. That it is out to violate one of the policies for external links. Until then, it's rumor and one person claims one thing vs. what someone else claims.


 * I'm not trying to be difficult here, but as June 28 gets closer, no doubt someone will come along and add the link again. Remove. Add. Remove. Edit war. --Moni3 (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, if you will get in touch with Duncan Osborne at Gay City News--he is one of New York City's most prominent openly gay journalists--I am sure he can send you a PDF of the article he wrote and tell you much more about the SVA and Henderson. Of course the Web site claims to be for Stonewall participants: con artists don't approach the public saying "We're con artists, we want to take your money for selfish and illegitimate purposes." Con artists claim to have a legitimate end and will tout a purpose that sounds legitmate. I have been following SVA for 15 years and know whereof I speak. I hope that Wikipedia does not take the stance that information is only valid if it is on the Web. There is a lot of very important information that is not on the Web and there is an awful lot of misinformation that is on the Web. Note too that Henderson sued LGNY (now Gay City News) because of the article they wrote about him and did not win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.33.158 (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I checked the link above about citations, and they do not seem to be required to be online citations to be judged valid for Wikipedia. Here is the information about the article that exposed Williamson Henderson and SVA: It was in the newspaper Lesbian and Gay New York, usually referred to as LGNY (both appeared on the newspaper's masthead), which is now named Gay City News. It was the cover story on May 4, 2000, issue 131. The title of the story is "Is Williamson Henderson Stealing Stonewall?" It was written by Duncan Osborne, who still writes for Gay City News, and appeared on pages 1, 6, and 20. Gay City News' URL is www.gaycitynews.com and a visit to their staff listing will show that Duncan Osborne holds the title of Associate Editor, just one step below editor-in-chief. It is the largest circulation gay weekly newspaper in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samclem70 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have written to Duncan Osborne, and I hope he responds to my email. I also hope the story you're referencing addresses the SVA in some way. Without a reliable source stating that SVA is not a legitimate organization, it will be impossible to keep the link off the article page. We shall see. --Moni3 (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits today

 * 67.183.108.133: good edit, the link has indeed changed. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Neelix: good edit, it's a better link - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Dan. The disambiguation links are checked at FAC and both this and lighter fluid was questioned. Sources don't say what chemical composition lighter fluid was used, so it's at the general disambiguation. Similarly, "hustler" was used to mean male prostitution, street kids or youths who shook down wealthier customers, and black or Hispanic young men in similar circumstances. --Moni3 (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The disambiguation links were only mentioned at FAC. Moni3 mentioned why they were there, and no one responded. I must contest a link to a disambiguation page within the text of an article. All disambiguation pages include the sentence If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article at the bottom, and for good reason. The few exceptions to this rule are listed here; the current situation does not fall under one of these exceptions. Of the three definitions listed in the disambiguation page section, the third should not even be there, as there is no article about the subject; there is only a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, these three definitions should not be grouped together on the disambiguation page because "slang" is not an appropriate section heading on a disambiguation page. The section heading is supposed to express what the entries are not what the entries' titles are, and as per the previous guideline link, Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide. When a word is used in an encyclopedic article, it does not have multiple unrelated definitions in a given usage. If both groups of people are justly included in the list in the lede, then the article should read "effeminate young men, male prostitutes, confidence tricksters, and homeless youth," not "effeminate young men, hustlers, and homeless youth." If a term is ambiguous, then outside of poetry, a more precise term should replace it. Neelix (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple of editors have removed Warsaw Pact and I put it back, but this might be a "customer is always right" kind of thing ... if enough people object, then let's consider phrasing this differently. I'd prefer to look at this 11 hours from now (8 p.m. Eastern US time) when Stonewall stops showing up on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (copied from my talk page:) I note you reverted my amendment to Stonewall riots. You mention the article's talk page in your revert summary, however I can find no discussion of Warsaw Pact reference in either the talk page or its archives. I am not clear what information is intended to be conveyed by the reference to the Warsaw Pact, other than whatever implication (presumably) American readers might take away from it as an artifact of the Cold War. Regardless, other than as a rhetorical flourish, the reference is completely unrelated to the rest of the article. If the reference is intended to reflect a particular opinion of the author the phrase should at least appear in quotation marks. I must say, however, that while I am confident that it would have sounded like quite an outrageous comparison to Americans in the 1960s-1980s, it is a comparison that has minimal resonance today, particularly outside of the US. In fact, from my perspective it sounds quite quaint and anachronistic, not to mention implying shades of POV, while you yourself agree that it is "a bit jarring". Several significant references have already been distilled for the sake of this encyclopedic article and I am unclear why a bit more culling for the sake of appealing to an international readership and a preference for facts over quaint, dated rhetoric undermines the quality of what is otherwise an excellent article.  AngoraFish   木  13:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, at this point I don't see this as a "customer is always right' kind of thing" but an ownership of articles kind of thing. Deferring commonsense edits until after a featured article has left the main page conflicts with normal practice as well as, at least, the spirit of the Main Page featured article protection guideline. AngoraFish   木'  13:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this objection. The original comparison was to Iron Curtain nations. It is an apt comparison from a historian who was addressing the US legal system's treatment of homosexuals to how communist countries in the 1950s and 1960s similarly jailed and expelled homosexuals there. It reflects the point made by a cited source. I'm not comfortable comparing it to countries today that have draconian laws regarding homosexuality just so readers would be able to grasp the concept better. I did not read a source that said the same: the US legal system in the 1950s and 1960s was more anti-homosexual than many Islamic countries today, or similar. The comparison with Iron Curtain countries has a note that discusses the treatment of homosexuals by many states' legal and mental health systems and is further expanded in the Homosexuality in the 20th century section, so it is related to another part of the article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an unsubstantiated opinion by the source, effectively contradicted by the source itself. it is entirely rhetorical, but regardless, is anachronistic and US-centric. At the very least it is POV and consequently should be presented in quotation marks and clearly attributed to the opinion of that particular author. AngoraFish   木  13:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Customer is always right" wasn't meant in the sense of "we've got to give these people whatever they want", I meant "Despite the fact that Moni has some strong feelings and some good logic, if enough people read this passage and go "Huh?", then that's probably a good enough reason to either explain ourselves or say it a different way." What wording would you prefer, Angora? - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is unsubstantiated? How is it contradicted? How is Iron Curtain or Warsaw Pact US-centric when Winston Churchill coined the term "Iron Curtain"? The Cold War was a global issue. Even without considering the global nature of the Cold War, the article is about an event in the US, so there is a lot of American-centered discussion in the article. What point of view does it promote? These are the issues I do not understand. --Moni3 (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, User:Johnboddie doesn't like "Warsaw Pact" in the lead either, he says it sounds something like "Baseball is a popular American pastime, similar to [abstruse reference to an unrelated game in Han-dynasty China]." It's not going to communicate effectively to most of our readers.  For my part, I get that you're trying to say a whole lot in a minimum of words ... and 2 is pretty minimal!  The more words we use (it wasn't as bad as countries with Sharia law, it was about as bad as certain Stalinist-era regimes, it was worse than in Europe, and it was much worse than young readers are likely to expect or comprehend), the more debate we're going to get, probably.  So I get that this was a good time to be minimal and precise, but maybe it's too minimal, too precise, and not accessible to a general readership. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When we sent the article to FAC, the wording was "Iron Curtain", matching the source. Someone else changed it to "Warsaw Pact" a couple months ago, and since I have to pick my battles about what to revert and what to let go, I did not challenge it. I think we're selling readers short to assume they can't understand references to the Cold War, and I don't think it's a good idea to remove this reference because some people may not be able to understand it. That's what the blue link is for. If you are suggesting that it be re-worded to something like "in the 1950s and 1960s faced a legal system more anti-homosexual than those of some communist Eastern European countries" or Soviet satellites (Cuba was included in this comparison) or communist regimes, we can discuss the precise wording. I am more concerned that a historian's cited comparison to the repression behind the Iron Curtain is being considered POV and unsubstantiated when a detailed note follows from a separate source that clearly states the legal and other problems homosexuals faced at the time. --Moni3 (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted "Van Ronk" back to "van Ronk". The IP wasn't wrong, exactly, that's common, but in the crazy world of copyediting, it helps to have something to hold on to, and most U.S. journalists hold on to AP Stylebook ... btw, the 2009 printed edition (print?  what's that?) just came out earlier this week.  I quote from foreign names: "De Gaulle spoke to von Richthofen." - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Dave Van Ronk article consistently capitalizes the "Van", as does nearly every other source I can find on this topic. I am unclear why this particular article should have a style inconsistent with common usage and the main Wikipedia article on this particular individual. AngoraFish   木  13:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, sorry. AP Stylebook allows capitalizing the "Van" when that's the individual's preference, and apparently, it is.  Reverting myself. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 24.148.22.105 added a link to EB; I think the link adds something useful. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 71.48.246.14 inserts a comma after "angry" in a quotation. I don't have the source. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Earlier today, Redthoreau added a link to today's Frank Rich article (op-ed in the NYT). John had already told me how good the piece was before I saw this link; he thinks it's well worth a link. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hekerui's edit: the first part is kind of a violation of "Do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text" from WP:Linking, but the second part of the edit seems like an improvement. - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gregmce's edit just fixed the formatting broken by the addition of " " by the IP. - Dank (push to talk) 16:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we survived the day; a diff from Moni's last edit to now shows relatively minor changes, most improvements. Good job, everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Date of Garland's funeral
Note 6 states: Garland's funeral on Friday, June 26, (Sylvia Rivera). But Friday was 27th (the day and evening before the raid on Saturday 01.20 a.m.). Could someone check the named source Duberman, p. 190–191.? If the source said or wrote it, we could add "[sic]". -DePiep (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will check the Duberman source, but suspect this is a typo, either in the source or...well, me. There has been some general confusion about the date of the Stonewall riots. The raid took place at 1 am, and the riots followed some 45 minutes to an hour later. Some less well-researched sources state the date as being June 27. I don't have a problem with the date of Garland's funeral being changed right now. --Moni3 (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, good catch. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Organisations named for Stonewall.
I'm surprised to see no mention of organisations named for Stonewall as part of the legacy. Was the idea of recording these rejected in the past?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't remember it. It might be later today or tomorrow before someone answers, we've kind of got our hands full. - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I can quite understand your point about being busy. Think of it as a form of reward and congratulations for being today's featured article. I asked here instead of being bold because I didn't want to risk starting a revert war while this is the article for the day. But to me as a Brit the name Stonewall is most associated with Stonewall (UK) which wouldn't have got its name if it weren't for the riots.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of language
I constructed this article to adhere as closely as possible to the language used in sources appropriate for the time frame in question.

Gay rights groups before Stonewall are referred to as Homophile organizations. Gay people before Stonewall are referred to as homosexuals unless the sentence structure is so clunky it makes it awkward.

Bisexuals are not covered in the sources as a group of people who were present and active in the riots.

There were men in full drag at the riots, but only a handful in the bar that night. Sources do not call these people transsexual or transgender. Men in full drag are referred to as transvestites by sources. Men who wore men's clothing but wore make-up and false hair are referred to as "flame queens" or "scare queens" by sources.

Transsexual and transgender are mentioned after the riots took place, particularly with the activism of Sylvia Rivera.

Please take into consideration there was no LGBT anything in 1969. There were homosexuals and a few of them called themselves gay, mainly Frank Kameny and Barbara Gittings. There was hardly a community of anyone, which is covered in the "Unlikely community" section. This event created an LGBT community, though it was rocky, unpleasant, and took a few years to do it. --Moni3 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an issue where you need to tread carefully. As I stated on your talk page, the term "tranvestite" was used to cover a whole range of identities outside of what the term actually refers to now - specifically, drag queens and trans women. To put it another way, its 1969 usage is synonymous with "transgender" now, whereas "transvestite" has acquired an altogether different meaning. This means that, in attempting to claim that it was merely about "gay" oppression, you're rewriting history; Sylvia Rivera is but one example, if an obvious one, of how trans concerns played into the cause of the riots in a big way. There are a number of ways in which this could be addressed; the language changes could be clarified at some point in the article or the modern language could be used, but the present stance here just isn't borne out by history or the article's own current sources. It presently jumps from "okay, let's use the language of the time" to "okay, transvestite it is", then "transvestite means men in dresses" to "trans issues weren't part of Stonewall", which just doesn't follow. Rebecca (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact remains that David Carter and Martin Duberman do not refer to the riot participants as transsexual or transgender. Their books are the best most comprehensive on what occurred this night. If you disagree with their interpretation of history, your battle is with them, not with this article. To change what the sources really mean is quite simply original research and synth.


 * Inclusion in 1969 is a fallacy. To state that labels were used when they were not is historically inaccurate and revisionist. As a compromise, a footnote can be added to state that sources do not call the participants transsexual or transgender and the term widely used was transvestite, and some participants labeled themselves transsexual or transgender later, if I can find a source to confirm that. I don't think it will be difficult to do.


 * Lastly, I asked to discuss this here, which I started a thread for. Edit warring is...well, its stupid, particularly when directly refuted by sources used. This article will have enough problems from vandals without these problems. --Moni3 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are hundreds of reliable accounts of what occurred at Stonewall, and not having access to either of these two biographies, I cannot speak to your interpretation of them. However, there are plainly plenty of reliable sources noting that the "transvestites" at Stonewall are modern-day "transgender" as "homophiles" are modern-day "gays". A quick search of either Google Books or Google Scholar turns up a veritable tonne of references if you'd like a place to start. There is a blatant double-standard here - gay and lesbian are prominently used all over the place, despite the fact they weren't in common usage either. Rebecca (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Because I was rewriting the sections which I hadn't already re-covered above - Following on from this, even if we set aside the concerns about "transgender", the article still invisibilises the participation of trans women in a huge way. I can't find a single mention of trans people (by "transvestites" or any other language) in the actual riot section out of a direct quote. It even evades this in regard to incidents which obviously revolved around drag queens and trans women, such as the "chorus line". It also attempted to ungender Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson by piping their male names, which is a huge violation of naming conventions to begin with. Rebecca (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have any preference for the way Johnson and Rivera are mentioned. They were referred to with their birth names in parentheses by the sources, and I thought it clued readers into the fact that they were biological males and not lesbians. Now it is not clear.


 * With respect, there are not hundreds of reliable sources of what occurred at Stonewall. They are a handful, with the authors interviewing participants on both sides. The rest are retellings of the authors' interpretations.


 * This is the matter at hand: there are two inaccuracies in the article. In the lead it states that transgenders fought back, and that the bar catered to transgenders. This language was not used at the time, nor was it used to describe the people present by sources written much later. You did not address the footnote compromise I suggested. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is where I start to become a little bit concerned, not about what the sources are stating, but about your interpretation of the sources, particularly in light of your professed ignorance on the matter a couple of weeks ago. I'll remind you of Wikipedia's guidelines on naming issues - "A transgender, transsexual or genderqueer person's latest preference of name and pronoun should be adopted when referring to any phase of that person's life, unless this usage is overridden by that person's own expressed preference."


 * The inclusion of the statement that transgender people also fought back is in the article as it should be. You have two self-identified trans people who were actually there, were key figures in the riots, who are quoted in this article, and whose testimony on the events of that day is notable and widely-quoted. You seem to be privileging what you think about their identities or what one man thinks about their identities over their own stated self-identification in reliable sources, and the secondary sources which heed their version of events.


 * As for whether the bar catered to transgender people; this is a matter of dispute in various sources, and my current understanding is that Rivera had stated it, while not entirely exclusive, was not what you might call friendly. This could easily be clarified in a way which neither of us would argue with. As for a proposed "compromise" of footnotes; considering that trans concerns were among the causes for the riot and trans people were fundamentally involved, this is plainly unacceptable. Rebecca (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, I really am trying here. I wrote this article ten fucking months ago and the day before it appears on the main page this discussion is being had. You haven't read the sources and you say this is unacceptable? You cannot dictate what is in the article, especially if you haven't read the sources. A footnote to state that the term "transvestite" was used in the late 1960s to refer to men who dressed as women, and that some participants who were in drag that night have since labeled themselves transgender or transsexual is not unreasonable. There is a way to work together on this. The crap about Judy Garland is in a footnote and that is much more pervasive in lore about Stonewall than the precise labeling of the participants.
 * Is there some reason we're the only people discussing this? Bueller? Or is it just entertaining to sit back and watch this unfold? --Moni3 (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a problem that was only pointed out to me when you reverted another editor's edits along these same lines earlier tonight. I'm very familiar with the literature on the Stonewall riots, thank you - just not with the opinions of these two particular men. But you've nailed the problem here right on the head. To quote you: "A footnote to state that the term "transvestite" was used in the late 1960s to refer to men who dressed as women, and that some participants who were in drag that night have since labeled themselves transgender or transsexual."


 * Where are the sources for this? You're presuming that you know how Rivera and Johnson identified better than they do; that Rivera, Johnson, and all the other such people present were "men who dressed as women" and essentially changed their minds down the line. There's zero sources in the article to support that assumption, and reliable sources to the contrary. Rebecca (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, I do not know how Rivera and Johnson identified. I only know that they were hustling at the time. Rivera was pretty high out of her mind on the first night as she recalls, and Johnson was present on the second night after Rivera drug her along. However, your point brings up one I was also considering yet had not gotten to that bridge. Mentioning transgender people in the lead is simply inaccurate, so I was hoping to compromise somehow. Going right back to how Duberman, Carter, and another I'm reading right now that is a broader scope of the entire LGBT movement (they call it lesbigay of all the eyebrow-raising terms) gays, lesbians, drag queens. flame queens, scare queens, hustlers, and street kids are the terms used to describe the participants. I removed my own statement before posting several comments above, that said it was arrogant to assume those in drag later labeled themselves as transgender or transsexual because that is more a personal revelation and choice to identify as such. So we're back to what the sources state, and they do not include the terms transsexual or transgender to describe any of the participants. You were called to the article several hours ago. Have you read the Unlikely community section that refers to the disagreements between Jean O'Leary and Sylvia Rivera and Rivera's later unsuccessful struggle in 1994 to get transgender people included in the 25th anniversary march? The article reflects the molding of the various facets that have become the LGBT community. The evolution of language mirrors the evolution of the gay rights movement.
 * If we are to treat this article as an FA, as it should be, a good footnote would discuss when the terms transgender and transsexual came into being and how they became more popularized, eventually replacing transvestite. I may have an article that discusses this directly. I will look for it and others to address how language has changed since 1969, reflecting the shifts in attitudes. However, I think I've stated pretty clearly that I disagree with the fact that transgender people frequented the bar in 1969, and although it would fail Tony1's test for brilliant writing for repetitive wording, I think the sentence that reads "first instance in American history when gays, lesbians, and transgenders fought back" can be changed to "first instance in American history when people in the homosexual community fought back". This is accurate and inclusive to the people who were considered homosexuals in 1969. --Moni3 (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mentioning transgender people in the lead is no less accurate than referring to gay and lesbian people in the lead. Either we use the language of the time, and go with "homophiles and transvestites" or we use the present language in retrospect, and use "gay, lesbian and transgender"; you can't pick and choose on a whim according to your own feelings. Rivera and Johnson (trans women) and the numberous drag queens present were fundamental protagonists in the riots, and there's nothing "simply inaccurate" about it.


 * As for the text specifically referring to the details of the riots, I'm content to use the terminology you've stated above. Certainly, many of the transgender people present that night were drag queens; equally certain, it would be an improvement over what's there now, where the contributions of the whole lot are basically washed over. Nonetheless, we need to keep in mind the guidelines here; since you don't know how the likes of Rivera and Johnson identified, you should refrain from referring to them as "men in dresses", regardless of whether or not you think they were hustling or on drugs in 1969.


 * Your suggestion of a footnote is a continued derail. We don't consistently refer to gay men in this article as "homophiles"; we use the current accepted terminology in the lead, and where necessary, we refer to the historical label. I'm not sure why you're still going on about whether transgender people frequented the bar or not, since I've already said that my understanding is that Rivera said that the generally did not. Your suggested conclusion, on the other hand, is nothing short of rewriting history; it simply wasn't just the "homosexual community" who fought back. Rebecca (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's your article. You got it. Go nuts. You never read a book cited. 3RR. I don't fucking know what to do. Unfuckingbelievable. Way to go, community collaboration. --Moni3 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made suggestions as to how the problems might be fixed at a basic level. I've even more-or-less agreed with you in how most of the issues in the riots section might be fixed, both in terms of the bar, and in terms of referring (at least in the riots section) to the people present. At this point, I'd still rather compromise rather than seriously pursue this. However, if I have to dig up the two books to challenge some of your rather eccentric interpretations of history, I guarantee that a featured article removal nomination will be forthcoming. Rebecca (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca, responding to Moni's attempt at a compromise with a reversion and the edit summary "Nyet. Please discuss these on talk before making changes" was incredibly dismissive. She wrote the article, yet you disregard her effort even when she is attempting a compromise, brushing her off with 'Nyet' as though she is a recalcitrant child. I can't speak for Moni, but I'd be pretty thoroughly ticked off at that type of response myself. You yourself made changes without discussion—yet you insist on a courtesy you did not extend? Perhaps I am dense, but I see nothing productive in the approach. Maralia (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't much of a compromise if I'd already clearly stated on the talk page that it would be unacceptable prior to her making the edit now, was it? Rebecca (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, here we go, should be transcluding right about now. Rebecca, if it's any consolation, there's not a chance in hell that Moni would be interested in dismissing the contributions of trans people to Stonewall, she's just trying to do an appropriate, scholarly job of representing the sources.  We might have our hands full keeping up with the vandalism while it's on the Main Page, so please, let's come back to this tomorrow around this time and see if we can address your concerns. - Dank (push to talk) 00:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not accusing her of consciously trying to dismiss those contributions but I am suggesting that her interpretations on things are a bit off. In another discussion a couple of weeks ago, I saw Moni3 set out what she understood about trans issues in general, and she was - well, well-meaning but wildly clueless on the subject - in ways that are related to the interpretations she's attempting to place on events here. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt here as I did there, but it does seem that her own difficulty in coming to grasps with these issues is affecting her ability to adequately represent the sources in this area. Rebecca (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Moni3 and I had nearly the identicle thread about the use of homosexual vs "the gays". This may be a case where the almighty footnote would makes sense. Both Rebecca and I had the exact same concern so undoubtably will many many more folks. Especially on Pride weekend. -- Banj e  b oi   00:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Benji, could you point me toward that previous thread? Might help me understand this one better, but I can't seem to find it. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Busted! It was on Harvey Milk. Same premise that we used homosexuals vs gay - label du jour as it were. -- Banj e  b oi   10:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A great time to talk about this would be ... any day other than today. - Dank (push to talk) 00:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No harm talking about it today, although stability in the article space would be nice until it's off the main page. Maralia and Benji, there was a relevant thread here. Rivertorch (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with this article at FAR. However, the burden to prove the article is deficient is on the editor who places the article at FAR. It would be an excellent time for Rebecca to read the sources cited. Likewise, I will be happy to read any source I can find that Rebecca recommends to further try to resolve this issue, and I don't anticipate it being very difficult. I did some related reading last night to find that according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "transgender" was published for the first time in 1974. Sylvia Rivera started an organization in 1973 called Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries, which indicates that she considered herself transvestite in 1973. The Encyclopedia of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender history in America has an article that discusses the differences between and evolution of the terms transvestite, transsexual, and transgender, including a statement reading "Historically, the term 'transvestite' is associated with an anti-LGBT scientific taxonomy and, therefore, is rarely used in popular discourse today."
 * Again, I think there is room in the Stonewall riots article to make a distinction about the use of "transvestite", but there are many salient points made in the Encyclopedia article about the intimate discrepancies between the various fields of thought in the studies of transgender and transsexual people, so to keep this article focused it should be brief and authoritative. This is further compounded by the underground nature of language used in the gay community in 1969: it was a culture created by secrecy so gay slang was inconsistent and regional. "Gay" and "lesbian" had been in general use in English for quite a while, but terms were used depending on the audience. There were formal terms for a formal audience: homosexual, homophile, and variant (another reflection on how negative the terms "homosexual" and "lesbian" were before Stonewall). And there were terms for less formal audiences: Mary, Nelly, dyke, fag, sister, etc., some of which are not used in polite society today.
 * This is a similar problem to stating an historical figure before 1850 was a lesbian. The term was not widely used before then to describe female homosexuals, and has further connotations today that did not exist before 1850. --Moni3 (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not reading what I've said. You're insisting on using the language of 1969, but the definitions of 2009. This doesn't make any sense. You've already admitted that your own sources refer to a whole bunch of groups that were present that are currently either not mentioned or skimmed over in the present draft of the article (the various drag queen identities for one), yet you seem insistent on using solely the word "transvestite" and insisting that all of the gender non-conforming people there were men, however they themselves actually identified. The article uses the terms 'gay' and 'lesbian', which were not in common parlance in 1969, and it can use 'transgender' too. There are umpteen sources for this, and your selective choices of which to use in your version of the article can't get around that. It is simply not acceptable to refer to people who identified and lived as women as men, and to cite their own words in the article while claiming the riots to be focused entirely around "homosexual" concerns. Rebecca (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we are apparently talking beyond each other. But the sources support what I'm saying and you haven't provided any to state otherwise. If anyone else can translate a conversation being held in English, have at it. I can't understand Rebecca's insistence and she hasn't read the sources cited in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm hardly speaking in an alien language. I'm asking all of three things. Firstly, that in describing the events of the riots, the groups who participated be addressed as they actually self-identified, as dictated by project guidelines. Some of these people identified as women; others identified, as you yourself stated above, as "drag queens, flame queens and scare queens". Secondly, I'm asking that the article stop downplaying the role played by gender non-conforming people in the riots; though trans women and drag queens were fundamental in both instigating the riots and in key events during the riots, "transvestite" is only ever used as a direct quote, and drag queens are only referred to very sparingly. This is not a stance supported by sources, and it amounts to rewriting history. Thirdly, I'm asking that, in the lead and in conclusion, the article uses modern terminology, just as it does for "gay" and "lesbian" - again, something backed up by a myriad of reliable sources. None of this is rocket science. Rebecca (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I assure you, I am much more frustrated and astonished at your not understanding my points than you are of me.
 * Point 1: No sources that I read and are cited in the article claim any of the participants identified as any other terms than what are in the article. So, these terms are already in the article.
 * Point 2: I do not see how the article downplays any of the participants, especially those who did not conform to gender roles. One of the instigating events was the stone butch lesbian heaved into the paddy wagon. Sylvia Rivera is mentioned in several places. That the transvestites were fighting furiously is stated by Seymour Pine and corroborated by another witness. The participants who were targeted for detention by the police and were beaten more severely than others, and those who fought with the police directly were the "sissies" and "swishes". Again, this information reflects what is in the sources—and this is now sounding like a mantra—read them. I am nonplussed that you insist that the information is wrong when you admit you have not read the sources. That's so illogical I don't know how else to reply to it.
 * Point 3: This is where I think discussion can assist, and if I have not already made myself clear to the entire Wikipedia community watching this article, I am asking for further input. As reflected in the title of this thread, the article is constructed using language that evolves as the gay community evolves, as are the books used as sources. Using LGBT as a term would be inaccurate. Bisexuals as a group were not represented in the riots and did not come to the fore in gay activism until the 1990s. Transgender was not a term used in 1969, but I have already stated a few times that the definition of "transvestite" has since morphed into a different concept which bears explaining in the article. This does not change the fact that quotes and contemporary news reports about the riots use "transvestite" because it was common parlance. Replacing all instances of "transvestite" with "transgender" or a similar solution assumes the participants in drag identified as transgender at some point in their lives, and more importantly, assigns them that identity in 1969, which is impossible since it did not exist. It would furthermore alter quotes and violate the RS policy. Otherwise, I do not know what kind of solution is being suggested and I welcome ideas from anyone reading this. --Moni3 (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Moni, you've asked for input from the community, so here's some. I have to dispute your assertion that one can not have an identity of being X until one has a distinct word for X. I.e. while I did not know of the concepts or terms for pansexuality and transgenderness when I was a kid, I still was pansexual and transgender back then. I knew that clearly, although I did not have access to targetted language about those concepts. Similarly there were people who were bisexual, pansexual, queeraffectional asexual, and numerous 'flavours' of transgenderness at all times in history, although they may not have had access to language, or been included in wider discourses, and ergo may not have used such terms to publicly identify themselves, but regardless they were still there.


 * Yes, quotes should be left as they were written/said, but to leave their dated language to stand without explicit note explaining it's datedness and what is represented by those terms if translated into today's context is to misrepresent, mislead, and bias.


 * We wouldn't unquestioningly refer to all people in the USA who aren't of white northern european ethnicity as "negros" throughout an article about the "civil rights movement" just because that's what the public discourse of the time (whether by those person themselves or others) called them. We can still be historically accurate without repeating the denigrating and erasing of peoples existance that were mistakes of past. --Myfanwy (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Literal response: Editors cannot attribute characteristics or identities to participants of the riot if sources do not. That violates the policies of no original research, synthesis, and verifiability.
 * Esoteric response: The comparison with black Americans is somewhat false. Whether using the term Negro, black, colored, or African American, they stand for just about the same thing: people of African descent. However, there are high-profile black Americans such as Whoopi Goldberg who do not like the term "African American" and wish to call themselves "black". This is an identity issue. In contrast, "transvestite" was a label in the 1960s imposed upon cross-dressers. While the word has stayed the same, the concept has not. I understand the issue of identity without a word since I believe I was gay from birth and had feelings I could not put a name to. Once I found the name, it was ugly and damaging, so I denied the feelings until I could get over the concern of what my peers thought of me. I also do not adhere closely at all to gender norms.
 * I believe there may be room for clarification of these terms. In fact, I think some information can be expanded on the double standard set by the gay rights movement following the riots that points out that gender dysphoria remained in the DSM after homosexuality was removed, and even long after the Stonewall riots the gay rights movement continued to marginalize transgenderists. I think it would be a good idea to add a few sentences to summarize this struggle and therein expand on the morphing of the use of "transvestite". I realize this tension reflects actual tensions on broader scales and affects how language is currently employed in the LGBT community. As I have said and continue to say, there is a way to address these issues without violating core Wikipedia policies. --Moni3 (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You simply cannot claim that the presence of transgender people at the riot is something that is not covered in reliable sources. It might not be covered in your two books, but it's covered in a hell of a lot of other literature, academic and non, concerning Stonewall. There is no need to get into some original research spiel concerning evolution of language after the riots; there is, however, a need to get the facts right as discussed in reliable sources. Rebecca (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So when I said "all people in the USA who aren't of white northern european ethnicity", you read that as meaning all people in the USA who are black / of African descent. ... Really? Because that sure looks to me like the very erasure and invisiblisation I was trying to highlight.


 * I chose that wording very carefully to illustrate a comparative scenario where a person was to hold of dichotimous 'normal-vs.-other' view of 'white-northern-european and "black"', where anyone not of white northern european ethnicity was seen as black, regardless of if their ethnicities were Japanese, Chinese, Indo-subcontinent, South American, etc, etc, despite black being a separate and distinct ethnic grouping. I feel this is an accurate illustration of the major problems in the '"not gay"(heteronormative) and gay' dichotimous view, regardless of if it is actively professed, or passively allowed to propagate.


 * (Also, are you sure you want to open the 'Identity - Demography Distinction' debate here, koz that kinda leads to messy stalemates in my experience. I had been avoiding opening it up.) --Myfanwy (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. If you have nothing more to add about the content of this article, we're finished. --Moni3 (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay.

1) From what you've said, your own sources appear to refer to a number of groups engaged in these elements of the riots: "drag queens, flame queens, and scare queens." Yet the last two terms only appear once in the whole text of the article, and even "transvestite" never appears outside of a direct quote; in the article text, you refer to all of these groups as merely homosexual men, ignoring their self-identification.

2) It downplays the participants in the fact that it pointedly ignores their gender variance. I've pointed it out a number of times as an example, but the description of the "chorus line" manages to ignore that the participants were drag queens. The lack of reference to any of these groups within the riot, as I noted above, downplays them; it rewrites history. As far as I can see from your own statements here - this is not an interpretation which is even supported by those two books. (I have since discovered that neither book is available anywhere in my state, while other sources on the riots are; so much for definitive sources)

3) I'm not sure why you're attempting to argue against suggestions I haven't made. As I've noted above, I'm suggesting that, within the descriptions of the riots themselves, we should stick to the self-identification of the people concerned. Thus, in this part, we should be using the language I noted in (2). This is consistent with the use of "homosexual" and "homophile" to refer to gay men in these same sections. Where I'm suggesting we use "transgender" is in the lead and conclusion, where gay and lesbian are used, since all of the above identities come under the umbrella of what would today be classed as "transgender" (just as homophile evolved into gay), and there are hundreds of sources referring to this fact in the specific context of Stonewall. I'm not sure where on earth you're getting the idea that I've advocated for using "transgender" everywhere (let alone in quotes!), but it certainly didn't come from anything I said. Rebecca (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Authors attribute the chorus line participants to the street kids initially since they used to sing the same song in Christopher Park, replacing "Stonewall girls" with a more generic term like "homo girls" or "Nelly girls".
 * I still have yet to understand in what context you want "transgender" included in the account of the riots: the lead, all the way to the end of the Intolerable situation section. It's fairly clear to me that the riot participants were a motley collection of people from the Stonewall and the neighborhood. I believe the article neither emphasizes nor downplays participation by any group present, and I further believe it accurately represents the accounts of the riots in the sources.
 * We keep going around this time and again, and we seem to be back where we started. So I'm going to re-read the sources I used. Martin Duberman's book is actually six extended interviews with Craig Rodwell, Sylvia Rivera, and others. It was published in 1993, so I don't anticipate there being any discussion on the differences between the 1969 "transvestite" usage vs. the usage of "transgender" following the riots. David Carter's book, however, is a much more comprehensive look at the events surrounding the riots and was published in 2004. Carter may have explicitly discussed why he uses the language he uses. The Gay Militants is a collection of news stories and published accounts of the riots, including that from The Village Voice and the Mattachine Society newsletter, and a further collection of documents reflecting the sharp increase of activism that followed. It was published in 1971, however, so the language will reflect the activism of the later 1960s and early 1970s.
 * If you have sources you think I should read, please suggest them. While it is unfortunate that your library does not carry either Carter's or Duberman's books, that does not mean they aren't the best and most comprehensive sources on the riots. You can request (throw a holy fit until) the books be acquired by your library or seek Interlibrary Loan. Amazon also has them available used starting at $6.08 (Carter) and one cent (Duberman).
 * Per my response to Myfanwy, I think a few sentences can be added to the Legacy section to elaborate on the development of the concept of transgender and the continued tensions between the gay community and transgenderists. My foremost concern, as always, is accuracy. --Moni3 (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As to the use of the word "transgender", I would be happy as long as it is used in the lead, and in the conclusion; in essence, the sections where the article uses 'gay' and 'lesbian' at present. I am open to discussing the language to be used elsewhere. There is no need to create some original research spiel about supposed links between Stonewall and the development of a 'transgender' identity; there is merely a need to get our facts right. That the presence of trans people at the riots has been covered widely in reliable sources shouldn't even be a matter of issue, but if you're looking for potential sources, a Google Scholar search for related articles might be a good place to start. Rebecca (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Susan Stryker article was quite helpful. Addition about visibility of gender nonconformists in conflict with the Mattachine and DOB, and a source that states the Compton's Cafeteria riots were the start of transgender activism. and a copy edit. And an addition to the lead, made possible by the Stryker source and another found in the  Encyclopedia of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered History in America. Addition of a clarifying sentence or two about the inclusion of bisexuals and the continuing tensions between transgender and LGB community in the 1990s. I would like to add another sentence about gender dysphoria in the DSM, but that source is at home I think. I will add it as soon as I can confirm it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you - this is an improvement, but I have a couple of quibbles related to the new additions. Firstly, I think the sentence about who Stonewall catered to is quite strangely worded; I know where it's going and it's on the right track, but I don't think it summarises things very well; the way the list is structured feels like it misses the class issues somehow. I also think it's more accurate and less confusing to use "drag queens" rather than "transvestites". Secondly, I don't get the new addition about bisexuals in the 1990s; what does this have to do with Stonewall? Rebecca (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the bit about bisexuals because it reflects a more encompassing gay community (and I neglected to address them as a group in the years following the riots), but marks a further double standard. While bisexuals were included in marches, demonstrations, and organizations, transgender people were not. At least not without a fight. The lead is altered. --Moni3 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, but I'm not sure the "double standard" issue comes across in the article text itself. It might be a bit better if it were reworded to make the link to Stonewall a little bit more apparent. Apart from that, I'm reasonably happy with the revised version - thank you. Rebecca (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)