Talk:Stonewall riots/Archive 9

Clarity
"Although he was stunned by the upheaval by participants in the Annual Reminder in 1969". What "upheaval" does this refer to, or does it just refer to the Stonewall riots? It's just not a very clear sentence; it could refer to an upheaval within the scope of the Annual Reminder, for example. 82.35.134.57 (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This refers to the first paragraph in the Aftermath section. Is it still unclear? --Moni3 (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad. I have a very poor memory. Keep doing your stuff, this article is amazing. 82.35.134.57 (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"The issues most important to gay men — entrapment and public solicitation" - so public solicitation refers to...undercover police officers inducing people to engage in homosexual acts (which were against the law back then) so as to explicitly prove that they were gay and therefore criminals? 82.35.134.57 (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The third paragraph under Greenwich Village explains some of the issues surrounding entrapment and public solicitation that gay men faced. Yes, you are correct that that is what entrapment is, but in the context of pre-Stonewall legal problems, a casual conversation with an undercover police officer could lead to an entrapment charge, in a bar, park, or on a public street. --Moni3 (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Another question: the 138th citation has been left as "Barry" even though there are no authors with the surname "Barry" in the Bibliography section. I'm assuming this citation's intention is to refer to Barry Adam? 82.35.134.57 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * '...because as one writer put it: "all role playing is sick"'. Who is this "one writer" you write of? 82.35.134.57 (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism
This article is based so much on Dubermans work which isnt a reflection of what happened.... http://www.nycnotkansas.com/GaySixties.htm http://www.nycnotkansas.com/wild_side.htm and Carter are much better this whole article is kind of a joke BECAUSE of the terrible historical research people have done, and the leftist PC views which trya nd change how things were. If i cared Id change it but I assume you guys will change it back to reflect the narative you wish to create not caring about the actual history. PC nazis learn to think for yourselves history isnt the way you WANT IT TO BE. Anyone who was in the stonewall incidents on the first 2 nights would be ashamed of this article. SHAME ON YOU ALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.195.16.127 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Drag Queens
I would dispute this as drag is a performance art not a transgender identity (QueenAlexandria)14:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"American gays and lesbians in the 1950s and 1960s faced a legal system more anti-homosexual than those of some Warsaw Pact countries.[note 1][2] "
It's great that this article has been able to reach FA status, but I'm a little perturbed as to the above sentence, which has been included in the opening paragraphs. It seems to serve little purpose in itself; why is a comparison with the U.S. legal system and that of Warsaw Pact countries at all relevant here ? Surely it would be better to replace this with a more in-depth discussion of the sort of legal issues that gay people of the era faced within the U.S. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Stereotypes
In the text here was a sentence reffering to the degree of legal protection of LGBT communities being 'worse than in some Warsaw pact countries' Is this a reference to the out-of-date legal system in United States, or ironical comparison with the now defunct and in the West labeled less worthy Warsaw pact countries. In which there was more racial and sexual equality in the 1950s than in most of the Western Europe and North America in the 1970s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.199.242 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I think the latter. That's pretty much what it said, as I read it, and I've undone your change so that it says that again. Changing "Warsaw Pact" to "European" is actually more confusing, I think. Let's keep in mind that the sentence is reliably sourced. Rivertorch (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Legal Aftermath
I feel this article could be enhanced by discussion of the trials and legal aftermath of riot participants. Perhaps as a pullout to a separate article. Several such pullouts might make the article (of a complex subject) less sprawling. 108.43.142.19 (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Stonewall Miami Beach
Does anyone know what the connection was between the Stonewall Inn and the Stonewall on 22nd Street in Miami Beach which was open for about 2 years and burned down in 1974? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Last Straw
This section is surprisingly non-neutral. Makes a biased claim regarding the 'instigators' of the riots without defining who they were. The portion stating "—the most outcast people in the gay community—" Should simply not be present. It does not add to the article. It is a biased statement-it does not state criteria not define what makes the groups the most outcast. It is a preposterous statement that detracts from neutrality regardless of it having a citation within a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordtyp0 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of "—the most outcast people in the gay community—" operates on a fallacy of presumption-that the audience would simply know who and why anyone would be more outcast-however, based on players involved the statement itself is tantamount to saying "The most outcast of the community is the community". It is simply a strange inclusion that points at the clientele of the Stonwall Inn, then claims the clientele itself is the most outcast of themselves. Removing the line not only makes the article more clear by removing ambiguity but removes floating questions that linger. Lordtyp0 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * For more of what means, see this section from my talk page, where I replied to Lordtyp0.


 * And, Lordtyp0, here at this article talk page, I moved your post down, because, per Talk page guidelines, new sections go at the bottom. Also, remember to sign your username when you post to article talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: . A bot had to sign your username above. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I was distracted and presumed formatting would be wanted in an approximate order as original article. However, it seems you struck too early-I was still editing and it chopped off. I'll get the hang of it. Updated above with additional information on objection. Lordtyp0 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Escalation
The crowd cheered, started impromptu kick lines, and sang to the tune of The Howdy Doody Show theme song: "We are the Stonewall girls/ We wear our hair in curls/ We don't wear underwear/ We show our pubic hairs".

Actually, the theme song to The Howdy Doody Show used the tune from an earlier vaudeville and music hall song, "Ta-ra-ra Boom-de-ay," first performed in 1891. Howdy's reuse of the melody is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the original. Oh, and I suspect that the last word of the Stonewall girls song is "hair" rather than "hairs," as "hair" would rhyme with "underwear." Dick Kimball (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm. The passage is sourced, and I'm sure it was checked carefully as this was a Featured Article. While you may be right, I suppose we'd need another source to change it thus.

Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stonewall_riots&type=revision&diff=669259595&oldid=669259492 changed it] to the singular with a reference, but left a note that some other references have the plural. -sche (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Quote mis-attributed to James Webb
I changed the attribution of a quote that had been mis-attributed to James Webb. According to the source material originally cited in support of that quote, the quote came from the Hoey report, not from Webb.

The citation listed by the original editor in support of this quote (Edsal, Toward Stonewall, page 276-77,) actually reads:

"The politics of anti-Communism dated back to the beginnings of the Cold War in 1947-48 and were first broadened to include homosexuals in early 1950, when an under-secretary of state testified to a Senate committee that most of the government employees dismissed for moral turpitude were in fact homosexual. Sensing that they had uncovered a potentially disastrous weakness in the Truman administration, Republicans took up the issue with enthusiasm, and Democrats, suddenly placed on the defensive, felt compelled to follow suit. The Senate appointed a committee to investigate the employment of homosexuals in the federal government. Though cautious in estimating the number of "sex perverts" in government service, the committee report, issued in December 1950, nonetheless painted an alarming picture of their character, their influence, and their potential threat to the nation's security. "It is generally believed," the report noted, "that those who engage in overt acts of perversion lack the emotional stability of normal persons."

It seems a stretch to attribute a quote in the report directly to the testimony of the undersecretary of state (James Webb.)

The Hoey report itself, available at: https://mattachinesocietywashingtondc.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/document141.pdf, does not list Webb as a co-author. Indeed, Webb worked for the State Department and so would not have directly contributed any text to a Senate committee report anyway.

In the book Lavender Scare by David Johnson, on page 101 to 109 there is a detailed discussion of the Hoey committee and its report. That source establishes that the report was mostly written by Francis Flanagan (Chief Counsel to Senator Hoey.)

The bottom line is that attributing that quote to Webb is historically inaccurate -- the statement was almost certainly written by Francis Flanagan, and appeared in the Hoey report, not in anything that Webb himself wrote.

Nf7443 (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Stonewall (2015 film)
Can some experienced editors knowledgeable about the subject take a look at the related article, particularly the controversy section being discussed on the talk page? Three good-faith but relatively new editors are involved in an edit-war and any help in reaching a consensus would be appreciated. The article is already semi-protected to prevent disruption from miscellaneous IPs, and I would like to avoid escalating to full-protection (or blocks) as far as possible. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is, most of the IPs and new users who want to add to these articles haven't read the words of the people who were there, or even watched the documentaries where these individuals speak for themselves. Instead, we have folks who think a random tweet or a meme they saw on tumblr is a source. There are even authors for pop-culture publications who are not doing any research, just repeating tweets and blog opinions. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 02:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, some of the sources people used were Blogspot. Stickee (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing
CorbieVreccan, regarding this edit you made, the text you added a Template:Citation needed tag for is likely supported by the "duberman236" reference. Moni3, who is now retired, thoroughly sourced this article before bringing it to WP:Featured article status, and she was a big believer in not engaging in WP:Citation overkill. This means that she would often put the source at the end of the paragraph, and that style would mean that the entire paragraph is supported by that source; see WP:Citation overkill. In the case of the text you added a Template:Citation needed tag for, there were two references; it seems that the first reference was used to support all of the first part of that paragraph, and the second reference was used to support the end of the paragraph. You added two more sources to the paragraph, but vimeo.com, like YouTube, generally is not considered a WP:Reliable source unless it is coming from the official channel for whatever source is being used; I've been thinking that since seeing you add video sources to this article. See WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:YouTube and WP:Video links (the latter is a WP:Essay, not a WP:Policy or guideline). Flyer22 (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually totally agree with you about the citation overkill issue, though that's far from obvious from my work on this and related articles. These articles have had so many problems with inaccurate info creeping in over and over that I've wound up having to do what I have to agree is over-sourcing, but it seems to have been the only way to keep the misinfo out. (Though not always, as some of the IPs in particular are fine on ignoring the sourcing.) If it's in duberman236 I agree that's sufficient and we should cut the cn tag. The only thing I'm sourcing with the vimeo and YouTube videos are statements of self-identification from the individuals interviewed, as well as documentary footage that confirms, say, the makeup of the "gay camp" at the piers during the time of the '95 interview. I completely agree that a video of a rando's opinion, or of someone telling their friend that they were at Stonewall, is not an RS that they were at Stonewall. But I think an interview with the subject where the person we are writing about calls themselves "gay" and "a queen" over and over, is usable in sourcing that that is how they self-identified. Thank you so much for your work on these articles. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 18:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the cn tag from that sentence. The text about Rivera leaving the city... I'm not sure that's even needed, but I wanted something more accurate than what was there. The source I added about leaving activism to live upstate was self-reporting from Rivera in the '95 interview, however there are also primary sources (voting records) that confirm it. However, I would be fine on simplifying that bit if it's preferred; we don't say where anyone else was living in that time period. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 18:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

To whom did Stonewall Inn cater?
The lead says it catered to all of the "most marginalized" sections of the LGBT community, giving prominence to drag queens and trans women. It is known, however, that Sylvia Rivera said the bar was hostile to drag queens, and further in the article it's acknowledged just that - that certain areas in the bar were off limits to drags and trans people. Furthermore, David Carter - whose Stonewall book is the source most cited in this entry - said cross-dressers of any kind were but a tiny minority among the rioters. I plan to address that controversy in the entry. Does anyone want to add anything on the subject? Rafe87 (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , what WP:Reliable sources do you have for the content you want to add? And how do you plan to add it to this article (by that, I mean where and in what WP:Tone)? For one, your content should not call the matter a controversy unless WP:Reliable sources do. For two, you shouldn't give WP:Undue weight to the content (for example, if it can fit in an existing section, it should). For three, significant care should be taken with this article since it is a WP:Featured article. Flyer22 (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should re-read what Rafe said. He told you what the RS is: David Carter is cited as a source more than 50 times in the article. Stickee (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read that part. But Rafe87 cited David Carter with regard to "cross-dressers of any kind were but a tiny minority among the rioters." That's not the same thing as "It is known, however, that Sylvia Rivera said the bar was hostile to drag queens, and further in the article it's acknowledged just that - that certain areas in the bar were off limits to drags and trans people." Nor is it the same thing as a controversy. Flyer22 (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As for "controversy", I believe Rafe used that to means there's a (purported) conflict between sources and the article text. But yes, I would like to see a source for Rivera saying the bar was hostile. Stickee (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems that Rafe87 is talking about this content from an edit made at the Stonewall (2015 film) article. There's been disputes and edit-warring at that article regarding that content. Flyer22 (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Stonewall Inn website's own history section seems pretty clear that the bar catered to gay men. Sylvia Rivera's statements are irrelevant because there is no objective evidence that she was even there, beyond her own claims, which are in dispute. Convergingnow (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

___

"Sylvia Rivera remembered..."
The construction above appears in the subsection on the riot outbreak, and it takes for granted that Rivera was present on the day, and was therefore in a position to remember anything from that night. It is noteworthy, however, that David Carter, the author most cited on this page, has concluded that Rivera was not present on the first day of rioting, that she fabricated her account of the events, and even suggests that Marsha Johnson denied Rivera was at the protests at all. For that reason, he has omitted her altogether from his many histories of Stonewall. An interview with him: Rafe87 (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * One possible way of addressing this is with the "first night" and "second night" sections. I'm surprised to see the quote about Johnson dropping the bag on the cop car only in the "second night" section; I'll check Carter again, but I thought that happened on the first night. Having read all the sources, I think it's plausible that Rivera was there either on the second night of rioting, or later in the week. But I have to concur that there are no credible witnesses placing Rivera there on the first night (especially as Rivera's close friend Johnson told at least two people that Rivera was absent on night one). I think we can use Rivera as a source on the layout of the bar, as long as we cut "who was inside the bar at the time of the riot" [first night]. I also think Rivera could be mentioned in the coverage of night two, and/or later in the week. Then (if the sources check out) move the part about Johnson to night one. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 22:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, p.188 of Carter has the dropping of the bag on the police car on Sat. Night, so that should stay as-is. However, I see no reason to describe Johnson primarily as a friend of Rivera's, and Johnson should be mentioned on night one. A search on the google book version of Carter brings up plenty of independent references, as well as some good text about other gender-nonconforming people who were "in the vanguard" on the first night. "Jackie Hormona, Marsha Johnson and Zazu Nova" in particular are named, with some good content on page 261. -  Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 00:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Fatalities
Apologies if this has been brought up before, but I see no mention of damages and deaths caused by the riots. Is the information just not recorded anywhere or is it intentionally left out of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.165.59.90 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If you know of a reliable source reporting any vital missing information, you should feel free to add it to the article. Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"Sylvia Rivera remembered..."
The construction above appears in the subsection on the riot outbreak, and it takes for granted that Rivera was present on the day, and was therefore in a position to remember anything from that night. It is noteworthy, however, that David Carter, the author most cited on this page, has concluded that Rivera was not present on the first day of rioting, that she fabricated her account of the events, and even suggests that Marsha Johnson denied Rivera was at the protests at all. For that reason, he has omitted her altogether from his many histories of Stonewall. An interview with him: Rafe87 (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * One possible way of addressing this is with the "first night" and "second night" sections. I'm surprised to see the quote about Johnson dropping the bag on the cop car only in the "second night" section; I'll check Carter again, but I thought that happened on the first night. Having read all the sources, I think it's plausible that Rivera was there either on the second night of rioting, or later in the week. But I have to concur that there are no credible witnesses placing Rivera there on the first night (especially as Rivera's close friend Johnson told at least two people that Rivera was absent on night one). I think we can use Rivera as a source on the layout of the bar, as long as we cut "who was inside the bar at the time of the riot" [first night]. I also think Rivera could be mentioned in the coverage of night two, and/or later in the week. Then (if the sources check out) move the part about Johnson to night one. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 22:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, p.188 of Carter has the dropping of the bag on the police car on Sat. Night, so that should stay as-is. However, I see no reason to describe Johnson primarily as a friend of Rivera's, and Johnson should be mentioned on night one. A search on the google book version of Carter brings up plenty of independent references, as well as some good text about other gender-nonconforming people who were "in the vanguard" on the first night. "Jackie Hormona, Marsha Johnson and Zazu Nova" in particular are named, with some good content on page 261. -  Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 00:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Fatalities
Apologies if this has been brought up before, but I see no mention of damages and deaths caused by the riots. Is the information just not recorded anywhere or is it intentionally left out of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.165.59.90 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If you know of a reliable source reporting any vital missing information, you should feel free to add it to the article. Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Fatalities
Apologies if this has been brought up before, but I see no mention of damages and deaths caused by the riots. Is the information just not recorded anywhere or is it intentionally left out of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.165.59.90 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If you know of a reliable source reporting any vital missing information, you should feel free to add it to the article. Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)