Talk:Stonewall riots

Sylvia Rivera

Sylvia Rivera is mentioned in the article. Apparently he/she was never really at Stonewall even if he/she claimed to have been there. Biographers, Historians, and people who were actually at the Stonewall riots have all said how Silvia Rivera was never there at them.

NoPetrol's edits

User:NoPetrol restored the changes they'd made earlier, undoing User:Rebecca's revert because of "insufficient explanation". I'm reverting again. Here's my explanation, which I hope is sufficient:

• "persecuted sexual minorities" is perfectly accurate. "Persecute" means (1) to subject someone to hostility and ill treatment or (2) to harass or annoy (someone) persistently (Oxford English Dict.). Both definitions accurately describe the treatment of sexual minorities in the U.S. in years past. "Sexual minorities" is a good catch-all phrase that is commonly used to include LGBT people of various eras. NoPetrol's edit is problematic for multiple reasons, including

1. "was set in place" (awkward wording and implies a level of deliberation and organization that may not be accurate)
2. "curtail the practice of" (changes focus from people to conduct. If we have accurate information about the conduct of most LGBT people back then, it's not germane in this context)
3. "homosexual and transgender behaviors" (meaningless phrase, and same problem as number 2 above)

• "being arrested": is more accurate than "prosecution", since arrest didn't always lead to prosecution but was sometimes used just as a means of harassment.

• "legal troubles" makes more sense than "legal ramifications". The latter refers to a consequence of an action or event, and it's unclear which action or events this is referring to. I think this is a case of a two-bit word being better than a two-dollar word.

• "repression"—(1) inhibit the natural development or self-expression of someone or (2) subdue someone or something by force—is perfectly accurate here, whereas "campaign against" is problematic because it suggests one organized course of action whereas the repression of sexual minorities came in many forms from many sources and was often haphazard.

All in all, I think the original wording was more careful and made more sense. Given the amount of scrutiny this article received as a Featured Article, I think that major changes—not just reverts—demand sufficient explanation. Rivertorch (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess your arguments are compelling, except that both of OED's definitions can be applied to almost any law enforcement activity dealing with people breaking the law. Which edition of the OED do you have? Mine is a 2009 edition, and its first definition of the word "persecute" is very slightly different than the one you read: "To seek out and subject (a person, group, organization, etc.) to hostility or ill-treatment, esp. on grounds of religious faith, political belief, race, etc.; to torment; to oppress." Did the police "seek out" sexual minorities for the purpose of tormenting them any more than they did people who broke other laws of that time while occupying Mafia-run establishments? Also, police action against homosexuality was organized by laws against homosexuality, which were in turn supported by the opinions of medical professionals of the time. --NoPetrol (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, my apologies for citing the wrong dictionary. It was the Oxford American Dictionary. (I don't have quick access to the full OED and own only an abridged version, which I just use to double-check British spellings.) I did take a quick peek in both AHD and M-W (unabridged) and nothing especially different jumped out at me.

To answer your question, yes, that is precisely what the police did (and still do on occasion, it would seem). If you read the article carefully—especially the Background section—that's pretty clear. I fail to see how either the laws or the medical standards of the time can in any way be seen to change the fact that an entire class of people were routinely preyed upon, insulted, beaten up, thrown in jail, and publicly humiliated—i.e., persecuted—simply for minding their own business and trying to live their lives. Were Jews and other minorities in Nazi Germany somehow not persecuted because their tormentors were acting with the full blessing of the state and the German medical establishment? You seem to be implying that the cops were just doing their jobs. So they were. As it happens, part of their jobs was to persecute gay people. That they performed at least part of that "duty" under the aegis of the law doesn't change the fact. Rivertorch (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rivertorch and the reversion of NoPetrol's edits. As the article's primary author/constructor, the Background section shows what life was like for homosexuals who dared to admit publicly, even by going to a bar that was noted as a gay bar, what they were looking for. It was enough in some cities that arrest meant your name was printed in the paper, you lost your job, and your family got the shock of a lifetime. The decades of harassment and public humiliation led to the riots and should be detailed. --Moni3 (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Watershed for the mainstream use of the term "gay"?

See Bringing_up_Baby#Use_of_word_.22gay.22. Is this something the authors of this article have come across, and should it be mentioned in this article?  Skomorokh  23:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I need to see Russo's writing, but I hold some skepticism for this. Russo wrote an excellent history of the depiction of gays and lesbians in the movies. I used it for writing a part of the Lesbian article. My skepticism comes more from the issues of secrecy before the Stonewall riots. Barbara Gittings and Frank Kameny were using "gay" in the early 1960s. But the prevailing attitude in the U.S. imposed secrecy on most of society. In formal/psychiatric/government literature, it was referred to as homosexuality. Many gays and lesbians were so closeted that they developed a separate language, refusing to use any adjectives that would clue outsiders into what was going on. They used "family" or "in the life". Lesbian pulp fiction titles used "gay" as a double entendre in the early 1960s[1]. Ann Bannon used "gay" to mean homosexual in the late 1950s--and also wrote a recent article about the use of "gay" by Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby.

If anything, the Stonewall riots made it possible for people to discuss issues about homosexuality. People began to use "gay" more because homosexuals were no longer perverted pariahs considered to slink around dark alleys in trench coats looking to sell secrets to the Russians. --Moni3 (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I remember hearing someone in the public media saying in 1967 that it used to be that "a man wouldn't sue you for calling him gay." Hence the double meaning was "out" by 1967. I always wondered whether there was a chicken/egg thing about Cary Grant's use of gay in the 1938 movie (penned by Dudley Nichols and Hagar Wilde if that helps anyone). That is, he used the word while wearing a woman's robe; so, either the writers already knew the word to have a double meaning or else gay viewers of the film were inspired by the film to use the word in a new way. Milesnfowler (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Note #1 seems to refer to a remark in the article about the situation for gays in Warsaw Pact countries but doesn't support it. Perhaps sources cited in note have something to say about conditions in Eastern Europe in the late 1960s, but this is not made clear in the note. I would expect that things were as bad or worse for gays in Eastern Europe at that time, so the claim begs to be supported. Milesnfowler (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent spam

Moni3 requested that the recent spam URLs be added to the spam blacklist; it looks like this has now been done.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 14:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It was added yesterday, before the daily spam tag. I don't know if it did any good. --Moni3 (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there may have been a problem when it was first added; it looks like it was fixed later (shortly before I posted), so fingers crossed...! TFOWR^propaganda 15:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I expect that I'll probably go about this incorrectly but try to bear with me.

There's some new info via the movie source, and the NYPL isn't online but involved retrieving Rodwell's papers during a previously arranged search through his materials where I obtained a copy from the NYPL of the leaflet that is available for public inspection (NYPL, Rodwell Paper's, Series 4, Box 11, pg. 7, http://legacy.www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/rbk/faids/rodwell.pdf). I hadn't found a copy of one of the leaflets referred to by Sargeant at any online source, except at Marotta's archive (Marotta's Ph.D. came from the material in his Politics of Homosexuality), as well as its appearance on screen in the documentary (David Carter and Eric Marcus worked as consultants for the project, and are credited as such). I may have missed it but don't recall seeing it in Teal or Duberman. That doesn't mean that it isn't there but I don't have the texts available to me today. I'd made the trip to see the first day opening of the documentary (Which included a Q&A with producers, directors, writers and consultants) and, like Mixner, found it to contain new information.

Can you tell me what over-citing would be, as in, for instance, the previously undisclosed number of leaflets produced? Sargeant was involved with Rodwell in creating and distributing them starting the morning after the first night of rioting and this is the first source with historical scholarship attached that has his statement regarding this item. The remaining copy is one of a series produced by the two in the tumult of organizing by activists in the midst of the riots. I tried looking for it (over-citing) in the WP:RS but apparently am missing it.

Without disparaging any one individual, there are disputes regarding the scholarship of some of the material frequently cited in some of the Stonewall associated articles, so I've tried to back up some of those sources, where possible, with corroborative citations that may be of assistance in the case future verification issues. Stnwll (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Overciting is citing a fact five times when one will do. The fact in question is that Rodwell distributed leaflets that asserted the Mafia and NYC PD were working together to extort patrons of NY area gay bars. Both Duberman and Teal assert this. I think the "Keep the Cops and Mafia Out of Gay Bars" leaflet is reprinted in Teal. Teal reprints a few of the primary sources.

So that fact really isn't tremendously controversial. Not as controversial as say, homosexuality is no longer a mental illness, or some scientists believe homosexuality is genetic or biological. That sort of fact requires multiple citations. Citing a simple fact five times is such overkill that it warrants suspicion. It's also disruptive in the flow of words.

Furthermore, per reliable source policy, and what kind of sources to use policy, secondary sources are favored over primary. Rodwell's leaflet is a primary source. A historian's discussion of the leaflet is a secondary source. Duberman, although I understand his work is not as well-respected as Carter's, and Teal both discuss Rodwell's assertions. Does this make sense? --Moni3 (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• I found the original Truscott article online [2], and have been attempting to use it as a cite, with some formatting difficulty that I'm trying to sort out. One thing I wanted to point out: I quoted his famous inflammatory phrase in the second paragraph of his article "forces of faggotry." I'm not sure that's quite suitable for Wikipedia and I know it's offensive, so I wanted to point that out. I believe it has been quoted a number of times so I thought that it should be specifically mentioned. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm watching your edits, ScottyBerg. I don't think the issue about 2 policewomen needs to be cited by Truscott. His story is a primary source now, and as is pointed out in the article, somewhat biased so not the best to cite other than what they wrote. For the issue about "forces of faggotry" it's an appropriate citation. For most anything else, it's probably not. David Carter's book is the cite used for the policewomen.

I'd be happy to help you if you need further assistance formatting citations and cite anchors, though. Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I took out about the two policemen and also it being the second raid in the space of a week, as both are attributed to Truscott. I had the formatting of that totally screwed up, and erroneously put it in a footnote. Would there be a problem if I put it in the main text attributed to Truscott? (You may have a better source.) I don't believe that is in the article at present. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that information is already in the article. The last sentence in the Stonewall Inn section mentions the raid the previous Tuesday, and the second sentence in the Police raid section mentions the policewomen. So, adding the information isn't necessary. Nor is citing it to Truscott. --Moni3 (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Should have read the article more thoroughly. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Stonewall riots in culture" section

I wonder if there could be a bit more on film depictions of these events and on the impact on culture generally. My interest in this was jogged by the new film Stonewall Uprising (which is why I parachuted into this article) and I expect that it is going to get more interest because of that. Right now there is just a list of films, and maybe there should be a bit more. Also I wonder if maybe the police corruption and Mafia aspects deserve more treatment generally. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the American Experience documentary, and I was glad it was done. I found it a good film. However, what you're suggesting is that information be placed in this article about depictions and sources. If information about the Stonewall Uprising documentary, why not information about David Carter's book? Or Duberman's? The article begins to lose cohesion at this point and generally source material begins to degrade. David Carter's book was the primary source for the documentary; what source would you be able to find to be as or more authoritative than Carter to address the quality of the documentary? There's already an article on the documentary. Commentary about the film should go in that article. This article should focus solely on the events of the Stonewall riots and what changes were spawned from them. --Moni3 (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to a documentary that just began being shown in the movie theaters. I don't believe it was broadcast on American Experience, though I could be wrong on that. Yes, a discussion of the books would definitely be a good idea. If not a section, then perhaps a separate article? I think an article like that would be very useful. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there are two separate documentaries that have just been released. The one I saw interviewed David Carter, Seymour Pine, and a few of the riot participants. It was made a part of PBS American Experience documentary series. It was screened at the Miami LGBT film festival and has been shown a few other places as well. According to the IMDb page, it's the same film.

Unless source material becomes available that discusses the quality of other sources, which Carter does in relation to the Truscott and Smith Village Voice articles from 1969, a section about the sources is not really possible at this time and it detracts from the point of this article. If you want to create an article about David Carter's book, if there's enough material to write about it, then do it. It should meet the qualifications of notability, however. Not all sources used on Wikipedia do that. I think it's a very bad idea to include a discussion in this article about the sources or depictions in film and media. That is a tangent that does not address the events of the Stonewall riots. --Moni3 (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll mull over what you're saying. As for the documentary: yes, it is the same one. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Storme Delarverie

The identity of the woman who fought with police is disputed. Although Charles Kaiser may have identified her as Storme Delarverie in 2007, I had a conversation with David Carter this past April where he said the woman's identity still remains unclear. I'm going to get Mr. Carter to weigh in on this. For now, to keep from misinforming readers and possibly violating Ms. DeLarverie's privacy, the edit is going to remain hidden until her involvement in the bar raid can be unquestioned. --Moni3 (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: See p. 309 in Carter's book, linked here to GoogleBooks. Better yet, check out the entire book. Carter says DeLarverie claimed to be outside the Stonewall when she was hit by a policeman, she is black when witnesses say the woman carried from the bar was white, and she was well-known in the lesbian bar community and would have been recognized by people in the bar and watching her get taken from the Stonewall. I'm removing this reference. --Moni3 (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you've spoken to Carter, you may then be aware of Delaverie's association with a groupwhose members have claimed to have been at Stonewall but whose stories have changed as new details about the arrests made on the first night have emerged. I spoke to Duncan Osborn last year, who's probably written most about the group and its leader, as I was doing some research on the group and, while the public records written about thus far on the group's leader are damaging to his credibility, there's still a bit more to be published in the future. Craig Rodwell first mentioned this group of people to me, before they'd formally organized, and he'd never heard of or met any of them until nearly 10 years after Stonewall. He'd labeled them as being part of the growing group of people who'd claimed to have been at Stonewall but who no one who was known to have in fact been there could recall. I'm obviously not naming the group since, while they're not hard to find, I don't want contribute to directly publicizing them here.

The arrest record for Fowler doesn't seem to indicate race, although that could possibly be in the blacked out portion (usually shown then as WF or BF). My recollection is that the woman taken away was white. Whether or not she was Fowler or that she remained arrested is impossible to say. Stnwll (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)