Talk:Disco Demolition Night

Unplayable grounds

The article says "The remaining games in the series were played, but for the rest of the season fielders and managers complained about the poor condition of the field." As I recall, the notation "Postponed, unplayable grounds" appeared in the baseball results for three days. About a month later, the Angels were playing there, and Don Drysdale said the field was not good enough for class A.  Randall Bart   Talk  23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Not correct, the remainder of the series was played as scheduled, see for example here (July 13). Apparently they also had some rock concerts on the field in August, which contributed to a very bad field condition according to the bio of Veeck which is a source.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the claims of racism and homophobia be included in the lead?

There is a clear consensus against including these claims in the lead. Armbrust The Homonculus 07:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should the claims of racism and homophobia be included in the lead? Please see the current discussion. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Probably per WP:LEAD advice on "prominent controversies" but it would be best that they are very well sourced. —Cupco 01:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC) No As per WP:LEAD, this doesn't qualify as a prominent controversy. It was a very minor one that didn't really come up until later. Also, I think including it in the lede gives WP:UNDUE weight to one viewpoint. The Garbage Skow (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Comment The lead is short and should be expanded. I am neutral on what should be added there. If the racism/homophobia issue is included, both viewpoints should be mentioned. Since I came here following the RS noticeboard posting, another point: the Roctober reference is not an RS. It can be included if there is editorial consensus that the facts mentioned are undisputed and keeping it might help some future editor find a better reference. That doesn't seem the case here. It can be added as an external link. Churn and change (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Comment agree with Churn and change. LEAD should be expanded. However, we should consider UNDUE with regard to various forms of prejudice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Don't include the racism/homophobia angle because it's a minor claim by a relatively small number of people and would give WP:UNDUE weight to this topic. I do agree that the lead should probably be expanded. If consensus ultimately determines that the racism and homophobia claims should be mentioned in the lead, then the concurrent statement from Dahl that the event was not intended to be racist/homophobic and the statement from HWC that he didn't think it was discriminatory need to be included as well for a modicum of balance/NPOV. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC) No One book alleges homophobia and racism in the general anti-disco movement, but not in direct relation to this particular event? Just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. Seems like one author trying to make a point to sell books. It seems tangentially related to this event at best. Besides, I hate disco because it sucks. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC) No you are mistaken. Many books and authors directly connect the event with racism, homophobia and some to sexism.122.203.79.2 (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC) No As someone who is old enough to remember this event, I can honestly say that this is the first time I've ever heard of this. To be honest, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The Bee Gees and John Travolta were/are white and AFAIK hetero. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Well recently there have been rumors about Mr. Travolta that have made quite a few headlines but that is immaterial. Having been alive during the era you must remember that very few celebrities were open homosexuals and that white musicians playing any genre usually had access to more airtime and exposure. Also you should remember that the anti-disco backlash was not targeting black and gay artists but the largely black and gay atmosphere that evolved around the music.122.203.79.2 (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Also you should remember that the anti-disco backlash was not targeting black and gay artists but the largely black and gay atmosphere that evolved around the music. Therein lies the problem. Nobody seems to "remember" that except you, Nile Rogers and a few other people. DDN was about anti-commercialism and self-promotion. Steve Dahl didn't even really "hate" disco, the man used to have disco parties at his house. Much like John Lydon and his "I hate Pink Floyd" t-shirt, he didn't really hate Pink Floyd (as he said himself many times in later years), he hated the corporatism of music that took it out of the hands of young people and reserved it for selected, company-approved acts. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC) And I'd have to agree with you that the backlash was directed towards the music and the scene around it and not towards the artists that made the music, which was my point in that reply. Also I have never said that the sole motivation for the backlash or the event was racism or homophobia. I have only said, like many social critics and historians, that it was an important factor.122.203.79.2 (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Absolutely not What follows is partially based upon personal experience, so that aspect deserves lower weight, but I did review the sources. I lived in Chicago during this period of time. While I did not attend the event, I was very familiar with it at the time. More importantly, and relevantly, I listened to Dahl almost every day for years. I never heard a hint of racism or homophobia, so I was stunned to see the inclusion in this article. While my personal experience doesn't refute the possibility that some of the opposition to Disco was driven by racism and homophobia, this is the first I've ever hear of such inferences, and should be included in the article, at most, as a relevant observation on anti-disco reactions in general, and care should be taken not to impute that feeling to Dahl or the impetus for the event. I see some sources making suppositions; I have no opposition to general inclusions of commentary on general anti-disco motivations, but absent an RS linking Dahl to this view, there should be nothing in the article making this unwarranted leap. If it is felt appropriate to leave the general speculations about the motivations of others in the article, so be it, but that doesn't deserve mention in the lead.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Good point regarding the sources. There seems to have been a little WP:SYNTHESIS gooing on there, so I've edited a little to put the comments more in line with what the sources actually say. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Re: "RS linking Dahl to this view" this is a red herring. No serious source labels Dahl with these views, at least not from what I've seen. The RSs do talk about the motivations for the backlash and talk about what the event symbolized in that context. And many of the sources give little credence to the event symbolizing the "death of disco" but rather symbolizing the reaction to changing attitudes in the United States. "Social critics have argued that the backlash against disco was implicitly macho and bigoted, an attack on a cultural aesthetic that was non-white and not necessarily heterosexual. But the Cohos would've said that argument sucks. If doing a one-hitter in your parent's basement while listening to Obscured By Clouds was macho, then yeah, the Cohos were macho. "We were just disenfranchised 24-year-old males," says Dahl."-ESPN "The unspoken subtext was obvious: disco music was for homosexuals and black people. Not only that, but, as Knopper notes, in the disco era "to make it with a lady a guy had to learn how to dance. And wear a fancy suit!"...But it was a pyrrhic victory. Disco spawned house music and the club scene and impacted upon the then-emerging hip-hop culture. In short, disco's influence is everywhere."-the Guardian122.203.79.2 (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC) The second paragraph sounds like a supposition being made by a journalist. The first is already covered in the article. Linking Dahl to this isn't a red herring as this article is about "Disco Demolition Night", not the anti-disco movement as a whole. If you want to write paragraphs about what journalists and musicians have to say about the general anti-disco movement then there ought to be an article about the movement in general. This article is about a single event that was promotional in nature. The Garbage Skow (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Both passages directly refer to the event, i.e Cohos, pyrhhic victory. The page is about the event. The sources are about the event. A part of explaining the event includes writing about what was the motivation for the event. Most sources address the motivation of the event by addressing the motivation for the anti-disco backlash. And if Dahl said he's not, then I believe him and so do most journalists. So saying we need a reference to say that "he is" is asking for a red herring, a defamatory one too.122.203.79.2 (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Yes since it is easily established that this is not a fringe view: homophobia and racism. And many of those hits are from reputable sources. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC) A google search for "Disco Demolition Night" and the terms "homophobia" and "racism" doesn't prove anything. The first book that appears in the "racism" search doesn't even mention racism in conjunction with demolition. Most of what I see are journalists and commentators opining, not serious journalistic work in which they're interviewing people who could actually have a reason for claiming racism. Do any of these sources say what the actual musicians thought? Or what other radio people thought? The opinions of some journalists don't mean a whole lot when it comes to something as serious as claims of homophobia and racism. The Garbage Skow (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Actually you are incorrect. The fist result of the racism search, a book called Queers in American Popular Culture, contains the passage "Journalist Dave Marsh interpreted the Disco Demolition as antigay, racist, and sexist in an article for Rolling Stone." And there's no real reason why the authors of secondary sources, the rock critics and social historians, why their opinions and thoughts are less valuable than those of radio personalities and musicians. Why do you assume that they should be given less weight than primary sources? And why do you assume that there are no musicians and radio personalities who do remember the event as is being alleged? Because you misread the first book result, maybe everyone should assume that you misread the others or didn't read them at all.122.203.79.2 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC) I think the key point there is "journalist interpreted". That's only good for saying what some journalist thought, which isn't worth much for a claim like this. The primary sources behind the secondary sources need to be excellent. Where are the interviews with the major acts of the time? What did other musicians besides Nile Rodgers and HWC think? Those are the people who would potentially be affected by feelings of prejudice and their viewpoints, as primary sources covered in reliable secondary sources, are what matter. Not what some journalist "interpreted". This is how fact checking works. WP:NEWSORG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP are helpful, and WP:BLP most certainly applies, so the highest of attention needs to be given to excellent sourcing. I also tend to agree that a google search for some related terms doesn't say much about the quality of these sources without having read each of the sources themselves. Frankly, these mostly look like the opinions of journalists, not necessarily experts or primary sources, and this just isn't enough for me to think such a negative claim belongs in the lead of material affected by the BLP policy. This isn't an argument for removing the racism angle entirely, just one that it doesn't belong in the lead. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia additions

The latest additions are cited, however I believe the inclusion of ever more opinions that DDN was homophobic is now violating WP:UNDUE. The article succeeded at FA, and I would not like to see the featured status revoked because the article has ceased to conform to NPOV. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I have to admit I was a bit shocked when I came across this article when doing some research and saw that the primary sources were given such weight when everything I was reading in academic journals was saying something else. I will not add any more references, but I do think the article is more balanced now than it was. --Michelledavison (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw no need for the recent additions (post-FA) and am happy to see them removed. The point is to let the reader know of the various points of view on DDN. We don't have to beat the point into the ground. I propose they be removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I second the motion. They appear undue to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

In light of the above discussion with trying to cast the homophobia claim as "fringe," I would argue that these are well-sourced edits that deserved to stay. Particularly since people were complaining about the quality of the original citation. The fact is that most academics see the anti-disco movement, including this event, as homophobic and racist. Having primary sources make up the vast majority of the opposing view is really misleading, and isn't it Wikipedia's policy to favor secondary, peer-reviewed sources over primary? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship --Michelledavison (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said the homophobia claim is fringe, we're saying the balance of the content in that section is now heavily weighted towards the homophobia angle. The article already covered that viewpoint with scholarly sources and your addition of one more didn't really hurt anything, but adding even more and more after that makes the article appear biased/weighted towards one analysis. It's not really a matter of sources, but a matter of WP:NPOV. I'm sure you can find a whole bunch of academics saying they think the Anti-Disco movement was racist and homophobic, it doesn't mean this article should become a WP:COATRACK for that viewpoint and that the opinion of every academic should be added, particularly when the article already covers the homophobia/racism viewpoint. All articles are supposed to conform to NPOV. (EDIT: If you're referring to the source mentioned in the collapsed discussion above from last November, the article has been almost totally rewritten and re-referenced since then.) - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree, the point is to make the reader aware of the homophobia theory. That many people in certain disciplines busily agree with each other does not mean that we must quote every one.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"EDIT: If you're referring to the source mentioned in the collapsed discussion above from last November, the article has been almost totally rewritten and re-referenced since then." I didn't realize that. Thanks for pointing that out. And again, I will not add any more references.--Michelledavison (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• THanks for that, still, I think a couple of the ones you added should be deleted. The Echols one, for example, seems to add nothing, it just agrees with the others.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As a compromise, how about deleting Echols (which I agree adds really nothing new or spectacular to the article) and keeping the Lawrence quote (which at least references DDN directly)? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I decided to be bold. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

cites regarding homophobia of DDN

Are there any sources before 2007 suggesting a homophobic aspect to DDN? Is it not worth mentioning such a recent provenance for this interpretation, when no material new facts about DDN has come to light in ~35 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.169.69 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it has to be mentioned, and as you can see from discussions on this page, what I put originally was shorter than what we have now. But I respect the outcome of discussions.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Joke?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why was this article chosen for April Fool's Day? As far as I can tell, there's nothing particularly unusual about the subject or the Main Page lead — nothing like last year's ? (film) or my favorite, George Washington (inventor). Unless I'm missing something, this article could have been run equally well any other day, with precisely the same Main Page lead. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion at TFA/R, but I suspect you might want to discuss it with Bencherlite.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the link to the TFAR discussion and my decision based on the discussion. If you would like to help select next year's April Fool TFA - or indeed any TFAs between now and then - please come along to WP:TFAR and join in - all welcome! Bencherlite^Talk 07:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was vaguely wondering if it was supposed to be "unusual" or not as well, but there's only a limited store of Featured Articles out there so it's a tricky task to keep coming up with unusual ones. Certainly it's no fault of the TFAR team who do a fantastic job working to keep the feature in place day in day out. I guess the best way for to get a good one up there for next year is to start work now on something weird and whacky with a view to having it featured before next April!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Year (1969) is wrong - happened in 1979

The first sentence has the wrong year : 1969. This happened in 1979. Not sure if the month and day are correct. Also - the little gray summary box on the right has the wrong year.

Later references to the year in this article are correct 1979.

I mean - come on, disco wasn't even around in 1969. At least not enough to be hated so much that an event like this happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.72.232 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I have no idea who did that, but I'll look. It's been fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right, it was changed again, but I reverted to what I think was the last clean version. Please correct if I made a mistake, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed the other vandalism. Thanks Gerda. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you too. I try to watch the article but I'm fairly busy today.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Coho lips?

Cohos have no lips; they're salmon! - Neonorange (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)