Talk:Stonewall riots

Archives
2003 - March 2008 2008 - present

Improving quality of the article

Heya. Was thinking of turning to this one next as an FAC. It has to be rewritten with complete citations. I'll probably write it in a sandbox, post it, ask for peer reviews, take it to GA, then FAC. I'm in the middle of several articles about the Everglades I would like to get promoted as FAs, so I wouldn't be able to start for a few weeks. Anyone interested? Have any comments? --Moni3 (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not finished yet! I have tagged my own article for citations where I need to shore them up, but I posted it here a little bit early because there is a GFDL image and it's in my sandbox. I'll be working on this for the next few days, adding more information and citations, especially to the legacy section. I've requested permissions for another historic image, and hope to post another map to the article. I will be taking the article to FA within a few weeks. Please feel free to edit for grammar and prose issues. If you have problems with the content, I'm happy to discuss it here. I will be nominating it for GA, and when it has passed, nominating for FA. This is the sandbox where I wrote it. You can check the history.

This is the most fun I have ever had writing an article. Seriously. --Moni3 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't own the article for sure, but since I'm trying to get it to FA as its eventual destination, I'd like to keep the standards for the article very high.

• Linking of dates is in contention. Tony1 who is the end of the MoS as far as I'm concerned, has approached me about de-linking dates in my previous FAs. If it won't keep me from getting an FA, then I won't link the dates. But since it's a 30-second fix if they make up their minds about it, then it can always be done during FAC.

• Whatever you feel appropriate - it's not a show stopper for me in any way. I'm just used to linking dates, and personally like them to be formatted in the way I want to see them - but I realize it's a topic currently under discussion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• The information about the Mafia owning the bar is described well in detail, with citations. I have actually kept out information by David Carter that is his theory (based on documentation) that the bar was raided (and to be shut down permanently) because the Mafia was blackmailing patrons who were Wall Street brokers, and the police weren't getting kickbacks from it. I was considering making that into a note at the bottom of the page, but I was uncertain because it's one guy. But one guy who wrote a really comprehensive book about it. Regardless, since the citations in the Stonewall Inn section would be the very same ones for the Mafia claims in the lead, I think it's kinda pointless to double them. --Moni3 (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• I guess the the mafia claim, especially, is striking enough to me that I want to see a ref the very first time I come across it. Doesn't matter if it's the same ref as below. The "normalness" of the raid doesn't matter as much to me, but it also is a pretty striking claim. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel the article covers these issues sufficiently, with comprehensive explanations and clear citations? Are you worried about something in particular, that the claims in the lead are unbelievable, or had you just not known about these kinds of details? It seems clear to me, by reading the material, that these things were widely known by everyone, and not at all disputed. --Moni3 (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right. If you read the entire article, you'll know all :) My concern is that there are fairly controversial, striking claims being made in the very first paragraphs that need some backing. People may not read all the way through the article, and it would be nice to show that the claims are backed up with references. I'm not disputing the facts, I just want to make sure that a casual reader knows that the article is backed up by research. The Mafia claim, no matter what, needs a ref, even in the lede. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My first reaction not to you, but to someone who would dispute the lead and not read the article is, "Oh, balls." That sounds pretty freakin' stupid. There are at least 20 citations in the article and two notes that mention organized crime, the mafia, or bar management working with police. Srsly. The information is right there if folks cared enough to read it. Let me sleep on this, because I just can't bring myself to coddle someone so damn lazy they can't read the article (which, I have to say, rawx). I might feel more generous and enabling tomorrow. --Moni3 (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, WP:LEADCITE "advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" should be cited in the lead as well, so it shouldn't hinder the FA. --Amalthea^Talk 08:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. I get that. I would cite quotes, statistics, or very powerful superlatives in the lead. I was thinking I should probably cite the sentence that declares this the first time gays fought back. But the sentence about the Mafia sums up the article, and it's (in my opinion) fairly well-described in the article. How likely is that information going to be challenged? --Moni3 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Simply judging by the amount of discussion it's generated here, I would say (a)it's highly likely, and (b)what does it hurt to have a citation in the lead anyway? (I don't like the avoidance of citations in the lead - I think we should use lots more of them anyway.) Aleta ^Sing 14:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

From my experience in the articles I've written and reviewed at FAC, suggestions to cite claims wherever they may be in the article are due to the statements not being reliable or believable. They quell concerns about OR and SYNTH. I will cite any statement in the lead where someone who reads the article finds it hard to believe. The information about the Mafia owning the bar is one of the least contentious claims the article has. Does that mean the lead is going to be peppered with citations? Overciting is just as distracting as overlinking of common terms. Both of those will cause me trouble at FAC. Just... prove to me that this Mafia information is somehow questionable and I'll cite the lead in a heartbeat. --Moni3 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the Mafia information; I'm just observing that it has generated a lot of discussion here already. That makes me think it is likely to do so in the future. So add in one citation for it in the lead section to head off any dispute. (Yes, I am in general in favor of more citations, but I am commenting specifically that I think this could use one.) Aleta ^Sing 14:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me lead citing has generated more discussion than the Mafia claims. Am I citing to make lead citers happy, or because the info on the Mafia is shaky? I need to know before I go off to defend my article and find it has a weak spot where I thought it had none. Especially if this bad boy appears on main page on the 40th Stonewall anniversary next year. --Moni3 (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute the mafia info, either - but this is the very first time it's presented, it's a controversial claim, and it needs *some* reference, even if it's fully developed later on. I'm curious why this one has been difficult when you've *two* refs/notes on the repressiveness of the legal system, even though that gets covered in the "background" section later on? To me it's a very similar situation - a strong claim ("more than East Germany") in the lede, with a full explanation further on. So maybe I'm not understanding - why *not* put a cite on the mafia statement? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

<reset indent>I'm all for economy of effort, which is why I rarely get into disputes over something that seems really trivial, which on the face of it, this is. And I'm usually all calm and you know...whatev... in disputes, but I just about went right through the goddamn roof when To Kill a Mockingbird was on the main page and en editor removed an uncited statement that seemed to me to be really, really common sense and simple: that black readers have a different reaction to it than white ones do. The article had five examples of that, and he claimed OR and SYNTH and Moni does not like to be accused of OR or SYNTH. Moni hate. Moni smash.

So, like an idiot, I'm going to try to get this through FAC, then stick it on the main page where it will be fodder for so many vandals and smartass editors who make stunningly stupid comments on the talk page. I need to know right now, before I go into FAC, what's contentious, what is confusing, and what is unbelievable. So citing the Mafia would end this discussion immediately. I just need to know why, above all other issues in the lead, that statement needs to be cited. --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it's the *Mafia*. No other reason. If the statement read "The Stonewall Inn was, at the time, a Chinese-owned bar that catered to...", it would garner no attention whatsoever. But, IMO, stating that the bar was owned by the Mafia, and then was raided, brings up questions about why it was raided, was it a front, why were they open to "an assortment of customers", things like that. Even though I've heard that before, that one statement makes me want to read the article more fully. So that's why I think it needs a ref. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I want to see if FA, too. Sort of "for Jeff". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Let me see what I can do. You can (and this applies to everyone) point out every weak point the article has before I take it to FAC. Without, you know, insulting it. I hope to, within the week, be able to take care of the fact tag, shore up the growth of Pride all over the world, and continue to knock on the prose. So - continue, please to comment.

There are two issues that I'm a little concerned about. I've cleansed some of the quotes. The rioters threatened to rape the police. Some of them got out of police custody because the police were so stunned to hear the fairies say "How would you like that billy club up your little Irish ass?" I don't know whether to include that detail or not. I feel bad for omitting that detail.

Do I need to describe what a "flame queen" is? It's gay slang no longer in use. Doesn't mean "flaming queen" as we might use today. --Moni3 (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would include the rape comments as it speaks to the very nature of empowerment of this chapter is history. These were rude comments usually directed at the feys and here they were spitting them back. I don't know if you included in but there is a quote about how overnight homosexuals lost that wounded look. I would also definitely define "flame queen" or "scare queen" ad possibly contrast it to what many may think is the intended flaming queen. Banjeboi 23:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Original news report

Homo Nest Raided, Queen Bees Are Stinging Mad

I can't find a copy of that at the Daily News website, but thought you might want to read that one. =D The date on it is wrong, though. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I went to my sucky library today, I love it so... hoping to get The New York Daily News story and The New York Post story on microfilm. Not only did they close early (argh!), but they don't carry those papers back to 1969. So, stickler that I am for a hard citation, Monday as well I shall be calling the archive desks of both papers to get them to send the articles to me. So that fact tag will remain until I see copies of those articles with my own beady eyes. --Moni3 (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say the New York Public Library is charging me $35 for this article? Jesus! Don't tell my partner... --Moni3 (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Redundant categories?

Aren't Category:LGBT history in the United States and Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States redundant here? It seems like we just need one, but I'm not sure which one of the pair. Aleta ^Sing 15:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States is likely the more precise one of the two. Banjeboi 23:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Some questions

• Before the questions: User:Johnboddie read it and liked it. I made a couple of changes per his suggestions.
• "restore the prewar social order and hold off the forces of change": why use a quote, why not reword?
• I changed "prone to blackmail" to "on the theory that they were prone to blackmail": they were of course prone to blackmail, but then, in the police state of the time, it wasn't hard to find a way to blackmail people.

I'm glad Mr. Boddie liked it (in the conservatory with the gun? - I bet my little joke there is completely original and he's never, ever heard another like it...). I had a lot of fun writing it, and I hope it's as readable as I think it is. Make sense?

I used a quote for "restore the prewar social order" because it's a very small section on a huge trend. I'd rather an historian make that cognitive leap, summarizing postwar social change, than I.

Wording of blackmail is fine. I did change the issue about One, Inc. vs. the Postal Service. The main story that issue was homosexuals in heterosexual marriages. --Moni3 (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good reason for a quote, but the reader won't know that's the reason. I don't have a specific suggestion, but if I were writing it, and I wanted to leave the quote in, then I would try to work in the fact that the historian I'm quoting is eminent, or that that reflects an important consensus of historians. (P.S. When did I get old enough that things that happened during my lifetime became "historical"? Doesn't seem right.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'll ask John about "Kameny's writings that homosexuals were no different from heterosexuals were revolutionary"; I think he'll want to be more specific. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind making them more specific, but there's already so much about the riots, their lead-in, and aftermath, that I think I would put more detail like that in a note at the bottom.

Re: the post WWII quote (you are old), would it suffice to say Historian Barry Adam, author of Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement says, "Quote"? Because you know, technically, someone who wanted to get on my nerves, would ask for the most eminent postwar scholar of all time to be the author of a better quote. --Moni3 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Dancing was its main draw since it had opened as a gay club" Was or had been? Since/because or since the time?
• I'm not a fan of "[note 1]"; there was a recent discussion on this at WT:FAC. How do you feel about [a] or [A] or [i], with or without italics? One example as I recall is a single note at Adam Smith. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Gaaa. What? Since about 1967 it had been known as a dance club. Why is it I find myself so handy with language, enough to write this article in a short time, and then have no idea what the difference is between the stuffs of what you just said. --Moni3 (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I stole the notes from Mary Shelley, after the long discussion on the FAC talk page about them. If this is one of those things that hasn't yet been decided by the MoS, how wise would it be to change it? I don't mind changing them, but I just want to make sure I don't have to change it back. --Moni3 (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"had been", then. I don't think [note 1] formats have been decided; you probably won't be asked to change it at FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can't change "public hairs" because you've got it in quotes, but an internet search is turning up "pubic hair". Perhaps a different source? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can imagine it was both. The street kids, I figure, weren't too picky with their grammar. The best source I have, Carter's book, has the "s" at the end. I'm going with the source. --Moni3 (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The source said "public" and not "pubic"? And "all the sudden" still needs either a [sic] or fixing. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, scratch the [sic], I just found out that's northern UK slang. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only do I automatically type "public", apparently I automatically read it as well. In fact, as I recall, I typed "Publix"... twice. --Moni3 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, Publix is still around then? I followed my mother around in Publix as a boy in Florida. "powerite" gets only 7k ghits, and all of the first 3 pages of those are a trade name apparently unrelated to its use in the Village Voice quote. When a word is that obscure, it's probably better to replace it with something in brackets that means the same thing...if we can figure out what it means. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How much wiggle-room is given to The Village Voice in the late 1960s, that clearly enjoyed writing with affected English? --Moni3 (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I compromised and changed "gay powerite" to "gay power[-]ite" (since it's in a quotation). That preserves the word but alerts people that if they haven't heard of it before, that's not surprising. It also highlights "gay power".

• It's not necessary to give a rat about AP Stylebook's recommendations, but they have some utility. Anyway, if you care, they prefer a.m. to in the morning. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. You know, as long as it follows a number... --Moni3 (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how both of these can be true (at least, not without a little clarification or tweaking. Having worked for a gay newspaper for a year in the mid-80s, and having something of an activist for a partner/husband, I tend to believe the first, although I would say they were promoting a notion or an idea rather than promoting homosexuals): "For many older gays and for many members of the Mattachine Society that had worked throughout the 1960s to promote homosexuals as no different than heterosexuals" vs. "Kameny's writings that homosexuals were no different from heterosexuals were revolutionary" [in 1965]. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Revolution, I guess, comes in degrees. Where the Stonewall riots were a series of scuffles between police brutes and street people, the participants are remembered gloriously for their bravery and integrity. Barbara Gittings was so taken with Kameny's words that it completely changed her worldview, just as she was editing The Ladder. Many of her articles kept dealing with this issue over and over: gay is not abnormal, heterosexuality is not a standard to compare against. As the editor of The Ladder, she asked Kameny to provide some essays on that topic. Gittings was eventually given the boot for being too uppity (and a lot of the DOB hated Kameny). But by the late 1960s, what was revolutionary in 1965, just wasn't any longer, I guess. --Moni3 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is that "revolutionary" is not how I would describe the sentence "homosexuals are no different" in 1965, given that the Mattachines had been saying that consistently in the 1960s (and 1950s if I recall my gay history...yes, some of this is history even for me). How do you feel about this? "Kameny's writings were revolutionary, echoing the theme that homosexuals were no different from heterosexuals." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me check a couple of my books at home. Kameny couldn't have been the first to say this, but it seems like he was the first to have been heard. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

John says, "Copernicus was revolutionary. I don't like throwing the word around." But he thinks the writings at the time of Kameny and others represented a "sea change", movement in the direction of getting more and more people not to see homosexuality as a pathology, which was the position of supposedly liberal and medically-grounded books of the time like Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (1969).

• I shortened a sentence to "The GLF borrowed tactics from and aligned themselves with black and antiwar demonstrators...", but "attempted to align" would be okay with me too. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Is Alternative University a specific university? The link doesn't clear it up. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Frank Kameny says (Marcus, p. 83.): We were sick; we were sinners; we were perverts. And so the movement, predictably, in retrospect, did not take strong positions. It gave a hearing to everybody saying, 'As long as it deals with homosexuality, all views must be heard, even those that are the most harshly and viciously, condemnatory to homosexuals. We have to defer to the experts.'

My answer to this was, 'Drivel!'We are the experts on ourselves, and we will tell the experts they have nothing to tell us! Giving all views a fair hearing didn't suit my personality. And the Mattachine Society of Washington was formed around my personality.

Kameny was surely saying something different that was finally being heard. If you don't like revolutionary, what's a step down from that? --Moni3 (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I just got a commitment from John (I think) to start copyediting where I left off, at "Gay Pride". Let's tackle that first and we'll come back to this. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• "a historical coming together off forces" of forces? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I removed "revolutionary" per WP:PEACOCK. (It's not one of the specifically listed words there, but it could be.) I'm not the expert on NPOV stuff, but I think the general rule is that it's okay to say that what someone said was important...in fact, just putting someone's statements in an article carries the implication that it is or was regarded as important. Saying that someone is revolutionary or the most important is even frowned on in an article devoted to the person, and even more so when the statement is in another article and not supported. Building that case would be a departure from the focus of this article, I think.
• Okay, John and I are done with copyediting. Very nice article. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• I see WP:FOOTNOTE now says to use "note" or "nb" for "scholarly" footnotes, so "note 1" is okay. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• There was an edit concerning ellipses that I had to partially revert. WP:MOS says: "Put a space on each side of an ellipsis, except at the very start or end of a quotation." AP Stylebook says the same, although they don't like ellipses at the start or end of quotations at all. But lots of us, including Tony and Stanton, have often seen "first sentence with stuff missing at the end.... Second sentence", and also with "?..." (they weigh in at Archive 93 of WT:MOS), so I didn't revert those, just the ones in the middle of sentences. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oops, forgot my standard disclaimer: my copyedits don't usually include images or endsections, there's stuff I still need to learn to do those. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions on focus

The "Unlikely community" section seems fine except for the last paragraph. John doesn't like the focus; it was a lot of effort over a long time that led to changing the DSM, plus the perception by psychiatrists and psychologists that they were likely to get more gay clients if they stopped describing us as pathological. As with many groups who offered support or claimed to offer support at that time and since then, the motivation may have had more to do with resisting what were perceived as common enemies ... police in the case of anti-war protesters, and various sexually repressive forces in the case of psychiatrists and psychologists ... than of actual solidarity regarding gay rights or even liberalism and civil rights in general. Activists of all kinds often paint a picture that their work was what made the difference and solved the problem, generally because they believe that to be true, and sometimes it is true. But I think a more balanced picture would help here.

I'd prefer to drop the last two paragraphs in Gay pride, first as a matter of the weight given to Frank Kameny: 4 sections focusing on what he said and did seems like too many in an article that isn't about him. Also, I've never heard before of 2500 gay groups in the U.S. in 1971, and I'm wondering if anyone else said the same. Even if true, I think it's probably more a misrepresentation than a representation: I was often told by people a little older than me that it was very difficult to find gay groups of any kind in the southeast and midwest in 1971 outside of a few college campuses. Knowing something about the times, I think one thing that might have been going on was that sometimes gay men would mention a "group" in a classified ad as a more socially acceptable and possibly more successful way of finding dates. I wouldn't want to describe this as 2500 "gay groups", though. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about the Legacy section, and specifically the "Unlikely community" section. First, I'm worried about how the section reads to people who have no experience in the gay community. Too much detail? Not enough? Too focused on feminism? And for those who have a lot of experience in the gay community - too much of a downer? Didn't anything positive come of this? On including the APA: this I think should be left in because the zap somewhat initiated the immediate necessity for the APA to meet with gay activists.

I definitely don't think it's too focused on feminism; I think the references to feminists and transvestites help with balance. I don't think it's overly negative, either. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)

Although Evelyn Hooker had been working with psychiatry and homosexuality for years, and psychiatrists didn't change their minds overnight, the activism had a bit to do with the delisting of homosexuality from the DSM. If it would make you feel more comfortable, how would you feel about adding a phrase or sentence, linked to Evelyn Hooker or Homosexuality and psychiatry, so readers could go there and get a better story?

John has read a book on the subject, I'll ask him if he wants to weigh in here. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I also have some information on Hooker, and I saw a short chapter on the zap of the APA the other day, thought I didn't need it, so I put it back in the library. Dangit. I have to go check out another book, so maybe I'll peek at it again. And there may have been a book about psychiatry and homosexuality in the same section. I'll look at it again. If, say, the APA info is removed from the Legacy section, and the grassroots development that led to the Briggs Initiative and the Anita Bryant political pie-ing (I think the grassroots connection is fairly strong from the Stonewall riots, though), and all that remains in that section are the growing pains between feminists and gay men, does that balance the section and the article appropriately? I was going for a longer term trend of political development. (And, somewhat guiltily, I have to admit that the bitchiness that was borne of the post Stonewall early 70s, makes me want to show that something productive came from it. I mean, gay folks somehow learned to work together - how did that happen?) --Moni3 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Will consider what to do with the weight on Kameny. I'd appreciate your feedback too on the above issues. --Moni3 (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding my 2 cents: I think the APA material should stay (its frame is debatable, of course). Whenever someone gives a 5-minute history of gay rights, that fact appears in it. It is quite important. Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Homophile activism --> communists

I believe most, maybe even all the early homophile groups were continuous labeled communist, "communist pinkos", I believe, this may be good to bridge the idea from the early section. And it may also be true as they were friendly to other forms of understanding social structure, etc. Banjeboi 01:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Benji. Not following what you're asking me to add. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG! You're supposed to read my mind! Lol! OK, in the Homosexuality in the 20th century section you have "Spurred by the national emphasis on anti-Communism ..." the idea I was alluding to above is to bridge that thought in the last paragraph (of that same section) into the next section, Homophile activism, that most, maybe even all the early homophile groups were continuously labeled communist, "communist pinkos", I think was commonly used. Banjeboi 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I get it. If I can find sources to back up that the early Mattachine, or even 1960s Mattachine, DOB, and other Homophile groups were labeled such, I'll add it in. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Once more, on Judy Garland

In the Peer Review for the article, Ruhrfisch has suggested taking the Judy Garland information out of the notes and placing it in the article. On the one hand, since three of the most comprehensive sources say there was never any connection other than coincidence, I'm not sure if non-issues should be brought to the fore. On the other hand, however, I did the same to the rumor that Truman Capote wrote or heavily edited To Kill a Mockingbird because the rumor is so pervasive. And the connections to Garland's funeral seem to be as ubiquitous as they are misguided.

Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there actually is more to it than just a coincidence but we go by RS's so ... However, the Judy Garland article handles it nicely, IMHO. Banjeboi 00:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC):

“ A connection is frequently drawn between the timing of Garland's death and funeral, in June 1969, and the Stonewall Riots, the flash point of the modern Gay Liberation movement. Coincidental or not, the proximity of Garland's death to Stonewall has become a part of LGBT history and lore. ”

I agree that something should be mentioned in the text, and your suggested text works for me. I think it has to be in the text because there are any number of ways that the death, and more importantly the funeral, might have influenced events. For instance, if it's true that someone in the police department got nervous and decided to close the Stonewall immediately, we'll never know why they chose that day. Perhaps the large turnout at the funeral scared them into thinking that there was some kind of shift in the balance of power in the works? If so, and if that's what made them act precipitously, then it turns out their anxieties were justified. But this is all speculation; the point is that I don't think the speculation is going to go away, so we should mention the death and the funeral. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's my opinion: In notes 2 and 6 are discussions of two theories on why the riots occurred that night. Neither of them have to do with Garland's funeral. I think both Carter and Kohler made good arguments in note 5 as to why Garland's death or funeral did not impact the events of the riots. Last night Anderson Cooper made my partner and I howl laughing for several minutes after he introduced Sarah Palin's daughter's pregancy coverage, then asked, "Should it be news?" My biggest issue is that the information about Garland's death will have to be introduced, then explained, then denied that it had any connection. If it had no connection, why is it being introduced and explained? If there are first-person accounts of participants that state that Judy Garland compelled them to go out and throw bottles and burning garbage at the bar, then the information should go in. But as yet, I have not read such information. I think mentioning Garland's death and funeral is no more connected than any other newsworthy event that was reported within days of the riot.

I think the connection between Garland's funeral and the riots is historical WP:SYNTH. Stating "Judy Garland's funeral was that morning. They rioted later that night." is not a cause and effect relationship. Repeating it here would prolong the falsehood. --Moni3 (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it, but let me ask you a hypothetical (and it's probably not hypothetical, we can probably find a relevant article somewhere in WP): in an area with established apartheid, there's a funeral one day with a larger, more well-organized gathering of black people than the police have seen before. That night, the police show up to close down one of the local gathering places, and a riot ensures. None of the police ever admit that there was a connection between the appearance of a growing movement and their precipitous action. Shouldn't the article say that there was an unusually large turnout at a community funeral on the same day, even if the article doesn't draw any conclusion? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If reliable sources state that those who rioted were upset about the death, if those who participated in the riot either attended the funeral and spoke about or later wrote about how their pain about this leader's death was directed in anger toward the police, if bystanders heard comments about the death of the leader, if participants chanted his/her name during the riots...any of those issues would warrant its inclusion. But what exists is Garland's death, her funeral on the 27th, the riots the morning of the 28th, no written accounts of Garland in The Village Voice, New York Times, New York Daily News, New York Post, Mattachine newsletter, or information in the new GLF or GAA literature, or the dozens of leaflets or flyers that were printed and distributed by Craig Rodwell and other gay activists. A suggestion 6 months later that the reason for the riots was published in Esquire, but it was not considered serious by Carter.

Instead, participants and bystanders were angry at the police oppression, poor treatment, and the fact that the rioters were street kids and had nowhere else to go, would be considered lawless hooligans, and were being denied the only place they could gather and feel somewhat safe - all these are documented reasons for the riots.

At best, the inclusion will be confusing and odd. At worst, it will continue to propagate a snide comment made by Esquire, by continuing the connection to Garland's death and displacing emphasis on the participants' anger at the police. --Moni3 (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're answering a different question than I'm asking. You're talking about why people decided to riot. The article details how this raid was different from others in a number of ways, and the ways in which this raid was different were potentially contributing factors to why people decided to riot. The article suggests that the raid was different because the police had decided to close Stonewall. Okay, why did the police decide to close Stonewall? AFAIK, none of the police are on record saying if that was the decision, and if so, who made the decision and why. So, back to my hypothetical analogy: a member of the black community dies, the funeral is more well-attended and more vocal than previous funerals, and the police pick that day to close a place where the blacks congregate, and there are riots. Do we leave the funeral out of the article about the riots? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To be clear: your point about Anderson Cooper is dead-on, and I'm not convinced by my own argument, yet. I just get the sense that this argument hasn't been considered, and it should be. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait. Are you suggesting that the police decided to shut down the bar because Garland's funeral was that day? I don't quite get that connection. Why would the cops care about Judy Garland? Seymour Pine has gone on record that he was told to shut the bar down for good. However, the reason for it was not clear to him. Only those who were involved with the Stonewall have speculated the reasons for the raid that night, which include the bootleg liquor theory and the theory that the cops weren't receiving payments from the bar owners' extorting their own clients. New York City, as you know, is a massive big place. Should we also include what made the front page of the papers in the article? If no one in the riots recalls being motivated by Garland's funeral, should we assume to connect it to something else? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're asking here. --Moni3 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If police are getting kickbacks for as long as they can intimidate a population, and if there are signs that the population is growing larger and more cohesive, then it's not unreasonable to believe that someone in the NYPD might make a decision to shut down a place where that community congregates. Obviously, none of the police are going to go on record about that, so we're not going to have a reliable source. But is this a standard we use in articles on, say, apartheid? If a black community in a small town begins to congregate in large numbers at several different places and events, and is perceived to be reacting with great emotion, and if the police immediately take action to shut down one of the few places where they are allowed to congregate, do we omit any mention of the possibly precipitating factors, on the grounds that the police weren't willing to admit their motivation, so we don't have a reliable source? I'm asking because I don't know: what's the standard in other WP articles that describe police actions and civil rights movements? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Had I no other knowledge about this issue, I'd go with what the sources weigh on the issue. Unfortunately, many uninformed sources (books on gay pop culture, amateur websites, blogs, etc.) connect Garland's funeral to the riots. Both historical sources, Carter's and Duberman's books do not connect Garland's funeral to the riots, and Carter specifically makes a point of discounting the funeral as the cause of the riots. Using your hypothetical, take into account generational and class issues as well. Would the connection between the funeral of a figure who is popular with older, wealthier blacks be automatically connected to the street kids who rioted later that night? Martin Luther King is a singular example. Not everyone would riot after the death of Ella Fitzgerald or Lena Horne. --Moni3 (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Light copyediting

• I removed "In 1961 the penalty for sodomy ranged between states from a light fine and life in prison or castration." I have a feeling there will be multiple objections to that sentence at FAC, and maybe at GAN. In a nutshell, it's the typical problem in the lead: a sentence that poses more questions than it answers, but if you clear up all the questions, then it becomes too long for the lead. We could insert something longer into the (non-lead) text, or we could leave it out; this kind of information is covered in some detail in other WP articles.
• I reworded "homosexuals themselves believed it [their pathology] to be true". If we have specific information on how many homosexuals believed this, and what they believed, that's great, but I'm aware that there were few or no useful surveys at the time on this topic. If we don't know, then we shouldn't say anything.
• I deleted "of establishments and events": it makes me wonder what establishments and especially what events. More detail would be fine, but just saying "subculture" is enough for me.
• I left in "described by a newspaper story as", but we may have trouble with this wording at FAC per WP:WEASEL, or rather the spirit of WEASEL (a ghost weasel?) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the sentence about castration and prison should be left in. I'll cite it to the gills if you wish. I think it's significant to mention that gay people themselves thought of themselves as sick and tried in the early days of the DOB and Mattachine Society to resolve their self-perception of being mentally ill with being good citizens. It was a significant mindshift for gays to consider themselves actually quite healthy. If you want to reword this and I need to cite it, let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"gay people themselves thought of themselves as sick": I'm not clear on what your sources say, I don't have the books. Hooker's study "found no difference" in self-perceptions. AFAIK, all published, peer-reviewed studies by psychiatrists had a bias that made them worthless for deciding this question: they surveyed only people who chose to visit psychiatrists, or were incarcerated or hospitalized. If a source says that people that represented themselves as leaders of a movement said that homosexuals all agreed that they needed help, that's also not useful, because of the inherent COI: people who don't see themselves as needing help aren't as likely to join movements. Another argument is the evolutionary one (this will come across as hand-waving to some, but if you know something about how often predictions made by evolutionary biology are validated, this will at least lend something to the argument): if our ancestors who felt and probably acted on same-sex attractions had been inherently less reproductively successful, and the ability to survive and prosper in the face of opposition is one of the prime elements of being reproductively successful, then there wouldn't be any homosexuals today. Okay, enough hand-waving: do you know of any surveys such as Hooker's that have a solid claim that they surveyed a representative cross-section? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I recently received a book on evolutionary biology as a wedding gift. I had no idea it would come in useful. But there's a chapter on homosexuality and evolution where this view was considered among other, but definitely not the only theory as to why homosexuals exist in the evolutionary scheme of things. It's at home, but I think that's a tangent from the real issue.

It's true that Hooker's subjects were members of the Mattachine or friends of members - at least the Mattachine was involved in sending Hooker her contacts. However, it was not uncommon for the Mattachine and the DOB to ask psychiatrists to their meetings to get advice on how to adapt to society, or how to accept oneself as mentally ill. A watershed moment in Homophile meetings as Albert Ellis' talk in 1964 at the East Coat Homophile Organizations convention on how the unrepentant homosexual was a psychopath. This meeting in particular, someone spoke back and denied it and the room applauded. Otherwise, such meetings were regular occurrences, and the members listened politely. --Moni3 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Albert Ellis continued to cause trouble for a while, btw. That doesn't really answer my question. There are reasons to believe that something in the general neighborhood of 3% of the American population has felt same-sex attractions, and that some have acted on it, over a long period of time, but how they felt about it and how they chose to act would likely depend on the times and their environment, of course. What I'm getting at is that both people who represent themselves as medical professionals (such as psychiatrists) and people who represent themselves as leaders of social movements (and everyone, in one way or another) have inherent COI: they want people to need them. I wouldn't be willing to try to make a definitive statement about whether homosexuals did feel that they needed these people based on the say-so of these people, or the say-so of their patients and followers. For instance, Kinsey attempted to cast a broader net, but I don't remember if he asked about well-being; did he? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Kinsey's methods are called into question by some, but the impact of his study is actually listed by a few sources as a groundbreaking change in perception about sexuality, and I seriously considered including it in the article. Hooker's study specifically asked men about their own self-satisfaction and happiness. I get your point - at least I think I do, but Hooker's work is cited regularly as the beginning of a change in ideas about homosexuality. I'm reflecting Hooker's work with due weight since it is mentioned by the sources I read. I'll be happy to take ideas about wording and syntax, though. --Moni3 (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

On the "castration" bit, I'm happy with leaving it in, I'm just thinking that by the time we've answered all the "Whaaa?" questions and objections, it will be too much for the lead and will have to move down into the text. (What's "sodomy"? Was anyone actually castrated in the U.S. (the case of Alan Turing is famous in Britain), and, um, how and where? In what parts of the country could you expect a "light fine" and in what parts could you expect castration? Etc.) I'll ask John when he gets home; he has access to most of the relevant information here in the house somewhere. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sip-in

Thanks for the info on the Sip-in, Americasroof, and nice job integrating it, Moni. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have to unwatch for a bit, the style guidelines are making my watchlist grow out of control. Someone give me a holler if there's copyediting work to do, please. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A detail

The final sentence of the "Homosexuality in the 20th century" section needs a little work, I think. "Most were forced to live a double life, keeping their private lives secret from their professional ones." -- As written, "most" seems to refer to those (in the previous sentence) who were arrested or otherwise interfered with. I think it's meant to mean "most homosexuals." But, if it means that, is it true? Is it verifiable? I think it would be fine to say "Many homosexuals," but "most" is a pretty specific and dubious claim. As is "forced." There are those (and I'm not saying I agree with them!!) that they had other choices -- celibacy, for instance -- in which case, "forced" is not literally true. A more delicate balance should be sought for the important concluding sentence of this important section. -Pete (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on the wording. Let me know if you have suggestions. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your edit addresses my concerns nicely. I was also wondering whether the word "coerce" might be appropriate in there -- not absolute like "forced," but still conveys the sense that they were reacting to strong societal and legal pressure. I'll leave that to your discretion -- just a thought. -Pete (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination

I'm happy to see this impressive article nominated for GA. I wrote a paper about Stonewall when I was in high school, and am glad to see that Wikipedia has such good coverage. I'm not really equipped to take on a full GA review right now -- and I see that Steven Walling is likely working on one anyway -- but I'd like to help out around the edges, and help address any concerns that come up. -Pete (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... StevenWalling aka Vantucky is a respected GA reviewer, and very challenging, which is good. But he's also apparently very busy. He placed his indication that he would review the article underneath its listing on the GAN page a couple weeks ago, and it doesn't appear that he's made any edits for its GA review. Bummer. I just left a note on his talk page asking if it's still on his radar. If you have any suggestions, by all means, please give them. The article will be going to FAC after GA. I'm very happy that you like the article. It was a ball to write. --Moni3 (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your comment on his talk page was actually what led me here :) Steven is a friend, I'll ask him about it when I see him next, if he hasn't done the review yet. -Pete (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Pete, since you're knowledgeable about the subject, it's okay to just start doing some random part of the review that you're comfortable with, without signing on as the reviewer, if that's what you want to do. I wouldn't recommend that on every GAN article, but Moni and I are old hands and we aren't going to give you a hard time. Vantucky, one of our most brilliant and experienced GAN reviewers (who I would NEVER suck up to), is a good source of information. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome…it might be a stretch to say I'm "knowledgeable" about this, high school was a while back…but, I will try to review the article in a little more depth and help out with the GA campaign. I'm involved in a lot of different wiki projects at the moment though, so apologies in advance if I go slow! -Pete (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Scartol!

Your edits are really improving the article! (And making me feel like a slacker!) One complaint; both regarding your edit in the lead and in the section just before "Stonewall Inn" (which is where you stopped, for the moment) that contains the phrase "other than bars", I think we should be clearer. The point here is that gay men and lesbians were prohibited both by the police and by the general public from congregating "openly" (opinions differ on what that means), except for a few bars at which they were generally abused and exploited. Perhaps we could be clearer about this. It's really pretty significant; oppressed religious and racial minorities certainly had a hard time in the first 2/3 of the 20th century in the U.S., but more often than not, they at least weren't prohibited from congregating. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a few days to consider this. I can go either way. Though there is definite value in stating it wasn't only bars or clubs where gay people could go - parks and beaches and even private homes were often raided - it's quite clear in the Homosexuality in the 20th century section. All those places are included. So, it's still accurate for the lead because it's a summary, yet it doesn't exclude necessary detail in the article. So... whatever you want to do, Dan. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, dern it. I had an intelligent thought here somewhere, but I seem to have misplaced it. I'm fine with how the lead currently handles this subject. I just reviewed Scartol's edits, and I can't see that anything he did below the lead section is relevant to this question. I guess I'm persuaded by your point, Moni, that by mentioning police entrapment, plus what we say in the lead, we get the idea across well enough. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and thanks to Moni and others for the great article. (Don't feel "like a slacker".. Different folks add different levels of polish based on what's there when they come to it. Everyone plays their part.) Sorry that I didn't see this before; my Wikipedia time has been really spotty lately, and I had forgotten to watch the page. I don't think I added the phrase "other than bars", but how about we say "other than some bars"? That might provide some nuance. Or we can leave it; I don't have a strong opinion about that. Scartol • Tok 16:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes from Peterforsyth

"Anonymous" vs. "unknown"

The quote in the first green box is attributed to an "anonymous Stonewall riots participant." I think this would be better termed an "unknown…participant." The term anonymous, I think, connotes that the person made a choice to be anonymous -- but it seems to me, in this case, that it is simply unknown who this person is, as an accident of history. Small detail I know, but I'm bringing it up here because I don't have access to the source document, so I'd like another opinion before changing it… -Pete (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring this - I have to check how the source refers to it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it's terribly critical. If you don't have the source handy, I think it can stay. -Pete (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

I have to say, the more I read of this article, the more I like it…compelling language, and a good sense of "storytelling" that is lacking in many WP articles. So please don't be discouraged by my nitpicks!

I am confused by the following sentence, don't quite know what it means -- can it be tweaked to read a little more smoothly?

With a writer for The Village Voice, ten police officers—including two policewomen—barricaded themselves, van Ronk, and a few handcuffed mob members inside the Stonewall Inn for their own safety.

-Pete (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. I adjusted it. Hope it's clearer. Thanks for the comments. --Moni3 (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Stonewall Inn section

Couple more sentences that I can't quite make sense of, in the Stonewall Inn section:

• First sentence -- divide into two sentences? I can't tell if "several other…" refers to other establishment at those addresses, or others owned by the family.
• Last sentence of first paragraph -- tense problem? "Had been" -- but isn't the subject of this paragraph Stonewall's opening as a gay club? (Or did it have dancing while a restaurant, too? Not sure whether "club" includes "restaurant" or not.) -Pete (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarified the first sentence. I hope you don't mind that I put your comments together here, just so I can keep track of them.

Notes from Scartol

At the risk of repeating myself, many thanks to Moni3 for her indefatigable contributions to this article (and scores of others). I'm impressed (as always with her work) by the thoroughness of the research and the quality of the prose. Below are some assorted comments and questions. No green ticks or extended replies are needed; I trust the editors to make the changes truly needed and ignore my babbling when it's not helpful. =) Cheers and thanks again!

As you may have noticed, my review here has lasted for over a week; there's a chance that I've commented on something that has since been repaired on its own. I apologize for the sporadic speed of my review.

Lead

• ...took place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn, in the Greenwich Village... The commas after 1969 and Inn aren't needed; the second breaks up the inn/in problem, but I feel like maybe there's another way. (It's also a very long first sentence, even though it's not technically a run-on.)

• ...marking the start of the gay rights movement in the United States and around the world. There were of course women and men taking action for gay rights before Stonewall; maybe it would be better to say "the modern gay rights movement"?

• The comparison to Iron Curtain countries is compelling – but it would be even better if we had a little detail about the laws on those countries. Also, wasn't East Germany behind the Iron Curtain?

• Village residents quickly organized into activist groups... Maybe we should indicate that this happened later? "In the weeks and months after the riots, village residents organized..."?

• On June 28, 1970, the first Gay Pride march took place... I assume in NYC? Seems worthwhile to mention..

• Some responses...
• The issue of "modern" is thought-provoking, but also difficult to define. For many people, Stonewall the beginning of everything. It's a bit of a surprise to realize a lot happened before, though the change after Stonewall was night and day. Periods in gay rights are measured by "Before Stonewall" and "After Stonewall". --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm still in favor of using "modern", but I understand if it doesn't fit. Scartol • Tok 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Background

• The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and police departments kept lists of known homosexuals... Since we just finished with a reference to the mid-70s, it would be good to bring us back to the timeframe (assuming we're still looking at the 50s and 60s) at the start of this paragraph. I wonder if it might be better even to swap this paragraph and the one on the DSM?

• Homophile organizations—as gay groups were called—grew in number... Did they call themselves this, or was the label applied from outside? A minor distinction, I suppose, but as an activist I think it's an important one.

• Kameny often wrote that homosexuals were no different from heterosexuals; many Mattachine and DOB meetings featured speakers telling members they were abnormal. This doesn't compute for me. Were these uninvited guests? Or people with good intentions trying to convince homosexuals they were unhealthy? Or is it a typo? Or am I missing something? (Or all of the above?)

• The pickets shocked many gay people, and upset the leadership of some of the members of Mattachine and the DOB. Demonstrations by the Civil Rights Movement, the feminist movement, and opposition to the Vietnam War all grew in prominence, frequency, and severity throughout the 1960s, as did their confrontations with police forces. Feels like we need a transition between these two sentences. Probably just a word or phrase would do: "Soon afterward, demonstrations by the Civil Rights Movement..."

• I'd like to see a mention (just a sentence would do, methinks) of how the relationship between the speakeasies/bars and homosexual culture changed when prohibition ended.

• The city revoked the liquor licenses of the bars... All bars? Certain bars? Bars suspected of harboring homosexuals?

• While no laws prohibited serving homosexuals, courts allowed the SLA discretion in approving and revoking liquor licenses. ...on the basis of homosexual clientele, I assume?

• The legal drinking age was 18, and to avoid unwittingly letting in undercover police ... visitors would have to be known by the doorman, or look gay. The construction of this sentence suggests a causal relationship, but I'll be dogged if I can find one. Reword?

• Homophile groups called themselves Homophile. Others, if they called them anything, also used that designation. The East Coast Homophile Organizations (ECHO), and the unfortunately named North American Coalition of Homophile Organizations (NACHO) both had large conventions in the 1960s.

How about "—as gay groups called themselves"? Scartol • Tok 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• The difference in how gays were addressed before and after Stonewall is quite striking. In 1964, doctors, psychiatrists, and other professionals were invited to address Daughters of Bilitis meetings and the aforementioned Homophile groups. They were happy to get anyone, even psychiatrists who told them they were ill and abnormal. Since it was an accomplishment to get anyone to come to speak with them, the gay organizations usually sat there politely and clapped at the end. It's quite mind-blowing to think of that. Suggestions on how to clarify that without drawing too much attention away from the riots, would be appreciated.

I took a whack at it; feel free to revert or change or whatever. Scartol • Tok 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• You would ask me to clarify from a book that was recalled back to the library... I'll see what I can find.

Yes! Mission accomplished. =) They say WP has no deadline, but my local library sure does. =D Scartol • Tok 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• I get the impression that the NY SLA could deny any establishment a liquor license for any reason they could find. I'll look that up to clarify that, however.
• I'm not sure of your last point, about the undercover police. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if there's supposed to be an implied (or explicit) connection between the legal drinking age and the possible presence of undercover police (and/or the next section about people looking gay). Scartol • Tok 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Riots

• David Carter presents information in his book (p. 96–103) that the Mafia owners of the Stonewall and the manager were blackmailing wealthier men... Customers?

• Are the quotes "bully" and "feeling some of them up inappropriately" quotes from Carter? I always prefer to see that sort of attribution in the text itself, but my understanding is that this is up to the writer's discretion.

• The police were to transport the alcohol present at the bar in patrol wagons. Twenty-eight cases of beer and nineteen bottles of hard liquor were seized, but the patrol wagons had not yet arrived, so patrons were required to wait in line for about 15 minutes. Again, the connection between these two is unclear.

• Inspector Pine recalled that the crowd—most of whom were homosexual... I reworded this a bit, but I still wonder if this is the best way to word this. (How can one tell and all of that.) Maybe: "Most of whom were patrons of nearby gay clubs"?

• In years since the riots occurred, the death of gay icon Judy Garland earlier in the week on June 22, 1969 has been attributed as a significant factor in the riots... This feels a little awkward. How about: "The death of gay icon Judy Garland earlier in the week has been suggested as a factor..."?

• Thirteen people had been arrested. Some in the crowd were hospitalized,[note 8] and four police officers were injured. Almost everything in the Stonewall Inn was broken. Inspector Pine had intended to close and dismantle the Stonewall Inn that night. Pay telephones, toilets, mirrors, jukeboxes, and cigarette machines were all smashed, possibly in the riot and possibly by the police. The sentence about Pine's intention of closing the inn seems stuck into the middle of this series. Could it be moved or removed? (It doesn't strike me as absolutely essential; maybe it could be put in an earlier section?)

• Since it's a reference to a direct quote, should "Intolerable situation" be put in quotes in the subhead?

• The "bully" and "feeling up" quotes were directly from a witness, and I have to check, but perhaps the "feeling them up", was in Carter's words.
• The purpose of the statement about seizing the liquor was to anchor the bar raid back to the idea that the booze was a part of the equation, but to illustrate that 200 scared, frustrated people were made to sit and stew for 15 minutes before being "processed" and released. Time to get angry.

Fair enough, but the reader starts out thinking about the patrol wagons used to move liquor, and then suddenly we're focused on people. Maybe a transition of some kind to guide the reader would be good. Scartol • Tok 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• If Inspector Pine recalled the crowd was mostly homosexual, can we discount him or quantify that statement?

I just think maybe we should indicate that it was according to him. Scartol • Tok 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• The info about Pine dismantling the bar is difficult to express. He was going to take it apart completely and shut it down forever. I think that's worth saying, particularly in light of the fact that everything in the bar was destroyed.--Moni3 (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a salient point, but I feel like it would be better to put it at the start of the Police raid section. Scartol • Tok 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath

• Reporting by The Village Voice—which had used epithets and unflattering descriptions just a year before—was positive... Is this internal aside needed? I doubt readers will need the reminder.

• Similar to Frank Kameny's regret at his own reaction to the riots... I don't know that I caught actual regret in his words. If he did indeed regret his initial reaction, I think that needs to be made more explicit in the article.

Legacy

• Throughout the 1970s, however, gay activism had significant successes. The "however" here doesn't feel right after the previous paragraph. The earlier paragraph doesn't suggest the opposite of this claim, so I think leaving out "however" would be okay here.

• In conjunction with the growing feminist movement of the early 1970s, roles of butch and femme that developed in lesbian bars in the 1950s and 1960s were rejected. I don't really consider myself a member of the LGBTQ community, so maybe I'm not the best judge here, but I don't know that it's fair to say categorically that these roles have been rejected. I hear people using these terms today – albeit probably in different ways from their original meaning. Maybe some more nuanced description is needed here?

• Lesbian feminists considered the butch roles as archaic imitations of masculine behavior. Some women however, according to Lillian Faderman, were eager to shed the roles they felt forced into playing. The "however" here doesn't seem logical; the two sentences seem to be in agreement. Residue perhaps from an earlier edit?

• Stonewall has been compared to any number acts of radical protest... Is this mistake in the original, or is there an "of" missing after "number"?

• Within months after Stonewall radical gay liberation groups and newsletters spring up in cities and on college campuses across America... Same here. "spring" or "sprang"? (The latter seems more correct.)

• I feel a little uneasy even bringing this up (see my earlier comment about my position outside the LGBTQ community), but I'm a tad uneasy with the quote about the "secret legion of people". It's obviously true that LGBTQ folks are often invisible and that Stonewall shattered that invisibility. But of course African-American discourse wrestles with the question of "passing"; many Jewish folks during the Holocaust found that they didn't have distinguishing physical features which in that case saved their lives; etc. I don't think the quote should be removed; it makes a good summative point. I don't even know, really, why I'm mentioning it, except for the fact that I'm a little uneasy about it and I wanted to say something.

• Seems to me that being thrown together in a community where there was none took a bit of adjustment for gays and lesbians. The however (I removed it) was contrasting the fussy fuss they went through to show that they were effective in some areas.
• You're right about the butch/femme issue. It has come back, but women are more eager to embrace roles as long as they have a choice that goes along with it. I suppose that's important to point out.

Yeah, some folks might be confused if the article asserts that it's been rejected wholesale. Scartol • Tok 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have to check my sources on the wording. I know it's hard to believe that I make typos. Perish the doubt.

Try as I might, I can never perish my doubts. (For example, I have some serious doubts about Obama winning at this point – but I'm trying to perish them.) Scartol • Tok 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• I understand some of your unease. If I can find a better quote soon that expresses how gays and lesbians were without language, culture, or family, as opposed to other minorities, I may switch it. But the African American who passed successfully or the Jew who escaped by blending in were extraordinary stories. They were not common. --Moni3 (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. I guess there aren't really closeted Jews, huh? "Is that a matzo ball in your soup?" =D Scartol • Tok 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with this – it's clearly on the way to FA status. Please notify me when it's up for FAC and I'll be happy to weigh in at that time. Scartol • Tok 17:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that Moni is already on this in her usual diligent fashion; I'll go through these soon. Thanks again for all your work, Scartol. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying, but I'm having difficulty per the constant server crashes and whatnot... --Moni3 (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks to Scartol for doing the copy edit. I'm glad you took the time to do it, and I'm very glad that you found it an interesting article. I had fun writing it. --Moni3 (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Word. Scartol • Tok 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful commentary Scartol, and I'm happy with Moni's changes. There are a few comma and word choices that I would make differently, but if people are happy at FAC, I'm happy, and if they're not, they'll say so. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

←I think with Scartol's review, we've gotten careful reading by some of Wikipedia's best. This is now one of the oldest unreviewed articles at WP:GAN, and we've had our peer review. Moni, the article looks ready to me, and I'd be in favor of heading directly to FAC. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me fix the issues Scartol brought up here above with my sources today. I'm concerned that Milk will be passed at GAN earlier than a month and I may have two articles at FAC, which SandyGeorgia frowns upon. Though if you are co-nominator, perhaps she won't frown so much. That, and it's been ages since I reviewed an FAC. Maybe this means I need to get crackin'. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the deadline problem; the Harvey Milk movie is coming out in November. Still, you've had nothing but goodwill from the reviewers. I've done enough work on this one to be happy as a co-nom, and thanks for offering; I've done less at Milk and I don't think I've earned a co-nom on that one (although I just figured out my problem with that one paragraph I mentioned and made the edits today, btw). I'm kind of busy with 0.7, as you know, but I'll make all the time that's needed for this (Stonewall) article at FAC. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

New ref in first paragraph

This new ref in the first paragraph appears to have been written in 1995, when the relevant "gay-themed" TV news was the first woman-woman kiss (Roseanne), and minor gay characters on Doctor, Doctor and Melrose Place. The problem is that there's no date on the article, so some readers won't be able to figure out a context. It does briefly mention that Stonewall was a watershed moment, but it's more about TV, and I'd probably put it with other 70's stuff in this article, or as an external link. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I took it out. --Moni3 (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment

In the first sentence The Stonewall riots were a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations retaliating against a police raid that took place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969 at the Stonewall Inn, in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City— there is this noun plus-ing problem that Tony gets upset about, (underlined). How about: "The Stonewall riots were a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations against a police raid that took place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969 on the Stonewall Inn, in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City." - Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 15:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally like your version better, Graham; if Moni doesn't, I still think it would be a good idea to get rid of "retaliating" at FAC for just the reason you mention. Done. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all good. --Moni3 (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

←Moni, I just removed a couple of dead links that are reported as being dead for a couple of months. I don't remember seeing them; do you know if there are substitutes? I'll fix the permanently moved link. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Stonewall, the movie [No matches on outfilm.com currently for this movie]
• On Important Pre-Stonewall Activists

- Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, gotta go, I'll get the moved link later. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with taking out the external links. In all of article construction, external links, for some reason, are the least worthy of attention. I always forget them. --Moni3 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• What's a "stoop"? Graham Colm ^Talk 17:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, goodness. Y'all don't have stoops in Britian? It's the steps and landing leading up to a building, such as a brownstone apartment or walk-up in New York City. Not like I have so much experience in New York City (clearly, by my use of "y'all")--Moni3 (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• "and seven states they could be castrated" (quote from Carter): in seven states? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not a typo. --Moni3 (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Okay thanks, I'll add an [in]. In "The last straw", I just changed the first "mob" to "crowd", so people don't confuse it with "Mafia" (I doubt folk singer Dave van Ronk was in the mafia). In the next sentence, you say "mob members" ... I assumed the first time I read that that it meant Mafia, or is it handcuffed members of the crowd? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Using "mob" to refer to the Mafia is too informal to be encyclopedic. I used "mob" in all instances to mean rioters. --Moni3 (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Okay, changed that back to "mob", but I changed "handcuffed mob members" to "handcuffed detainees", on the theory that others might read "mob member" the same way I did. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's still saying "good article nomineee" at the top of the article; don't know if that will cause a problem. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see it. Not sure what the difference is. --Moni3 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My preferences/gadgets/Display an assessment... will display the message. Don't know that it's aproblem. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, lookit that. What neat things. Ok I activated that, but mine reads A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Currently a featured article candidate.

It changed for me just now when I refreshed. All is well. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)