Talk:Stonewall riots/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stonewall riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stonewall riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Unresolved

Moving this section to bottom as the bot won't stop archiving it. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"Sylvia Rivera remembered..."

The construction above appears in the subsection on the riot outbreak, and it takes for granted that Rivera was present on the day, and was therefore in a position to remember anything from that night. It is noteworthy, however, that David Carter, the author most cited on this page, has concluded that Rivera was not present on the first day of rioting, that she fabricated her account of the events, and even suggests that Marsha Johnson denied Rivera was at the protests at all. For that reason, he has omitted her altogether from his many histories of Stonewall. An interview with him: [1] Rafe87 (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

One possible way of addressing this is with the "first night" and "second night" sections. I'm surprised to see the quote about Johnson dropping the bag on the cop car only in the "second night" section; I'll check Carter again, but I thought that happened on the first night. Having read all the sources, I think it's plausible that Rivera was there either on the second night of rioting, or later in the week. But I have to concur that there are no credible witnesses placing Rivera there on the first night (especially as Rivera's close friend Johnson told at least two people that Rivera was absent on night one). I think we can use Rivera as a source on the layout of the bar, as long as we cut "who was inside the bar at the time of the riot" [first night]. I also think Rivera could be mentioned in the coverage of night two, and/or later in the week. Then (if the sources check out) move the part about Johnson to night one. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, p.188 of Carter has the dropping of the bag on the police car on Sat. Night, so that should stay as-is. However, I see no reason to describe Johnson primarily as a friend of Rivera's, and Johnson should be mentioned on night one. A search on the google book version of Carter brings up plenty of independent references, as well as some good text about other gender-nonconforming people who were "in the vanguard" on the first night. "Jackie Hormona, Marsha Johnson and Zazu Nova" in particular are named, with some good content on page 261. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 00:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This is all in the news again with the release of the Marsha P. Johnson documentary, The Death and Life of Marsha P. Johnson (live now on Netflix). The Marsha Johnson article has been substantially overhauled this summer, and now includes an audio interview with Johnson where Johnson states she did not start the riots, but arrived on the first night at about 2am, after the riots had started: Making Gay History podcast, Episode 11, Marsha P. Johnson and Randy Wicker. The new doc also includes interview footage with Johnnson where Johnson re-iterates that Rivera was in the park during the first night of rioting, "having 'cocktails'". Rivera's claims in the doc, per usual, vary, and it's often unclear which night of rioting/demonstrations Rivera is referring to. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, do you want to keep this section on the talk page indefinitely? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Of course not. I want some consensus and resolution. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
But this discussion is dead (with the exception of me now commenting). You could ping Rafe87. Or leave a note at WP:LGBT asking others to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Offensive language in Cafeteria section

Hi! I edited some archaic and offensive language and my edits got reverted. The specific offensive terms were not being used in a sense of "in the past, these people were called x, y, and z", but rather in a sense of "x, y, and z did so and so". Just because we are talking about a historic period does not mean we need to use historic language. The way that some of these sentences were phrased seemed to almost imply that trans people are still considered deviants, and that it's okay to call someone who lives as a woman a transvestite. The meaning of the section in question is still conveyed (and perhaps made even more clear) by my edit, so I really don't see why we need to be basically calling trans people deviants. I'm going to put my edit back, I don't think there's a good reason to keep this language in the article because it really doesn't improve clarity. @Flyer22 Reborn, if you want to chat, I'm open to it!

Laudiacay (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Laudiacay, I stand by what I stated to you here and here. The article is clearly set within a historical time frame -- a time where LGBT people were considered deviants. This means that the article will include views, including terms, that are outdated. Some editors have objected to using gay for all LGBT people in the article or use of the term transvestites in the article, but those were the terms used at the time, and not all LGBT people are offended by the term transvestite anyway. I do know the offensiveness of the term transvestite and am responsible for the current state of the Transvestism article noting its offensiveness. But I saw nothing wrong with the text stating "Contemporary nomenclature classified them as transvestites." There are other instances of that term in this article and there is no need to remove them from this article. You clearly took issue with the following text: "They belied the carefully crafted image portrayed by the Mattachine Society and DOB that asserted homosexuals were respectable, normal people." The text explicitly states "portrayed by the Mattachine Society and DOB that asserted," meaning the view of those specific people. meaning the views of people. The text was talking in terms of views within an anti-LGBT (biased) time frame. There was no threat of anyone reading the material you changed and thinking that LGBT people are abnormal. The context of this article is clear, the world has clearly changed, and anyone who had such a "they are deviants" belief had that belief before arriving at this article. After all, some still do consider LGBT people abnormal. All that stated, I clearly left your changes as is and wanted to note to you what I felt was an issue with your changes without bringing the matter to the talk page. If I wanted to take the time to discuss it, I would have brought it to the talk page myself, but I appreciate you bringing the matter here.
On a side note: I moved your section down because, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, newer sections go at the bottom. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I will note that it's good that you stated "women and men who cross-dressed, or trans people" instead of classifying all of them simply as transgender, given that some did not consider themselves transgender in the strict way that the term is commonly applied today (which excludes cross-dressers). Yeah, transgender is an umbrella term, but many (such as the LGBT community in general) do not use it broadly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I can also see how the "lived as women" and "lived as men" aspects might have upset you in terms of transgender people since they (excluding cross-dressers) wouldn't describe the matter today as "living as the other gender" (except with regard to medical aspects or passing). They would simply state that they are a woman or a man. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree that the wording "seemed to almost imply" what Laudiacay suggests. Although I would note that the three words "seem", "almost", and "imply" all indicate something less than certainty, I have to say that I don't see it at all; that the ideas presented are those of the earlier era could scarcely be clearer. Please elucidate, Laudiacay, if you like. In any event, I've changed it to a hybrid of the previous wording and the older, legacy wording from the FA recognition period. I think this is even better. See what you all think. RivertorchFIREWATER 06:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Picure of manager Larry Boxx

[[:File:Larry Boxx & Roxanne Russell 1972.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Larry Boxx (left) continued to run<nowiki><ref>[http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2004-06-21/news/0406210102_1_civil-unions-marriage-issue-lesbian-pride-event Article] by Sandra Hernandez in the ''[[Sun-Sentinel]]'' 2004-06-21</ref> the Stonewall when it reopened in Miami Beach in 1972; here photographed with Roxanne Russell before the place burned down two years later.<ref>[http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2015/07/03/70349 Article] by Jim Burroway in ''Box Turtle Bulletin'' 2015-07-02</ref>]] For quite some time, earlier, this photograph was in the article with this caption. During a COI purge last fall it was removed, Boxx not being mentioned in the article and our article about Carter/Russell having been deleted for lacking notablity. A neutral user or two might like to have a look and see if the image might add to the article and if Boxx should be briefly mentioned in the text as sourced in either one (or both?) of the ref's in the caption. Carter's face could be cropped out of the image if its presence in it is deemed too irrelevant. We are missing a piece of history in the fact that the Stonewall was able to move down south for a time, managed by the same man. Please reinstate the image, if appropriate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

PS There is also a 2013 reference here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

PS2: And (as per Googler listing) there is supposed to be something from 2015 quoted partly as "CHARLIE SAYS PROUD THE STONEWALL RIOTS WERE A TURNING POINT IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LGBTQ EQUALITY BY CHARLIE BAUER PhD http://charliebauerphd.blogspot.co.uk ... Stashes of booze were hidden locally so that Larry Boxx, the manager, could reopen within an hour of a raid they knew was coming." here but I don't know how to open it. I'm not very good at that sort of thing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

PS3: According to his Facebbok page here and a notice here, Boxx (Bochner) was born 1937-07-19 and died 2012-01-16. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Question: Am I correct in saying that neither of the two individuals in the picture are mentioned anywhere in the article? Please advise. Spintendo      23:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I see that he was a manager at the time of the riots. But are we sure what his role was beyond that? When it comes to balance, the article doesn't even have a picture of either Marsha P. Johnson or Sylvia Rivera. Those two participants, should anyone wish to add their pictures, would have no problem with sourcing, as their participation was of no question. But they aren't in the article. So now we're to add a picture of the manager, whos role is not as certain or as well known? I think that would be problematic. Spintendo      23:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree. SergeWoodzing, you added the image in October 2015. What do you mean, "a COI purge last fall"? RivertorchFIREWATER 06:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Reply to question: when the article about Jacob Truedson Demitz (Lars Jacob), whom I know personally, was deleted for non-notability last fall, many contributions of mine, and photos from his files, were also deleted. Many were not. In a 3-4 cases only, I have felt that someone else could have a look. This is one of them, and I base that only on sources that seem to give Boxx a mentionable role and perhaps (as I did mention above) warrent his being mentioned in the article. It looks (in the sources) like he wrote a book or an article about the Stonewall, but I don't quite know how to trace that further, nor if it's relevant. Please note: I'm only suggesting you look at this, not demanding the image be reinstated, and, as I've also stated, Carter/Russell could be cropped out of the photo. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi a certain number of photos and articles were added by editors linked to Lars Jacob and his commercial interests and with a declared COI. A certain number of the articles were deleted and a certain number were not and photos of non encyclopedic interest were also removed by myself and other editors when their addition served no enclopaedic purpose. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Dom from Paris, what's your opinion on this one? My sense is that it serves an encyclopedic purpose and, more specifically, seems relevant enough for this article. I'm still bothered by its being the only reference to Boxx. A caption generally shouldn't introduce new content in an article. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
With all due respect, Dom (Domdeparis) is the user who removed this. He can hardly be expected to want to put it back. Nor can he and I really be neutral in this discussion. I'm hoping that people who haven't been involved previously will decide, and, if so that there is enough reliably sourced on Boxx to include a brief text mention of the manager. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, as a non-involved editor I'd support adding a picture and mention of the manager; he seems at least as relevant as some of the other background info. Furthermore, I think pictures of Sylvia and/or Washington should be added too. Currently the article reads like a wall of text and could use more images to break things up. Catrìona (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Add something like this, well-referenced, to the "Legacy" section, perhaps last, and put the image there, with or without Carter/Russell (that's another another link I just found to his story), who appeared in a few shows at the Florida nighclub:

  • Larry Boxx, who was the manager of the Stonewall Inn when the riots began, opened another Stonewall on 22nd Street in Miami Beach, Florida, in 1972, but it burned down two years later.

Carter/Russell's participation i Stonewall shows in Florida, such as the earliest versions of Wild Side Story, to my knowledge is only mentioned in 2-3 image descriptions at Commons. There's a 1974 photo of the burned out disco in Florida here.

I'm hoping this more concrete suggestion might be helpful. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose I don't have a conflict of interest in this subject so I think that I can give a neutral opinion, thank you @Rivertorch: for pinging me. I removed the photograph because there was no mention of the people in the photo in the article. I would support the addition of this photo (or of any other person for that matter) as per the remark made by @Spintendo: if their role in the riot was significant and is documented in reliable sources (and not blogs, facebook or other personal pages). The fact that these 2 people are linked in some way to the Stonewall Inn is neither here nor there. I would however not support the caption as proposed by Serge as this is not neutral and suggests a connection between the riots and the fact that the other Stonewall Inn in Miami burnt down. There may be a connection if that is the case it should be mentioned in the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Since this is presented as a proposal, I'm also going to oppose. I don't really find the Miami Beach thing relevant. My question at this point is this: Was Boxx's presence at Stonewall that night significant in some way? Or was he just some guy who happened to be manager and neither played a key role in the events nor offered any particular insights after the fact? If we have an impeccably reliable source saying the former, then he deserves a brief mention in the body of the article, and we can consider adding his photo as well. On a side note: SergeWoodzing, if you really believe that neither you nor Dom from Paris can be neutral in this discussion, then perhaps you should either absent yourself from it or accept his participation as well. (I think the latter would be preferable.) RivertorchFIREWATER 15:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Far be it from me, Rivertorch, to suggest that anyone with constructive input to give should not be allowed to participate in any discussion. For the sake of clarity and to preclude misinterpretation: what I was hoping we'd have here is more input from previously uninvolved editors, and I hope no such have now been discouraged. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Um you can't really support your own proposal and it would be better to let other users make their own decisions and post their own support if they wish. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: would it be possible to say if you support the above proposal? Another user seems to have posted a support comment in your name in deduction from your previous comment but as the proposal was made after your comment I think it would be fairer to allow you to read it and the subsequent comments first. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. After reading other comments I would like to change to tentative support under the condition that there is a RS for a significant role by him in the riots and a mention of him in the text of the article. Those conditions have not been met (and it appears that they won't be), so I would tentatively oppose for the moment. Catrìona (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is not even a suggestion adequately source citation for inclusion. Talk about "non involved editors" calls to question. Pjefts (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I just found this source that states that he wasn't the manager at the time of the riots [2] so I think there is even less reason to include this photo. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Just found another source that states he was the manager at the time but was on his night off the evening of the riots "Boxx was not arrested on the night of the famous raid at the Stonewall Inn in June 1969 because he had taken the evening off.After receiving a call informing him of the raid in progress, he rushed to the bar and watched the drama unfold from outside." [www.zoominfo.com/p/Larry-Boxx/535347247] so I think we can safely say that he did not have a significant role in this event. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment All I knew was that he was the manager there and a few other somewhat reliably sourced things I've been able to find on Google, such as his being the grandmaster of a Stonewall parade years later. None of these details about his being off that night have been known to me until now. If soneone else hadn't stricken my "Support" above (do we actually do that?), I'd probably do so myself now, or change it to weak support just because of the venue's name being continued by Boxx in Florida. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
!voting support for one's own proposal is not done, in the same way that one does not !vote delete in a deletion discussion that one has initiated. So for clarity I struck it to avoid anyone thinking that another user had supported your proposal. I can't see how you can weak support your own proposal either. It makes no sense. Either you maintain a proposal or you withdraw it. The article is about the riots in New York following a raid by the police and not about another establishment with the same name in Miami. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, "support as proposer" is a phrase used quite not infrequently in Wikipedia discussions. And editing another user's talk page posts, even with the best of intentions, is often frowned upon. But let's not have a discussion about user conduct or Wikiquette here. We appear to have consensus at this point not to add the photo. If no one objects, I'd like to mark this as resolved. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Must admit I've never seen that myself but I'll take your word for it but I have often seen multiple votes struck by other users to make it easier to count the support and oppose comments. But like you said it's a pointless discussion here but I will bear it in mind. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

rally and vigil in July 1969

Heritage of Pride mentions 500 participants at an event—"Gay Power" demonstration and candlelight vigil—occurring "one month after" the riots; see this event page for example. Other sources have recycled similar claims and language. While I've now included it in this article, the July 1969 event could really benefit from better sourcing. — HipLibrarianship talk 04:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stonewall_riots/Archive_13&oldid=1164975482"