Talk:Lorraine Hansberry/Archive 1

Archive 1

cleanup

Added citations to valid propositions and cleaned up grammar. I don't know enough about how to get rid of the "We need citations" box from 2007 over the article.Vyreque13 (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I attempted a cleanup, but I don't know how trustworthy anything in the article is. I've assumed the information is correct and attempted to organize it and make it sound more sophisticated. I cut several parts about Hansberry's parents as well as observations on A Raisin in the Sun. -User:Jenmoa 03:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted vandalism. Doughboy 23:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lorrainehansberry.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Lorrainehansberry.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

another thing that should be fixed is this sentence.

"In order to move into the hood Hansberry's father had to first overcome a racially restrictive covenant that attempted to prohibit African-American families from buying homes in the area"

as well as this innaccurate sentence. "Hansberry grew up in a white, middle-class neighborhood and attended private school becuase her parents wanted her to have an amazing education."

it opposes this sentence found on a more reliable website http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/corhans.htm

"Hansberry's parents sent her to public schools rather than private ones as a protest against the segregation laws"

Yet another sentence that needs editing is this one.

"She married Robert Nemiroff, a Myspace literature student, in 1953."

how did she die?

she died of cancer. it's on there now.

Other Stuff

In The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual, Harold Cruse writes a pretty scathing commentary on Hansberry, noting her utter incomprehension of Wright's The Outsider and her lack of experience with a black working class despite her attempts to represent it. If anyone has some positive information about her, it might help, but at some point I'll likely get up some info based on Cruse's analysis of her.--Mr Bucket 03:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur

I've deleted the sentence at the end of the paragraph about Raisin in the Sun: "She then moved to New York City in 1950." This makes no sense, as the play debuted in 1959.

Practising homosexual?

Hansberry is listed as a practising homosexual in the list of practising homosexuals. What evidence is there that she engaged in such behavior? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.18.12 (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: the above. The phrase "LGBT," which I deleted, is misleading in attribution to Hansberry, but she appears to have been a Lesbian, though she died when coming out still carried serious social consequences (obviously, it sadly still does). She wrote letters to The Ladder, a Lesbian journal of the time, connected social action for homosexuals with the feminist struggle, but homosexuality is not a central concern of her most celebrated work, A Raisin in the Sun, though it appears in Les Blancs. See -Hansberry's Drama: Commitment Amid Complexity- by Steven R. Carter and Lisbeth Lipari, "The Rhetoric of Intersectionality: Lorraine Hansberry's 1957 Letters to the Ladder," in ed. Charles E. Morris III , -Queering Public Address: Sexualities in American Historical Discourse-. " LGBT" is confusing in this context because it contains four identity categories and without explanation, none given in this article, it is unclear which refers to the figure in question. It is also anachronistic as a formation when used here; the choice to group the four categories is a recent decision. That is why I deleted it.

This article as it now stands is totally inappropriate

As of February 28, 2008, someone needs to clean this up. I will attempt to contact Wikipedia directly.Brian14leonard (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity in lead

I usually take it out, but is it relevant to her notability? I will leave it in for now. TIA --Tom (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if yes (and how would one decide this?), it seems to go against common practice in similar situations on this site. 75.38.192.148 (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Atheism

I just undid this edit in which an anonymous user wrote, "She was also a confirmed atheist." I couldn't find anything on the internet suggesting she wasn't an atheist, but I also couldn't find a usable reference. Does anybody have more information on this topic? --Fullobeans (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Lorrainehansberry.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lorrainehansberry.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This article was edited as part of an edit-a-thon

	This article was edited as part of the UMass Amherst Edit-a-Thon . The editor who attended the event may be a new editor. In an effort to support new editors, please assume good faith to their contributions before making changes. Thank you! – Lquilter (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Death

At the end of the section concerning her death and where she was buried, the article randomly states that she was a painter. If she even was, that should probably be mentioned in either the section about her childhood or adulthood. 67.221.128.39 (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)MuriUmbrielCordeliaN

Class Project Page

This page has been selected by one of my students as a class project. Please be polite and constructive when editing or giving advice and be aware that the students involved in this project are learning Wikipedia along with learning research and writing skills. please assume good faith to their contributions before making changes. If you have any questions, please contact me. --MrSilva (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lorraine Hansberry. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130314101440/http://www.glbtq.com/literature/hansberry_l.html to http://www.glbtq.com/literature/hansberry_l.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017032241/http://www.glhalloffame.org/index.pl?page=inductees&todo=year to http://www.glhalloffame.org/index.pl?page=inductees&todo=year
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313200751/http://chicagophoenix.com/2013/10/12/boystown-unveils-new-legacy-walk-lgbt-history-plaques to http://chicagophoenix.com/2013/10/12/boystown-unveils-new-legacy-walk-lgbt-history-plaques/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lorraine Hansberry. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140404180438/http://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/f7904580-d610-0130-2612-58d385a7bbd0 to http://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/f7904580-d610-0130-2612-58d385a7bbd0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151123163117/http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2009/03/lorraine_hansberrys_gay_politics.html to http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2009/03/lorraine_hansberrys_gay_politics.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018021358/http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=10889 to http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=10889
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150216152252/http://www.lincoln.edu/residence/hansberry.html to http://www.lincoln.edu/residence/hansberry.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Awards/accolades

Can someone put together an awards or accolades section, similar to that on Toni Morrison? That would be useful. Citrivescence (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Closeted

I reverted Mlrqueerhistory (talk · contribs) here because this The Village Voice source states that Hansberry was closeted, and because the "By 1960, Hansberry identified as homosexual" part is not sourced. No, we can't use this source to assert that "By 1960, Hansberry identified as homosexual" or "though her personal writings reveal some discomfort with this fact." We can't analyze her writings ourselves and state that her writings indicated that she was uncomfortable identifying as homosexual. That is WP:Editorializing. We can only report on what WP:Reliable sources state. And our WP:Primary sources policy is clear. We also can't use her stating that she is "committed [to] this homosexuality thing" as her having come out. We need a WP:Reliable source stating that she came out or openly identified as homosexual or lesbian. Also, Mlrqueerhistory's edit removed the piece about her being an activist for gay rights and that she wrote about feminism and homophobia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

As already explained, thisVillage Voice article was written before Kevin Mumford's work was widely available; you are insisting on relying on outdated information. I find it hard to believe that you're arguing that an article from a now-defunct publication, written by a film critic who apparently took an interest in an exhibit that was exclusively about Hansberry's letters to The Ladder (it was called Twice Militant: Lorraine Hansberry’s Letters to The Ladder) is a more reliable source than scholarly works by the first academic to get access to all of Hansberry's papers.

I've cited Mumford's work as support for my revisions. If I need to pincite to satisfy your requirements, I suppose I can. For example, re her discomfort, "After the extraordinary success of A Raisin in the Sun, Hansberry's personal life became more complicated and her opportunity to speak openly as a lesbian less feasible"; or, "On the one hand, Hansberry addressed the Ladder and its audience as "you people," as if to notice but not clearly identify with lesbians. On the other, she offered a number of observations about the homophile movement that seemed to reflect a sustained reading of their journals and more than a passing interest in lesbian issues." This is on top of a direct quotation from Hansberry about her "personal discomfort" with certain aspects of the lesbian community, in addition to this previously-provided source (in which she included "my homosexuality" in a list of things "I hate"). Mumford also makes clear that, after A Raisin in the Sun, "If a still-pervasive anti-Communist paranoia triggered the FBI surveillance of Hansberry, her impulse to cover evidence of her lesbian desires sprang from other anxieties of respectability and conventions of marriage, even though it would seem that Hansberry was well on her way to coming out" (emphasis mine).

As for your notion of "coming out," you seem to be operating under a modern (i.e., post-1970) idea of what it means to declare one's sexuality; for much of the history of the queer community, one did not come out from a closet, one came out into a queer world (friends, lovers, vacation spots, cruising areas). It wasn't about telling the dominant society, it was about telling other queer people. This is well-documented in paradigmatic works like George Chauncey's Gay New York and Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold by Kennedy & Davis. No, Lorraine Hansberry did not tell TIME magazine that she was homosexual. She did, however, tell the Daughters of Bilitis (the largest lesbian rights organization), James Baldwin, countless lovers, friends, and her personal journals. She vacationed in Provincetown in order to experience a "gathering of the clan." It goes on and on. These types of revisions--made by those enforcing anachronistic concepts of queer identity--separate queer people from their history.

What's more, Mumford does an incredible job of deconstructing the myth of Hansberry's gay "activism," which is something people attributed to her after she died and based entirely on her two letters to the Ladder. As Mumford writes: "no evidence has surfaced of [Hansberry's] participation in meetings, conferences, or other activities. Yet lesbian archivists understandably have wanted to include the evidence of [Hansberry's] desire in the record. . . . [seeking] not only to acknowledge her as a pioneer but also to reconstruct a more diverse genealogy of lesbian identity." ().

Finally, what does her writing about feminism have to do with her marriage or personal life? Mlrqueerhistory (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not about outdated information. It's about what I stated above. And what I essentially stated above is that we should not engage in WP:Synthesis or WP:Editorializing. For the "By 1960, Hansberry identified as homosexual, though her personal writings reveal some discomfort with this fact." part you added, this is the source that was beside it. It is not appropriate for you, me, or other editors to use Hansberry's personal writings to assert "By 1960, Hansberry identified as homosexual, though her personal writings reveal some discomfort with this fact." Our WP:Primary sources policy is clear. We can only report that "By 1960, Hansberry identified as homosexual" if the primary source is explicit on that matter or if a secondary or tertiary states so. The same goes for stating "though her personal writings reveal some discomfort with this fact." We can note that Hansberry included "my homosexuality" in a list of things she hated. But a person recognizing their homosexuality is not necessarily the same thing as identifying as homosexual. Per WP:Primary sources, we can't go beyond what a primary source states.

As for this OutHistory source you pointed to above, it doesn't state that "By 1960, Hansberry identified as homosexual." It doesn't state that she was out. That source, which tells us that "what follows is some of the new information about her personal life that [they, the author] examined", is clear that she was homosexual/a lesbian. But so is The Village Voice source. And that source (which I did not add to the article, but which still counts as a WP:Reliable source despite the paper now being defunct while the website continues to publish material) is not the only one that calls her closeted. So does this 2011 "Gender in Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun" source, from Greenhaven Publishing LLC, page 106, which states, "According to Zadan, as a closeted lesbian, Lorraine Hansberry understood well the various forms of discrimination minority groups in America suffer from." So does this 2017 "American Literature in Transition, 1950–1960" source, from Cambridge University Press, page 176, which states, "As a practicing yet closeted lesbian, Lorraine Hansberry noticed similarities between homosexual oppression and the oppression suffered by blacks and women." So do other sources. Sources mention that she was closeted because it further relays the struggle she went through regarding her sexuality. And I don't see an issue with us also noting that she was closeted. The OutHistory source even states, "To my knowledge, none of the presidential or civil rights scholarship, or African-American historiography has considered Hansberry's lesbian desire. [...] The only exceptions to the silence of the closet came from a few gay and lesbian archivists and writers. Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon's 1972 lesbian anthology, Lesbian/Woman, referred indirectly to Hansberry, observing that 'many black women who been involved in the homophile movement found themselves forced to make a choice between two 'Causes' that touched their lives so intimately,' and that 'One of them wrote a play that was a hit on Broadway.' " But if wanting to state that Hansberry identified as a lesbian, there is this 2000 "Lesbian and Gay Studies and the Teaching of English: Positions, Pedagogies, and Cultural Politics" source, from National Council of Teachers of English, page 111, which states that "that though she was closeted, African American playwright Lorraine Hansberry identified as a lesbian." But it should be given in-text attribution (see WP:INTEXT) rather than be presented in Wikipedia's voice. That source also speaks on other arguments, including the arguments that "Virginia Woolf and Katherine Mansfield were bisexual; that Auden and Housman and Spender were gay."

You stated, "As for your notion of 'coming out,' you seem to be operating under a modern (i.e., post-1970) idea of what it means to declare one's sexuality; for much of the history of the queer community, one did not come out from a closet, one came out into a queer world (friends, lovers, vacation spots, cruising areas)." If I was under any such operation, I wouldn't have stated, "And she was closeted because, as the first source states, 'the times demanded' it." I know how life was back then. I also know how coming out is defined in the literature, and that a person coming out to friends and lovers doesn't negate the fact that a person may still be closeted. And of course one is essentially out to their lover. Going by sources, Hansberry still didn't feel that she could be open about her sexual orientation in general. The OutHistory source states, "While she subscribed both to the Ladder and ONE, no evidence has surfaced of her participation in meetings, conferences, or other activities. Yet lesbian archivists understandably desired to include the evidence of her desire in the record." And Mumford stating that she "was well on her way to coming out" is not the same as stating "she came out."

You stated, "What's more, Mumford does an incredible job of deconstructing the myth of Hansberry's gay 'activism,' which is something people attributed to her after she died and based entirely on her two letters to the Ladder." You then pointed to quotes from the OutHistory source. We can't use that source to state that Hansberry wasn't an activist (since the source doesn't state that she wasn't one) or to reject other sources calling her an activist. The source is clear that it's their interpretation of Hansberry's life. Like WP:Verifiability states, "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." But given what the OutHistory Wikipedia article currently states about it being "inspired by Wikipedia" (although this is currently unsourced) and that it's in the "Wiki communities" category, I should ask about the reliability of this source at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.

As for "Finally, what does her writing about feminism have to do with her marriage or personal life?", we routinely put people's activism or feminist beliefs in their Personal life section unless a separate section is warranted. For example, a separate section is warranted in the case where a person's activism or beliefs have significantly impacted society. In Jennifer Lawrence's article, since there is a lot to state on her activism, that material is in a separate section. That Lawrence section should be titled "Activism" (which I think it used to be), and I'll query that talk page about that. But Hansberry's feminism and authors' beliefs regarding her being an activist can be put in the "Beliefs" or "Legacy" section instead. The "Beliefs" section pretty much already touches on her feminism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post regarding The Village Voice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Good grief.

In the end, virtually all my recent changes remain, yet you insist on labeling her "closeted," for which you still cite to a 2014 article, though now you've "buoyed" your argument with a 2011 article and a brief mention from a 2017 anthology. I don't suppose you followed the cites from the anthology? The endnote references one of the letters from The Ladder, without a single reference to anything from Hansberry's personal collections. Just because it was published at a later date does not mean it took new information into account.

"What is remembered about Hansberry depends to a great extent on what records and documents have been preserved and made accessible for researchers. . . . What was restricted from view may not have seemed flattering to the conventional or official image of Hansberry. . . . The title of the posthumous volume edited by Nemiroff, To Be Young, Gifted and Black: Lorraine Hansberry in Her Own Words, came from her last speech . . . this collection, and the photographs in the volume, have become foundational in the memory and understanding of Hansberry--beautiful, feminine, imaginative, genius. But Nemiroff's presumptuousness in manufacturing a collection of essays--"in her own words"--is matched only by the presumption of straightness that was deployed. . . . The only exceptions to the subsequent fifty years of her official closeting were the result of the work of a few lesbian archivists and writers . . . [who] attribute to Hansberry more commitment to the cause than she really held. [Such archivists and writers] sought not only to acknowledge her as a pioneer but also to reconstruct a more diverse genealogy of lesbian identity.". (emphases mine)

Amazingly, this section now presents the image of a brave lesbian who had lovers and gay friends, vacationed in gay enclaves, corresponded with gay periodicals, and wrote about gay themes. Yet, because a few people who didn't have access to the relevant information say so, the opening sentence says she's "closeted." Wikipedia at its finest. Mlrqueerhistory (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. As was brought out above, I note that here Mumford himself states, "The only exceptions to the silence of the closet...", obviously meaning that she was in the closet. And you yourself quoted Mumford's book where it states, "Hansberry was well on her way to coming out" (emphasis added), not out already. Additionally, we can't necessarily decide that Mumford is the only reliable source, as WP:RS defines it. But since both Mumford and non-Mumford sources say she was closeted, I am not seeing any basis for not saying so. Your justification above seems like synthesis. You are free to believe it, but here we have to follow the sources. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You've taken that quote out of context, of course. "Because of Nemiroff’s intentions [to restrict access to Hansberry's personal papers], along with a broader scholarly silence, the complexities of Hansberry’s life have remained obscure. The only exceptions to the silence of the closet came from a few gay and lesbian archivists and writers." Mumford is referring to the silence of the closet constructed by Nemiroff, which he makes clearer in his book (as quoted above): "The only exceptions to the subsequent fifty years of her official closeting were the result of a few lesbian archivists and writers . . ." To be clear: Wikipedia editors who perpetuate the notion of Hansberry being closeted are part of her "official closeting."

And, yes, Mumford says she was "well on her way to coming out" when she wrote letters to The Ladder in 1957; in the subsequent years of her life, as described in Hansberry's papers, Mumford's article, Mumford's book, and summarized above, she did come out. The reliable, current sources are clear. Mlrqueerhistory (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Above, you stated "good grief." Good grief is correct. It's a term I've been known to use during discussions that are trying, such as this one. The fact is that we have WP:Reliable sources that state that Hansberry was a closeted lesbian. And that 2017 "American Literature in Transition, 1950–1960" source is a literary source by an Associate Professor of English. And it devotes more than one page to Hansberry. So it is not like the "brief" mention is a passing mention. Yes, it doesn't spend time calling her a closeted lesbian over and over again, but it certainly spends more than one paragraph talking about her lesbianism. It was published one year later than your Mumford book; so you can't sit there and claim "Oh, it's so outdated." You also can't sit there and claim "Oh, it just doesn't have all of the facts" because it doesn't talk about or cite Mumford. Also, it is not like the "Not Straight, Not White: Black Gay Men from the March on Washington to the AIDS Crisis" Mumford source is all about Hansberry either. In the edit history, you pointed to WP:AGE MATTERS while engaging in WP:Synthesis such as "later exaggerated Hansberry's involvement in the homophile movement." And, yes, it was synthesis since, regardless of you noting Mumford afterward (who doesn't state "exaggerated", although he does state "who attribute to Hansberry more commitment to the cause than she really held" and, because of this, I can see why you added "exaggerated"), that comment was placed up against two sources that don't state that. Anyway, WP:AGE MATTERS is clear that one shouldn't fall prey to WP:Recentism. And it's not like Mumford argues that she wasn't closeted. So it's not new information that challenges the "she was closeted" statement. When it comes to WP:Due weight, various WP:Reliable sources state that Hansberry was a closeted lesbian, and none state that she wasn't closeted. This 2019 "Literatim: Essays at the Intersections of Medicine and Culture" source, from Oxford University Press, page 194, states, "Recent biographical studies report Hansberry was a lesbian and closeted." And, no, using that source isn't a case of recentism since sources have been calling Hansberry closeted for a number of years now, as indicated by the 2000 source I pointed to. To quote the Google Books "About the author" section of that 2019 source, the author of that book is Howard Markel, "the George E. Wantz Distinguished Professor of the History of Medicine and director of the Center for the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan." As for why the source takes the time to discuss Hansberry? Well, other than her notability? It's because she died of pancreatic cancer.

I'm not going to sit here and keep pointing to sources. We aren't going to state "Oh, the closeted aspect should be excluded" because of the Mumford source, which also tells us that Hansberry had an "impulse to cover evidence of her lesbian desires" which "sprang from other anxieties of respectability and conventions of marriage" and that she "was well on her way to coming out." So, yes, Mumford acknowledges that she was closeted. And even if "closeted" wasn't there, the paragraph should still begin with, "Hansberry was a lesbian." But sources use the term closeted because it succinctly explains what she went through, although sources also elaborate on what her closeted life was like.

You are trying to impose your own meaning of what "out" meant back in the day and are saying this means Hansberry wasn't closeted. Your views on what "closeted" means, back then or now, do not trump what WP:Reliable sources state. And even if pointing to sources that support your argument that "for much of the history of the queer community, one did not come out from a closet, one came out into a queer world (friends, lovers, vacation spots, cruising areas). It wasn't about telling the dominant society, it was about telling other queer people.", it's still a fact that sources (old and new) use "closeted" for Hansberry. Like I stated above, "a person coming out to friends and lovers doesn't negate the fact that a person may still be closeted. And of course one is essentially out to their lover. Going by sources, Hansberry still didn't feel that she could be open about her sexual orientation in general." A person doesn't necessarily stop being closeted just because some people in their lives know that they are gay or lesbian. And especially in the context of the 1960s, it's valid to wonder how one stops being closeted. To say that they did this by coming out to friends and having lesbian lovers, "vacation[ing] in gay enclaves, correspond[ing] with gay periodicals, and wr[iting] about gay themes" is not something we should relay unless reliable sources do. And even then, if the sources are not about Hansberry, a WP:Synthesis argument can be made for including that text.

Most of your text remains because I tweaked it, cut out WP:Synthesis such as "exaggerated," and because it documents Hansberry's life as a closeted lesbian. It might still need tweaking with regard to WP:Synthesis. The aforementioned 2017 and 2019 sources are now there to additionally support "closeted." The text doesn't contradict itself simply because it notes that, as reported by Mumford, "near the end of her life, she declared herself 'committed [to] this homosexuality thing' and vowing to 'create my life—not just accept it'. Before her death, she built a circle of gay and lesbian friends, took several lovers, vacationed in Provincetown (where she enjoyed, in her words, 'a gathering of the clan'), and subscribed to several homophile magazines." The section could make it clear that Hansberry was closeted because she had to be (because that's how things were back then), or that lesbian visibility was scarce. For example, the 2017 "American Literature in Transition, 1950–1960" source notes on page 177 the following: "Other than 'The Ladder', very few venues existed for women who wanted to make lesbian lives visible. The Left's homophobia and persecution of gay people made Left-wing presses and journals inhospitable places for publishing work with gay or lesbian characters." But readers already know that being gay or lesbian back in the day was a lot rougher than it is now and that being "out" about it was not an option or that it was challenging. One could argue that readers knowing this is why we should exclude "closeted." But because "closeted" so clearly get across the point of her struggles with regard to her lesbianism, as noted by sources, it makes sense to include it.

You stated, "To be clear: Wikipedia editors who perpetuate the notion of Hansberry being closeted are part of her 'official closeting.' " No, Wikipedia editors are simply following what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. I see no need to debate this any further. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

____

References