Talk:Stonewall riots/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

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)

Police perspective

This article seems to be lacking anything of the NYPD's side of the story. None of their intentions, motivations, or perspectives seem to be present here. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree, the article reflects the material available in reliable sources from police perspective. Seymour Pine was interviewed both in David Carter's and Martin Duberman's books, but his input was limited in police motivations. He could only guess why the police were ordered to raid the bar, and his superiors declined or were unavailable to be interviewed. Is there something in particular you were looking to see? I will go over the sources again to see if it's accessible. --Moni3 (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Link density

This article in its October 4th iteration uses vernacular (such as "backup", "kickback", "drag queen", "call to arms"), and refers frequently to organisations, locations and concepts with which only those with knowledge of America/the American gay rights movement would be familiar, all without links to explanatory articles. This makes the article quite difficult for a non-Westerner to follow.

I respectfully submit that the article would benefit from linking obscure phrases, names, and concepts where they have articles, according to the convention of once a screenful/subsection. Otherwise, accessing a subsection via the table of contents leaves one stranded. the skomorokh 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I admit that the article is not only American-heavy, but contains a lot of terms widely known only to people familiar with gay subculture. However, do you consider Canada, Australia, and Western Europe obscure phrases? Drag and transvestite were linked higher in the article, as were other terms that were linked again in the bottom part. All terms confusing to a non-American should be clarified in this article without a dependence on links. If that has not been done, please let me know where. Otherwise, very common terms were just linked, as well as double links in some instances. I'm trying to be sensitive to editors who hate overlinking while still allowing access to further knowledge of related concepts. --Moni3 (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

When introducing names in a new section (i.e. Canada et al.), it's standard practice to link; I'd settle for once in each section (Background/Riots/Aftermath/Legacy). Same goes for introducing people. "Craig Rodwell, owner of the Oscar Wilde Memorial Bookshop—located down the block from the Stonewall Inn—reported watching police chase participants through the crooked streets..." is in my opinion a perfect example of how to handle this. "Frank Kameny soon realized the pivotal change brought by the Stonewall riots", less so. But in its current state, there is just too little context on names for non-Americans; U.S. Army, East Coast ("of San Fransisco, California, do I need to get a map?"), New York and New York City ("is that different from New York?") are all place names that go unlinked in the Background section. Imagine if Note 1 replaced internal American geography with internal New Zealand geography—totally lost.

As for obscure/subculture-specific phrasing goes, again once per article is simply not sufficient for the general reader. The article is 72k long; few people are going to read it from start to finish in one go, and are more likely to skim over sections of lesser interest and jump to sections which grab their attention. It is unreasonable to expect them to know what each term means just because you have linked it once ten paragraphs ago.

If you are completely opposed to linking American-specific terms to articles, the Police raid subsection for example is going to need some clarification for someone who has never seen a U.S. police procedural show; "kickback", "patrol wagons", "backup"? Personally, I think piped links to bribery, backup (tactical) and paddywagon are the best way of preserving the character of the prose whilst giving enough context to the reader. the skomorokh 17:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)