Jump to content

Talk:Stonewall riots/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Resolved
 – Flows for me. Nice work! Banjeboi 01:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Right after this sentence it jumps into the 1960s. Between the two might be good to sndwich an example that relates to these gay bargoers. Banjeboi 00:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the note right after it? Should I move the note or part of it to the regular text? --Moni3 (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Definitely. I love you to bits but, IMHO, you're dreaming to think most folks read the notes or references. I wonder if they even make it the the end of the lede in many cases. Banjeboi 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, *I* read the notes. --Moni3 (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I just bet you do! And no, now that I've read them too they don't help add the context I saw as a problem. Between these two sentences should be, IMHO, something that bridges how bars were one of the few places one could be more open and/or the atmosphere only was marginally better despite the 1960's being more sexually uninhibited. I would prefer that it stay bar/gay nightlife-oriented to stay with the context. Banjeboi 04:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Benji. Added a sentence and a half for you in the lead. Let me know if there are other clarifications that are needed. --Moni3 (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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. --AmaltheaTalk 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 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)
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".
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).
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)
  • 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stonewall_riots/Archive_2&oldid=1137207027"