Talk:Stonewall riots/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

August 6–8, 2017 edits

For the record, I've undone several good-faith edits to the article, namely:

• Clarification? Perhaps, but a such a significant change to sourced content would require additional sourcing

• Adding "in Lower Manhattan" clarified nothing. That's the only place where the Stonewall riots happened.

• No need to replace the dead link when an archived version is available.

• Not really a clarification, and this level of specificity seems unwarranted. Manhattan was really the only "happening" borough back then, but even if it hadn't been, it makes no difference. That it happened in New York is important. The paragraph goes on to mention Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago without reference to neighborhood or district.

• I'm not particularly concerned with split infinitives, but I see no reason to switch to one here. The sentence makes sense either way.

Thanks to Flyer22 Reborn, who fixed some of the problems these edits introduced before I got here. I'm always hesitant to perform a wholesale revert to changes made by an established editor, but except for the update to the NPS link, I just can't see any of those edits as a net improvement. I would note that this is a former FA, with carefully chosen wording and meticulous sourcing, and it runs a very real risk of death by a thousand well-intentioned cuts. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I just saw your ping. No problem on reverting. The worst that can happen is an edit war, and that can be resolved as well. I notice that you stated "former FA." Do you think that the article is no longer FA-level, or was that simply a figure of speech? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Good question. It was a figure of speech. It does still have FA status, of course. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

"Figure of speech" probably wasn't the right term for me to use anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the point that's being missed here is that the sentence states that Stonewall is widely regarded as being the catalyst for the worldwide LGBT rights movement, which the new source supports, not that it is in fact the catalyst, something nobody can actually prove. Castncoot (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Castncoot, I reverted you for the following reasons: The lead states, "They are widely considered to constitute the single most important event leading to the gay liberation movement and the modern fight for LGBT rights in the United States." The source in question states, "The Stonewall Inn, a bar located in Greenwich Village, New York City, was the scene of events that began the modern struggle for the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans. [...] The events of Stonewall, as the uprising is most commonly referred to, marked a major change in the struggle for 'homophile rights' in the U.S., with lesbian women, gay men, bisexual and transgender people beginning to vocally and assertively demand their civil rights. Stonewall is regarded by many as the single most important event that led to the development of the modern LGBT civil rights movement."

So the lead and source are mainly focused on what the Stonewall riots did for LGBT people in the United States. You changed the text to the following: "They are widely considered to constitute the single most important event leading to the modern worldwide gay liberation movement and fight for LGBT rights." Your text took the focus off the United States. Sure, the Stonewall riots played a significant part in LGBT liberation in general, not just in the United States, but there are places that it has not had much impact, such as Iran. Per the source, I think it is best to acknowledge that, yes, the Stonewall riots had an impact on the gay liberation movement, but also specifically "the modern fight for LGBT rights in the United States."

With this edit, you've also been reverted by Seraphimblade. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

But I believe that Seraphimblade used an invalid reason to revert, Flyer22 Reborn. The sentence status quo is already noting a perception, not a fact. The only issue now is the appropriate sourcing for the worldwide context. Rivertorch has stated that their concern with including the worldwide context was specifically citing the correct sourcing for the content, which the Britannica source meets. How does one argue with the Britannica? Best, Castncoot (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That's an easy question to answer: one argues with "the Britannica" [sic] by arguing with it. Here's my question, in turn: why would we want to risk compromising the quality of an especially good Wikipedia article by polluting it with claims sourced from Britannica? You've been here for six and a half years and you're still not familiar with the fact that good secondary sources are preferred to tertiary sources? Good grief. You also may benefit from a friendly reminder that a lead section is supposed to summarize the main points in the body of an article, and it shouldn't make claims that are not subsequently supported in the body. You're blundering about here like the proverbial bull in the china shop, and frankly, some of your edits to the article have bordered on the incomprehensible. Please keep in mind that this is not a stub with incomplete sourcing and sloppy wording; it's a Featured Article. I'm sure it's not perfect, but its sources are first-rate and it is very carefully written. Its principal author retired years ago, but a few of us are still watching and trying our best to ensure it doesn't go to hell in a hurry. I'd like to think we could count on your help with that. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

What Rivertorch said, pretty much. Also, I'm not sure how the fact that we deal in fact rather than perception is invalid, that's just the way it works. As far as secondary versus tertiary sources, Britannica's already a tertiary, and we would run into the issue that it would lack nuance. For a worldwide example, I suspect you'd find that the case of Alan Turing had a far greater impact on gay rights in the UK than Stonewall did. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Neither of your arguments is convincing in the least. Look at these sources, complementing the Britannica and LGBT Nation sources:

• [1]
• [2]
  

And there are others. This article is no china shop. To turn a blind eye and pretend that Stonewall did not have a monumental impact on the global LGBT rights movement is unacceptable, and we risk losing FA status for willful negligence. Yes, Stonewall may not have penetrated the LGBT rights movement in Iran, but it seems not to have had much effect in Mississippi or Oklahoma, for that matter; that's no reason to ignore either its seminal international or domestic gravitas. Let's collaborate and refresh an article that is now verifiably incomplete by incorporating the international consequence of Stonewall and discuss how to do so. Castncoot (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing it. One of those references mentions in passing someone from Australia visiting the site and has a throwaway line at the top stating it triggered things across the world but does not elaborate on that at all, and one states that a few years after Stonewall gay rights organizations were in place worldwide, but doesn't provide any detail on that or discuss any causal link between the two. The only demonstrations it cites as being held in the wake of it are in the US. Those are not nearly strong enough references to make such an assertion. You say "there are others", but I'll presume you would have presented the best ones as your particular examples. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, one of them was from the website of a freely distributed tabloid owned by The Daily Mail, so I think we can safely disregard whatever it says. The other is from a reputable newspaper and generally reliable source, it's true, but I'm having a hard time seeing it as adequate. That isn't "turning a blind eye"; it's insisting that the sourcing for any significant changes be exemplary. Ideally, we should be looking for scholarly sources. Others might be acceptable, but not news stories that make claims incidental to their primary topic. Castncoot, are you still proposing to modify the lede? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The current lede (and body, by the way) is verifiably incomplete and doesn't do justice to the international consequence of Stonewall. I'm hearing a bunch of incompetent excuses (such as that the Britannica is ineligible to cite; especially when you started out with a dead link that I had to correct) to avoid adding what you know very well is true, but more importantly, is verifiable, and most importantly, is extremely consistent with the current format which already exists – that the riots are are widely considered to.... This doesn't mean that they are, or were, the only impetus for national or worldwide LGBT rights; this doesn't mean that everyone believes that they are or were; and this doesn't mean that they successfully produced LGBT equality in any given specific state or nation. It simply means to state that many around the world believe that the Stonewall riots were the inciting catalyst (look up the word) for LGBT rights in history. Castncoot (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's yet another one I pulled up quickly. There are more.

• [3] Castncoot (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I've never encountered a requirement that reliable sources be published by renowned academics for a non-professional (e.g., article describing a medical or legal) topic. Perhaps 99% of reliable sources are not that way, even in a featured article. Academic authors of reliable sources are not the foundation for what makes or keeps a Wikipedia article a FA. By insisting on such sources, you are not only imposing a uniquely and unduly oppressive burden that I am not aware of being a requirement for any non-professional FA, but more importantly, you are missing and causing others to miss the forest through the trees. Castncoot (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a bit over the top. You might want to think about toning it down just a little (e.g., "incompetent excuses", "to avoid adding what you know very well is true"). In any event, please carefully reread what I wrote above. Your latest series of posts indicate that you have misunderstood me on several points. If it's still unclear, then I'll sum it up like this: one needs to have consensus to change content in a stable article. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That goes without saying. Which is why I'm trying to build a consensus here. I hope you are looking for the same. Castncoot (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I see the same issue with the new reference. It says other organizations across the world existed a few years after Stonewall, but doesn't even assert a causal link, let alone establish it. Correlation is not causation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that the gist of that well-written third source, which is highly credible if completely non-academic, is that it was Stonewall which quite indeed led to them. Of all the editors here, I believe that you are the one fighting the inclusion of the seminal international influence of Stonewall on a tooth-and-nail level without at least appearing to look for consensus. Why is that? Castncoot (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Castncoot, again, the lead currently states, "They are widely considered to constitute the single most important event leading to the gay liberation movement and the modern fight for LGBT rights in the United States." So it is acknowledging that the Stonewall riots had an impact beyond the United States. But its impact is first and foremost a United States matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, so now we're actually making some headway in discussion with your statement here. Why not then disambiguate the two clauses by simply adding the word "worldwide" to the first clause and then sourcing independently, like this: They are widely considered to constitute the single most important event leading to the worldwide gay liberation movement<pinknews UK source><Britannica source> and the modern fight for LGBT rights in the United States.<the current two sources> The way it currently is written now appears to deliberately make vague and ambiguous the scope of the "gay liberation movement". I would also be happy to come up with some body work over the next few weeks to first propose on this page for all to review. Castncoot (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Castncoot: I don't see a movement towards a new, different consensus. I see you going against the consensus expressed here. You actually seem to be ignoring what others are saying. Continuing to push it in an effort to wear other editors down is not a good faith effort to achieve a different consensus. You may not feel this is what you are doing, but this is the impression I get reading the discussion here. You do not have have the consensus to make the changes you are proposing. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think your comment is premature, as the discussion was just getting going here with Flyer22 Reborn's comment. What is the consensus? That Stonewall has had no international impact? I don't see that as being the consensus, which would be frivolous. I see an article that has a definite gap which needs to be filled. Am I wrong to point that out? This is Wikipedia after all, isn't it? The sentence in question as phrased is problematic if conveniently vague, but a featured article cannot include a statement like that which links to gay liberation, a Wikipage topic with global identification (and incidentally a page which has long linked Stonewall with the movement worldwide), and then be afraid to boldly spell this out as such in this article. Do you see what I'm justifiably trying to point out and understand why I have a major problem with it? Others should also acknowledge the hypocrisy here. Castncoot (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, I'm requesting to add one word here to the first clause about the gay liberation movement - "international" (or "worldwide", or "global"). It can be sourced, or not sourced. But this way it boldly and clearly disambiguates this phrase from the second phrase about LGBT rights in the United States. And thereby the hypocrisy is removed. Castncoot (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hypocrisy? Seriously? I don't understand that at all, but I'll answer your first question, "What is the consensus?" The consensus is that there is no consensus for the change(s) you have proposed. Nothing more, nothing less. Surely this is not the first time you've experienced such a thing on Wikipedia. Of course, you weren't wrong to point out what you perceived as a flaw in the article, but you seem to be having a hard time accepting that other editors don't agree with you. When I run something up the flagpole and nobody salutes, I usually think, "Oh, those poor ignorant people can't see my logic", and then I just go edit a different article. My experience with persistently arguing against consensus was that it made me very frustrated and annoyed my fellow editors, but of course it's your decision. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I would support Castncoot's "01:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)" proposal...as long as "worldwide" is supported by one or more sources. But, yeah, Castncoot should achieve WP:Consensus first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we try, "international", Flyer22 (after building consensus for that, of course)? That word seems to carry a softer tone and a more liberal interpretation than "worldwide" because it denotes multiple countries including the U.S. without suggesting that the LGBT movement in every country was influenced by Stonewall, which I have a feeling is the stumbling block that some are not able to accept (and even I'm not trying to say that every country was influenced, frankly). Then I think that the sources listed would be acceptable - in fact, the Britannica source states literally that. What are your (and others') thoughts about that? Castncoot (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think something alluding to international significance would certainly be supported by the references we have. (I also think the existing wording does that fine, but I'd not be categorically opposed to something that clarifies it.) But to say that it was the most important internationally, I think, is a bit too far. That varies by country, and other events, like the initial findings in favor of gay marriage in various countries, also had tremendous significance. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying (and will happily continue) to express this with great patience to you as long as I need to, Seraphimblade, but I'm not sure how many times and in how many ways I can express the same idea to you to get rid of your mental block from apparently comprehending this - the current format already states that Stonewall is widely considered to constitute the single most important event leading to the gay liberation movement. That doesn't mean that it is the most important event which led to anything, anywhere, even in the U.S. (How could anyone prove such a matter of opinion anyway? - it's not a fact, just a bona fide opinion.) There are parts of the U.S. and people in the U.S., for example, for whom Stonewall could have taken place in another galaxy, for all they know or care. And that's where the current sentence structure is preserved, simply with clarification of adding the one word international to clarify the gay liberation movement, which is already an international identification, if you follow the link to that page. It simply means that there is a critical mass of people who believe that Stonewall is the most important event which led to LGBT rights overall. So adding the single word "international" to read, widely considered to constitute the single most important event leading to the international gay liberation movement doesn't violate your absolutely valid point that there certainly may have been equally sentinel events specific to other countries, and in fact, it doesn't even change the meaning of the sentence as written, for that matter, because the hyperlinked article already indicates the international identification. But what it does accomplish, which I seek, is to recognize the profound international influence which many people believe it indeed exerted and to disambiguate this phrase from the following about LGBT rights in the United States, which is a different issue. Do you now follow? Castncoot (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I stand by the position which I had, and do not at all appreciate your condescension. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood you then, although I'm not quite sure where you stand. We may already be on the same page. No condescension intended. I'm going to place the new edit that (three of us) have come at least quite close to agreeing upon and let the chips fall as they may. Castncoot (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

And I have reverted. Making questionable edits that damage the integrity of a Featured Article, providing confused rationales that sidestep the stated objections, beating a dead horse, being rude to your fellow editors, then reinserting the content of your choice—last time I checked, this is not how consensus works. If you're determined to avoid constructive, civil discussion, and determining actual consensus before changing the content, then I'd suggest you open an RfC. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse? I beg to differ. That's a direct insult to Flyer22 Reborn's and my suggestion that there is room for improvement in this article. Your modus operandi seems to be sheer expediency, while Seraphimblade is clearly playing a passive-aggressive game. So who's being rude to their fellow editors? I suggest we head to mediation. Castncoot (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Castncoot, this is Wikipedia. All articles can be improved to some extent. But that is not what's going on here. What you are doing is getting overly-attached to flawed, tertiary sources you've come across online, then trying to alter known, consensus history to fit inadequate, recent mentions, rather than simply respecting what the better, secondary sources already say. This does not demonstrate a healthy grasp of either history itself, or how to write about history in an encyclopedic manner. I'm sorry to have to be this blunt, but you are not respecting other editors here and you are really crossing a line. You have to listen to the feedback other editors are giving you. Again, you are attempting to edit against consensus. You seem to have been on Wikipedia long enough that you should be fully capable of understanding that the way you're doing this is not a good thing if you intend to continue editing here, so I am a bit baffled as to why you're continuing this behaviour. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi CorbieVreccan, hope you're doing well. It's not acceptable for me to leave you baffled. I pride myself on being crystally clear and transparent, as Flyer22 Reborn seems to have understood, so if I've left you baffled, then it's my burden to un-baffle you. But I'll need you to briefly indulge me in a short discourse, please. Kindly click on the link to the gay liberation article that the sentence in question utilizes, and hyperlinks, so prominently. Now please tell me if that page has a domestic U.S. scope or an international scope, and if Stonewall is prominently mentioned. (Other editors, kindly let Corbie answer themselves.) Castncoot (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Stonewall is mentioned a few times in that article, but it's not terribly clear as to scope. Regardless, other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references. If you're interested in making improvements, that article needs a whole lot more work than this one does. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like like Corbie for whatever reason hasn't answered. That's alright. Here, let me help, by quoting the first paragraph of that article as of its writing now:

The gay liberation movement of the late 1960s through the mid-1980s urged lesbians and gay men to engage in radical direct action, and to counter societal shame with gay pride. In the feminist spirit of the personal being political, the most basic form of activism was an emphasis on coming out to family, friends and colleagues, and living life as an openly lesbian or gay person. In this period, annual political marches through major cities, usually held in June (to commemorate the Stonewall uprising) were still known as "Gay Liberation" marches. It wasn't until later in the seventies (in urban gay centers) and well into the eighties in smaller communities, that the marches began to be called "gay pride parades." The movement involved the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in North America, South America, Western Europe, and Australia and New Zealand.

You really are either wearing blinders or are resisting externally and/or internally admitting the gravitas of Stonewall, for whatever reason. Notwithstanding Asia and Africa being missed, the scope of that article, which this article decidedly gives credence to through the deliberate hyperlink, sounds pretty darn international to me! And Stonewall is attributed right up in the first para, in a major way no less. I've never even heard of the other event you mentioned above in the discussion. (Unfortunately) Stonewall is the one and only internationally familiar symbolic event of LGBT resistance. But it is what it is. Why don't we call a spade a spade, rather than trying to label it as just a "shape"? Sounds like weaseling out to me. Castncoot (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe you've gotten a more than clear enough "no" at this point. You have not even close to developed a consensus for what you want to do. Either open a request for comments (keeping in mind an RfC must be neutrally worded), or drop it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Dropping it would be out of the question. I've already said above that I plan to seek mediation. Castncoot (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Then do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on it, thanks. Castncoot (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Just leaving this here. Castncoot's recent invention of a new "Gay liberation" infobox: "...the June 28, 1969 Stonewall riots, the cradle of the modern gay liberation movement." - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Lovely entry on your part for this page. I've already modified it merely for expediency on that page, to avoid an edit war with you. But the reality is - isn't that what this article is already saying? I believe so. Anyway, it's now a moot point as I've already modified that entry on that page. Castncoot (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

______

References