Talk:Stonewall riots/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Clientele

"It catered to an assortment of patrons and was known to be popular among the poorest and most marginalized people in the gay community: drag queens, transgender people, effeminate young men, butch lesbians, male prostitutes, and homeless youth."

This bit is not sourced, and I think we have more solid sourcing that it was primarily a men's bar, with later addition of some women and drag queens. Either way, the clientele section needs to be WP:RS sourced. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That wording is in the lead section, makes no extraordinary claims, and is largely unchanged from the way it was when the article passed FA. It is largely based on content in the Stonewall Inn section, which appears to be adequately sourced. I'm certainly open to saying it was primarily a men's bar if we have a RS for that, but I'm not sure about the "later addition" bit. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you're right; it's in the lede. The lede is so long I actually thought it was in the first section. I think the sourcing in the Inn section is perhaps over-reliant on Duberman. Might want to revisit some of the other interviews to double-check. I still think the lede is a bit off from the Inn section and could use a bit of tweaking, but I'm not solid on how at the moment. Just wanted to bring it up for input. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Another note on vernacular: "Queens" vs "Drag Queens"

I'm not having very good luck turning up WP:RS sources on this, because it relies on documenting linguistic shift. But one reason for some of the confusion here, and around edits like this:[1], is that in the vernacular of the era, "queen" meant any "queeny" gay guy who was not trying to butch it up and pass as straight. Any guy who was out, and signalling gayness by, say, wearing a floral or paisley shirt, maybe tied at the waist, and using in-group speech to signal gayness (like using she/her pronouns for everyone, not as a gender marker, but to indicate being part of the gay scene), was called a "queen". See also, "flaming queen." This was different from dressing in full drag as a drag queen. These guys were just signalling gayness. So in news and anecdotal reports of the time, when people say, "The queens were rioting!" or "That queen punched him!" most of the time they are not talking about men in drag, or people we would ever consider drag queens or transgender persons. And yes, I know, we need RS sources for this. I'd appreciate help in finding them. Because the books I have here, that were published in the intervening years, just assume that readers already know this. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead contradicts content of the article

The lead, which is linked to no reference, says one thing about the composition of Stonewall Inn's customers:

It catered to an assortment of patrons and was known to be popular among the poorest and most marginalized people in the gay community: butch lesbians, effeminate young men, drag queens, male prostitutes, transgender people, and homeless youth.

But the content says another:

Only a few transvestites, or men in full drag, were allowed in by the bouncers. The customers were "98 percent male" but a few lesbians sometimes came to the bar.

The lead seems to have been made in concession to the current popular discourse on the revolts, which highlights the supposedly immense diversity of rioters, but also Stonewall's academic histories when media reports describe the rioters as young men, with very few of them women or people dressed as woman. — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It does need to be updated. There are also unsourced IP edits today that are changing what is clearly indicated as the historically attested, language of the era, to terms that were not yet in use. This is rendering the text confusing and, in some places, historically inaccurate. I don't feel up to edit-warring with anyone, so I'm waiting for this to settle. Ideally, it should just be reverted, and then updates made to put the text in line with the sourcing that's been added in recent months/years. This needs to be done by editors who have thoroughly read the reliable sources (and who are clear on which of the sources are reliable). - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Introduction contains clear continuity error. Can a subject-matter expert please address?

The introduction currently contains the lines

"Police raids on gay bars were routine in the 1960s, but officers quickly lost control of the situation at the Stonewall Inn. Tensions between New York City police and gay residents of Greenwich Village erupted into more protests the next evening, and again several nights later."

There is a continuity error / temporal ambiguity between these two sentences. The first sentence simply fixes the time as "in the 1960's", while the next sentence suggests that a specific date has been fixed. Presumably that date is June 28, 1969, but I cannot be sure. I'm sure this is a very simple fix for someone who knows the history. If you (the person reading this) can make an appropriate fix, please feel free to delete this section from the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rileyjmurray (talk • contribs) 04:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Made small edit to address this. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 22:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

IP adding new claimants to participation

The sources for these new claims (only made for the first time within the past few weeks or years) are weak, and not corroborated by what has been known about the riots and participants for the past 50 years. We have discussed Miss Major Griffin-Gracy before,[2] and decided to cut her, as every single one of her claims came solely from her, is uncorroborated, and she also stated that people who are well-documented to have been there, such as Marsha P. Johnson, were not there. Griffin-Gracy has also given descriptions of the layout of the bar and the clientele that are at odds with everyone else's. Victoria Cruz, in the documentary, The Death and Life of Marsha P. Johnson, spoke extensively about her life during the Stonewall era, but never claimed to have participated in the actual riots. The Vanity Fair source simply states that Cruz spent time at the Stonewall Inn during that era. I have great respect for the work Ms. Cruz has done, but having gone to the bar at some point does not equal participation in the uprising. The Advocate source seems to be misinterpreting the Vanity Fair article. It would not be the first time the Advocate has gotten something like this a bit wrong. Another source was added here and to Rivera's article to "source" that Cruz and Rivera participated in the riots; this one claims that Cruz is now saying that she was sitting on some steps, watching, and saw Sylvia Rivera in the park during the riots. Marsha Johnson is on record that Sylvia was passed out in the park. Even if this new statement could be corroborated by known participants, being in the neighborhood, or somewhere in Manhattan, watching or passed out, is not a statement of participation in the riots. I think these IP additions need to be cut. I've removed them before, as the citations do not reliably source the content. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Stonewall Inn 1969.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Stonewall Inn 1969.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Stonewall-day-sports.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"Known" homosexuals

How can you keep a list of unknown homosexuals? The word "known" adds nothing to the sentence. Writing that it's there for a purpose isn't good enough; it really has to go. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead image?

Is there any way to add an illustration of some sort to the lead? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There was one, deleted about a year ago. Help find another, even if a nonfree file. ɱ (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Would File:Stonewall riots.jpg be suitable? It is currently later in the article, but it seems to be the only image of the actual riots. BappleBusiness (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this a link to the image you suggested BappleBusiness? --- FULBERT (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that's the image. BappleBusiness (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "Stonewall riots.jpg" would probably be best. It is the only known photo taken on the first night of rioting, confirmed to be of rioters, with identified participants. In the text next to it (added here) I note that Jackie Hormona and another known individual are pictured. We could add some of this information. We should definitely include the photographer's name. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Linking to image after bot deleted it; reinstating caption: "The only known photograph taken during the first night of the riots, taken by freelance photographer Joseph Ambrosini, shows the homeless gay youth who slept in nearby Christopher Park, scuffling with police. Jackie Hormona and Tommy are on the far left.(Carter 2004, p. 162.)" Licensing has changed. Apparently current licensing doesn't allow us to post image on talk. But we can still use it in the article. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good caption - apart from the citation at the end, which (unless I'm mistaken) should be in wikipedia's citation format rather than an academic format. BappleBusiness (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

When violence breaks out

In this article is said that violence breaks out after a police hits a person in handcuffs in the head. In my opinion, violence was already out of control when police was beating handcuffed people. But I might be wrong. After all, English is not my first language and some of the nuances of the phrasal verbs, such as break out, escape my understanding.

67.218.240.6 (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

When was there consensus to change lede from "gay" to "gay (LGBT)"?

I don't recall this discussion. The reasons the footnote and the piped link to LGBT are there is to cover this. The recent addition of the parenthetic makes this redundant. Also... ongoing research has supported the original version of events - that it was primarily gay men rioting. The other narratives that were promoted in more recent years have been debunked. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and have proposed two changes to the lead below. If no one responds, I'll assume you and I agree based on your post and make the changes with a (very weak) consensus. Given no one has responded to your question in the last four months, I'm doubtful I'll get much engagement on my post. Thoughts appreciated though! --Kbabej (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed removal of piping and footnote in lead

Building off CorbieVreccan's post from a number of months ago, I think the first sentence of the lead needs an update. The text, as it currently stands, states, "...were a series of spontaneous demonstrations by members of the gay community[note 1] in response to a police raid that began in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969..." I am proposing two changes:

• 1. Removing the piping from "gay community" that targets the LGBT community and replacing it with the target Gay men, as this is more accurate. The article states patrons of the bar were "98 percent male". This is reliable sourced to Duberman's book Stonewall, which is used multiple times as a source on the page. The Stonewall Inn is a gay bar, the patrons were 98% gay men, and the terminology refers to gay patrons. Why not be the most accurate we can be with the target?
• 2. Removing the note that states "At the time, the term gay was commonly used to refer to all LGBT people." While technically true, refer to point #1. It gives undue weight to terminology to obfuscate the fact 98% of patrons were gay men and this was initially a gay rights struggle. Of course the info can appear later, if reliable sourced (which it is currently not).

Any thoughts appreciated! As this is a level-5 featured article, I'd like to gain some consensus for changing the first sentence of the lead. Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

That would make sense. Duberman is a fairly old source; is there any recent scholarship that supports or opposes the 98% claim? Urve (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Good question, @Urve! Duberman updated the book in 2019 and kept the same percentage, seen here. The same percentage appears in Carter's book (which is heavily used on the page), and repeated in Tablet Mag using him as a source here. --Kbabej (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

This is still fairly old; it seems like Duberman just published it in ebook format in 2019 (could be wrong) and Carter is still old. Tablet quotes Carter. I'm not too familiar with the recent historiography of Stonewall, but there have to be better and more recent sources than those for me to support a change. Urve (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how source recency is a problem in this context. If we're talking about the composition of the bar leading up to and during the riots, that would be a historical fact that would be harder to determine as time passed, seeing as the available primary sources can only deteriorate with time. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I can agree to this. The issue has been discussed before, see Archive 14, and Archive 10 for the most recent prominent discussions on it. There was a linguistic shift in the time since the riots to where what was described as "gay community" is better described now as the "LGBT+ community", and I do not think it would be appropriate to use the modern definition of "gay community", which refers exclusively to gay men, to overwrite the historical definition of it which was much broader.

I also have concerns over the erasure of prominent lesbian and trans women of colour that are only recently coming into focus some fifty years after the event inherent in this change. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Sideswipe9th! I think that proves my point with the Archive 14 you linked. The "Clientele" section was when an editor was concerned the inclusion of a long list of communities was unsourced. The only editor to respond to the initial claim was open to updating it as a "men's bar". The "Lead contradicts content of the article" section makes my point, and the only editor to respond actually wrote the section above on this talk page taking umbrige with the target being moved from "gay" to "LGBT". The third section discusses something else. So for Archive 14 of this being "discussed before", I'd actually say that proves my point there's an ongoing issue with the target.

Archive 10 shows a user who changed the target without consensus, using the justification people no longer use "negro" to describe Black people. It was revered by EvergreenFir. The discussion continues, but something sticks out to me: @Rivertorch's Evil Twin writing "...this discussion is a variant on a recurring point of contention that has arisen repeatedly" over a period of the eight years they had been watching the article.

I'm not sure what points you were making with the archives, as they don't definitively come to a consensus, and an RfC is actually suggested at one point. As to lesbian and trans women of color being involved, an extreme minority were. Their significance in the riots has been disputed and termed as "historical revisionism", discussed at length in James Kirchick's article for Tablet, in which he writes "The narrative that "trans women of color" led the Stonewall riot rests largely upon the purported participation of just two individuals..." Article available to view here. --Kbabej (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Kirchick's views seem at odds with those of mainstream LGBT+ rights organisations like Stonewall UK, GLAAD, in addition to those he cites in the article. When taking a broader view of Kirchick's writings, he seems to have particular view on the LGBT+ rights movement in general that is not shared by other writers on this topic, and he seems to have a particular bugbear for Chelsea Manning that seems as though it might be spilling over into his views on the Stonewall riots. Accordingly, I would classify him as a fringe view at best, as his work does not seem to be drawing much positive attention within the mainstream bodies of work produced in this area.

I disagree with your reading of Archive 14. The editor who responded directly addressed the concerns of the other editor, when they pointed out that the text in question was part of the article lead and was fully supported in the body. I would also point out that the responding editor actually said I'm certainly open to saying it was primarily a men's bar if we have a RS for that, however no RS has been provided for that either in that discussion nor now.

Archive 10, though I agree with what Rivertorch says about this being somewhat of a perineal discussion. I would argue that this discussion, as well as the one you replied to above from February of this year, are also examples of the perineal nature of this. On the whole though, I find the words of -sche at 08:33, 30 June 2016 and Flyer22 Reborn at 02:28, 30 June 2016 far more convincing than those of Rivertorch, and despite the perineal nature of the discussion there is an inherent consensus from the fact that the aspects you wish to change have remained for a substantial period of time.

Of course consensus can change, however I do not believe the threshold for that has been met in any way as of yet. I also have a broader concern that you seem to be extrapolating the demographics of those who frequented the Stonewall Inn to directly apply to demographics of the riots as a whole. While the riot may have started due to a raid on the Inn on 28 June 1969, the event very quickly spread to cover a wider area within the Village drawing in participants from other venues and the local area. While it has been a while since I've read Duberman, I do not think he described the wider demographics of the riots as being 98% male, only the patrons of the bar. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, yes, you are right. I was extrapolating the demographics of those who frequented the Stonewall Inn to directly apply to demographics of the riots as a whole and was largely thinking about it as the initial night rather than the overall riots. Point taken! I do think this discussion will likely happen again, just based on the number of past discussions, but that's an issue for another day. I will no longer advocate for the removal of piping and footnote in lead. Kbabej (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I don’t support this, 98% is not 100%. Why is it necessary to round up here again? This is basically just erasure for the sake of convenience/faux “accuracy”, not sure who this helps and how. Dronebogus (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Dronebogus, and thanks for the response. I'm not trying to say the 2% don't exist; the article covers that well. What I'm trying to covey is the target for "gay community" doesn't make sense to me. In my mind, the "gay community" should link to, well, the gay community, not the LGBT community. When it's a gay bar with a supermajority gay clientele who used the word "gay" to identify themselves and were reported as gay in contemporary sources, to me it seems WP is intentionally obfuscating the issue. --Kbabej (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue here is that you're arguing for using the modern definition of "gay", which does only apply to homosexual men, in a context where the term previously was used in a much broader sense. I strongly recommend @Kbabej: that you read the discussions I linked above, as well as LGBT vs gay, homosexual, etc in Archive 5, and Evolution of language in Archive 6. Those discussions detail how the use of language within this area has changed over the last fifty years. There are further links to discussions on other articles within those discussions if you wish to read further. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think The archives you're pointing toward show arguments for "gay" and arguments for "LGBT". Are you reading the discussions before linking them, or simply linking them because they contain discussion of the subject? It seems as if you're linking them to make the point the discussion has been definitively settled, when in the previous archives you listed it clearly does not. In fact, a longtime editor infers this has been a slow moving edit war over a number of years. I would strongly encourage you, @Sideswipe9th, to read the archived discussions carefully before you list them off as if this issue has been definitively settled. --Kbabej (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend that you assume good faith and that I have actually read these discussions prior to linking them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I'm well aware of WP policy, thanks. Perhaps you have read them, though they don't make the points you purport they do. Hence the question. As for AGF, I'll apply that here in assuming you weren't intentionally trying to come off as patronizing when you "strongly recommend" me to do something not once, but twice. You've mentioned linguistics twice now, and so I'm sure you realize when you patronize other editors and talk down to them, it's not only rude but doesn't help the project. And, to be clear, I have read the discussions you've linked and responded to those points clearly. --Kbabej (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• I think we should look at what recent high-quality sources say (which avoids the need to read tea-leaves into what older sources meant when they used language that has since shifted.) Looking over them:

• When the police emerged from the bar with several patrons and employees in their custody, the multiracial crowd began to erupt. According to some accounts, a lesbian was the first to fight back; multiple accounts emphasize the distinctively aggressive defiance of trans people and street youth. Soon the crowd, which included straight allies, was shouting at the police and throwing coins at the building.
• The Stonewall Riots erupted on a hot night in June 1969 in New York City, when an unlikely group of revolutionaries, a few Black and Puerto Rican drag queens and butch lesbians, turned a routine bar raid into a street fight with the local police. The latter had just taken a payoff from the unlicensed bar owners and arrested the most obvious looking homosexuals. A motley crew of effeminate queers resisted what would otherwise have been a routine raid on a bar that catered to gay people.

Based on this I don't think we should be using the term members of the gay community at all; it is dated language that doesn't reflect how more modern sources describe things. I'd definitely be opposed to any rewording that implies or emphasizes the idea that the rioters were all gay males, since that seems to directly go against the emphasis in the sources; and even the "they were 98% male" bit seems like WP:OR in this context because it contradicts how most sources frame the participants as a whole (that is, it's not appropriate to dig out statistics and use them to argue against sources that flatly describe the rioters as diverse.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with this; I'm very skeptical of the 98% claim. More than one of the more famous participants in the original riot were non-men. If they really were a mere 2% of the patronage that'd be a remarkable coincidence and sample bias, especially when media credit would be biased against woman and trans woman. Additionally, not all those who joined the riot were originally in the bar, and the initial night was not the whole of what the Stonewall Riots consisted of, so a number just about bar patrons would not necessarily justify how we describe the whole event regardless. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Only just now seeing this discussion. I thought we had a cite for the evolution of the term "gay community -> lesbian and gay community -> LGBT community" and approx. when these shifts have happened. IIRC Hoffman is one cite, and as she was writing for Gay Community News, her perspective on it is pretty good. I'll put it in (or back). It's a bit difficult to do this precisely, however, as the shifts happened at slightly different time in different regions. Bi and Trans were not added to the names in most places until the '90s at the earliest, and in many cases till the '00s. As for the clientele... we've discussed here how a lot of revisionism has taken place in both the LGBT and mainstream press since the '00s. Those of us old enough to have seen the changes, as well as more thorough historians and those who've looked into it since it's been brought up here, know that, aside from Stormé, most of the rioters were men. Marsha self-id'ed as a drag queen, and only got there after the bar was on fire, and Sylvia was not there at all on the first night. We really need to update this with the information from Carter about how he was pressured to fabricate the content about Sylvia being there on the first night. It's been in Sylvia and Marsha's articles for years now. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

We really need to update this with the information from Carter about how he was pressured to fabricate the content about Sylvia being there on the first night. Citation needed! That seems somewhat of an extraordinary claim, and I cannot find anything to verify that from a quick Google search. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

As I said above, it's all sourced in Sylvia Rivera. Especially in Sylvia Rivera#Early activism: youth - 1973. There are tons of pop-culture "sources" that have not done due diligence, resulting in "common knowledge" about the uprising that is simply wrong. I know this is very, very common misinformation that is out there. Carter himself is to blame for some of it, and in the sources cited in the linked section, he explains and apologizes for his role in it.

Per the immediate topic here, I have cited the footnote, formatted it in with the other notes, and one of the cites is to a photo of a poster from 1979 that I quoted. I'm going to add more text from the book to the Gay Community News (Boston) article. There were quite a few Stonewall vets around working with GCN and the NY/Boston East Coast activist community the paper provided a voice for. Marsha P. Johnson and other friends from that circle were part of that activist community, fwiw. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I support the status quo or a change in the text so that it says "LGBT community", not "gay community". This would serve two purposes: the link would not fall afoul of WP:EASTER; and we would be using modern language rather than the language of the era (as we generally do). The footnote would still be necessary to clarify that "gay community" at the time is most closely comparable to "LGBT community" today. Nonetheless, the term "gay community" can still be used with the same meaning it had at the time of Stonewall, so I don't oppose the status quo.

I do, however, oppose the change to the target gay men. Firstly, it is an article mostly about individual identity from ancient history to today (not the modern community). Secondly, it unnecessarily excludes many of the people at the Stonewall Inn (98% male does not mean 98% were not bisexual, transgender etc.). There's a switch in meaning being done between "male members of the gay community" and "gay men". — Bilorv (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This strikes me in a practical sense. If, say, there were a gay male speed dating event with 20 participants, and one of the participants was bisexual, calling all participants gay men still respects the function of the each individual in the social setting. The question of self-identification is one murky, subjective and ideological. Therefore, I think attempting to accommodate that question only serves to deprive the article of its brevity. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

References