Talk:Stonewall riots/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 fag 2 paddywagon 3 November 7th Revision 4 Stonewall riots/Gay Pride Day June 28, not 27 5 Gay Rights Worldwide 6 The numbers game 7 RN edits on August 5, 2005 8 Judy Garland 9 "People of Color 10 Misc wording issues 11 Wrong comment on Iceland 12 Building in 1970s and 1980s 13 Re-added Mac Hall/Three Panel Soul character reference

fag

Can someone please explain why the word "gay" was replaced with "fag" throughout the entire article and why this page is not more secure so as to prevent this type of vandalism/hate speech from being propagated?

paddywagon

"Paddywagon" is an inappropriate word choice in an article discussing bias and civil rights. It is an ethnic slur against those of Irish extraction.

I changed paddywagon to police van. Kingturtle 21:39 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

November 7th Revision

I hope that anyone reading the article found my revision helpful, especially the expansion of the history subsection. I am planning on looking at the general structure of the article and maybe rewriting it so that it flows much more smoothly, but I thought this was a nice way to start. Does anyone have a suggestion for the next revision? Are there any points that you would like expanded or clarified? Is there anything you did not like about my revision?

Cari0028 17:42, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I write here bcz i am loath to reverse the meaning of language that has stood so long without fundamental change. But it is so implausible as it stands that i can only attribute it lack of attention to the meaning of the final wording. Specifically, language added in the edit that produced that revision includes

Throughout the 1960s, however, raids on bars in many major cities became markedly less frequent. A series of court challenges and increased resistance from the Homophile Movement can be attributed to the decline in raids.

which states that court cases and Homophile-Movement activities increased in response to an unexplained amelioration of the raiding. Surely there was a draft where this passage was recast in some way analogous to changing the verb from active to passive voice, and interchanging the subject and object -- but with one of those two counterbalancing steps being omitted, so that the roles of cause and effect were reversed. My revision would have been

Throughout the 1960s, however, raids on bars in many major cities became markedly less frequent. The decline in raids can be attributed to a series of court challenges and increased resistance from the Homophile Movement.

and i am replacing the current version with a modification of that to reflect some NPoV'g that has taken place in the interim:

[In the 1960s] sudden raids on bars in many major cities became markedly less frequent. Most conclude that the decline in raids can be attributed to a series of court challenges and increased resistance from the Homophile Movement.

I assert not the accuracy of this version, but rather that the editor surely did not intend what has been there the last 14 months, and must have intended to assert something very close to my version. The need for verification is a separate matter; IMO, its resolution is more likely to be helped than hindered, by having a coherant and plausible version (whether or not an accurate one) there to stimulate discussion.
--Jerzy•t 00:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Stonewall riots/Gay Pride Day June 28, not 27

Pinpointing the exact date of the Stonewall riots can be difficult as the events took place over several days, in fact over the better part of a week. However, it seems to be generally accepted that the initial police raid on the Stonewall Inn, which spurred the riots, took place somewhere between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. on Saturday, June 28, 1969.

This was, of course, "Friday night", but still June 28. Furthermore, the protest continued on Saturday, June 28, with people returning to the site on Christopher Street, demonstrating and for the first time celebrating the events of the previous night, where the LGBT community had stood up to oppression and faught back. Also, the first "Christopher Street Liberation Day" (or today Gay Pride Day) march/parade took place exactly one year later, one Sunday, June 28, 1970, the 1st anniversary of the riots.

In NYC, Gay Pride Day is celebrated every year on the last Sunday in June. (The week leading up to that day is Gay Pride Week; June is Gay Pride Month.) However, if a date is to be associated with the Stonewall riots, that date should be June 28.

--194.255.112.18 20:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• While that is correct, the raid did occur at 1:20 AM on June 28, 1969 (The time is given by Martin Duberman in his book on the subject), the date that it is recorded in various historical texts and secondary sources (see John D'Emilio's Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities; Martin Duberman's Stonewall; or Dennis Altman's Homosexual: Oppression and Liberation) is given as June 27, 1969. Some texts suggest that undercover detectives had gone to the club prior to midnight, so the date is fairly confusing, but generally within history it is agreed upon that the historical date for the event was on June 27. Yes the riots continued for three nights (Friday night, Saturday night, and Wednesday night) but the beginning of the entire debacle was on Friday. If you have a text that suggests otherwise, please let me know, I would be quite interested to read it. Cari0028 23:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gay Rights Worldwide

I just read this article and like many other articles in Wikipedia, it is wildly inaccurate. It states that the Stonewall Riots was the beginning of Gay Rights Worldwide. It was not. Maybe here in America, yes. The first time I ever heard about this subject was in two articles in Time Magazine and Newsweek Magazine in July or August 1969. These two articles said that there was a series of riots in Paris, France at a Gay Bar not long before the Stonewall Riots in NYC. These articles also stated that the French Gay Rights Activists did not like being called Homosexuals or Queers, but prefered to be called Gay. They also said that being Gay or Lesbian was a Sexual Preference. As far as I am concerned, World Gay Rights started in Paris, France and not NYC. After the Stonewall Riots, NYC politicians began to call for decodification of the laws that allowed the NYC Police to prosecute Homosexuals calling them "Witch Hunts" and "persecution" and began passing the first Gay Rights laws. I was not aware that the word "Paddywagon" was an ethinc slur against the Irish. A Paddywagon is a truck or bus used to transport perpetrators from the arrest location to the central booking center or jail. They are usually employed in mass arrests.

Supercool Dude 14:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• While I accept your criticism of this article, I would like to take this opportunity to respond. To begin with, this article is not "wildly inaccurate," it is well documented and well researched. After re-reading the article I failed to find anywhere that it stated that the gay rights movement was created in NYC or by the Stonewall Riots. THe article does state that it was a turning point for gay rights worldwide, but not that it created the movement. The first gay rights group that had any success in the US was founded in 1950 (the Mattachine Society). Groups such as the Gay Liberation Front and the Mattachine Society were appearing concurrently throughout the world. Stonewall, however, has achieved a notoriety within the gay community unlike any other event. It is this notoriety that gives it its power. Stonewall sparked the creation of the GLF which then appeared in chapters across the US and elsewhere in the world. Also, in NYC public officials had been slowly decriminalizing homosexuality, as was stated in the article. This did not suddenly begin with Stonewall. If you are interested in this subject further I highly recommend reading George Chauncey's Gay New York and John D'Emilio's Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, they will serve as excellent resources. And please, if you find information that is contrary to what is listed in this article I would be extremely helpful to me (especially because this is an area I love to study) if you could list the source so that I may have a chance to read through it. Cari0028 03:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The numbers game

After reading through some recent revisions I was confused by a few of the changes in numbers. The number of people arrested on the first night, and the number of people in attendence on the Wednesday. They were revised to an extrememly high number. The number of people arrested was changed from 13 to 354. While I welcome people to change erroneous information, please cite where your information came from. It is highly unlikely that 354 people were arrested as there were only between 200 and 300 (though some peg the number at 400) people outside of the Stonewall Inn that night. I changed the number back to 13. Also, I changed the number of people in attendance from over 5000 to over 1000.

I encourage people to research the issue further to see if there is a more accurate number for the number of people rioting on Wednesday night. For changes to these types of numbers, it is important to cite the source so that others can check your work. I got both numbers from Martin Duberman's book Stonewall. My intention is not to discourage people from making changes, but it is important that this article be as accurate as possible. Thanks. Cari0028 17:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RN edits on August 5, 2005

Could someone please look at the edits made by RN on August 5, 2005? When I read the changes I felt like there was no increased readability, just increased wordliness.... I just wanted to see if anyone else felt the same way. Cari0028 19:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Judy Garland

Some of the text appears non-NPOV. Also, should that really be mentioned? It seems that it's just conjecture, which would be original research. --isquitenice

I agree, and I propose that either a reference be found to support the Garland reference or it be removed. (At the 25th anniversary Stonewall march in 1994 they were selling ruby slippers t-shirts, but I don't suppose I could find a reference for that.) Rivertorch 02:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Apart from its current vaguery, I don't know why mention of the death of Judy Garland should be controversial. The article states that "perhaps 12,000" gay men had attended her funeral on Friday morning, and that the riots began, in effect, late that night. If we can assume the 12,000 figure is even remotely correct, it indicates that Judy Garland was a person of great significance in the gay community - specifically, the New York gay community. It also suggests that there was overlap between the attendees of the funeral and the rioters at Stonewall. Clearly, her death was on people's minds, and when discussing a riot, it is important to consider state of mind. Had 12,000 gay men attended, on the morning of the riot, the funeral of a politician, writer, or activist, I think the significance of the funeral as an instigating factor would already be generally acknowledged. Sure, Judy Garland was an entertainer, but it is the level of her significance to the community that determines to what extent her death may have affected people's state of mind. Sevenwarlocks 14:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What you say makes perfect sense, and I don't doubt that it's true. My point was simply that it should be possible to find one or more credible citations in print or online to support the Garland connection. In the absence of such, it seems appropriate for an encyclopedia to avoid mentioning the connection. On a related topic, I made modifications to your mostly very worthwhile edit of the lead paragraph: I restored the word "worldwide" because it is significant (Stonewall was a watershed internationally) and I changed your wording from "law enforcement action" which sounds benign or potentially even positive to "police harassment" which is equally accurate but better conveys the reality of it. Rivertorch 18:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rivertorch. No more to add about JG, but I'm not sure I agree with your change from “law enforcement action” to “police harassment”. Law was being enforced - though, yes, arresting people because of how they are dressed is clearly harassment, so I think we are both technically accurate. "Police harassment", though, sounds more POV to me than "law enforcement action". I leave the issue for others to decide, but I propose "police action" as a possible compromise. That would make the last phrase of the paragraph "police action directed towards their community" which I think is about as NPOV as possible. Sevenwarlocks 18:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well . . . I don't feel tremendously strongly about "police harassment" vs. "law enforcement action", but I don't think that the former implies that the harassment was illegal or somehow apart from enforcing the law. I can think of other examples where the police harass people in the line of duty. And it's not really all that loaded a word, is it? (Harass: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation. --Oxford Amer. Dict.) "Police action" sounds like a euphemism for invading certain Asian countries, though! Rivertorch 02:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to say -- I just came across this article and found the Judy Garland section to be almost comical, suggesting it should be edited or removed. No source is cited that would support a connection between the riots and Judy Garland's death. Perhaps the absurdity of the connection can be demonstrated by me just writing it out: "Gay people started rioting because they were distraught over Judy Garland's death." It seems to almost satirize gay people. But, maybe I'm underestimating Judy Garland's importance.

Regarding the change in wording to "police harassment": I find this misleading. The OED says of harassment "now freq., subject to constant molesting and persecution." Is this appropriate to apply to police actions against a premises selling alcohol without a license? The Stonewall raid, like the raid on the Snake Pit months later, and like most of the police actions against what were euphemistically termed "after-hours bars" was law enforcement. It was, and remains, a violation of the law to serve alcoholic beverages without a license in New York State. Unlicensed drinking establishments patronized by other NYC minorities were also regularly raided and put out of business. As a former patron of the Stonewall, the Snake Pit and other unlicensed places I can testify that I (and other gay NYC men in this era) did not regard police raids, etc. against these places as anything like "harassment." These establishments were blatantly illegal, and we all knew that and we knew the risks of patronizing them. What we felt was truly harassment were the police visits, ID checks, etc. to bars which did have state licenses and did follow the legal regulations, but were being leaned on because they catered to gay men. Granted, the State Liquor Authority of that time considered that serving homosexuals was grounds for a bar losing it's license (and this had been supported by a court decision in 1940), but this was not the same as the crime of running an unlicensed bar. (I don't know of any other resource than the morgue files of the NY Times, but if one had the patience to check them you would find that in the Sixties and Seventies unlicensed establishments catering to Hispanics in NYC were also periodically raided and put out of business.) I think if the article is going to give a correct perspective, it is going to have to distinguish the illegality of the Stonewall operation, the legitimacy of law enforcement and the reaction of the patrons to the police. With all due respect to those have worked hard on this article, it is my opinion that "police harassment" is an unclear and inaccurate description for the lead paragraph.Jfpessoa 17:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's ludicrous to suggest removing this reference to Judy Garland. Whether it's truth, folklore, or some mixture of the two, it's a major part of the story as it's been told for the past 36 years! The loss of Judy Garland certainly created a black cloud over the lives of all us gay men in the weeks following her death. It's not only plausible that heightened emotions, depression, and/or a sense of community was created, each of which could have contributed in some way. I think many of you are simply too young to know what you're talking about, and are suggesting re-writing the history to fit your post-Madonna views on gay life and history.

The only remaining reference to Garland is about a book debunking a number of myths that have surrounded the events ... including the oft-repeated urban legend that it was the death of Judy Garland that sparked the riots. - "debunking" and "urban legend" are POV, and "her death sparked the riots" is a misrepresentation of what has actually been said (e.g. here): that her funeral on the same day (which isn't even mentioned in this article!) had brought large numbers of gays together in public and that this probably contributed to a sense of togetherness and power. I'm too young to have been there but I find it plausible. Just saying that someone "debunked" it doesn't convince me.--87.162.45.101 13:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"People of Color

I removed the sentence: "What is often forgotten when looking at this event was that it was lead by mostly people of color, often forgotten, ignored or erased in the LGBT rights movement." which was posted on October 17, 2006. This is an unreferenced statement and contains opinion rather than fact when it asserts that the people of color were "forgotten, ignored or erased." If you have reputable sources which recount specific persons in conflict or controversy against other specific persons regarding the leadership or participation of "people of color," please post those specific media sources by date and publication reference so that all readers can verify the information independently. OfficeGirl 21:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire paragraph beginning "Race may have been another factor," needs to be seriously revised or junked. Dawn Hampton, a black employee at the Stonewall, is quoted in David Carter's book as saying that the bar's customers were Spanish, whites and blacks, but emphasizes "there were more whites than the others." The few photos of the events show a majority of white faces, though undoubtedly many of these may be Hispanic. 85.240.215.168 17:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)jfpessoa

Misc wording issues

It is misleading at best to refer to members of the public who are not members of a police force as "civilians" by way of differentiation. Policemen are generally civilians who are not members of a uniformed fighting force, are not subject to military orders nor to courts martial. It might be better to refer to "members of the general public" or even "non police" or some other term. The use of the term "civilian" in context confuses the issue of respective rights, authority and relationship to the government. [comment added by 216.254.13.70 on 22 Jan., 2007]

You should feel free to change the wording in any article when you notice what you believe to be an error in usage. In this instance, however, you should know that the Oxford American Dictionary defines "civilian" as "a person not in the armed services or police force." The American Heritage Dictionary: "A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police." Merriam-Webster: "one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force." Rivertorch 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong comment on Iceland

What's the source for the statement on Iceland? It's wrong in any case as Iceland does not have equal rights in these matters as the article asserts. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Building in 1970s and 1980s

This article contradicts the Stonewall Inn article. It says:

The actual Stonewall Inn was vacant and closed for most of the 1970s and '80s. It reopened after its first renovation in the early 1990s. A second renovation in the late 1990s brought in new crowds to its new multi-floor layout. The club remained popular until management lost its lease in 2006. New management reopened the latest version of The Stonewall in February 2007.

Whereas the Stonewall Inn article claims:

The Stonewall Inn closed in late 1969. Over the next twenty years, the space was occupied by various other establishments, including a bagel sandwich shop, a Chinese restaurant, and a shoe store. Many visitors and new residents in the neighborhood were unaware of the building's history or its connection to the Stonewall riots. In the early 1990s, a new gay bar, named simply "Stonewall" opened in the west half of the original Stonewall Inn.

So which is it? Was the building vacant, or occupied by a series of various shops and restaurants? I would tend to believe the latter, but would appreciate any confirmation. --Chancemichaels 19:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

I lived in NYC during the years in question. The building was occupied by a series of businesses, including at one time a popular bagel store which was patronized by many gay men. Jfpessoa 15:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-added Mac Hall/Three Panel Soul character reference

Why was this taken out in the first place? Mac Hall and Three Panel Soul are immensely popular webcomics, each has its own entry, and each satisfies the criteria for importance. I don't know who took this out or why - if it's some sort of prejudice against webcomics, it needs to stop. This is a perfectly valid popular culture reference... 75.51.75.32 (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please add a ref for it and it should be fine. Benjiboi 01:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)