Talk:Stonewall riots/Archive 8

I would like to question the use of the term, "riot", in this article. I am concerned that it is rather pejorative and somewhat imprecise. According to the Oxford American Dictionary, "riot" refers to "a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd". In the case of the Stonewall Rebellion, the term, "riot", is inaccurate, as the peace was not initially violated by an existing crowd, but by a corrupt police force. I believe that the term, "rebellion", is more accurate in this case, as it refers to "an act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler" or "the action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention". In the case of the Stonewall Rebellion, patrons were responding to violent persecution by a government entity with non-violent forms of resistance (chorus lines, singing) or minor acts of force (bottle and coin throwing).

Watershed for the mainstream use of the term "gay"?

See Bringing_up_Baby#Use_of_word_.22gay.22. Is this something the authors of this article have come across, and should it be mentioned in this article?  Skomorokh  23:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I need to see Russo's writing, but I hold some skepticism for this. Russo wrote an excellent history of the depiction of gays and lesbians in the movies. I used it for writing a part of the Lesbian article. My skepticism comes more from the issues of secrecy before the Stonewall riots. Barbara Gittings and Frank Kameny were using "gay" in the early 1960s. But the prevailing attitude in the U.S. imposed secrecy on most of society. In formal/psychiatric/government literature, it was referred to as homosexuality. Many gays and lesbians were so closeted that they developed a separate language, refusing to use any adjectives that would clue outsiders into what was going on. They used "family" or "in the life". Lesbian pulp fiction titles used "gay" as a double entendre in the early 1960s[1]. Ann Bannon used "gay" to mean homosexual in the late 1950s--and also wrote a recent article about the use of "gay" by Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby.

If anything, the Stonewall riots made it possible for people to discuss issues about homosexuality. People began to use "gay" more because homosexuals were no longer perverted pariahs considered to slink around dark alleys in trench coats looking to sell secrets to the Russians. --Moni3 (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I remember hearing someone in the public media saying in 1967 that it used to be that "a man wouldn't sue you for calling him gay." Hence the double meaning was "out" by 1967. I always wondered whether there was a chicken/egg thing about Cary Grant's use of gay in the 1938 movie (penned by Dudley Nichols and Hagar Wilde if that helps anyone). That is, he used the word while wearing a woman's robe; so, either the writers already knew the word to have a double meaning or else gay viewers of the film were inspired by the film to use the word in a new way. Milesnfowler (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Note #1 seems to refer to a remark in the article about the situation for gays in Warsaw Pact countries but doesn't support it. Perhaps sources cited in note have something to say about conditions in Eastern Europe in the late 1960s, but this is not made clear in the note. I would expect that things were as bad or worse for gays in Eastern Europe at that time, so the claim begs to be supported. Milesnfowler (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent spam

Moni3 requested that the recent spam URLs be added to the spam blacklist; it looks like this has now been done.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 14:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It was added yesterday, before the daily spam tag. I don't know if it did any good. --Moni3 (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there may have been a problem when it was first added; it looks like it was fixed later (shortly before I posted), so fingers crossed...! TFOWR^propaganda 15:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I expect that I'll probably go about this incorrectly but try to bear with me.

There's some new info via the movie source, and the NYPL isn't online but involved retrieving Rodwell's papers during a previously arranged search through his materials where I obtained a copy from the NYPL of the leaflet that is available for public inspection (NYPL, Rodwell Paper's, Series 4, Box 11, pg. 7, http://legacy.www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/rbk/faids/rodwell.pdf). I hadn't found a copy of one of the leaflets referred to by Sargeant at any online source, except at Marotta's archive (Marotta's Ph.D. came from the material in his Politics of Homosexuality), as well as its appearance on screen in the documentary (David Carter and Eric Marcus worked as consultants for the project, and are credited as such). I may have missed it but don't recall seeing it in Teal or Duberman. That doesn't mean that it isn't there but I don't have the texts available to me today. I'd made the trip to see the first day opening of the documentary (Which included a Q&A with producers, directors, writers and consultants) and, like Mixner, found it to contain new information.

Can you tell me what over-citing would be, as in, for instance, the previously undisclosed number of leaflets produced? Sargeant was involved with Rodwell in creating and distributing them starting the morning after the first night of rioting and this is the first source with historical scholarship attached that has his statement regarding this item. The remaining copy is one of a series produced by the two in the tumult of organizing by activists in the midst of the riots. I tried looking for it (over-citing) in the WP:RS but apparently am missing it.

Without disparaging any one individual, there are disputes regarding the scholarship of some of the material frequently cited in some of the Stonewall associated articles, so I've tried to back up some of those sources, where possible, with corroborative citations that may be of assistance in the case future verification issues. Stnwll (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Overciting is citing a fact five times when one will do. The fact in question is that Rodwell distributed leaflets that asserted the Mafia and NYC PD were working together to extort patrons of NY area gay bars. Both Duberman and Teal assert this. I think the "Keep the Cops and Mafia Out of Gay Bars" leaflet is reprinted in Teal. Teal reprints a few of the primary sources.

So that fact really isn't tremendously controversial. Not as controversial as say, homosexuality is no longer a mental illness, or some scientists believe homosexuality is genetic or biological. That sort of fact requires multiple citations. Citing a simple fact five times is such overkill that it warrants suspicion. It's also disruptive in the flow of words.

Furthermore, per reliable source policy, and what kind of sources to use policy, secondary sources are favored over primary. Rodwell's leaflet is a primary source. A historian's discussion of the leaflet is a secondary source. Duberman, although I understand his work is not as well-respected as Carter's, and Teal both discuss Rodwell's assertions. Does this make sense? --Moni3 (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• I found the original Truscott article online [2], and have been attempting to use it as a cite, with some formatting difficulty that I'm trying to sort out. One thing I wanted to point out: I quoted his famous inflammatory phrase in the second paragraph of his article "forces of faggotry." I'm not sure that's quite suitable for Wikipedia and I know it's offensive, so I wanted to point that out. I believe it has been quoted a number of times so I thought that it should be specifically mentioned. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm watching your edits, ScottyBerg. I don't think the issue about 2 policewomen needs to be cited by Truscott. His story is a primary source now, and as is pointed out in the article, somewhat biased so not the best to cite other than what they wrote. For the issue about "forces of faggotry" it's an appropriate citation. For most anything else, it's probably not. David Carter's book is the cite used for the policewomen.

I'd be happy to help you if you need further assistance formatting citations and cite anchors, though. Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I took out about the two policemen and also it being the second raid in the space of a week, as both are attributed to Truscott. I had the formatting of that totally screwed up, and erroneously put it in a footnote. Would there be a problem if I put it in the main text attributed to Truscott? (You may have a better source.) I don't believe that is in the article at present. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that information is already in the article. The last sentence in the Stonewall Inn section mentions the raid the previous Tuesday, and the second sentence in the Police raid section mentions the policewomen. So, adding the information isn't necessary. Nor is citing it to Truscott. --Moni3 (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Should have read the article more thoroughly. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Stonewall riots in culture" section

I wonder if there could be a bit more on film depictions of these events and on the impact on culture generally. My interest in this was jogged by the new film Stonewall Uprising (which is why I parachuted into this article) and I expect that it is going to get more interest because of that. Right now there is just a list of films, and maybe there should be a bit more. Also I wonder if maybe the police corruption and Mafia aspects deserve more treatment generally. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the American Experience documentary, and I was glad it was done. I found it a good film. However, what you're suggesting is that information be placed in this article about depictions and sources. If information about the Stonewall Uprising documentary, why not information about David Carter's book? Or Duberman's? The article begins to lose cohesion at this point and generally source material begins to degrade. David Carter's book was the primary source for the documentary; what source would you be able to find to be as or more authoritative than Carter to address the quality of the documentary? There's already an article on the documentary. Commentary about the film should go in that article. This article should focus solely on the events of the Stonewall riots and what changes were spawned from them. --Moni3 (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to a documentary that just began being shown in the movie theaters. I don't believe it was broadcast on American Experience, though I could be wrong on that. Yes, a discussion of the books would definitely be a good idea. If not a section, then perhaps a separate article? I think an article like that would be very useful. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there are two separate documentaries that have just been released. The one I saw interviewed David Carter, Seymour Pine, and a few of the riot participants. It was made a part of PBS American Experience documentary series. It was screened at the Miami LGBT film festival and has been shown a few other places as well. According to the IMDb page, it's the same film.

Unless source material becomes available that discusses the quality of other sources, which Carter does in relation to the Truscott and Smith Village Voice articles from 1969, a section about the sources is not really possible at this time and it detracts from the point of this article. If you want to create an article about David Carter's book, if there's enough material to write about it, then do it. It should meet the qualifications of notability, however. Not all sources used on Wikipedia do that. I think it's a very bad idea to include a discussion in this article about the sources or depictions in film and media. That is a tangent that does not address the events of the Stonewall riots. --Moni3 (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll mull over what you're saying. As for the documentary: yes, it is the same one. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Storme Delarverie

The identity of the woman who fought with police is disputed. Although Charles Kaiser may have identified her as Storme Delarverie in 2007, I had a conversation with David Carter this past April where he said the woman's identity still remains unclear. I'm going to get Mr. Carter to weigh in on this. For now, to keep from misinforming readers and possibly violating Ms. DeLarverie's privacy, the edit is going to remain hidden until her involvement in the bar raid can be unquestioned. --Moni3 (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: See p. 309 in Carter's book, linked here to GoogleBooks. Better yet, check out the entire book. Carter says DeLarverie claimed to be outside the Stonewall when she was hit by a policeman, she is black when witnesses say the woman carried from the bar was white, and she was well-known in the lesbian bar community and would have been recognized by people in the bar and watching her get taken from the Stonewall. I'm removing this reference. --Moni3 (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you've spoken to Carter, you may then be aware of Delaverie's association with a groupwhose members have claimed to have been at Stonewall but whose stories have changed as new details about the arrests made on the first night have emerged. I spoke to Duncan Osborn last year, who's probably written most about the group and its leader, as I was doing some research on the group and, while the public records written about thus far on the group's leader are damaging to his credibility, there's still a bit more to be published in the future. Craig Rodwell first mentioned this group of people to me, before they'd formally organized, and he'd never heard of or met any of them until nearly 10 years after Stonewall. He'd labeled them as being part of the growing group of people who'd claimed to have been at Stonewall but who no one who was known to have in fact been there could recall. I'm obviously not naming the group since, while they're not hard to find, I don't want contribute to directly publicizing them here.

The arrest record for Fowler doesn't seem to indicate race, although that could possibly be in the blacked out portion (usually shown then as WF or BF). My recollection is that the woman taken away was white. Whether or not she was Fowler or that she remained arrested is impossible to say. Stnwll (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sylvia Rivera

Sylvia Rivera is mentioned in the article. Apparently he/she was never really at Stonewall even if he/she claimed to have been there. Biographers, Historians, and people who were actually at the Stonewall riots have all said how Silvia Rivera was never there at them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.163.99 (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sources say differently. If you can provide a source better than those in the article that say Rivera was not there, please do so. --Moni3 (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sylvia Rivera is often described as a veteran of the Stonewall Riots - the protest against homophobic abuse that, in the minds of many, birthed the modern LGBT rights movement. Some credit her with being the first to strike back at the police and spark the riots. In fact, there is no evidence that Sylvia Rivera was at the Stonewall either the first night of the riots or any of the subsequent nights that week. No contemporary account of the Stonewall rebellion makes any mention of either Sylvia Rivera or Rey Rivera (her birth name, which Martin Duberman misspells throughout his book).

None of the very few photographs of Stonewall participants includes Sylvia Rivera. And several months after the riots, in an interview she gave to a gay 'zine, Sylvia Rivera made no mention of any involvement in the riots. Nor does David Carter make any mention of Sylvia Rivera in his book, "Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution," the only book-length account of the riots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.163.99 (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Photographs are not reliable as only one photograph has been published of the first night and very few of the second. Two hundred people were at the bar that evening and several hundred more out on the street, so it would be extraordinary that the fledgling gay publications, Don Teal, or the GLF or GAA in their early literature would have mentioned everyone there. An absence of mention in Carter's book, excellent as it is, does not mean she was not there. You need to provide a source to say she was not there. A very good one. --Moni3 (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bias

this article violates NPV policy. --Conor Fallon (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to be a bit more specific. I'm removing the tag in the meantime. Rivertorch (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I will be specific - how can the description "people in the homosexual community fought back against a government-sponsored system that persecuted sexual minorities" be anything other than emotive and very POV, and incidentally also incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not specific—it's vague. But never mind. In glancing over your contributions, I found talk-page posts like this one, in which you argue that describing the word "faggot" as a common slur is "very emotive and POV"; this one, in which you make the absurd claim that "traditionally homosexuality was regarded as sinful, but was neither illegal nor feared"; and this gem, in which you muse about God being pleased when gay men die prematurely. So don't bother wasting anyone's time here; your point of view is crystal clear. Rivertorch (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Although Rivertorch makes some compelling points with those diffs, I'm the primary author of this article and would like to see what Anon IP thinks is inaccurate about the sentence s/he highlighted. People in the homosexual community? Fought back? Government-sponsored system? Persecuted sexual minorities? Or all of it? Please provide excellent reliable sources to refute this sentence, which is a summary of the issues cited in the article. One that says people at the Stonewall riots were not in the homosexual community, or that they did not fight, or that the persecution they experienced was not government-sponsored, or that there was no persecution. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello -- I've come here from WP:3O. It seems to me that the sources cited in the article support the claim being made in the passage cited by CnrFallon. I would suggest that CnrFallon provide reliable sources which provide an alternative perspective if he believes that something is lacking, or that there is information that would imply that the assertion is incorrect. CnrFallon -- could you please be more specific about why you think the passage is biased? How would you rewrite it to make it better? ~ Mesoderm (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is extreamly biased Wikipedia's job is not to give an opinion merly to state facts and give data if you cannot seperate yourself from your bias ideology beliefs point of vew opinion or emotions then you should leave wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.209.248 (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The local and national press covered the event extensively.

Unless I'm greatly mistaken there was no national gay press at all in 1969. At least I have never hear of one. Gay, Come Out!, Gay Power were all started after Stonewall. Jack Nichols had a column in Screw but that was the only 'gay press' that I ever knew of...DOB and Mattachine had newsletters for their members. As far as Stonewall being covered in the straight press..The New York Times had a small article, the New York Post had a very nasty one and then there's the famous Village Voice one...other than that Stonewall didn't make news in Washington, DC or Boston or anyplace that I'm aware of...I'd be happy to know otherwise. Pjefts (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your point is not an incorrect one. A source made this point and now I have to access the source to re-read what it said. I had to summarize it for the article, leaving out some nuances. I believe, however, that the smaller details add up to the fact that it was reported in the mainstream media extensively for a gay issue, and that for the months following the riots it continued to be reported on, not just by the growing gay press, but by mainstream publications. Esquire, for example, was probably the publication that suggested the queens rioted because Judy Garland died, six months after the event. In an era when the only news gay people made was for their arrests for being perverts, this equated to a big effing deal. I'm a bit informal now, it being Sunday night and all, but I hope I conveyed the same ideas. If you have suggestions for this sentence to make it clearer without the sentence introducing a tangent, feel free to suggest away. --Moni3 (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The article by Tom Burke The new homosexual which appeared in Esquire although it mentioned Stonewall was really about the new militancy. It contrasts Dick Leitsch and Jim Fouratt. I learned in Freshmen Logic not to try to prove a negative, so I won't try to prove that Stonewall wasn't "reported in the mainstream media extensively" but if it was it certainly got by me and the friends that I've spoken to about this. The three or so articles in the New York newspapers and some coverage in the underground press e.g., Rat isn't what I would define as extensive. Basically, I just want to say that gay stories in general were given next to no coverage which is why so many efforts were made to get into the news. GAA targeted media to make news as did GLF. Stonewall was generally ignored as a topic even by gay writers who had many more things to say at the time. The historical view of the event didn't really emerge until the tenth or even the twentieth anniversary. I came out in 1968 and like most of us I scanned the straight press constantly for news. Word of mouth was how most news traveled...our phase at the time which I think is telling was "Tel(l)aphone, tel(l)agraph, tell a queer". Without going into a tangent about this I would simply suggest removing the sentence. No disrespect meant. Pjefts (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The section this sentence is in is describing the legacy of the Stonewall riots and comparing them to two previous riots in the gay community that may have been equal in force and number of participants--as well as the nearly 20 years of activism by organizations like the Mattachine Society, but did not make an impact as the Stonewall riots did. And I apologize that I have not been able to access the source, but I recall it making points I made above: it was publicized quite a lot for a gay event, it received coverage in the new gay press, and in the years following the riots, they became a cornerstone that the gay press continued to mention, making the "before Stonewall" and "after Stonewall" eras. I disagree with removing it, primarily because an academic source has made the points and it would be original research to assert that the source is incorrect. It probably should be clarified and I have no objection to that as long as the clarification does not become a tangent that makes the paragraph unwieldy. I will do my best to get this source again as soon as possible. --Moni3 (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I got the source. There are two relevant excerpts:

Activists immediately began to construct the significance of the event: Rodwell called media contacts at the New York daily papers. Perhaps due to Rodwell’s calls, the press showed up and the event received extensive coverage in the local newspapers the next day. The treatment was generally homophobic, ranging from sensationalist (i.e., the New York Daily News, the Village Voice) to short, sterile, and deeply buried (i.e., the New York Times) (Alwood 1996:85). Still, the coverage was unprecedented, and it brought people out the next day to see the ruined bar and its gay power graffiti.

Accounts of the riots continued to be published in a variety of venues over the coming months (see Table 2). New access to local main- stream, local alternative, and national gay news outlets made this possible (see Table 2 and Figure 1). Coverage in The Advocate was extensive (Jackson 1969; Leitsch 1969a; Clark and Nichols 1969). Access to these venues was important because New York’s local gay press was not well developed before Stonewall. Thus, the national scope of gay mnemonic capacity aided in the dissemination of news of Stonewall.

(Table 2 demonstrates that the Stonewall riots were reported in 39 publications between 1969 and 1970, including 12 mainstream newspapers and 9 "nonlocal homosexual" ones.) --Moni3 (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please cite the book that this comes from...I really want to read it. Pjefts (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a journal article: Armstrong, Elizabeth, Crage, Suzanna (October 2006). "Movements and Memory: The Making of the Stonewall Myth", American Sociological Review, 71 (5) p. 724–752. --Moni3 (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. Pjefts (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

First off, the Stonewall riots were NOT reported in 39 publications...there were 39 separate articles over the period of a year. Read your source more carefully. There were 12 articles in the mainstream press and about the same number in the "alternative" or underground press. The articles in the "homosexual" press probably appeared in newsletters not in something that one could buy at a newstand. I have written to Dr. Armstrong requesting the bibliography of the 39 articles that she used for her study. What counts as "extensive" for an academic sociological paper doesn't mean "extensive" for a historical account of the event and its effects.

in regards to the New York Times article which was all of six paragraphs.."The tone of the article and its placement deep inside the newspaper came as no surprise to homosexuals. 'I didn't expect it to be on the front page because the Times didn't cover gay stuff,' recalled Martha Shelley, then president of the New York chapter of Daughters of Bilitis. 'I knew that if there had been that many black people rioting in Manhattan, the story would have been front page news.'"...p.85 in Straight news : gays, lesbians and the news media

in regards to the general sense of GLBT people.."Since for many of us our main source of news was the 'establishment' press such as the New York Times, it was no wonder that we missed the significance of the riots...p.17 in Long road to freedom : the Advocate history of the gay and lesbian movement

I've spoken with Martha Shelley, Karla Jay and Allen Young, who was at the Liberation News Service office at the time and reports that nothing came out of their office to the 500 plus underground papers they served about Stonewall, and they agree with me... I will gladly contact Perry Brass, Frank Kameny and other of my peers to confirm if you wish. Pjefts (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should contact Elizabeth A. Armstrong and Suzanna M. Crage, authors of the article in question. Armstrong's page is here. Crage's info is here. They may be interested to know that their conclusions are being questioned. In fact, if you wish to pursue this, I will be glad to contact them myself. Occasionally academics will add input on talk pages where their books or articles are being used as sources, or they have an established expertise.

Furthermore, contacting people who were at Stonewall or had a vested interest in archiving news reports about the riots to get them to weigh in here is not the appropriate avenue to take just yet. On Wikipedia at least. Wikipedia puts heavy emphasis on reliable sources and virtually none on original research. I recognize that Karla Jay is an academic and Frank Kameny and Martha Shelley are certainly experts in gay activism and history, but they would have to have published information per the reliable sources policy to answer what Armstrong and Crage have. Armstrong and Crage's article compares Stonewall to other violent demonstrations in the gay community that did not get the same amount of attention to answer why Stonewall was so memorable. Unless the people you mentioned have published on this issue, their input on this talk page would be mostly original research.

Are you interested in removing the source by Armstrong and Crage, and thus the paragraph it references in this article? Is this what you are trying to accomplish? If not, are you interested in rewriting the passage (The local press and national gay press covered the event extensively.) in this article? Rewriting the passage is easier, of course, and a matter of finding the right wording that accurately represents what the source states. (Particularly for an issue involving gay activism, the local press and national gay press covered the event extensively, for example.) Throwing out the entire source would be more difficult and the burden of proof would be on you to show that there are blatant errors in the piece. It's not impossible, just more difficult when dealing with a peer-reviewed academic journal article. --Moni3 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in an accuracy. I think there's more than a little WP:OWNERSHIP here Moni3 (talk). Here's a reply from Dr. Edward Alwood the author of Straight news one of the references for this article giving his take on the sentence in question.

"I read the Wikipedia entry with great interest. The section that you are disputing is attributed to an article by Armstrong and Crage. I examined their article where it says “the event received extensive coverage in the local newspapers the next day.” Their article cites my book, Straight News,” as the source. However, my book makes no such claim. Their notes refer to examples I found in the New York Times, the New York Daily News, and the Village Voice. I noticed that Armstrong and Crage used Carter in the preceding paragraph and perhaps they got this notion from his work. I have not read Crage’s book, however, I doubt that Crage or Armstrong and Crage researched the articles as thoroughly as I have. I wholeheartedly disagree with any assessment that regards mainstream media coverage as “extensive.”

The term "extensive," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. While I point out in my book that the Village Voice published an “extensive” article on the riots, I did not and would not describe press coverage generally as extensive. This would imply ongoing, in-depth reporting which the Stonewall riots did not receive in New York or elsewhere. Sociologists may consider the coverage to have been extensive, but as a former journalist who is now a professor and journalism historian, I do not. From my perspective, based on extensive research into primary archival holdings, I believe that describing mainstream media coverage of the Stonewell riots as “extensive” is inaccurate and misleading.

The New York Times, the nation’s newspaper of record, buried its stories on the inside pages. My book points out that the Daily News and the Village Voice gave the riots prominent coverage (front page, bold headlines) but used a mockish tone that clearly did not reflect fairness, balance, and accuracy – hallmarks of mainstream journalism.

We seem to have entered an era of misinformation."

Let's try and work something out. Pjefts (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for working things out, but WP:OWN is not relevant here. You disagree with a reliable source that has been published in an academic journal that has been peer reviewed. I'm not owning the article to say that your word cannot negate the cited article. Mine can't either. I just summarized what the article said.

I already gave a suggestion to resolve this. Did you miss it? --Moni3 (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? What about the comments from Dr. Alwood? IMHO, Wikipedia should be grateful that he bothered to take the time to write his opinion as to the sentence in question here. His authority as an expert in journalism history and the author of a book specifically about the News media and the LGBT community is certainly more reliable in regards to the notability of an event in the news media of the time than an article by a Sociologist about whether or not the news media's coverage of the Stonewall Riots was "extensive". It's not my word against yours or mine against Dr. Armstrong...it's the relevancy and the authority of the sources. As Dr. Alwood noted, from a Sociological view the coverage may have extensive. This article is not a sociological article . Describing the media coverage of Stonewall as "extensive" is inaccurate and misleading. And your suggestion to resolve this is.... Pjefts (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

On May 23, the comment I posted includes this as the last paragraph:

Are you interested in removing the source by Armstrong and Crage, and thus the paragraph it references in this article? Is this what you are trying to accomplish? If not, are you interested in rewriting the passage (The local press and national gay press covered the event extensively.) in this article? Rewriting the passage is easier, of course, and a matter of finding the right wording that accurately represents what the source states. (Particularly for an issue involving gay activism, the local press and national gay press covered the event extensively, for example.) Throwing out the entire source would be more difficult and the burden of proof would be on you to show that there are blatant errors in the piece. It's not impossible, just more difficult when dealing with a peer-reviewed academic journal article.

I still don't know what you're trying to accomplish. Remove the entire paragraph cited to this source? Remove the word "extensively", or clarify what extensively means for an event relevant to gay issues? Or something else? --Moni3 (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello -- I've come here from WP:3O. Pjefts -- it is great that you went out of your way to contact people about this. However, Wikipedia requires that everything we write in article-space be based on reliable sources, and that challenges to those sources come from other reliable sources. I don't personally have any reason not to trust you, and you seem genuinely interested in ensuring that people here are not being misinformed. However, beginning to accept the word of editors about email correspondences they've had with other people, and using those correspondences to challenge peer-reviewed academic sources would be extremely harmful to the credibility of the encyclopedia as a whole, and would surely be abused in other places. I understand that in this instance, it is extremely frustrating to you to know that there is incorrect information in the article, and that you've personally had the author tell you that the source cited is misrepresenting his work. But do you see why we can't just accept your word for it here, and should still adhere to WP:V? Given the circumstances, however, I think it would be very reasonable to use in-text attribution for the claim that the coverage was "extensive". That is, we could say something along the lines of "Armstrong and Crage state that the coverage of the event was extensive." Would that work for you? ~ Mesoderm (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing Moni3 said stood out to me: "Armstrong and Crage's article compares Stonewall to other violent demonstrations in the gay community that did not get the same amount of attention to answer why Stonewall was so memorable." Maybe it would be possibly to include something along those lines in the article. I also noticed that the original journal article used the word "unprecedented" as well as "extensive" to describe the press coverage, perhaps a slightly less ambiguous term. Siawase (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Reiterating that I'm open to rewriting the passage accurate both to the source and the context, as in the event was reported widely for a gay event, compared to past coverage of gay events, or according to Crage and Armstrong, or something similar. It's also possible to add a note in the Notes section to explain the particulars in two or more sentences, as in Armstrong and Crage in American Sociological Review write that the Stonewall riots were covered extensively: it received 39 mentions in newspapers etc. etc. compared to the Compton's Cafeteria riots that were reported X times, etc. (I don't have the article in front of me, so I hope it's clear that we can agree on the specific wording once we know what Pjefts wants changed. I've left a message on his/her talk page to clarify that. --Moni3 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As per Moni3's suggestion I contacted Dr. Armstrong to make her award of this discussion and this is part of her reply to me: "I think the original paraphrase likely referred to two paragraphs:

“Activists immediately began to construct the significance of the event: Rodwell called media contacts at the New York daily papers. Perhaps due to Rodwell’s calls, the press showed up and the event received extensive coverage in the local newspapers the next day. The treatment was generally homophobic, ranging from sensationalist (i.e., the New York Daily News, the Village Voice) to short, sterile, and deeply buried (i.e., the New York Times) (Alwood 1996:85). Still, the coverage was unprecedented, and it brought people out the next day to see the ruined bar and its gay power graffiti.”

“Accounts of the riots continued to be published in a variety of venues over the coming months (see Table 2). New access to local mainstream, local alternative, and national gay news outlets made this possible (see Table 2 and Figure 1). Coverage in The Advocate was extensive (Jackson 1969; Leitsch 1969a; Clark and Nichols 1969). Access to these venues was important because New York’s local gay press was not well developed before Stonewall. Thus, the national scope of gay mnemonic capacity aided in the dissemination of news of Stonewall.”

The article that I wrote was about why Stonewall was remembered while other events were not. All comparisons are with the past and with other similar homosexual events. Therefore, my statements about the level of coverage should be interpreted in reference to how previous and other homosexual events were covered, not in reference to some objective or contemporary standard of coverage.

So, yes, I agree with you that the article should not be cited as proving that Stonewall was known "extensively" to the public at large or even to the gay community at the time." Pjefts (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Once more, do you have a suggestion as to how you would like this reworded? --Moni3 (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to take the sentence out. I don't think it's necessary to support the paragraph and it's an inaccurate description of the press coverage. Pjefts (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Armstrong and Crage

Hi!

The pdf versions of the Armstrong-Crage article are now linked from our WP article to the publisher's site, to JSTOR, and to Professor Armstrong's homepage (via the cite-journal template):

• Armstrong, Elizabeth A.; Crage, Suzanna M. (2006). "Movements and memory: The making of the Stonewall myth" (PDF). American Sociological Review. 71 (5): 724–751. doi:10.1177/000312240607100502. JSTOR 25472425. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

The local NYC media "extensively" covered the riot the next day, according to Armstrong & Crage (2006, p. 737). The Advocate had extensive coverage (Armstrong & Crage 2006, p. 738).

Otherwise, the string "extensive" does not appear in their article. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to change about half the edit you made to remove the cite template. There are no other cite templates in the article and they tend to slow down the loading time for larger articles. All citations have to be uniform in an FA, too. I'm going to keep the doi and the link to the pdf, though, which I assume was the point of making the edit. --Moni3 (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite right: The DOI is to the SAGE Publishing homepage, which is probably less useful than a JSTOR link for many persons. (The Tetrast has warned me about the down-sides of template citations in discussions of Charles Sanders Peirce; I like them, because of the usual computer-programming arguments for abstraction.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's also note that this article is the Winner ASA-Collective Behavior and Social Movement's Outstanding Article Award, 2007. Pjefts (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)