Talk:Stonewall riots

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Known" homosexuals 

message: Is there any way to add an illustration of some sort to the lead?  talk 14:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There was one, deleted about a year ago. Help find another, even if a nonfree file. ɱ (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Is this a link to the image you suggested BappleBusiness?  --- FULBERT (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's the image. BappleBusiness (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead image? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  When violence breaks out 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  When was there consensus to change lede from "gay" to "gay (LGBT)"? 

message: Hello @CorbieVreccan, is it alright if you could link me the exact section you guys made consensus on using the June 28 photograph twice? I now know there is such and respect that, this request is just to resolve remaining skepticism of mine. It's also a little difficult going through 14 pages of archives. Carlinal (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We just never brought up deleting the use in the body. I don't see what the problem is with having it in twice, given its importance, and the fact that we go into further detail about the image in that section. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 17:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, thank you for the reply! Carlinal (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double use of lead image 

message: The 138th citation cites the incorrect page number. 138a should be page 35 and 138b should be page 36. I know exact page numbers will differ depending on the particular book copy used, but this is quite a big difference from the page 19 cited so I figured that likely wasn't the issue. Here is the archive.org link to the book for verification: https://archive.org/details/gaymilitants00tealrich/page/34/mode/2up. 47.184.75.50 (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrectly Cited Page