Talk:Marsha P. Johnson

Formatted citations with time stamps and quotations

OK, here are some of the main ones. As discussed regularly, and especially last month, RS sourcing a negative to statements from the subject (Never self-identified as trans) is not really possible. It's not that there are amazing, RS sources out there that we are ignoring. It's that we are dealing with a difficlut-to-source bio here. But here are several strong statements of self-identification from interviews in Pay It No Mind, now with the timestamps. I'm going to nowiki them so they can be dropped in as needed. Many of these timestamps were added by productive editors in the edit summaries or are there in the notes; in those cases all that's been added is the quote. In places where something is stated in the beginning of the film, and repeatedly throughout the entire film, I haven't bothered with a timestamp (though for sake of completion, we could certainly cite those with a handful of timestamps). But as we've seen for anything at all controversial, that draws edit-warriors and POV-pushers, we need these. Also, in some places I have purposely avoided pronouns in the edits, due to it discussing times when Marsha either was insisting on a masc. name and presentation, or due to the lesser-known (and not well-documented fact) that Johnson never had "preferred pronouns," and I think some of the emphasis here on fem. pronouns, in the lede in particular, is what has led to the chronic, well-meaning but inaccurate changes to the article and even the source documents.

<ref name=ButchMakeupQueen>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=14:34}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. One of the first people to go in drag at Stonewall: "I didn't get into it right away; I was like the ''butch makeup queen'', working Greenwich Village. And then I started doing drag. ... I started becoming a drag queen." Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

<ref name=PrettyBoy>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=17:32}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. On dressing up for work and learning how to do makeup, because, "as a pretty little boy, or a pretty little transvestite, or pretty boy made up as a girl, that's the most money you're going to make." Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

<ref name=BoyTransvestite>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=34:08}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. "People used to come and bring guns, and pull guns out on me because they didn't think that I was; you know I would tell them I was a boy and I was in drag and I would tell them that I would go, like, hustling, and would they want to go out? And they'd say, 'Yes, I want to go out.' And then I'd get up in the hotel and I'd take off all my clothes and they'd say, 'I can't believe that you're a boy!' And I know this man can't believe I was a real woman. Honey, I'm just a transvestite." Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

<ref name=LunaticJohn>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=34:55}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. "It was just once in a while I would run into this ''lunatic'' who would actually have it in his mind that I was a woman. And I mean I'd tell him that I was a '''boy''' and he just wouldn't believe until he'd seen everything down my pants and everything. Another day, another illusion. [laughs]" Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

<ref name=DragQueenName>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=37:17}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. Marsha P Johnson says Marsha 'Pay It No Mind Johnson' is a "Drag Queen Name" and again self-identifies as a "boy". Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

<ref name=Homosexual>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=46:00}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. "The life I thought I'd be living as a homosexual." Also uses "homosexual" as a noun several more times in section, for self and potential husband. Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

Johnson's last two stated self-identifications in film, in 1992, ten days before going missing, are "Legendary Queen" and as part of community of "all gay people.":

<ref name=LegendaryQueen>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=49:09}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. "There's so many queens gone that I'm one of the few queens still left from the seventies today. But I'm not the only one; there's several legendary queens." Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

<ref name=GayRights>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=50:22}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. "That's how come I walk every year. That's how come I've been walking for gay rights all these years. ... You never completely have your rights, one person, till you all have your rights. And I figure as long as there's one gay person that hasn't walked for gay rights... all of us should be walking for gay rights." Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

There are more, but that's what I've got formatted for now. <3 - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gagaluv1: Recent attempts to remove Marsha's birth name, Malcolm - which Marsha continued to use, along with other variations, sometimes going by the family nickname "Mikey", as well as "Marshall", may be well-meaning, but show a lack of familiarity with the sources, so I am renewing the info in this section. Marsha re-applied for the birth certificate we link here in 1990, removing the Jr., but keeping the birth name of Malcolm intact. I realize that with all the revisionist history out there, it's hard for some to understand that Marsha did not have preferred pronouns, and never really insisted on being called Marsha (it was just the most common name Marsha went by), but sometimes did insist very firmly on being called Malcolm, Marshall or Mikey. This is not part of the most popular narrative in the current activism you find among younger people online, but it's documented, as well as remembered by all of us who are old enough to have been in the Village when the "Mayor of Christopher Street" was still alive. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Reversion in performance section

@CorbieVreccan: not only did this edit restore original research, but it removed content that I added… the whole which has been compared to line is hilariously misleading because Hot Peaches is compared to The Cockettes in the documentary (at 27:15), if anything, in a negative light, and this sentence is clearly attempting to portray the comparison positively. The use of a primary source (the troupe's website) to describe itself (e.g. international) is sketchy. The use of famed is MOS:PUFFery and you removed a timestamp of the documentary at the end of the paragraph. Also, this edit was a reversion, not formatting or cleanup.

What does People can judge for themselves in your edit summary mean? That readers can judge whether or not the line In 1973, Johnson performed the role of "The Gypsy Queen" in the Angels' production, "The Enchanted Miracle", about the Comet Kohoutek is useful and relevant information? Because that seems to be the only content you restored to preserve valuable oral history, while taking out that Johnson performed in London, from a specific page of the Hot Peaches' website. Is "The Gypsy Queen" a lead role, or why is this production significant to the Angels? If we could write "Johnson starred in # performances with the Angels" that'd be great information.

I commented out the book source because, without a page number, I don't trust that it is citing any information. We could use the YouTube video that you're contesting removal of to simply cite that Johnson was a member of the Angels of Light, which would be useful, but can we provide some context for the resume-like inclusion of the one production? I say I lack trust because, after combing through a good amount of the article, I've found multiple instances of the documentary's blanket reference to include OR and inaccuracies/wrong quotes (e.g. here, here). Rhinopias (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

My primary concern is that you removed the video. Rumi is notable,[1][2] as is Randy Wicker, both are valuable sources on this topic, and the video briefly but concisely provides valuable background on several areas covered in this article. We are lucky that it's available online. The brief text with detail about the Angels of Light play that Marsha was in is worth including as it contextualizes the type of performance work done by these troupes, as well as the feel and style of the era. While this is an encyclopedia article, it doesn't have to be completely dry and colorless. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying the article has to be dry and colorless, and I don't believe my copyediting so far has caused it to become dry and colorless. I don't see how the sentence contextualizes anything. Is this play an original or a reproduction? It gives no context what kind of play it is, just that it's about a comet. Does that mean it's a comedy, or about a dystopian future? After reading the sentence I have absolutely no insight into the type of work done by the group besides that they perform plays, or at least have performed one.

A subject's notability status who speaks in a YouTube video doesn't mean the source is reliable. The documentary is more reliable as a source because, while still hosted on YouTube, it's a published work. I simply questioned the reliability of the video, but removed it because I also removed the only text it was used to cite. If you're interested in providing valuable historical background to the reader (and not just editors) it'd be more helpful to list it in the external links section, but there are already three video links there (in addition to other media) and Wikipedia isn't a collection of links. I didn't remove the video from YouTube… people can still watch it. Rhinopias (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

NYT unreliable?

@CorbieVreccan: you're saying the NYT source, which is written by a news editor and quotes an expert in gender and women's studies, is an unreliable source for citing Johnson's birth name, date, place, and date of death? Where does the obituary say she was a "woman"? It doesn't say preferred, it says The term transgender was not in wide use in Johnson’s lifetime; she usually used female pronouns for herself, but also referred to herself as gay, as a transvestite or simply as a queen which obviously the article agrees with, as it also uses female pronouns... and the subject matter expert says black, queer, gender-nonconforming, poor, not "woman"... Rhinopias (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The NYTimes article's headline is "15 Remarkable Women We Overlooked in Our Obituaries" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:ef0d:c000:40d3:11cc:ad95:d388 (talk) (same as 68.173.142.159 (talk) and logged-out editor disclosed here:[3])

Compared to the content of the piece itself, perhaps the call on the headline and who all to include was made by a different editor? Clearly not everyone defines all these terms and categories the same way (understatement) :) My issue was also with the removal of the photo of Johnson's birth certificate and Social Security records - it's always good to have multiple sources, and there is more detail in those records than in the NYT piece. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 04:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Um, the 15 Remarkable Women they overlooked were given retroactive and revisionist obits. Is this what's passing for reliable these days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:8488:8A00:911:D2D9:C95D:38EF (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

That's the whole point of the Overlooked project (also see [4]). The subjects didn't get an obit the first time around, so new ones are being written to appropriately represent their achievements in life. I don't see how that makes the source unreliable, especially if the information in it can be verified. Also, if you think revisionism (if that's even the case here) is necessarily a bad thing, you might want to read up on historical revisionism. clpo13_(talk) 20:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

NYTimes, and the renewed discussion on how MPJ should be referred to in the Wikipedia article

change "Marsha P. Johnson (August 24, 1945 – July 6, 1992) was an African American gay liberation[4][5] activist and self-identified drag queen.[6]" to "Marsha P. Johnson (August 24, 1945 – July 6, 1992) was an African American gay liberation[4][5] activist and pioneering transgender woman.[6]"

change "Johnson's dark side sometimes emerged under Johnson's "male persona as Malcolm",[34] often resulting in Johnson being hospitalized and sedated.[25]" to "Johnson's dark side sometimes emerged when she had mental breakdowns,[34] often resulting in her being hospitalized and sedated.[25]"

Not done for now: I believe that in light of this new NYT article there should be a discussion on this issue regarding how MPJ should be referred to in the article. Other editors are encouraged to add to this discussion. Spintendo      05:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on labels

This page is locked because of years of warring over the fact that certain well-meaning editors do not wish to identify Marsha P. Johnson as a "transgender woman", insisting over and over again that she was a "gay man" and reiterating that she was a "drag queen" just like Rupaul. "Drag queens" as they are understood today are performers, not self-declared transvestite activists or homeless, crossdressed sex workers with bullets lodged in their spines from violence endured on the stroll.

Anyway, today THE NEW YORK TIMES refers to Marsha P. Johnson as one of "15 Remarkable Women We Overlooked in Our Obituaries" (emphasis added!) on the front page of today's edition.

Surely this will finally put to certain editors' gentle insistence that Marsha P Johnson was not in fact a "woman", unless of course those editors' assessments are more astute than the research of the New York Times. And if we are now dismissing the NYTimes as a source, we are in trouble.

Those editors have also insisted on quoting an outdated, transphobic source to justify the assessment that Marsha was darkly, pathologically "male" when she was having breakdowns, contradicting the modern psychiatric consensus that transgenderism is no longer considered a pathological condition, titilatingly challenged by mental breakdowns. Marsha P.Johnson's interaction with public health services were all conducting under her birth name, because she was poor and did not have access to lawyers or advocacy for such luxuries as correct pronouns on her ID. It is unfortunate that the editors in question have cherry picked this secondary source material to bolster their suggestion that Marsha was a "gay man". It's just terrifically offensive and should at last be struck from wiki.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/obituaries/overlooked.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fobituaries&action=click&contentCollection=obituaries&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

a further editor @CorbieVreccan insists on quoting every line from the youtube documentary on Johnson EXCEPT the one in which she states that she has "lived [her] life as a woman". @CorbieVreccan claims that others have tried to manipulate the truth in stating that Johnsons, the founder for Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries, was transgender. The reality is that articulation of Johnson's trans identity has been almost entirely struck from the record.

And lastly, rereading @justthefacts notes above, I am honestly amazed that he not only breaks my wiki anonymity, but he also flippantly misgenders me. if you are such a brilliant sleuth in determining who it is that i am, then surely you are also aware that I am documented in every media source of any note around the world as having a female name and using female pronouns... or are you now insidiously insisting that I too am a "gay man"? It's disappointing and reveals an underlying bias on the whole subject of who is transgender and who is not.

"(I see no good reason to pretend I'm not talking about a particular person) was more dedicated to fighting over the contents of the article than I was. Now that his account is gone (?)..." etc

rebisrebis 2604:2000:EF0D:C000:40D3:11CC:AD95:D388 (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the argument that terms which were used for MPJ at the time of their life and death should be used now is not persuasive. There are lots of terms which we no longer use that would no longer be used in articles either. Just because someone has died doesn't mean our labels for that person die as well. If there is evidence that MPJ referred to herself using terms which crossed genders, whether is be hard evidence or anecdotal evidence, then that is how she should be referred to. The New York Times apparently feels the same way, describing MPJ as transgender. Even though this would not have been the terminology that the Times would have used at the time of MPJ's death, they altered their terminology to suit contemporary concerns. The Wikipedia article should do the same. Spintendo      05:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't find where in the Pay It No Mind documentary she says "lived [her] life as a woman" but I faintly remember it. Rebismusic, can you point out around what time that occurs?

I think this is getting fairly ridiculous, and a RfC is a reasonable option soon if this discussion doesn't lead to anything. In light of the NYT article, which very clearly points out The term transgender was not in wide use in Johnson’s lifetime; she usually used female pronouns for herself, but also referred to herself as gay, as a transvestite or simply as a queen and describes her as queer, gender-nonconforming, we need a sentence or two in the lead (or in the performance section and change the title to "Identity and performance work", since it ties in with her name) that summarizes the discussion surrounding her identity. It's unfortunate that some editors here (who supposedly know more about the subject than the NYT and an academic specializing in women & gender studies) object to statements in reliable sources, but that's not how this works. It doesn't make sense for us to be arguing that she didn't like female pronouns when the article itself uses female pronouns – is that solely based on her identity as a drag queen?

Reliable sources refer to Johnson with female pronouns and that seems to be what she used. We don't need to say that "she lived [her] life as a woman" or that "she identified as a woman" in order to summarize the NYT article! It perfectly says transgender "was not in wide use in Johnson's lifetime" but still does not ascribe it to her. Having an article open with "Johnson identified as a self-identified drag queen" is vague. Opening with "Johnson identified as a transvestite" without explaining the context is misleading to readers of the article in the year 2018, and failing to represent the apparent confusion within reliable sources isn't WP:BALANCED. We can't just say "oh, well, we know the subject didn't really like this, so we'll avoid using sources that use it". This is probably the most reliable secondary/tertiary source I've seen yet, because it's a reliable outlet, it focuses on her, and it quotes a subject matter expert on top of the subject's own statements and statements from friends. Rhinopias (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Just noting here, after finally parsing the many IP edits, that I don't think we need an RfC for so few people. Given the many edits, and editing patterns, the IP editor from two different IPs/Rebismusic/and the musician who has edited the article to add mentions of themself, who signed one of the edits and who is now accusing you of outing and misgendering them, are all the same user. We might need to deal with this with WP:SOCK, unfortunately. @Rebismusic: since you have an account, it's probably best if you stay logged in. It's also best if you don't continually edit your comments. A quick edit to clarify or correct a mistake, if no one has yet responded is OK, but after that, stop editing as it is confusing for other readers. Thank you. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The point about pronouns is that there has been a massive cultural change since the 1960s - 1990s era during which Marsha and our contemporaries lived, till the present day. No one in that era stated "preferred pronouns". It just wasn't a thing in the queer community. If you watch all the the documentary footage from the era, you will see that many femme gay men used she/her for everyone they spoke about. It was a cultural, linguistic marker of in-group status, that I included in the earlier version of this page that linked to the Lavender linguistics material. Marsha honestly did not care, and went with whatever pronouns fit with how Marsha was presenting that day (or moment). During the time I knew Marsha in the eighties, Marsha more often used he/him, and was often going by Mikey or Marshall. I do not agree that Marsha's "dark moods" were associated with that gendered presentation. That is something that got falsely conflated. I think the assumption that Marsha preferred she/her is based on the editing of the documentaries, combined with the wholly well-meaning modern convention of not wanting to offend someone by misgendering. But this has led to false assumptions about Marsha, and historical revisionism, based on the sensibilities of readers, not those of Marsha P. Johnson. I've seen raw footage of people with valuable things to say, left out solely because they used he/him; and they spoke that way not out of disrespect, but because they actually spent time with Marsha in person (unlike so many who want to write about Marsha now).

It's hard for younger people, or people who were not out in the 60s/70s/80s/90s to understand, but the type of drag Marsha did was not the "high drag" of RuPaul and company. This has also been misrepresented in the article, and text I put in to clarify this was cut by more recent editors. Despite doing some singing and acting with Hot Peaches and Angels, Marsha was not a stage queen. Marsha dressed up for fun, for style, for sex work (because it got more clients and money), and to get into bars that hadn't previously let Marsha in when dressed as "a butch makeup queen." (Marsha says all of this in Pay it No Mind - which is a full documentary, full of Marsha speaking candidly, that is now available online, not just a YouTube video.)<ref name=ButchMakeupQueen>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=14:34}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. One of the first people to go in drag at Stonewall: "I didn't get into it right away; I was like the ''butch makeup queen'', working Greenwich Village. And then I started doing drag. ... I started becoming a drag queen." Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref><ref name=PrettyBoy>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=17:32}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. On dressing up for work and learning how to do makeup, because, "as a pretty little boy, or a pretty little transvestite, or pretty boy made up as a girl, that's the most money you're going to make." Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

Yes, the NYT obit has some errors, due to these factors stated above. The author clearly doesn't understand these cultural shifts, and made mistakes. This also happened with the NYT obit of Dennis Banks, which had some bizarre, racist content, that also misunderstood and misrepresented the subject's cultural milieu, background and era, and which is not a respectful or reliable source for writing about Banks. If readers and editors have followed this article and discussion they will know why I have at various points argued for keeping more of Marsha's identity and the cultural milieu explained, and why it got phased out (as WP:COATRACK - which normally I would agree with, but here I believe it is necessary), but I will go with the consensus here.

This is the Gender section as it was basically stable for a while. I apologize for mistakenly including the word "man", as the actual word Marsha used to self-describe is "boy".<ref name=BoyTransvestite>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=34:08}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. "People used to come and bring guns, and pull guns out on me because they didn't think that I was; you know I would tell them I was a boy and I was in drag and I would tell them that I would go, like, hustling, and would they want to go out? And they'd say, 'Yes, I want to go out.' And then I'd get up in the hotel and I'd take off all my clothes and they'd say, 'I can't believe that you're a boy!' And I know this man can't believe I was a real woman. Honey, I'm just a transvestite." Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref><ref name=LunaticJohn>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=34:55}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. "It was just once in a while I would run into this ''lunatic'' who would actually have it in his mind that I was a woman. And I mean I'd tell him that I was a '''boy''' and he just wouldn't believe until he'd seen everything down my pants and everything. Another day, another illusion. [laughs]" Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref> As I said above, I was already concerned about people's infantilizing attitudes towards Marsha, and I don't think of adults by words used for children. So I mistakenly used the adult version of the word. My mistake. Again, all of this is in Marsha's own words. Marsha is the only authority here.

As an older editor, who lived through a lot of these changes, some of them in the same community with Marsha, it's been difficult so see so much of this history misunderstood and misrepresented. As someone who knew Marsha, I have at times stood back from editing, weighing whether or not it is COI for me to edit here. I believe rab has COI, as rab has stated they have worked on the films, and therefore they have a professional, vested interest and COI. As for those of us who are Marsha's contemporaries, if you were part of the Village scene, at some point, you at least met Marsha. I don't believe I have sufficient COI to stay out of this, as I have respected consensus here, even when consensus has, unfortunately, not been historically accurate.

It is also my very strong opinion, from where and when various sources have been found online, and how they are worded, that this article served as the NYT writer's primary source. Why they, or an editor, then chose to categorize the article they way they did... ? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

In the last interview, one of Marsha's last stated wishes was to be remembered as "A Legendary Drag Queen." Given that, and the fact that we can take the entire article to explain what Marsha meant by that, and encourage people to watch the documentaries where Marsha explains that for readers, it would be rather mean to remove this wish and this statement. Marsha was a proud, in your face queen. It's not Marsha's fault that mainstream people only know about RuPaul's version of that. Let's help them learn some history. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: regarding to your last statement about Marsha's wishes and your various statements about identity / her identity, I understand that you feel her wish to be remembered as a legendary drag queen is the most important point in crafting this article, but mentioning her wish would naturally lead to this exact discussion, and a discussion of her identity in the article (which you have seemed to vehemently oppose up until now). We should absolutely discuss her explicitly stated preferences, and any elaboration from a secondary or tertiary source should be held as questionable if it does not agree until the discussion is resolved. However, I do not believe you have justified your claim that the NYT source contradicts her statements made during interviews and therefore could make it unreliable regarding her identity. The subject matter experts states, in current language, that she was gender-nonconforming. We do not need to say that's how she identified. We would say "she was gender-nonconforming but, at separate times, identified as gay, a boy, a transvestite, and a drag queen", and then have a sentence or two about the historical context, which the NYT source basically does for us. It doesn't matter that Marsha never uttered the word gender-nonconforming; what matters is that the subject matter expert used it to describe her in current language, and that's a secondary source for us to utilize – the professor is the secondary, synthesizing primary material (Marsha). (Though I have doubts there isn't sneaky OR in there based on this article's current condition, the Gender section you linked to looks rather well done to me…) Whether or not there are inaccuracies in the obituary in light of your personal knowledge about Marsha, you cannot discredit the entire source as inaccurate. WP:RSN could... but I really don't think we need to bring this article there. Or, we could ask the international news editor at The New York Times if he copied his global publication from a Wikipedia article. I think this is the first time I'm writing "lol" on wiki. This reputable source corroborates other sources: the documentaries, the books, the accounts from friends, the self-published videos and articles… I just don't understand why you're discrediting it. All of these documentaries and random excerpts in books are great, but this is an incredibly high profile and detailed, summarizing piece. You want to include "She was a cultural fixture in Greenwich Village" in the article? Well, now you probably can and it can be sourced appropriately, because The New York Times said she was for nearly three decades, a fixture of street life in Greenwich Village.

I'm less interested in this discussion about explicitly stating Marsha's (apparently) complicated identity than I am in continuing to verify that all the content in this article is appropriately sourced. Unfortunately, I can't access some of these book sources, but if you'll take a look at #Early life as it is right now, you'll see I've completed a thorough review of the content/sourcing and added some details. The documentary tags always have timestamps, the NYT article is easily searchable or the tag has a quote, and the Carter book (I don't have access to page #s) only features her in a few places. I've very carefully examined the section to remove original research, assure neutrality, and make it easily verifiable. In light of your declaration of an actual COI based on your relationship with the article's subject, I don't believe you have approached my attempts to verify the content of the article suitably – quick to comprehensively revert my much less biased edits (not separating out your concerns) while, at the same time, not fully engaging me in discussion on talk. I imagined you had a bias, but a relationship with the subject? Accurately reflecting (to reliable sources) the content we add to articles requires us to set aside our knowledge of the subject. We all have to do it when we edit in the areas we're passionate about, but a personal relationship with the subject may be making that not possible for you. Rhinopias (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me clarify - I'm not saying I knew Marsha extremely well, or that we "had a relationship". I don't think I knew Marsha well enough for me to have COI here. I don't have that kind of investment. It's just that, as Marsha was so prominent in the community, it was impossible to have been around in those years, to have been an activist in those years, and have not at least met Marsha, been at some of the same events, known the same people, etc. The queer community is a rather small pond. I know the COI rules very well and I have not broken them. I have used my knowledge of the period and the subject to vet sources and add background here on talk, as we do when we work on articles where we have an extensive background in the field.

You claim I have "vehemently" opposed the gender section. I created and wrote the initial gender section, because so many people only seem to care about how Marsha "identified", not what Marsha accomplished. Yet as soon as it was integrated into the entire body of the article, which I initially protested, the problems began again. I discussed it here, and eventually went with the consensus of other editors to not recreate it. I'm very concerned that you don't seem to carefully read what other editors write here, Rhinopias. You appear to only skim what other editors write, and then you complain that we don't continually rehash the same discussions, when the discussion is right there in front of you.

Additionally, if you think I'm saying her wish to be remembered as a legendary drag queen is the most important point in crafting this article, you once again have not read what I'm saying. Or any of the discussions the writers of this article have had here. None of us have never said that. Pointing out that Marsha talked about being remembered as a "Legendary Queen" is not saying the focus of the article should be changed. The productive writers here have always wanted the focus to be on Marsha's activism and work in the community. I wish we lived in a world where we didn't need the gender section. But since the sad fact is that's all most people who come to this article seem to care about, I support re-instating it. Assuming it's accurate. But I'll go with whatever the consensus is. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 05:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

[[User:CorbieVreccan| You state that i am "accusing" another editor of misgendering me, as if it were not a simple fact. Pathetic. Your very statement that it's a "sad fact" that people care so much about Marsha's gender identity, when Johnson is hailed globally as one of the founders of the modern trans rights movement as a founder of STAR, underscores the reality that you are fundamentally not qualified to edit this page. In the context of today's semantics, Marsha P. Johnson was transgender, and she was a woman, as now confirmed by the New York Times. Anyone still trying to negate that looks increasingly petty and self serving. - Rebisrebis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.142.159 (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This page is for improving the article. If you have a personal issue with someone, take it up on user talk. I hadn't noticed who used a gendered term with you, or what it was. How is anyone supposed to know, or keep track of, the gender of an anonymous screen name or string of numbers? WP isn't about any of us as anonymous contributors. It's about the 'pedia. Sign in to your account and be accountable, Reb. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

[[User:CorbieVreccan| Your suggestion that a different editor at the NYTimes may have titled the front page article "15 Remarkable Women We Overlooked in Our Obituaries" without being sufficiently researched preposterously implies that the New York Times' actual decision to include Marsha P. Johnson under that banner was a mistake. Perhaps you imagine that the NY Times actually meant to publish a group of obituaries for "14 Remarkable Women and One Gay Man"? Your reasoning and lines of defense are unconvincing, culminating in your assertion that you, who claim to have known Johnson personally but apparently not personally enough to have a COI, are a more credible source than the NY Times. It is an unfortunate fact that there is a very outspoken older gay man from the community you say you were/are a part of named Jim Fourratt, (how has his own page here on Wiki), who has campaigned over the years in insidiously ways against the trans rights movement and the semantics of transgenderism ever since it's inception. Your approach and self-description in this section suggest that you at least sympathize with this POV. Regardless, it is important to reiterate that this may be the context for the seemingly endless cycle of negation of a transgendered woman of color's identity that sadly continues to rear its ugly head here. - Rebisrebis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.142.159 (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Summary added to article

I added a summary of Johnson's gender identity as discussed in the NYT article with this edit. The language should be appropriately attributed to either her own identity (via the article / Kasino), pronouns used by her friends (whether or not she identifies with them), or the subject matter expert quoted in the article, including the mention of "transgender" as it's part of the same sentence that leads with "According to Susan Stryker".

I don't believe this needs its own section, as I think the NYT article seems to be the only source which summarizes these details (and has the SME) so it wouldn't be appropriately weighted to place discussions about her identity on their own. Though it's not really in a "timeline", placing it after the description of her name—which relates to her gender variance, including the WP article title and its use of pronouns—seemed most logical to me. Rhinopias (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: referring to Lavender linguistics#Goals of distinctive language use among gay men, if the sentence about pronouns isn't relevant to her gender expression because her friends' use of female pronouns isn't a conscious decision based on her identity (but simply her belonging), then it makes sense to exclude that. Rhinopias (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edit should finally end this debate imho I'm sure it would still be debated though. Though maybe it's debatable with people like Diana Prince and Christine Jourgensen that the term "transgender" was in use (though I forget what they did use for back then), it's clear that Marsha would fit in the GNC category, in retrospect though her presence definitely was inspirational to the transgender community as well. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd be great if we had reliable sources that discussed this more, but I think that in time more will pop up. Rhinopias (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

BrothaTimothy The swapping in of "gender" for "sex", in cases where it's not accurate but just "sounds more polite" has taken place gradually over the past thirty? or forty(?) years or so, and now rapidly since the 2000s. Jourgensen and others who did medical transition were always simply called transsexuals. I recall "transgender" mostly coming in in a few scattered place in the early '90s, but it was still mostly used for those who considered themselves transsexual, and wanted medical transition, but just couldn't have the surgery for medical or financial reasons. I think it was only in the mid '90s or, for more people, well into the '00s, that it took on a broader meaning. I'd have to dig out mailings and check the dates because I think Marsha was still alive when the word was coming into usage on the East Coast, and in communities Marsha was in, but I'm really not certain. If there was overlap it wasn't by more than a few years. I recall a conference/retreat to be held in the early '90s, to discuss what this new word meant to us. I was planning to go but couldn't make it. Not sure how it went. I don't know if Marsha was there. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, that is real interesting. That could explain how Sylvia Rivera began to refer to herself as transsexual before her death. We do know Marsha had been thinking of transitioning in Europe but she didn't go. But yeah, I have noticed that over the years. But still, Marsha always identified as a transvestite (man dressed up in women's clothing) even by the time transgender began to gain some mainstream attention. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 22:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I am unaware of Sylvia ever self-id-ing as "transsexual." (ETA: I'm not saying what is and isn't TS vs TG here, or how these things should be defined, just what I've known of what words Sylvia used to self-id.) Sylvia did hormones near the very end of life (Rivera died in 2002, ten years after Johnson), but never sought surgical transition that I am aware of. For most of Johnson's activist years (July 1972* - July 1992)[eta: oops, '73. see note at end], Rivera was living upstate. Rivera only moved back to NYC after Johnson's death. As "transgender" came into the nomenclature, it was added to some signs at demos and position papers shortly before Sylvia died, but Sylvia went on record saying, specifically, in Queens in Exile, "I don't even like the label transgender." In looking through what we have for sourcing on how Sylvia self-id'ed, it was also "drag queen" and "transvestite" up till the end, for the most part, except when the newly-coined "transgender" was the preferred term of the group Rivera was speaking to or organizing with (I think the only time I've heard Rivera say it was at the event in Italy). In Rivera's last biographical statements, Rivera used "gay, queen, transvestite, and transgender" all interchangeably; like Feinberg's definitions in the early '00s, transgender was still in the process of being defined then, and was being used with somewhat different meanings by different populations. We seem to have actually come full circle with that now, with people often arguing for definitions that are, in some ways, almost polar opposites. Which is why I think we need to be as precise as we can be with quoting people's actual words about themselves. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Clar: It was after the '73 Liberation Day rally that Sylvia moved upstate. I was thinking '72 for some reason. Probably because of having to type '92. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2018

Please let me edit this article. Some of the information is incorrect. Transpans (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — IVORK _Discuss 00:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Bias in Marsha's role in Stonewall

This article is obviously edited to uphold the myth that Marsha initiated Stonewall riots. If Marsha explicitly said in an interview that she did not start it, and she arrived 40 minutes to the scene after the riots start, how could she even count as "one of the first to fight back in the clashes"? 40 minutes late don't even qualify her as being the "one of the second to fight back". If the rest of the article does not question her own words and present them as simple facts, how come her own words about Stonewall not presented as facts here, but simply as a dispute to popular beliefs (and the popular beliefs are presented as facts)? Also even if we include other people's accounts of the Stonewall, we should also include words of people who say they did not see Marsha in that event, for example Stonewall Vet Miss Major: I Did Not See Sylvia Rivera or Marsha Johnson At The Stonewall Inn (Stonewall vets Miss Major and Bob Kohler both deny seeing Marsha at Stonewall). Someone should edit the Stonewall Uprising section carefully. Also remove or rephrase "Johnson was one of the prominent figures in the vanguard of the Stonewall uprising in 1969" from the summary paragraph, this summary is purely propaganda driven if even Marsha denied she was the "vanguard".70.28.95.29 (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The "vanguard" quote is sourced to one of the best sources we have on the riots. Quite a few people who were without a doubt there and were interviewed remember Johnson being present on the first two nights, and in the front lines of the conflict, even if Marsha didn't throw the shot glass. (By Johnson's own account, cited in the article, that story is untrue.) I think the way it is now is good, as it says what time Johnson arrived. , but it might make sense to remove the shot glass line section of that bit; it may make for a colorful story, but now that we know it's untrue, it may be best to delete just that bit.

The issue with Griffin-Gacy's account is that it contradicts the accounts of so many Stonewall vets, which line up with one another, who are all known to the larger community, and seem to have never heard of Griffin-Gacy until a few years ago. We don't actually have WP:RS sources that Griffin-Gacy was there, and Griffin-Gacy gave a description of the interior of the bar that was inaccurate. If you have some better sources than that Facebook post (which MGG later deleted), please provide them. Check out the talk page of the Stonewall article for more on this - we evaluated all the sources there. So far there simply hasn't been enough corroborating evidence for Griffin-Gacy's account that I'm aware of. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

ETA - Actually, re-reading that section more carefully, the way it's worded now, about the shot glass - it's been phrased in a way that it's possible that the people who reported that may have recalled an actual event, they just may have had the timeline wrong. This would make sense as so many who were there have said that those who were inside had no idea what was happening outside. And many (ahem, Sylvia Rivera) have been very confused about which events happened on which nights. Marsha may have thrown a shot glass at some point that week. I think it's fine for us to report that some recall Marsha doing that at some point, as long as we don't claim that's what started the uprising. I think most writers agree that the key moment was the scuffle between police and those who were being thrown in the paddy wagon, and that when those individuals (notably the lesbian who was most likely Stormé) fought back, that a number of people exploded into action at the same time. I think the section is actually fine as-is. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Miss Major's account is disputed and not taken seriously because, as you mentioned, most of the Stonewall veterans mentioned Marsha P. Johnson was there. David Carter stated that many of the Stonewall veterans including Marty Robinson and Jim Owles confirmed Marsha being there, but not Miss Major or Sylvia. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 02:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

ok I agree that "vanguard" is not inappropriate since it doesn't necessarily indicate "first" in time dimension, it can also mean leader of a movement. However I do take issues with the phrasing "one of the first to fight back". Arriving at the scene 40 minutes later cannot be counted as "first" in any sense, as Stonewall involves a lot of people. It should be phrased as something like "one of the participants on the first night". And can we add Stormé DeLarverie along with "Jackie Hormona and Zazu Nova" please? Her role in Stonewall, which is the most important, is literally being erased in mainstream media. Purplebls (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I've been thinking of editing that portion too. It does sound contradictory to state that in Marsha's words, she hadn't gotten there until later on that night, and then to say "she helped to start the escalation against the cops" so yeah, good point. And Storme definitely needs more attention, I agree on that! BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 12:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I would have no problem with those changes. I agree that "among the first" does give the wrong impression to those who don't know that the riots took place over a number of days. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Right. Stonewall's uprising lasted some six days, I think. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Two nights, Saturday and Sunday. Pjefts (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2018

Could I please change "Marsha P. Johnson (August 24, 1945 – July 6, 1992) was an American gay liberation[4][5] activist and self-identified drag queen.[6]" To, "Marsha P. Johnson (August 24, 1945 – July 6, 1992) was an American gay liberation[4][5] activist and transgender women.[6]" As Marsha P. Johnson identified as a Transgender women. Thank you. Audreyhepburn1960 (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done Sorry, but you would need a really good source for that. We have sources saying that she identified as a drag queen or a transvestite (including interviews with her), but not as transgender. -- irn (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Pronouns, names and "deadnames"

Well-meaning editors. I know you all have only the best intentions with these edits, but:

Marsha Johnson did not have a "deadname" because Marsha/Malcolm/Mikey/Marshall used all four of these names throughout life. Different groups of friends used the differing names, and Marsha would sometimes ask for one of their "boy names" to be used in settings where Marsha was not in drag and preferred to not stand out. Marsha also did not have preferred pronouns (except in the aforementioned situations where also requesting one of the "boy names", and then requesting he/him). Marsha died in 1992. The scanned birth certificate is one Marsha applied for in 1990, removing the "Jr." but not otherwise petitioning for a name or gender marker change. Please read the article and talk before editing if any of this is unclear. There are a lot of misconceptions out there about Marsha, but here on WP we've dug deep into the sources and stuck with the facts. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Also if I recall from reading, Marsha would get really upset if called that when Marsha wasn't in drag. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that did happen; though it wasn't always predictable based on dress. In working on this article, it's also been necessary to explain the use of in-group speech, concisely, for a general audience. When we had the gender section, I linked to Lavender linguistics in an effort to explain that, in that era and still in some quarters, the use of she/her pronouns was usually a way of signalling that the speaker was part of the gay community, rather than an indication of gender identity. This is particularly evident in the footage of Sylvia at the pier, where Rivera uses she/her to refer to everyone, of all genders and orientations. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)