Talk:Stonewall riots/Archive 11

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

"Miss Major" Griffin-Gracy

Latest comment: 7 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

This person is repeatedly cited here and on other wikipedia pages as having helped to start the Stonewall riots. There is absolutely no evidence, other than her own claims, that she was even present, much less an instigator, but there is evidence that she is an unreliable source. Stern, Jessica. "A New Queer Agenda". The Scholar and Feminist Online. Retrieved 29 January 2016. Convergingnow (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've cut this section unless and until better sourcing can be found. Today someone added Holly Woodlawn, who I've never heard of being there at all. The fact Marsha P. Johnson said that Sylvia Rivera was not at the first night of rioting also needs to be addressed. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Veterans of the NYC LGBT community are usually pretty familiar with the elders who were at Stonewall. There is a Stonewall association. It's not secret. So when someone turns up in recent years, saying for the fist time that they were there; there's an issue. It's like all the people who claim to have been at Woodstock or Sharon Tate's house; these things have to be checked. Another issue with Griffin-Gacy, in addition to the not coming forward till after some other witnesses were dead, is that Griffin-Gacy has also claimed that Marsha Johnson was not there (multiple witnesses support Johnson being there on the first night). I've also seen coverage that Griffin-Gacy did not describe the interior of the bar accurately. So... - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Convergingnow and CorbieVreccan: That strikes me as premature. Based on what's been said, I'm not seeing any affirmative evidence that she was absent. I'd like to see these sources where Miss Major is considered to have described things incorrectly, that the Stonewall association has made a statement, or anything concrete. It is also unclear how the initial source supports the notion that Miss Major is "unreliable." Without this support, the above feels very much like original research. In comparison:

This article from the Bay Area Reporter: The Stonewall Inn, a working-class LGBT bar in Greenwich Village, was a particular favorite of Griffin-Gracy's. "Stonewall provided us transwomen with a nice place for social connection," Griffin-Gracy said. "Then, only some gay bars let us in, others would chase us out. We could go to Stonewall and everything would be fine, we didn't have to explain ourselves." During that period, anti-LGBT sentiment was supported by law; police raids on LGBT bars and clubs were commonplace. Griffin-Gracy was a regular patron of Stonewall, and was there "perking up with a girlfriend" the night of the police raid that subsequently triggered three days of riots in June 1969.
This article from The Advocate: "Many who took part in the Stonewall Rebellion died way before their time, like my sisters Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson," explains Miss Major, a SAID organizer, executive director of the TGI Justice Project in Oakland, Calif., and a trans woman of color who was inside the Stonewall Inn the night the riots began.
From the CUNY Law Review: Additionally, two transgender women of color, one of whom was Miss Major, a leader of the Stonewall uprising, survivor of the New York state prison system...

Taken together, this seems to be enough evidence to state that Miss Major was in fact present at Stonewall. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to go over these tomorrow, but if they're the ones I've seen, it all comes back solely to statements by Griffin-Gracy, who AFAIK has never been mentioned by those who are known to have been at the riots. The conflicting statement about Johnson and Rivera not being there was in something brief in the fall (Griffin-Gracy posted it on FB, IIRC). Around that time there was research about Griffin-Gracy's statements about being in Attica during the riots there, and no one could find evidence of that, either. The point is that, for anyone we include, we need multiple witness reports, not just self-reporting. Statements by Rivera also contradict Griffin-Gracy's characterisation of the Stonewall clientele. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 03:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with I JethroBT. You seem to be doing OR/SYNTH based on your reading and interpretation of the sources. I understand your concerns, but it's not up to us to analyze texts to compare references past and present or to see how accurately people describe places. If there's questionability, attribute the statements to sources ("Advocate reports that ...") or something similar. Or add a clause ", but XXX questions this account". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

"I'm not seeing any affirmative evidence that she was absent." In the absence of evidence either way, then it'd be best to exclude. Stickee (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources claim she was there, that's evidence for us. We don't analyze historical texts. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

But they don't. A handful repeat the claim (without qualifying), such as the Advocate. However actual scholarly sources (of which there are plenty in the article) don't. Stickee (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Then say that or put it in a footnote or something. We're cannot dismiss that sources mention her. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that at least two of the three sources that are being discussed are Primary sources, that is statements from the person that is being discussed. Only one of the three appears to be a Secondary source and that is currently open to question. While we as editors don't "analyze historical texts" we do judge WP:RS differently. Given that most, if not all, of the sources that are being discussed here are not reliable, it is my opinion that this material needs more secondary and tertiary sources before it is added to the article. Pjefts (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. However the third source (posted by JethroBT above) is probably the same as the first two. That is, the source's statement is based solely on the claim of Griffin-Gracy, they just didn't include a quote like the first two sources. The recently added fourth link is much the same as the third. Stickee (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

However the third source (posted by JethroBT above) is probably the same as the first two. That is, the source's statement is based solely on the claim of Griffin-Gracy, they just didn't include a quote like the first two sources. Admittedly, there are a number of sources on Griffin-Gracy in the form of interviews where she discusses her experience at Stonewall. However, I do not see any evidence that the final two sources ([1] [2]) make their claim based on Griffin-Gracy's word alone, and to infer otherwise is original research. This BBC article also describes Griffin-Gracy (among others) as "...acknowledged as some of [the Stonewall riot's] central protagonists." Again, if there's there is evidence that Griffin-Gracy was not present, I'd expect to see some reliable sources supporting that notion. I have not discovered any, nor have any been presented here. I'm not seeing a convincing argument for exclusion. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 10:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

As you've stated in your first sentence, some of the sources (BA Reporter, Advocate) make it clear they are based upon Griffin-Gracy quotes. You have (indirectly) accepted these shouldn't be used as sourcing.

The latter two sources (CUNY, NYT) don't state the origin of their claim. You've expressed they should be used as sources.

If the former two sources (BA Reporter, Advocate) omitted the inline quote from Griffin-Gracy, they'd be no different than the CUNY & NYT article. So according to that, for a source to be "good" all it needs to do is obfuscate or omit where it got its claims from? That clearly isn't quite right. Stickee (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Stickee: This isn't obfuscation because we don't apply this level of scrutiny to sources for other claims in this article, or in general, when there is no evidence from sources or the relevant community to the contrary to warrant it. At this point, I'd like to suggest we open an RfC on the matter because I think we fundamentally disagree about the correct action to take in this circumstance. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that'll be necessary; I think this can be resolved more easily. I'll have another look at the sources and get back to you very soon. Stickee (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not extraordinary to ask that sourcing on a featured article be WP:RS. Statements by the subject are primary sources; when they have been published online, they are WP:V, in that it can be checked that the person in question made the statement. But without due diligence by reporters and corroborating witnesses, it can't be considered of a WP:RS quality for a featured article. We do evaluate WP:V sources to see if they meet the criteria of WP:RS. In the case of the Stonewall riots, where we have scholarly work going back decades that involves corroborating witnesses, a recent statement that lacks corroboration should not be given the same weight as the other material we have here. In the Sylvia Rivera section above I've noted that there are several individuals said to be in the vanguard of the first night of rioting, who are not mentioned herein (Jackie Hormona, Zazu Nova, plus Marsha Johnson who is currently only mentioned on the second night). If we want to mention more people, I think the focus should be there, not on recent claimants. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Gene A. Brown aka Scott G. Brown was at the Stonewall [3] on Friday, June 27, with his partner. He said that he was inside the bar when the raid took place and when the arrests were made. He remembers someone who resembled Marsha P.Johnson and Storme DeLaverie. However, he had been searching for years to find "Miss Major Griffin-Gracy" who was active, and well-known in San Francisco and Oakland, California at (S.A.I.D.-Stonewall Accurate and Inclusive Depictions) and (T.G.I.Justice Project.) She relocated, recently, to Little Rock, Arkansas.Geneb318 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Badly worded line?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As this is a featured article, I wanted to post this here before making a change. This line, from the Compton's Cafeteria riot section:
"Contemporary nomenclature classified them as transvestites, and they were the most visible representatives of sexual minorities."
I think this is badly worded, as cross-dressing and transgender issues are gender-based, not sexually based. Dressing in another gender's clothes has nothing to do with who you fall in love with or sleep with. I think it should be revised to say "... and they were the most visible representatives of the non-gender conforming population." or something similar. I'm very open to feedback and input, but I think it's important to distinguish gender identity and sexual identity, especially in an encyclopedia. Air♠Combat_Talk! 08:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you miss the bit about contemporary nomenclature? Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 12:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stonewall riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)