Talk:Stonewall (2015 film)

Controversies in "Controversy"

Editors are in conflict on several points of the Controversy subsection, and many reverts and reverts of reverts have been taking place. I'm going to ignore the run-ups I've had with the IP-number editors, supposing in good faith that they were not registered users, and focus on ones I've had with two registered users, User:Independent789 and User:Anon523.

With both, I've disagreed on how Marsha Johnson and Sylvia Rivera should be presented on the entry — as drag queens or trans women. Independent insists that they're trans women and that my insistence on presenting them as drag queens goes counter to Wikipedia's guidelines on how trans people should be talked about.

But that's a bit of a circular reasoning; before establishing that my edits are violating any guidelines, it needs first to be established that the two individuals above identified as trans women to begin with.

The entries on those two persons identify both firstly as drag queens, and a number of references are given in each of them in support of that statement. User:Anon523 reverted the entry back to when they were identified as trans women, saying the drag identity was past, but they have adduced no source in support of their position. The only references on that matter which appear on the entry are the ones I copied from Rivera's and Johnson's entries which state that they identified as drag queens.

It's also untrue that Rivera, in particular, expressed a consistent identity as a trans woman in later life. As her entry notices, in an essay written in 2002, the year she died, she embraced several [labels] to describe her identity, including "gay man".

With User:Anon523, in particular, we seem to disagree on what to make of Carter's conclusions that Rivera was not present at the riots. They stated that the original edit exposing Carter's opinions, which was made by me, was misrepresenting what Carter actually said; he only contested Rivera's presence on the first night of the riots, not on the ones that followed. On a more attentious reading, I'm forced to agree. But that's not grounds to remove Carter's words altogether, which was what they did — only to give them more precision, which is what I did.

User:Anon523 also removed an edit, referenced to a book by Carter on Stonewall, which put into question the currently popular narrative that the cis white played a minor role in the protests compared to non-whites, drag queens, and trans women. The removal was made in the same edit as the removal of Carter's words on Rivera, however, the edit summary[1] that User:Anon523 wrote up makes no mention whatsoever of that particular removal, and I'm completely in the dark as to why they would want that out. Let's discuss our issues here before a new edit war ensues, and we all end up wearing one another down. Rafe87 (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

--- --- User:Rafe87 Is giving undue weight to a fringe theorist whose work has not been agreed upon or reproduced. Rafe87 claims that resources need to be provided disputing David Carter, which is impossible because he is an insignificant researcher and his work has not been read enough to be contested. Several citations were made that back up this statement.

(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Fringe theorist is a description that borders on the ad hominem, and betrays an intention to push out content that fails to pass some ideological purity test. David Carter is a published author with an established name on gay studies in general, and the matter of Stonewall in particular. On Wikipedia's main entry on the riots, Carter is, by far, the author most cited. That book of his that is cited on this particular entry was the object of intense interest from the gay press, earning him a glowing review from The Advocate. [2] As can be seen in the link above, it is on the top 10 books on Amazon's Gay and Lesbian History and Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights category. Apart from the fact that his take on Sylvia Rivera and the rioters' demographics is counter to what some activists would prefer to hear, there's nothing to characterize him as fringe.

The sources that have been used to sustain the opposite stance to Carter's are much more lightweight in comparison — they're one-page texts published in non-specialized dailies by journalists with no deep research on the subject of Stonewall and no impact on scholarly debate.

If this is a matter of the notability and reliability of the sources, then there is no case against my edits. Rafe87 (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Anon is insisting on their removal of sourced content, and isn't even bothering to offer justifications anymore.[3] Rafe87 (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

They've removed the interview with Carter, the reference to Carter's seminary book, and even the references on Rivera and Johnson's drag identity. In their stead, Anon has inserted no new reference whatsoever. Rafe87 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The part about Rivera and Johnson's identity has been brought in line with MOS:IDENTITY, in which they identify as drag queens (or street queens). Stickee (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring and pov editing dispute

I've requested this page be fully protected to stop this dispute. Pinging Abecedare. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Can someone other than me at least reinsert the reliable references that were removed in the process before the article gets freezed?Rafe87 (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that @Rafe87, Independent789, and Anon523: have already been warned for edit-warring, so instead of locking the article down (which would prevent even non-controversial improvements from being made), I recommend that those editors resume the above discussion and try to reach a consensus in line with the sources and wikipedia guidelines. Continuing to edit war will result in blocks being issues although I sincerely hope that that will not be needed (to be clear, edit-warring does not require breaking the 3 revert rule; re-adding/removing content that you now know is disputed would qualify). If you need any help in reaching a consensus, use the available resources, such as:

• Reliable sources noticeboard to get input whether a source being challenged (eg, Carter) is acceptable or not
• Neutral point of view noticeboard to get input whether certain sources and information are being given undue weight
• If that doesn't suffice try inviting a "third opinion" to review the discussion, or start a request for comments to get even broader views.

I'll drop a note at the LGBT project page for more eyes. Abecedare (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Abecedare. I've retracted the RPP. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

If we wake up to more edit-warring, and it's not limited to a few users who can be dealt with via blocks, I would support some degree of protection for this and related articles. - CorbieV^☊☼ 02:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I have blocked User:Independent789 for 31 hours for resumed edit-warring despite clear prior warning. I am hoping that other editors will avoid this route, and that we can keep the article at least (semi-)open to constructive edits, since the subject of the article is likely to be in the news over the next couple of months and more content/sources are likely to become available. Abecedare (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Coatrack

I'm thinking about shortening the controversy section, particularly trimming everything after reference 12 or 14 as of this revision. My reasoning is that it's becoming a bit of a COATRACK, whereby most of the third paragraph isn't actually about the film. Thoughts? (ping CorbieVreccan). Stickee (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I note my proposed version is much the same as older versions, particularly this one. I've gone ahead and done this. Stickee (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) While the controversy is probably worth noting, what's there now is really pushing the limit of what we can properly source. I agree it's a Coatrack problem. Until the film comes out, most of the speculation about the film is... speculation. Right now the content about the controversy is, as mentioned up-page, "sourced" by these one-page entertainment blurbs with zero research behind them; most of these merely rely on first impressions of the two-minute trailer and even tweets from misinformed randos. At least one of the articles relies on a... tumblr meme. But, if we remove the second half of it, I guarantee that we will continue to have people trying to re-add that stuff and the only way to keep it from happening is continuing to have at least low-level protection on the article. I think I'd rather have it happening here than have the related, historical articles vandalized (which already happens).

Meanwhile, whether we cut the second half or not, I'd like to start discussing some of these "sources". I think some of the better short entertainment pieces are WP:V for sourcing that there is controversy, but they are nowhere near WP:RS for history on Stonewall or the people involved. I haven't gone through them all but I'd like to cut the "UnicornBooty" source as, while if only glanced at, it looks like there's a lot there, but actual reading has lots of misinformation and embarrassing mistakes like them referring to Marsha P. Johnson as "Marsha P. Washington." (!) - CorbieV^☊☼ 03:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

ETA - checked the sources still there that document the controversy. All of them have historical errors. - CorbieV^☊☼ 04:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, while there certainly exists a (somewhat speculative) controversy with the entertainment sites used as sources for the controversy, they are not RS about the specifics of the riots. Not sure what to do with the remaining references (8 through 12). Stickee (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing on social media

I'd like to warn that there appears to be a small canvassing campaign underway by social media activists to sway the entry to their point of view.

See link [4] and archive [5].

Anon's and Independent's intervention on the entry, which happened almost simultaneously, happened close in time to when that tweet was posted. Rafe87 (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What it this about?

Just to get it straight: does Wikipidia today actually has a lede listing (81%?): film stars? -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

So I changed the lede. -DePiep (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2015

Jonny Beauchamp plays "Ray/Ramona" NOT Ray Castro as listed on IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3018070/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast TippieH (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: - IMDB is not a reliable source. Do you have another source that supports your claim? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2015 Please add to the controversy section.

Star of the film Jeremy Irvine responded to the controversy, denying that key figures in the historical event, races, transgender individuals, etc have been omitted stating “To anyone with concerns about the diversity of the #StonewallMovie, I saw the movie for the first time last week and can assure you all that it represents almost every race and section of society that was so fundamental to one of the most important civil rights movements in living history,” “Marsha P Johnson is a major part of the movie, and although first hand accounts of who threw the first brick in the riots vary wildly, it is a fictional black transvestite character played by the very talented Vladimir Alexis who pulls out the first brick in the riot scene,” he continued. “My character is adopted by a group of street kids whilst sleeping rough in New York. In my opinion, the story is driven by the leader of this gang played by Jonny Beauchamp who gives an extraordinary performance as a Puerto Rican transvestite struggling to survive on the streets.”

Luciobarrett (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Already done by Soliantu ([6]). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)