Talk:Sonia Johnson

Early Comments

I reverted Johnson a change by User:Davefl79 in which he changed the phrase, "later became a lesbian" to "later came out as a lesbian." The phrase "came out" implies that she was a closeted lesbian all along who "came out of the closet." This is certainly the experience of many lesbians, but in Sonia Johnson's case, she was an active heterosexual for decades. Her writings and public statements prior to becoming lesbian made it clear that she self-identified as heterosexual and felt attracted to men. I happened to know Sonia during this period, and in our personal conversations she was rather emphatic about saying that she saw nothing wrong with lesbianism but didn't happen to feel attracted to women. Obviously, that changed, but it doesn't mean that she was a lesbian from birth, so this article shouldn't impose that interpretation on the facts. --Sheldon Rampton 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I removed links to "universities" and the "English language" as they seemed a little excessive. There are some serious problems with the paragraph dealing with Sonia's divorce, particularly with the unsourced statements allegedly coming from her ex-husband's home teacher. I am also troubled by the changes Sheldon refers to--in my experience, people do not start out heterosexual and become homosexual--but I'm not in a position to back that up. There probably ought to be a parenthetical note, end-note, or reference on that sentence. I'm not an expert editor and I don't know how best to address these problems.

Naptastic 04:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that the article itself needs a footnote to support this small difference in wording. (The entire difference here is between the word "became" vs. the phrase "came out as.") However, if documentation is needed to support this point, Sonia's own autobiography, From Housewife to Heretic, states on page 16 that until her 1978 divorce from Rick Johnson, she regarded their 20-year marriage (which produced four children) as "one of the best I knew." Later, on page 224, she describes an argument with Rick over his decision to end their marriage:

"It's all right for you," I cried. "The minute the going gets rough, there are always some woman's warm arms to shelter you. But what about me? ... What man would dare come all the way with me, care about me and the future of love between men and women enough to give up the patriarchal promises of the good life? ... What man is going to come with me out onto the frontiers of the known social world to pioneer what it means for men and women to be peers, what it truly means to be partners, colleagues, friends, lovers?"

From Housewife to Heretic was written after Sonia Johnson's excommunication and before her public declaration that she was a lesbian. It amply documents that she lived until her mid-40s as a heterosexual and considered herself one even after she had become a vocal feminist. The passage above shows that even amid the bitterness of her divorce, she continued to want (and lament the perceived unavailability of) a man to be her "partner, colleague, friend and lover."

It's possible, of course, to interpret her statements from this period as deluded thinking from a woman who was "naturally" lesbian but still so thoroughly indoctrinated in the norms of her patriarchal, homosexuality-hating religion that she was not yet able to face her own true nature. (Perhaps Sonia herself would apply that interpretation today.) However, that's only one possible interpretation of the facts, and to impose it on this article would be POV.

--Sheldon Rampton 06:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Changes I Made

Hi! I’m a big fan of Sonia Johnson’s radical politics which is why I added more info about them. Also cleaned up ex-communication section to be more in tune with references. Added couple references including my own review of a couple of her books. I notice people call her “Sonia” a lot instead of by her last name “Johnson” which I largely stuck to, though not sure if doing so itself is form of patriarchal condescension. :-) Also, given that it is unsourced and potentially libelous, I separately took out the alleged details of her divorce.

Carol Moore 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Adding your own review of Wildfire is perhaps unproblematic, but please do be aware of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_oneself. Style guide is probably to use her last name, not first, in the article; I'll have to check on that one. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That was way back when where I was new and didn't know better. Forgot all about it. If you think it's a problem, remove it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of the review seems OK, I'm more concerned about the possibility of an ongoing COI problem given more recent edits. There may not be one, but I am concerned. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Writing a review 20 years ago is hardly a WP:COI. Working for someone, being friends with them is. Otherwise, I think I made my points perfectly clear below. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

LGBT pres candidate

I've removed the Category:LGBT United States presidential candidates because that cat seems to be for people who *are* lgbt *and* running for Pres. If I read this article correctly, Johnson came out *after* the race was over. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's all about accuracy. If it was candidates who later came out as LGBT then it would be relevant :-) Carol Moore 14:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Relevance of socialist party info?

I removed this material writing "info not relevant." Now it has been reverted.

If it is relevant, please explain. However, if it is merely that the Citizens Party legally merged into the Socialist Party - or even if most of its members drifted over there - that's not relevant unless Sonia Johnson was involved in the merge and there is some WP:RS info in the article about it. Otherwise it is really spam for that party and doesn't belong. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's not relevant that she was their candidate, please explain how it's not... More info should be added (but not an undue amount) about why she was endorsed by them that year, rather than seemingly covering up the fact that she was by deleting it. I can trying looking for some at the library today. On this subject or the matter of her excommunication, etc. see the policy WP:PRESERVE. I doubt if either of the strange "ifs" you propose are the case, and the concept of "WP:SPAM" here is misapplied. Also, the box is also a navigational tool that when removed breaks the navigational chain. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If she was endorsed by them, fine, put it in the text. But it doesn't belong in the Box because it is still not relevant to who was their next candidate. Lots of small parties have endorsed lots of candidates of other parties but one doesn't name the subsequent candidate of every party. I put in a spam note until this issue is resolved. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Citizens Party presidential candidate section

• "Dr. Flora 3rd was associated with her at that time and remembers that..."

"Associated" is vague. Are this person's recollections published someplace that can be cited, or is this original research?

• "the press was not taking her press releases seriously or her press conferences, at which perhaps one reporter or so showed up"

Which press? How many reporters? Is the claim about not being taken seriously a subjective interpretation?

• "Sonia was the first woman who got federal matching funds to run for president, but she had little or no support from the national media."

Which media? "Support" suggests a political endorsement; perhaps this should be "coverage".

• "In the Washington Post, there was one small article, that seemed to ridicule her efforts and didn't report honestly on the large numbers of her supporters."

"Seemed" to whom? Where's the article, and why call it "dishonest" instead of "incorrect"? What's the source for her number of supporters, and what makes that number "large"?

• "Seeing that she could get nowhere in the United States"

This is an opinion. If it's one she expressed, what's the source?

--Mr2001 (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

On reviewing the edit history, it seems like that entire portion was added in 2010 by User:Flora3rd, an account that has only ever edited this article. Combined with the nature of the content, that suggests that these are very subjective personal recollections, and I've removed them accordingly. That being said, certainly Johnson's campaign must have received some media coverage (if not "support"), whether in the Washington Post or elsewhere, and if anyone wants to track down suitable articles and expand this section, that would be welcome. --Michael Snow (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Derogatory Characterization of Ex-Husband Requires Correction

Her husband's decision to divorce her is attributed to a "mid-life crisis" on his part. Finding out that he was married to a lesbian had nothing to do with it, I suppose.John Paul Parks (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sonia Johnson. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107093331/http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/index.php/about-us/historical-information/presidential-candidates to http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/index.php/about-us/historical-information/presidential-candidates

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) 22:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)