Alsukim

Welcome!

Hello, Alsukim, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Brianda and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Editing Wikipedia, a guide for student editors Choosing an article to edit Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Continuing comments from article talk

As you did not respond there. Wikipedia is a collaborative process. I see you've added some references to the Jezebel and Advocate investigations in your sandbox, but it's still quite POV and seems to lack the context or understanding that the footage Tourmaline used was owned by others, and Tourmaline admitted stealing it. All of this is covered in the sources; it's not just "alleged". I strongly suggest you discuss any proposed additions on article talk before adding anything. I'm going to tell you what we tell all student editors: Don't just dump a biased section or rewrite into an existing article. What you have in your sandbox needs a lot of work. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello CorbieVreccan,

Thank you for your messages. I apologize for the delay in response as I was on break. In response to your first message, I have completed the entire student training library and appreciate your support. I also am only now seeing your response on the talk page of the article itself. It seems you have found my updated draft, but to clarify, the first draft which included only the Instagram source was for a class assignment and not my final. I have read the paragraph you suggested in my research and added the reporters' conclusions as I had planned.

I tried to clarify possible bias with the Jezebel and Advocate articles by framing them as both written with input from France. Secondly, I did not say that Tourmaline's stealing of footage is "alleged" and have included both the name of the owner of those videos and the sources that verify this, including Tourmaline's own tweet about stealing the video. The information I flag as alleged are framed as such in the articles you mention. Please let me know if I can make either of these points clearer to you in my writing.

Thank you for taking the time to read my sandbox and send your feedback. I will be continuing to work on my planned addition both within my sandbox and with my class. Alsukim (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you read the investigative articles a bit more carefully, and look into the backgrounds of the filmmakers. There's some context here you're missing. You've written text like "the work [France] and his team did to find the footage themselves"... The footage didn't have to be "found"; it had been shot live at Pride and most of us had seen it on PBS. France, as one of the many gay artists, activists, and ACT UP vets who knew Johnson, didn't have to "discover" Marsha and Sylvia the way Tourmaline did.

A lot of the conflict around Tourmaline began when Tourmaline started claiming to have "discovered" people and things the community already knew before she was born. We had not "forgotten" Marsha. But Tourmaline was now promoting herself as the "foremost expert" on people and events that happened, again, before she was born, despite having so many details completely wrong. The title of the film is because she didn't do the research to find out Johnson's real birthday but believed a mistake Sylvia made when stoned. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello CorbieVreccan,

Thanks for the response. When I wrote "find," I meant acquire the footage, licensing, etc., rather than find in the sense of discovery. I will change that to be clearer.

I would be grateful if you could provide sources on Tourmaline calling herself the foremost expert. To my understanding, she had been speaking on her unique understanding of Johnson due to her shared identity as a trans woman of color. Secondly, much of the controversy surrounding "discovery" seems tied to issues of access - if one were to give Tourmaline the benefit of the doubt, she is speaking on opening up access to these videos/Johnson's story rather than claiming to discover these clips. Regardless, I omitted both these interpretations as well as those you proposed since they are speculative. Additionally, while I appreciate your feedback, your criticisms have all generally disparaged Tourmaline. I don't see the personal bias as a reason to disregard your input, but I hope you can understand that my pushback is coming from a place of neutrality. I am open to continuing our discussions so that the final product can give equal attention to both sides of the story.

I would add information on any controversy sparked by the historical inaccuracies in the film, but I have yet to find any wiki-approved sources that cover it. I am not covering historical inaccuracies in this section itself. Alsukim (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the reason my feedback may seem "disparaging" to you is that the text you've proposed appears to have taken Tourmaline's claims at face value, including the ones that were disproven. It largely read as if you were advocating for her and disparaging France. It really did not read neutral. Tourmaline made a variety of statements, in a number of places over the years. I'm not sure if they were in RS sources. This is on talk, not article space, so I'm just sharing some background for context. If Tourmaline's claims about her work were relevant they'd probably be more suited to her bio, anyway. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did take Tourmaline's claims at face value. I wrote that they were her claims. Including those claims, framed as only her words, clearly does not mean that I am promoting them to be true, just that she said them. I included nothing on whether the accusation of plagiarism is true or false because it is unresolved and would be speculation. On the other hand, what she said about the videos was disproven, so I clearly covered why it was wrong my writing. Similarly, I've taken France's claims at face value by stating how he disagreed and said he knew of the clips and was not inspired by Tourmaline.

I am trying to understand your feedback. Is the framing insufficient, or is the content itself problematic? Can you point out the specific phrases or sentences that are not factual and promote a certain side so I can improve them? Alsukim (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

While I sympathize with your learning curve here, I'm here as a Wikipedia admin, so my concern is to make sure misinformation isn't put into Wikipedia, and that policies are not violated. Beyond that, I can't help with your school assignment. Have you asked your professor for feedback about how you described the investigative articles on the controversy? Article improvement discussions should be on article talk, not here, BTW. So I've posted some suggestions there. I only pinged you here because you did not respond there.- CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)