Talk:Happy Birthday, Marsha!

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

It is bizarre (read: problematic) that there is a longer section on Historical Accuracy than information about the film itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.119.225 (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: The Rhetoric of Health and Wellness

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alsukim, LoveAlwaysWins27, Winterandsnow (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jv686.

— Assignment last updated by Jv686 (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedians, we (LoveAlwaysWins27, Alsukim, Winterandsnow) plan to edit this article. Here are the changes we plan to make:
- Write a synopsis section (currently missing from the article) using our watching of the film and our sources.
- Write section on cast of Happy Birthday, Marsha
- Write a section on film controversies (currently missing), specifically the plagiarism allegations against David France
- Create links within our article to other Wikipedia articles, especially references to historical figures and events.

Alsukim (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your sandbox only has Tourmaline's Instagram post. Have you read the subsequent investigations and coverage that was published, as sourced in the second paragraph here: The Death and Life of Marsha P. Johnson#Reception? The conclusions of those reporters should be added if more is to be said about this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due to receiving no response from Alsukim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I have commented on their more recent sandbox additions on their user talk. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the other sandboxes, I suggest you be mindful of WP:COATRACK issues. You don't need to create new content in a short film article when there are whole articles on the 'pedia, full of citations and consensus writing, to link to (for instance, on the Stonewall Rebellion, or bios of the people fictionalized). WP:RS sources are always preferable to social media posts - which can only be used rarely, and within very limited parameters: just official posts from notable people. We already have articles on the people and events that are fictionalized in the film short, and who make up the "characters", so I'd be very careful to make sure there is no confusing the fictional content and characters with the real people and events this work was inspired by. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by Liliput000 is unclear to me so I've moved it to talk:

At the same time, one article dissecting the controversy notes that France was present in November 2015 when Tourmaline exhibited work that included material from New York University professor Darrell Wilson, previously inaccessible to anyone but New York University film students. France subsequently obtained a second-generation copy of the same film, of which a short excerpt is included in France's documentary. France states that he had been previously aware of the footage's existence.<ref name="AdvocateEnnis" />

"the same film" Which film? What footage? Taken of and by whom and when? Is this a retread of what's already explained about the "Gay Power!" footage? Given the accusations and how some tried to muddy the copyright issues, you need to be precise here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I meant to say footage, not film! Thanks for that catch. (actually the advocate piece called it a film, but more technically and accurately it is footage)

I was going based on the exact language in the Advocate piece, which clearly states this footage was not previously available, so I am not sure that it is the same that you were referring to with "Gay Power!" footage. This is different and separate. I'll put it back with the fix.

Here's the exact part of the advocate piece ---

France did concede one point: In making her film, Gossett obtained one film source that no one other than New York University film students had seen in public until she exhibited it in November 2015 at Cooper Union in New York.

"While we were editing the film, journalist Diana Tourjee connected us with Darrell Wilson, a film professor at NYU," said Gossett and Wortzel in their joint statement. "He had footage of Marsha that he and his friend had shot in his basement in 1991, and he wanted to share it with us because of the work we were doing. This footage had never been made available to the public. After watching this beautiful document in a dark room together, he donated the footage to us, and we began integrating it into our narrative film. The footage is interwoven throughout." Tourjee confirmed to The Advocate the events occurred as Gossett described.

France admits he was in attendance at the 2015 event, that he thereafter obtained and licensed a second-generation copy of that same film, and inserted a clip that he says amounted to 14 seconds of his film. Although France said he was aware Wilson's material existed prior to the showing, the fact that his film uses this video after he saw it for the first time during Gossett's presentation supports her claim that "Clearly France has seen and learned from our work." Liliput000 (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the "It can get you killed" footage. Ouch. I'd put in a crying emoji if we had those here. I think the wording is clearer now, but if not we could add in a quote from the clip. *sniffle* - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, you are trying to write an article that's longer than the film in question, bringing in all sorts of WP:COATRACK issues about Tourmaline (activist)'s various claims, POV, goals, etc. The website for this film short isn't even up anymore. Wikipedia is really not the place for a term paper on this issue. Maybe you should be writing about Tourmaline, not this short that very few people have even seen, and very few people have written about (and many who've written about don't seem to have seen it, either). I'll go over the language about the Vogue piece, but really, we don't need additional content about this brief, ahistorical short. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can you please direct me to the part of the WP:COATRACK that you have in mind? I see you using this a lot and it's got a lot that it could mean.

I have a problem with your edits because they are biased and I'm trying to pull back on the tone. I am frustrated that you keep reverting my good faith edits @CorbieVreccan. Liliput000 (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also please explain your reasoning behind the reverting of my added sub-section on the footing in question? I tried to also pull back on length, speaking of length, and you added all of the words I trimmed back in, so, I'm not so sure your concern is length of the article?? @CorbieVreccan Liliput000 (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a short film. Go look at similar articles about film shorts. Your edits give the impression that you are trying to shoehorn in a lot content about Tourmaline's positions. That you're trying to use Wikipedia as a publisher for your term paper. That's not what Wikipedia is, and a film article is not the place for it.

How do you write neutrally about someone stealing footage? You say they stole the footage. Etc. We're using neutral language as much as possible but we can't whitewash it. You've blanked content to try to to bias this towards Tourmaline. Your initial sandbox drafts only had her side represented, with your only sources her statements. The students added the other side when I told them to look at third party sources, but still their interpretations of the journalism was biased, with the students writing things like, "the reporters alleged" and "France collaborated" on the articles when he complied with requests for interviews and documentation and Tourmaline did not. Either the students don't understand how journalism works, or this is just extreme bias and promotion of the kind we have to keep out of the encyclopedia. From your POV that makes my reversions and rewrites seem biased. But this isn't the place to do PR for this filmmaker.

I said in the beginning of your project that the controversy details had been largely left out of this article, probably in an effort to be kind to Tourmaline. Going into this in depth would not be, and is not, pretty. But it has to be accurate. You wanted it covered, so here we are. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the language around these submissions, "our article", "finished the article!" shows a lack of understanding that Wikipedia is a collaboration. Look at that notice about how your submissions will most likely be rewritten, and that if you can't handle that, this is WP:NOT the place for it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is true that I overcorrected for tone in some of my edits, but this doesn't mean that all of my edits were problematic, nor that none of yours are problematic. I regret that we couldn't find more middle ground. I have to tend to other tasks, I did my best trying to balance things on this page, and will have to leave it for now. Liliput000 (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about Edit War on this page

I realized belatedly that @CorbieVreccan's actions on this page warrant a warning of Template:Uw-3rr

As stated earlier, I don't have time to repair this page further at this stage particularly because they kept reverting my efforts, and making questionable comments (not assuming good faith) about my intentions and my students' intentions, but I wanted to put this out here, should someone else take it up. Liliput000 (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't an edit war. You've tried to put inappropriate content into an article, in what is a WP:POVPUSH. Some of the content made it clear you hadn't done basic research, and used low-quality sources. I tried to talk to you about this student project before you tried putting it into mainspace. You and your students weren't very collaborative. I've sent you policies and explained to you, but you seem to think that as long as you have good intentions, you can post your term paper and advocacy here. Again, read WP:NOT. It seems to me you came here to advocate for Tourmaline, and to take her side in a very problematic situation that I would assume she would prefer to be forgotten. I'm not sure why you want to dig it up and put WP:UNDUE weight on it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]