Talk:Paris Is Burning (film)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chloe asmith.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Title
Shouldn't the title of the article be Paris Is Burning (film), with "Is" capitalized? Any reason not to move it there? The article uses both capitalizations, while the links seem to prefer the capital, which would be in keeping with the normal rules of English. -Phoenixrod 21:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct.--House of Scandal 16:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PIB.jpg
Image:PIB.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
I recently found out that a certain sentence from an introductory speech has been used as the main voice sample for the untitled track (no.11) on Gonna Make You Sweat from C+C Music Factory: "We're not going to be ashamed, just fierce". Is this worth mentioning, and if so, where should it be put?--80.101.42.224 (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that in relation to the film this is trivia but if there's an article on the album or particular track then adding and sourcing it there in a production section with a link back here would be appropriate. Otto4711 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

They said "We're not going to be SHADY, just fierce". See the movie to learn more about "shade". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.250.88 (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggested topic
I would like to discuss more the implications of having a white Jewish woman as the director and producer of the film, and what it means for the viewer. It is important to discuss the potential bias or distortions created by this disconnect in identity and experience. I would also like to discuss the familial kinship created within these communities and how it influences their processes of mourning.

Bibliography

Butler, Judith. "Gender is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion" In Bodies that Matter: On the Duscursive Limits of "Sex" by Butler. New York: Routledge, 1993. pp. 121-140.

Hooks, Bell. "Is Paris Burning?" in Black Looks: Race and Representation by Hooks. Boston: South End Press, 1992. pp. 145-156.

Davis, Kimberly Chabot. "White Filmmakers and Minority Subjects: Cinema Verite and the Politics of Irony in "Hoop Dreams" and "Paris Is Burning". South Atlantic Modern Language Association.

Parrine, Raquel. "Gender Construction, Kinship, and Mourning in Paris Is Burning." Revista Estudo Feministas. Insituto de Estudos de Genero. Sept-Dec, 2017, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p. 18. — Preceding Chloe Smith comment added by Chloe asmith (talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Page Structure
I'd like to revise the Critical reception and controversy section on this page. I think it would be best if we focused on awards, financial revenue, and controversy surrounding the film under the section "controversy". The "Critical Reception" section can then be used to talk about potential critiques surrounding the film and its exploration of gender, sex, and sexuality.Chloe asmith (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the labelling of the sections is a bit confusing. The critique is under the section of "critical reception", which is normally used in film pages to portray a films reception by the audience and *film critics* upon release. I would suggest moving it to controversy or in a section called "feminist critique". While I do appreciate the inclusion of the feminist critique that the trans protagonist view of femininity is socially constructed, i think the critique is currently one-sided and demeaning towards the protagonists of the film. Just because the film does shed some light on how trans people in the ball scene idealised "white femininity [as] the proper gender expression to aspire to", the film never advocates for that position, but simply documents that aspect of the protagonists identities - which is of course a product of the times. It also would be nice to highlight the many influences the movie has had in pop culture. Iovio (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Documented origin of "yas queen"
In the podcast Reply All in episode 69 it is suggested that in this documentary the origin of the phrase yas queen is documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.220.105.126 (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Critical Reception
I added some new information to this section, please take a look at the wording and sources to verify that it is accurate. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Thank you. Chloe asmith (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Critical Reception section
I don’t know why bell hook’s article which seems to miss the entire point of the movie is so heavily featured in the critical reception section. She doesn’t really seem to know anything about drag, especially during this time period and if she thinks ball culture was made for white audiences and didn’t elevate woman, especially trans women, then again she misses the point. I get that having counterpoints is important but maybe have them from somebody who’s actually a part of this community, not somebody who “tried drag” before and who’s expertise seems to be in their own mind. 135.180.33.137 (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It does feel like it’s been given undue prominence and the way it’s included feels jarring. To go from very general and everyday reviews to “phallic power” for example.  It should be in a separate section.  ⚜ Moilleadóir ✍ 04:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)