User talk:Dv336

Welcome!
Hello, Dv336, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; 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. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Additions to Transfeminism
Hi! I wanted to give you some feedback on your additions to the article transfeminism. I had to remove the content and wanted to explain why. Firstoff, here's the content you added - I figured that it would be easier to discuss it if I had it on here:


 * Other Stonewall activists and vanguards of the queer liberation movement include Marsha P. Johnson and Miss Major.

This isn't actually bad, but the problem with this was that it was in the lead, which is supposed to be a relatively brief overview of the entire topic. This would be fine to add somewhere else in the article, although it would have to be added in a particular fashion. The only catch, however, is that you must be able to show that they have received coverage as it pertains to transfeminism or if they specifically referred to their work as transfeminism related. If they're only referred to in regards to trans politics as a whole, then working them in would not really work since that would be considered original research.


 * ''The inclusion of Sylvia Rivera, Marsha P. Johnson, and Miss Major must all be included when talking about the history of transfeminism. If trans feminism works to liberate all women, including trans women, the three activists did their part in starting what is known as queer liberation/gay rights movement today advocating for black, brown, queer, gender non conforming/trans, poor, homeless, sex workers, HIV+, anti-war activists. What does it mean to exclude them from history just because they did not have published works early on that had them recognized but left them invisible even though they've done so much for the cause?

This was written as a question and a petition to the reader - this would make for a fine introduction to a persuasive essay (so I highly recommend that you keep this paragraph somewhere so you can use it in the future), however it doesn't fit the encyclopedic style that Wikipedia uses. One of the things I especially have to warn you about is that Wikipedia is not meant to right great wrongs - in other words, while we certainly can and should include them in the article if they have coverage, we can't use that inclusion as a way to strike out against past historians ignoring them, if that makes any sense. The reason I'm saying this is that sexuality, gender, and feminism related topics tend to be rather hot button articles on Wikipedia, so we have to be careful with our edits here since this article is one of many in this topic area that's held under sanctions. What this ultimately means is that since these topics tend to be inherently controversial, edits tend to be scrutinized far more closely than they otherwise would. This was also unsourced, which is something to be careful about as any unsourced content can be challenged and removed.


 * ''Valerio talks about his experiences as a transexual man and how feminist and queer/trans movements do not benefit transsexual people. He talks about the differences between the transsexual experience and the transgender experience. He only see's the efforts that transsexual people have made for trans equal rights as folks who actually go through hormone replacement treatment and medically transition, but does not recognize transgender folks who do not medically transition but still consider themselves to be trans. Valerio does not recognize that the fight that the trans movement tries to do for all trans people and instead polarizes what is transsexual and transgender against each other.
 * ''Transfeminism still struggles to be inclusive to marginalized folks within the trans community including trans women of color, trans sex workers, poor trans people, trans immigrants, and incarcerated trans folks. Janet Mock and the Trans Women of Color Collective have advocated for these groups of people to be included in trans liberation movements.
 * ''Working within the current system and assimilating towards equal rights is a problem when talking about true trans liberation. The system works against the survival and the ability to thrive for most marginalized trans folks. Through a neo-liberal and capitalist structure, trans people are rendered to a "slow death" which is a "physical wearing out of a population in a way that points to its deterioration as a defining condition of its experience and historical existence".
 * ''Transfeminism must also recognize that without queer indigenous/black politics more violence and oppression occurs through perpetuating further settler colonialism. A centering of Queer, Trans, Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (QTBIPOC) must be done if all trans folks are to be advocated for. Indigenous cultures have recognized other genders such as two-spirit but colonization and white supremacy has erased their cultures and identities, thus trans issues also involves indigenous issues. Also, at the rate black trans women are enacted violence against, being murdered, and committing suicide, they are the most at risk when it comes to the survival of trans people.

Not all of this is problematic, however it all tends to boil down to how it's written as it does lean towards a more persuasive essay style that contains original research, by which I mean conclusions you drew on your own based on available sources and research. This is something that is fine in an academic essay, but not really on Wikipedia. On here we can only include research and conclusions that have already been made by an authority on the topic and recorded in a reliable source. In other words, we're here to summarize and record rather than build upon past work. You also need to be very careful that all content is well sourced - you used one source that was already in the article and one new one, but you didn't have one for the last paragraph, which really needed the source.

Now the thing is that what you have here isn't bad - it just needs to be re-phrased/re-written and sourced. Since this post is already going a bit long, I'll post on the talk page of your sandbox with some suggestions. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)