User talk:Ebrault

2/1/18 Black Feminism: Evaluation

After the encyclopedia article talks about what Black Feminism is as an operational definition, there appears to be claims made in of the first paragraph under the History section that could use a citation, since they made a specific claim about the black feminism movement and what year it began. I like how the information provided for Black Feminism is detailed in a fashion that represents a flowing timeline. The editor did a nice job of updating the information according to era, as well as significant organizations that emerged during that time, for example the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee was mentioned under the "black women and civil rights movement" subheading Ebrault (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC).

Note at Dresnick95's page
Hi! I left you and your group mates a note at User_talk:Dresnick95 and I wanted to make sure that you saw it! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Ebrault, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Transfeminism
Hi, Ebrault. Once again, welcome, and I hope you decide to stick around as an editor, even after your course ends.

I think your latest edit to Transfeminism has some good material, but a good part of it is of questionable relevance to this article. I think by cutting out or moving the extraneous material and sticking with the core part of it that deals with transfeminism, you can have a tighter edit and a valuable improvement to the article.

Starting with the first sentence, where you say: The author Kimberle Crenshaw who coined the term intersectionality is relative to trans feminism in the ways in which trans-females see themselves as holding more than one identity regarding race, sexuality, or socio-economic status (SES): this needs clarification, because I'm not even sure what that sentence means. You would need to rework it, so it makes sense as basic English.

I would say the main problem is that you haven't established what the relevance of your edit is to the Transfeminism article. You talk about "intersectionality", and that's all well and good, but in that case, why isn't this added to the article on Intersectionality? What is it doing here? The question of who coined the term intersectionality and why, is an interesting one, but is already covered in that article and has no relevance here. Perhaps more importantly, what's the connection of intersectionality with "Transfeminism", which after all, is the title and subject of this article? I think you attempted to address that question where you say, trans-women do not have the same experiences as their white cis gendered counterparts, but that might be pertinent to the article about Trans women, but has no relevance here, afaict.

Besides that sentence being irrelevant to the article, a more serious problem with that assertion, is that in support of it, you cite Crenshaw's intersectionality article (here), but in fact Crenshaw never makes that claim, and never even mentions the terms "transfeminism", "transwoman", "trans woman" or anything similar (unless I missed it) at any point in that article, so that's an improper use of an citation to support a claim never made by the source.

I think your edit is strongest in the second half of your edit, where you start coming around to some things that are relevant to transfeminism. You assert, The idea that holding more than one identity and being able to label multiple identities that a trans woman of color identifies with can potentially be a liberating experience during the transition, which needs a citation (the fact that it is true, is not relevant; you need a citation for it). Then you go on, Relatively, the "Transfeminist Manifesto" lists primary principles that supports the claims of Crenshaw's intersectional identity theory, and cited the Transfeminist Manifesto; and besides the minor wording issue (what's "Relatively" doing in there?) this is where you get into the core area of your edit which is relevant to this article, imho. (When citing a paper that is fifteeen pages long, please give page number(s) in your citation.)

An additional point: consider using gender-neutral language wrt pronoun usage; for example, where you say, ...each individual has the the right to define his or own identity besides the "or own", which I don't know what it's doing there, the use of male pronouns as the default for persons of unknown gender (i.e., "his identity") is traditional in English grammar, but if there's one area where one might want to be more up-to-date than tradition, it's in an article about transgender topics. I'd either say "his or her", or use singular "they", or recast that sentence so pronouns are unnecessary.

Finally, I don't see what the relevance is of the last part of your edit to transfeminist issues, although it's highly relevant to trans women's issues. If there's a connection to transfeminism, you need to establish that, and tie it in to the references you use.

Please review your edit, cut out stuff that isn't directly related to transfeminism (or move that material to another article, about trans women, trans health, or wherever it is relevant, or summarize it briefly per summary style and include a Main template pointing to the main article where it is already covered) and keep the core material where you address transfeminist issues directly, which is about a fourth or a third of the current content, imho. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Ebrault, what they're saying is essentially this:
 * Transgender issues are not inherently transfeminism issues. The two overlap, but unless the source states that a specific claim is transfeminist it shouldn't be seen as such. The same goes for linking things like the Crenshaw article to transfeminism - even if it seems obvious, we can't state that it relates to transfeminism unless the Crenshaw source specifically refers to transfeminism by name or we have a reliable source that explicitly links the two together.
 * This is probably one of the biggest ways that Wikipedia differs from other areas, as we can only summarize what is already specifically stated in existing research/sourcing. If something isn't very clearly and explicitly stated in the source material, we can't include it in the article. One of my favorite examples is this: a person describes something that sounds an awful lot like a cat, as it has paws, whiskers, and purrs. We can't state that they're describing a cat, as they could be describing a tiger or even an anthropomorphic, alien, or mythical creature, which would make our statement "they're describing a cat" wrong.
 * Let me know if you need any help with this! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , Just checking in about your plans. I realize you're a student and at some point the class will end, so I'd like to know what your intentions are. If you plan to get back to it at some point fairly soon, I'll hold off for a bit, but if not, I plan to revert. I still think there's a core of material here that's worth going into the article, but I feel it would be better if you were the one to to care of that. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, their class is wrapping up their editing around the end of the week, if this helps anything. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Shalor, yes, let's hold off a week and hopefully Ebrault will respond. Mathglot (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Material can still be restored, but please address concerns above, first.    Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)