User talk:Azhi333
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Hawaii_at_Manoa/Marine_Policy_(Fall_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Azhi333, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Elysia 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.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration
[edit]Hi! I saw that you posted to this article - I know that Elysia (Wiki Ed) is in charge of your class, but I wanted to post a quick note:
- The addition was written in a persuasive tone, as it used wording like "to the contrary", which can come across like we're leading the reader to see things in a specific light and can also come across as original research in the process. Essentially, it comes across like we're emphasizing one point over another and arguing that this one point is more legitimate and should be perceived as the stronger of the two.
- The same thing goes with the word "suggests", as this can come across as a weasel word and original research since it comes across like it's based on our own research rather than it being something that was stated in a reliable source. If we're pulling it from a source then the source needs to be attributed in the sentence - more on how to attribute below.
- You also want to specify who is thinking a certain way by attributing claims to the person making them. So for example, when writing "it is thought" it's best to specify who is making the claim, such as "John Smith has stated that..." or "The X Organization has espoused...". It's also a good idea to put down that this is what they are saying, as this all goes into the realm of politics - a person or organization can say one thing but believe another.
- Be extremely careful of sourcing. One of the sources was a link to an awareness organization, Keep America Fishing. Organizations like this have a very specific goal/aim and anything that they publish on their website will be written with the goal of convincing the reader to see things in a specific light. In this case, KAF is run by the American Sportfishing Association - which very much would benefit from loose catch limit requirements and other things that some conservationists may disagree with. As such the content runs a risk of being sensationalized or (more likely) based on research and claims that furthers their goal. This doesn't necessarily mean that they're wrong or that all pages of this type are completely unusable - just that you would have to take certain precautions.
- First, the organization needs to be seen as important by most - for example, statements by the Human Rights Organization on a human rights issue would likely be seen as important or pertinent.
- Second, make sure that the statement is very clearly attributed to the organization. This is very important since as mentioned above, they may be basing their claims/statements on research that supports their opinions and viewpoints. The research may be legitimate, however it's also possible that it may not be so it's important to attribute. If they're stating something that is generally seen as true by authorities on the topic then that's different - however in a situation like that it's generally better to find a stronger source.
- This was stated in the last one, but make sure that it's the strongest possible source. Sometimes it may be, but in other cases it may not be the strongest possible source for the given claim.
- You will also want to check to see if this specific claim of theirs has received coverage in independent reliable sources - if it's not, then it is very possible that the claim/statement may not be pertinent or important enough to include. This is especially important to consider when it comes to awareness organizations, as there are so very many of them out there.
- To add a bit more about sourcing - make sure that the claim is explicitly stated in the source material. Keep in mind that we can only summarize content - we cannot draw our own conclusions based on the source material.
Part of the reason I'm being kind of in-depth about the notes is because this article is one that is more heavily viewed and edited, plus is seen as a bit more controversial than others since it relates to politics. The article is sanctioned, which essentially means that it's scrutinized more thoroughly and heavier than other articles and as such content should be written as neutrally as possible and use the strongest possible sources. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)