User talk:Ddzhangiryan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hi Diana! This is Raffi from your 192AC class.Raffiter10 (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Ddzhangiryan, 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.

Handouts
Additional Resources
  • You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Executive Order 13769[edit]

Hi, I reverted your edits to Executive Order 13769 for a few reasons and I wanted to explain why.

One of the main reasons that I removed the content was tone - the section contained words like "powerful", which can be seen as an opinion. For example, some people do see celebrities' opinions as powerful things that can cause great change, however others may believe otherwise. You really need to be careful of tone, as this can make additions seem more like a way to promote a specific viewpoint on Wikipedia, in this case an argument against the order. All content must be written in a neutral manner and shouldn't be written to persuade the reader. This can actually be pretty difficult to do when you're first starting out on Wikipedia - I know that this was something I struggled with at first.

Another thing to be careful about is original research. While you did use sourcing that would be generally seen as reliable, I noticed that you used Google Trends to back up the claims of an international outcry. This would be seen as original research because while yes, it's very likely that people were searching because they were upset, it's also possible that they were searching for other reasons, like to see if it would mess with their travel arrangements or even in support of the Executive Order. The phrase "international outcry" gives off the impression that the search results were made by people who were upset about this move, which is not supported by the Google Trends link. It just shows that people were searching that phrase and cannot support the statement per se. Now you probably could say that the phrase "travel ban" trended, however you would still need a reliable source that explicitly states that the phrase trended, otherwise it could still be seen as original research to say that it was specifically a reaction to the travel ban. The reason for this is that this is a very, very controversial subject and every single claim needs to be sourced with something that explicitly makes that point in a very clear manner - but more on that later.

Now as far as sources go, the sourcing isn't bad per se, but I do notice that you're predominantly using it to back up Trump's quotes. Be extremely careful about highlighting specific quotes, regardless of who is saying this. The reason for this is that someone could argue that you're cherrypicking comments in order to make a specific point. This is why it's usually better to summarize, as it can help make it less likely that people will make this claim. Summarizing also makes it easier to understand, as it's often easier to read 1-3 sentences that summarize something than to read a larger section that has many quotes interspersed throughout.

I know that this all may seem a bit harsh, but part of the reason I'm stressing all of this is because this is an incredibly controversial topic on Wikipedia at the moment. It's also held under sanctions, which essentially means that all contributions will be far more heavily scrutinized than they would with other articles. All of the content needs to be extremely carefully written and the need for the content to be neutral, be written very carefully, and to have the best possible sourcing is imperative. In situations like this it's usually better to announce your additions on the talk page and add them very slowly to the article, in small edits rather than one big one. This way it's easier for people to see what you're adding and if anything needs to be changed, it also makes it easier to revert an edit if needs be without removing the entire piece.

I do think that it would be a good idea to add a section on online reactions to either the main article or to the Reactions to Executive Order 13769 page, however I would really recommend bringing it up on the talk page first to see if there has been any prior conversations about this topic. Again, this isn't meant to be harsh - it's just that this is a very delicate area to edit in and articles like this tend to be the result of a lot of back and forth between editors, some of whom have very strong ideas on how the article should be written. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your comment. I am just getting started on Wikipedia, so your criticism is extremely helpful. Shortly after your comment, I added on to the talk page of the article and did not receive any commentary. So, I took your comments into consideration and edited our addition to the article and little by little have been adding onto the article. So far, no one has reverted my edits or discussed it on the talk page. If you have the time to check it out and comment on anything else, I will gladly go back and edit it. Thanks for your help! Ddzhangiryan (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi! It looks fine - my only note would be to see if you can find more sourcing for the section. Other than that, it seems fine. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)