Hello, ContrerasLopez, 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
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 19:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
ContrerasLopez, sorry, but this kind of content (in Islam and gender segregation) cannot stand. There are serious grammatical and mechanical errors ("Female are not allowed to drive any car because they felt that women were not smart as a men to learn how to drive a car. Sex segregatin had a very important in men and women because it was not the same in men or women"--never mind who "they" is), the content is unverified, language is vague ("Women did not let male doctors touch them or seen them because there was a rule that women were only allowed to see any doctor that were female doctor"--there was a rule? what rule? etc.), and things that are clearly not neutral are said in Wikipedia's voice ("Women should be allowed to pray in when ever place they want"). Please copyedit, find reliable sources, write neutral content. Drmies ( talk) 03:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I received a notification about this. It is very, very important that you not re-add anything to the article at this point in time. The content you added has the following issues:
Offhand the content would need to be rewritten to focus more specifically on the topic, fix the grammatical issues, and to add in-line sourcing. I can help you with this, if you like. I must stress, however, that it's extremely important that you not re-add any content to the article until the issues are fixed. I would also open up a discussion on the article's talk page to discuss whether the content is ready, as the additions were challenged and removed. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 16:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi! On my talk page you wrote the following:
Looking over the content, this still poses issues with tone and sourcing, as well as with scope/topic. In order to have a citation you would need to have a full citation stating who wrote it, where it was published, when, and so on. So for example, a citation should have the following information:
However it's also important to be cautious of what you are using as sourcing, as not all sources will be seen as reliable. For example, it's better to use an academic or scholarly source rather than one written by an advocacy group as the academic and scholarly source will be more neutral and will likely have a stronger editorial oversight that does more factchecking. Advocacy sites are also going to write their material to appeal to the reader's emotions, so it's not going to be neutral and some may slightly fudge information to make a larger impact. They won't necessarily lie to the reader or falsify data, but it may be a less accurate source. In the case of the Human Rights Watch, they have actually been the focus of criticism that states that they have, among other criticisms, a favorable bias towards the United States.
As far as the scope goes, this is still a little broad. Keep in mind that segregation and travel aren't always the same thing. Being forbidden to travel without a man's permission isn't necessarily segregation. It can brush against the topic area, but it's not automatically the same thing.
With the tone, we cannot make statements as to whether something is fair or unfair, good or bad, even if it seems obvious that something would be seen as unfair or bad. Wikipedia isn't meant to make people hold a certain opinion or persuade them to see things in a specific way - it's meant to just give information that the readers will use to make up their own opinions. Saying that something deprives women the rights of a human would be seen as an opinion or a definitive statement. In cases like this it's very important to attribute and write things more neutrally. So I would re-write the content as such:
This makes the content more neutral and attributes the claims to the person making them, as well as make it more clear as to how they tie into the specific topic of gender segregation and Islam. This is all based on what you've written, so you can use this if you like. I would still make sure that this would be OK to add to the article. I can also tag Drmies to see what he thinks. Now as far as the article goes, would you be adding this to the lead? Where it's going is important. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 21:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi! You posted about the following content, asking if it was OK:
References
I changed the citations to in-line citations for you and made some edits for flow and style. Offhand I think that this should go under the section for Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, as this is more specific to Saudi Arabia and the two countries are separate entities. You can move it there whenever you're ready. Drmies, what do you think? Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 15:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).
Critics have argued that the restriction of women's rights under Saudi Arabia law, which is based on sharia law, has led to the separation of gender as women and men are separated in almost all areas, from women-only fast food lines to women-only offices. These laws and policies are enforced by the Islamic religious police, which has prompted some to find ways to evade policing. [1]
{{
cite web}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
Hi! I just wanted to let you know that you formatted the citations properly! Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 16:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, ContrerasLopez, 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
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 19:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
ContrerasLopez, sorry, but this kind of content (in Islam and gender segregation) cannot stand. There are serious grammatical and mechanical errors ("Female are not allowed to drive any car because they felt that women were not smart as a men to learn how to drive a car. Sex segregatin had a very important in men and women because it was not the same in men or women"--never mind who "they" is), the content is unverified, language is vague ("Women did not let male doctors touch them or seen them because there was a rule that women were only allowed to see any doctor that were female doctor"--there was a rule? what rule? etc.), and things that are clearly not neutral are said in Wikipedia's voice ("Women should be allowed to pray in when ever place they want"). Please copyedit, find reliable sources, write neutral content. Drmies ( talk) 03:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I received a notification about this. It is very, very important that you not re-add anything to the article at this point in time. The content you added has the following issues:
Offhand the content would need to be rewritten to focus more specifically on the topic, fix the grammatical issues, and to add in-line sourcing. I can help you with this, if you like. I must stress, however, that it's extremely important that you not re-add any content to the article until the issues are fixed. I would also open up a discussion on the article's talk page to discuss whether the content is ready, as the additions were challenged and removed. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 16:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi! On my talk page you wrote the following:
Looking over the content, this still poses issues with tone and sourcing, as well as with scope/topic. In order to have a citation you would need to have a full citation stating who wrote it, where it was published, when, and so on. So for example, a citation should have the following information:
However it's also important to be cautious of what you are using as sourcing, as not all sources will be seen as reliable. For example, it's better to use an academic or scholarly source rather than one written by an advocacy group as the academic and scholarly source will be more neutral and will likely have a stronger editorial oversight that does more factchecking. Advocacy sites are also going to write their material to appeal to the reader's emotions, so it's not going to be neutral and some may slightly fudge information to make a larger impact. They won't necessarily lie to the reader or falsify data, but it may be a less accurate source. In the case of the Human Rights Watch, they have actually been the focus of criticism that states that they have, among other criticisms, a favorable bias towards the United States.
As far as the scope goes, this is still a little broad. Keep in mind that segregation and travel aren't always the same thing. Being forbidden to travel without a man's permission isn't necessarily segregation. It can brush against the topic area, but it's not automatically the same thing.
With the tone, we cannot make statements as to whether something is fair or unfair, good or bad, even if it seems obvious that something would be seen as unfair or bad. Wikipedia isn't meant to make people hold a certain opinion or persuade them to see things in a specific way - it's meant to just give information that the readers will use to make up their own opinions. Saying that something deprives women the rights of a human would be seen as an opinion or a definitive statement. In cases like this it's very important to attribute and write things more neutrally. So I would re-write the content as such:
This makes the content more neutral and attributes the claims to the person making them, as well as make it more clear as to how they tie into the specific topic of gender segregation and Islam. This is all based on what you've written, so you can use this if you like. I would still make sure that this would be OK to add to the article. I can also tag Drmies to see what he thinks. Now as far as the article goes, would you be adding this to the lead? Where it's going is important. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 21:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi! You posted about the following content, asking if it was OK:
References
I changed the citations to in-line citations for you and made some edits for flow and style. Offhand I think that this should go under the section for Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, as this is more specific to Saudi Arabia and the two countries are separate entities. You can move it there whenever you're ready. Drmies, what do you think? Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 15:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).
Critics have argued that the restriction of women's rights under Saudi Arabia law, which is based on sharia law, has led to the separation of gender as women and men are separated in almost all areas, from women-only fast food lines to women-only offices. These laws and policies are enforced by the Islamic religious police, which has prompted some to find ways to evade policing. [1]
{{
cite web}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
Hi! I just wanted to let you know that you formatted the citations properly! Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 16:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)