User talk:NoPet

This user is a student editor in Bishop's_University/Human_rights_and_humanitarian_organizations_(Winter_2018) .

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

NoPet, good luck, and have fun. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, NoPet, 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
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
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) 16:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi, thanks for message, that's what my talk page is for! The previous version was unrelenting spam, had no independent sources, and looked as if it was copied from somewhere. There is nothing to stop you recreating it. I see you have had some advice in your sandbox, the bad news is that you are going to get some more.

You need wikilinks, eg Palestinian George W. Bush
You need to provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. References should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.

Although you are not required to have on-line references, you should consider using web references as long as they meet our reliable sources guidelines

Articles must be neutral, non-promotional and encyclopaedic.
To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, funding or expenditure.
there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
You must not copy material from any website or hard publication. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial, and text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it.
In particular, if you work directly or indirectly for the organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:NoPet. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=NoPet|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply! You've brought up some good advice, and I'll do what I can to follow it. It seems you've seen my draft already, and know that I'm mainly using scholarly articles. I've tried to make sure they're neutral before including them. I hope these sources will be okay. If something does not appear right however, feel free to let me know! The last thing I want to do is create bias or spread misinformation. Thanks again! NoPet (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I saw your posted/removed message in my talk page history. It's absolutely the right place to ask, don't worry about asking me questions. I notice you have also asked your mentor the same question. On the plus side, you have multiple academic sources, but membership and funding is vague to say the least. We don't know whether there are 6 members or 6,000, whether its budget is $6 or $6,000,000. Anything that firms up that section would help, and it might actually merit being placed higher in the article, although I appreciate getiing the information might not be easy, although there are hints like this and a specific figure here. I see that JCW also gets a mention on a UN page, which might be worth mentioning.

Thanks for the response! Membership and Funding is a section I’m still working on, but I should be able to find info on it. As for the position, I think I’m going to keep it where it is for now. If other users add additional information, they can change the position if it fits better. Assuming everything else is okay, I’ll stick with what I have for the rest, and review it a few times. Page should be together sometime later tonight. Thanks again for your help! NoPet (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thesis

Note again that I won't necessarily see messages like that above unless you start it with my user name, User:Jimfbleak and sign it with four tildes ~~~~ when you post it. That will send me an alert.

A master's thesis probably falls into the "better than nothing" category. It certainly wouldn't do in a WP:FA or WP:GA, but it would probably be acceptable here. However, be aware that it might be challenged if it's used to support anything contentious (surely couldn't happen in this part of the world!). See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship.

Note that the notability guidelines have just been tightened up. That's mainly aimed aimed at commercial companies trying to spam here, but it also includes other organisations, such as the JCW. Your article should be OK, given its mainly academic sources, but I don't know if your colleagues may fall foul of this. There is discussion on the talk page of that notability page if you or others want to understand the reasoning Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jimfbleak! I wasn't aware that this had changed recently, so this is good to know! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update Jimfbleak! I've added the thesis since it does have some good information. I've tried to use other articles when possible though. I'll leave it up to the editors to decide whether or not it will remain.NoPet (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Hi! I wanted to give you some notes:

Be careful when you use words like empowerment. This is something that is often used in promotional material for various things, so it sometimes comes across as a little inherently promotional. The same thing goes for words like "significant" and "notable" - these words are seen as opinions. With opinion words you should only use them when you're writing about a specific person or organization's opinion with attribution. To be honest, I'd leave words like this out entirely as they're incredibly subjective and can sometimes be seen as promotion in a way as well, if the article is full of these opinion words.

I'd leave out the mention in the lead about the strained relationship with Bat Shalom. While they do have a strained relationship, this doesn't seem to be major enough to warrant a mention in the lead. The reason for this is that as statements like that can be seen as controversial and can be challenged, which means that they need to have a lot of coverage to justify this inclusion in the lead. A case in point as to how major the coverage has to be would be the lead sections of celebrity articles. Legal or personal issues are typically not mentioned in the lead unless there's so much coverage over a long period of time that the issue itself has become notable on its own. For example, the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations were a fairly controversial addition for a remarkably long while, all things considering, with people arguing whether or not it should be there and if so, where and how.

On this note, statements like "As the years went on however, tensions between the Jerusalem Center for Women and Bat Shalom increased with the hostilities of the Palestine-Israeli conflict." must be sourced.

There are still some issues with promotional tones in the draft, so this needs a general overall look as well. This isn't bad, but something to take in mind when looking over the material is take a "just the facts" perspective on the matter, which is fairly dry. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shalor! Thanks for looking over it. I've revised the page again, and have hopefully removed potentially promotional content. You mentioned I should remove the section on the lead paragraph pertaining to the strained relationship between Bat Shalom and the JCW. I've removed it, but kept the strained relationship elsewhere in the article since the Jerusalem Link was a large part of the JCW's history. If there is anything else that can be improved, please feel free to let me know. Thanks again! NoPet (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]