User talk:Progressivepen

This is Progressivepen's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Iranian Revolution of 2022 (October 14)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ingenuity was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Mahsa Amini protests instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The term "revolution" is still not used in reliable sources much of the time; the existing article can be renamed if that changes.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Iranian Revolution of 2022 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Progressivepen! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy and suggestions[edit]

Hi Progressivepen. I'll go through the parts of your comments at the Mahsa Amini protests talk page and put responses that I think are likely to be directly useful for the debate over there. Here I'll put some comments that are rather tangential.

(1) The question of the degree to which research articles for use in en.Wikipedia could, should or must have passed through the acceptance stage of peer review depends on the topic, the degree to which information is available, and ultimately is up to the consensus of people editing on the topic. WP:RS gives the current description of the consensus: we could say that it's the theoretical description of what we think current practice is and should be.

In my own experience, the COVID-19 pandemic is a case where quite strict insistence on limiting "knowledge" to peer-reviewed articles was systematically applied and helped make Wikipedia coverage highly robust, with the disinformation and misinformation of centralised online social networks only present in articles about misinformation, such as COVID-19 misinformation. (The exception is COVID-19 official numerical data, in which statistically dubious, non-peer-reviewed official data is present at significant levels and is not systematically distinguished from reliable data; see Wikipedia:Reliability of open government data.)

In the other extreme, the world's currently biggest genocide, the Tigray genocide in which about 10% of the Tigrayan population has been destroyed since November 2020 by a combination of the systematic killing of male adult and teenage civilians, the systematic rape of women (and some men), the destruction and looting of livestock, grain, other food and agricultural resources, industrial resources and medical centres and hospitals, and thus combining with genocide-by-tight-siege-and-famine, has had its most thorough academic study, the research paper Tigray: Atlas of the humanitarian situation Zenodo: 5881561, described as a WP:SELFPUBLISH (self-published source) by one very active Wikipedian, who was later blocked as a WP:SOCKPUPPET. Many of the uses of the source were removed by that person on the grounds that the source was "self-published" - despite the fact that it was by academics at a well-known, respectable university. I personally disagreed with that Wikipedian, but since I was already active in editing on the subject, and there were insufficient numbers of other people willing to participate in the debate, the editorial decisions of that person prevailed. So the effect is that a lot of the genocide is currently "unknown" in en.Wikipedia (unless someone checks the editing history of those pages), despite there being a good source. Anyway, my point here was that there is some subjectivity in the judgment, and in this case, my judgment was in favour of the not-yet-peer-reviewed research paper by known university researchers, but I was only one out of (more or less) two active editors.

In the current specific case in Iran, I asked about research papers since you used the word "research". Academics can and do make mistakes, and even though peer review doesn't detect all errors, and can slow down publication of some legitimate research, it generally leads to better quality research papers, especially with the knowledge that reviewers are fairly likely to complain about weaknesses in a paper. To what degree the article should rely on research papers, given the events' very recent (and ongoing) nature (and as you point out, the time scale for doing the research and the 3-18 month time scale for peer review are long - similar to waiting until November 2022 to write about the Tigray genocide), is open to qualitative judgment of the people editing the article. Rough consensus has to be obtained among those willing to edit, and the third-party onlookers willing to intervene or neutrally adjudicate within Wikipedia guidelines.

(2) I recommend that you remove tracking information from URLs that you post, since they may reveal private information about your computer's IP number, your FB account, the date and time that you clicked on a link or other private information. Generally, anything starting with a question mark "?" and the following character strings, e.g. in the format ?abc=def&ghi=jkl&mno=pqr should be unnecessary in a URL ("link"), e.g. ?rss=yes&fbclid=IwAR...rk and ?casa_token=GB_Euk-...Bs probably include encoded private information. It's in your own interest to remove them before pasting them into a Wikipedia discussion (or in references; robots are likely to remove these from references later on if you don't, but they will remain in the history).

Welcome to Wikipedia! :) Boud (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Iranian Revolution of 2022[edit]

Hello, Progressivepen. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Iranian Revolution of 2022".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 03:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]