Talk:Life After Hate

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EyesOnYou, Gsab2, JH 9526, Vbigau2. Peer reviewers: Eadams20, Bee 12, Tvtovo, NikL.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

ExitUSA topic
Might want to link or expand topic here and link.

https://www.exitusa.org/

--Wikipietime (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You can add this information too, you know. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No need for snark, Argento Surfer. Play nice without assuming malice or sloth. Some people act as information gatherers, facilitators, writers, administration, editors, etc. All WP-ists have their individual niches. Thanks for your time, Wordreader (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement.
Background information needed for the founder Christian Picciolini, including his demographic, birth place, upbringing. How he became a Neo-Nazi. What was his role as a Neo-Nazi? Why did he leave the Neo-Nazi movement? How and what made him decide to start this movement? Cindi617! (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC) This is part of a class assignment
 * Some/all of this is available at Christian Picciolini, which is linked from the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Argento Surfer - If Cindi617! wants, a précis of the info can appear here in this article and for more info, an interested reader can follow the link to the main Picciolini article. I followed your link and see that you've created a lot of pages. It seems too complicated an endeavor for me! Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to put up the Logo but I'm not sure if I did it right, could someone help me out? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Life_After_Hate_logo.png thanks in advance, I'm not sure if copyright laws apply but I'm more then willing to ask for permissions from the Organization.--Moredps (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC) moredps

COMM 206 Peer Review (NikL)
The lead comes of as story like and should just state plain facts and essential information. The information on finances should probably be in a separate section, perhaps at some part of the history section. Angela King appears as a Programs Director in the History section, but doesn't appear in the board of directors list on your page. (Corrected). The history portion has already been reviewed well by the previous editor. There is a lack of information and locations of people presented. The second part of the history section on Christian Picciolini is much better written than Angela King. Try to write Angela King's the same way. It is more concise and has no fluff. In the "Formers Anonymous" section there is a name with no explanation of who it is. I see that they are in the board of directors but you should probably mention that. Almost the entirety of the notable events section is based on the opinions of people that are involved with Life After Hate. The part about the Tweet against Trump is interesting, so maybe include what was included in the Tweet.The first thing you should do is take out the financial and political information out of the lead and add an extremely summarized version of the programs and operations of Life After Hate. There is not much information regarding the operations of this organization in the article. The references are all solid.I like the way the article flows by the order the information has been put in. I will even use it as a reference for my article.You basically just need to remove words and phrases that make the entire paragraph sound opinionated. Plus some things you can switch around that I mentioned earlier.NikL (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Jerry Peer Review for COMM 206

 * I think the lead can definitely be edited and streamlined. I don't think the different financial aid and programs and grants necessarily fit in this section, I think it should be moved to a more specific section later on in the article, possibly the history section or even notable events.
 * The history section definitely reads more as a list of events about its co founder instead of focusing on the organization itself. Some of this information is useful and relevant but I definitely think it can be trimmed down and written less as an anecdote.
 * The part about the Jamaican woman she met is also very confusing, either take that part of the sentence out or possibly elaborate on exactly what this encounter meant for the inception of this organization.
 * Is there possibly more information for a demographic breakdown of the organization or the financial breakdown as well? Some statistics could be useful for concrete information about this nonprofit.
 * The programs section is sort of confusing, as a first time reader I still don't really understand what this organization does on a day to day basis. I think that there could definitely be more information about what they actually "do."
 * The notable events section needs to be reworded specifically the part about the Charlottesville attack and Picollini. I'm not sure if this is a direct quote from him or it was paraphrased but either way that should have more concrete information, not just a paraphrase about the founder's opinion.
 * I think the entire notable events section should probably be rewritten in order to have more factual information instead of relying on paraphrasing quotes that center on opinions. Specifically focus on events that Life After Hate was directly involved in instead of tangential circumstances such as what their founders said about outside events.
 * Here is an article I found that I didn't see under the references that might be useful.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4286678/Former-skinhead-Angela-King-converted-life-hate.html It talks extensively about Angela King and her history.
 * Overall I think there are definitely good things in the article I just feel like the main problem is the wording and tone of the later sections. Try to convey a more objective and neutral stance instead of focusing on opinions.Jval730 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Tvtovo Comm 206 peer review

 * The lead starts off good within the first two sentences but the following sentences are random facts that are added in and don't seem to fit in the lead section.
 * I would highly suggests revising the lead because I get the feel that there was information put in as a way to take up space. I would also suggests being more descriptive with your nouns such as "Jamaican women" and "prison". Try to provide as much factual information as possible and less about how people felt or what they went through for example when it was stated that king "struggled". This can be a caution flag because it can come across as biased information. It also seems as if there is a lot of story telling and there is a narrative trying to be created.
 * I think the most important adjustment would be to provide more factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvtovo (talk • contribs) 09:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Tvtovo (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Lauraski (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * History section sounds kind of like a story. Also, it is not history of the nonprofit, it is more story about its co-founders.
 * History section, first paragraph: “She met a Jamaican woman who changed her mind about white supremacy”- needs clarification. Who is the “Jamaican woman”? Why did she change her mind?
 * Programs section, first paragraph: “Asked about “the Trump effect,” Picciolini said the president’s election has emboldened the white supremacist movement”- I would delete this sentence. It is not necessary and is confusing.
 * Notable events section, first paragraph: The whole paragraph is an opinion. Wikipedia is about facts, not someone’s opinion.
 * Notable events section, second paragraph: I would link “Trump” because he has his Wiki page.
 * Notable events section, third paragraph: “Colin Kaepernick, who was fired from the NFL in 2017 due to his personal activism during the National Anthem, takes part in Life After Hate”- it is so much going on in one sentence, sounds overwhelming.
 * Notable events section, the last paragraph: “He explained his past actions and how they led him to where he is now.” The sentence is not necessary, it does not tell any concrete facts.
 * Notable events section, last sentence: “ Picciolini explains that there is a fine line between seeing something and taking an action and that he believed it is essential to take everything into perspective before drawing a conclusion.” The sentence does not tell any useful facts and is not Wiki format.

Bee12 Peer Review Comm 206
Bee 12 (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the lead does a very well introduction to the topic of the organization, but it does begin to drift into more specific facts that could be edited so the information remains more plain.
 * The information that was provided is good information but can be included in a different section, or the funding could be due to notable events.
 * In the History section, Angela King seems to be the main topic of discussion, to me it feels like I'm reading an article page on Angela King and not the organization. Maybe finding article on how the organization was active in communities or how it came about becoming an organization.
 * The History section again sounds novel like. I think that the History section seems more like personal backstory as to why these specific individuals wanted a program. Focus more on what did the program do in its early stages, where was it involve and why was it involved in these events.
 * Notable Events, could have more specific information, although it seems to be clear with the information that the page is talking about it needs to be worded more concrete and include more specific information.
 * The page is well organized, it is has other wiki links to names and external information, good job on that. But, overall the information can drift away from story telling and be more accurate and punctual at telling the facts. The correct information seems to be portrayed it is just the delivery of the information on the page. I suggest maybe finding a couple more articles to be more direct and clear on information that is already being mentioned.

Edits made.
I nibbled around the edges in the bottom sections by correcting grammar, changing the passive voice in a few places, improved agreement, reordered some sentences, and requested clarifications. Helpful? Not helpful? Thanks for your attention, Wordreader (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education
''19 Blumenstyk, Goldie (2018-03-11). "A Former Neo-Nazi Lays Bare the Campus Strategy of White Supremacists". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2018-05-01.''

Media Bias / Fact Check has evaluated this publication: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-chronicle-of-higher-education/


 * Factual Reporting: High [Not "Very High", but excellent nonetheless - in much good company.]


 * Bias: Least Biased - smack-dab in the middle, the most coveted finding.

However, the article cited is behind a paywall. That's not terrible, as long as the person citing the article has full access to the article. I would also would like to see corroboration from accessible sources for any controversial statements.

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)