User talk:Gabbymcgearyy

Welcome!
Hello, Gabbymcgearyy, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; 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. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Exploitation of women in mass media, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. ''I understand how you might feel on a specific topic, however, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedic site, not a talk forum. Activism and politics should be presented not as arguments but rather as an overview of a particular stance. Wikipedia does not allow political commentary in articles. If you wish to share this information you must find a source, format the information in an encyclopedic way, and not present a single side. Please ensure that ou have read the Guidelines, and Neutral Point of view'' Toast   (talk)  17:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Gabbymcgearyy - remember that everything you add to Wikipedia need to be supported by reliable sources, preferably scholarly ones. Your addition to the article didn't include any sources at all. You should revisit the Adding citations training module for a reminder how to do that.
 * The other issue is that you need to write in a tone that matches the rest of Wikipedia. This includes using precise language and writing as neutrally as possible. For example, you wrote
 * Music videos have only existed since ~1970s, so "throughout time" isn't accurate. It's also far too vague for a Wikipedia article.
 * "Studies were done to see the correlation" - When you're writing for Wikipedia, you need to front-load the information. Start with the main take-home message - few readers care about how the conclusions were drawn, and those ones will read past the topline message. Also individual studies are the weakest place to draw inferences from - reviews that draw general conclusions from many studies are much more valuable. Finally, "studies were done" is mostly filler of the kind you don't need to include, and correlations in particular are just correlations - they don't address the underlying causes.
 * "Many actions have been taken" - again, what actions? Standing up and walking to the kitchen, or going outside and harassing women? This is important.
 * "The more the videos were observed, the more the attitudes got worse" - you've shifted from "attitudes", to "actions" and then back to "attitudes" without an explanation, and you still haven't provided insight on the nature of these attitudes or actions.
 * This seems to be the methods section of a study. That doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
 * You should avoid referring to people as "males and females". It's fine as an adjective, but it's frequently seen as degrading and dehumanising when used as a noun
 * "of the white race" - race in humans is a socially constructed category, and you should be careful how you use it. In formal writng, saying "the [x] race" is also fairly archaic.
 * "music videos that were either love or rap" - these are non-overlapping categories. "Love songs and rap music are a distinct categories in popular music, but "love" and "rap" are not. It's important to be precise.
 * While I agree strongly with the sentiments expressed here, these are opinions. You can include opinions if you attribute them, but you can't make absolute statements about right or wrong in Wikipedia's voice. You can't include arguments either, nor ideals ("it should be"). Wikipedia is supposed to report what reliable sources say about subjects, not make the case for an outcome. Done right, you can often make a better case simply using the facts, and reach people who may not agree with you to begin with. When you tell people what they should do, they often get defensive and stop listening. When you present them with the facts, they are often more open to listening. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "music videos that were either love or rap" - these are non-overlapping categories. "Love songs and rap music are a distinct categories in popular music, but "love" and "rap" are not. It's important to be precise.
 * While I agree strongly with the sentiments expressed here, these are opinions. You can include opinions if you attribute them, but you can't make absolute statements about right or wrong in Wikipedia's voice. You can't include arguments either, nor ideals ("it should be"). Wikipedia is supposed to report what reliable sources say about subjects, not make the case for an outcome. Done right, you can often make a better case simply using the facts, and reach people who may not agree with you to begin with. When you tell people what they should do, they often get defensive and stop listening. When you present them with the facts, they are often more open to listening. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While I agree strongly with the sentiments expressed here, these are opinions. You can include opinions if you attribute them, but you can't make absolute statements about right or wrong in Wikipedia's voice. You can't include arguments either, nor ideals ("it should be"). Wikipedia is supposed to report what reliable sources say about subjects, not make the case for an outcome. Done right, you can often make a better case simply using the facts, and reach people who may not agree with you to begin with. When you tell people what they should do, they often get defensive and stop listening. When you present them with the facts, they are often more open to listening. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)