User talk:Nelkarhili/sandbox
I like your page. It expands tremendously on what little was there before. I also like the statistics that you use in the center of your page. As I began reading your page, I was hoping there would be some facts and figures and so was happy to see them. I think you need to be careful though because the beginning and end of your piece sounds opinionated. When you use words like "populist elite" it gives me the connotation that you are taking a moral side. Is there any way to articulate the other sides policy stance or reasoning? You can always knock down illegitimate political claims with facts ( or alternative alternative facts ;) ) or you could even leave those that are valid concerns which have yet to be addressed. If you had actual sources... news paper articles, policy platforms... something more to move the first half away from opinion towards objective observation, I think you might avoid potential lengthy controversy and re-edits. The title of Trumps original executive order is a perfect example of populist rhetoric. Also, you are focused primarily in the Western context, yeah? I would state somewhere that Asian, African and South American context are different, right? What about the Middle East... our readings of Palestinians in Lebanon? Again, it seems like you are sticking to a Western context, which is fine. I didn't see all of your sources, so I didn't review them. Also... I would avoid idioms/colloquials like "trojan horse".
"Despite the reality of the “scale” in which refugees destabilize regions, there is evidence that the increase of refugee populations can and do increase violence ( Do you mean violence against refugees???) . A population on-the-move can aid the transportation of resources, weapons, knowledge and human-power utilized for terrorism. And, once in a host country, the conditions in which refugees are integrated into or isolated from society can enable a path to radicalization. The populist rhetoric that paints refugees as a threat can spur radicalization and mobilization " ( This whole section could do with some sources).
Overall I like it. You are doing a great job. You may want to link to the securitization wiki, but maybe I am missing the mark. JoonDay (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
It looks like you've done a lot of research and cover a lot of points on the topic! I like that there's a lot of information you've shared. There are a lot of facts and data that do well to convey the truth without being biased. Overall when reading the article, I did feel like there isn't a neutral point of view. I get it, it's hard to get away from that. I'm having a hard time myself to make my article neutral because I do have an opinion about my topic! I'm still working on mine but others have suggested to me some things that I think could help your article too. The first thing was to present both sides of the argument, (e.g. X argues point A, while Y opposing this stance argues B). I also got some feedback to not use the words "Some people argue..." Because it still makes me seem biased to an opinion, so now I'm going to find out who argues what and write that, trying to keep both arguments in each part of my addition. I feel like using these techniques could help your article to read as more neutral.
Another thing I would add is more sources in the footnotes, I couldn't see what sources they were since it was just the names, and then I think it'd be good to have the sources after every statement you make. I agree with JoonDay that the last paragraph is like you are making an argument like for your essay. It is not really encyclopedic, but its great material for your essay for sure! There are just a few tweeks like this paragraph and some of the wording like JoonDay was mentioning that would help your article read more encyclopedic. The article is developed well. Just needs some balancing I think between stances, so it's not like you're trying to convince someone of a point.
It looks like you've put a lot of work and research into this which is great! I'm excited to see it as it develops and finalizes! It will be a needed addition to Wiki. Great job so far! Acvgsu (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Acvgsu
Nice work. I don't necessarily agree that "populist" and 'right-wing' elite' is problematic. I would argue that this type of discourse overlooks–if not exonerates–American liberal (small L) and leftist discourse that functions as a means of "othering" refugees. In other words, the white saviour narrative functions as a securitization act as much as the enemy within discourse. Just a thought. Mbmorley (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)