User:The Evil Spartan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Interests
A coloured voting box.svg This user is interested in politics.
Ezra Cornell's first book.jpg This user is interested in linguistics.
Religious symbols.svg This user is interested in religion.
Beliefs
Albrecht Dürer Betende Hände.jpg
This user's spiritual beliefs
are complex and personal.
Charles Darwin aged 51 crop.jpg This user believes in evolution.
con This user is conservative.
John Gower world Vox Clamantis detail.jpg This user realizes that educated people from the Middle Ages already thought that the Earth was spherical.
About me
♂ This user is male.
YA This user is a young adult.
Wiki stuff
they This user considers singular they standard English usage.
Rainbow trout.png In an emergency, this user may be slapped with a trout.
Unbalanced scales.svg This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues.
NotCommons-emblem-copyrighted.svg This user respects copyright and other intellectual property rights.
NPOV This user gets quite annoyed when they see POV in the mainspace.
Drawn heart.svg This user appreciates WikiLove.
Things that are a likely tip off of bad article writing
  1. A criticism section.
    See WP:CRITICISM. These sections are usually just an excuse for people to write why they don't like the subject.
  2. A controversies section.
    See above.
  3. A section that contains the phrase Accusations of... or Allegations of...
    A classic case of bad sanitized writing to try to please all parties. See WP:YESPOV. An article often can and should be written in a neutral way which gives equal time to points of view based on their weight, and yet is not so sanitized. These statements usually say everything at once, while simultaneously saying nothing at all. They tell the reader what Ann Coulter has said about something rather than what legitimate authorities, the scientific community, etc. has said about something. We must remember: someone's toes will be stepped on, and by sanitizing or removing the truth, we do the reader a disservice.
  4. A section detailing an issue which is overly important to the editors of Wikipedia. The demographic nature of Wikipedia is the young, western, English speaking, educated internet user, who's point of view is different than the general population of the world. These people in general have a stronger sentiment against global warming, sci-fi/fantasy and anime fiction, etc..
    See this article on fictioncruft.
    • Futaba Town - an article about one of the 56 distinct regions of Pokemon

(fortunately, it is now redirected).

  1. An article on any of the above issues.
    See WP:POVFORK.

Two examples:

  • Southern Baptist Convention, good example: there is no criticism section present, despite being a controversial organization, and its stances on controversial issues are properly in context, not cherry-picked, and not recentist.
  • Focus on the Family, bad example: there is a particularly uninhibited criticism and controversy section, which seems to simply be a vent against the organization. It contains a hodgepodge of criticisms only since 2006 (quite recentist), and they deal mainly with homosexuality, to the near exclusion of the many many other issues with this organization (political activism, alleged anti-Semitism, anti-abortion activism, anti-feminist, etc.)


Barnstars[edit]