User:The Evil Spartan

Beliefs

About me

Wiki stuff

(fortunately, it is now redirected).
 * 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.
 * Microsoft.
 * Joel Osteen
 * 1) A controversies section.
 * See above.
 * 1) 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.
 * Accusations of Suicide Attacks and Kidnappings by Hezbollah.
 * Charities accused of ties to terrorism.
 * 1) 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
 * Wii Menu
 * 1) An article on any of the above issues.
 * See WP:POVFORK.
 * Allegations of state terrorism by the United States.

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.)