+++
There are several policies and guidelines that are frequently overlooked in discussions about articles.
- Age matters: "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed."
- Balancing aspects: "An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."
- Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable."
- Impartial tone: "articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view."
- News organizations: editorials and analysis in news media are "are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
- No original research: "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources."
- Using sources: "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research."
- Selecting sources: implies editors should use "the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources."
- Technical language: avoid using jargon that readers are unlikely to understand. If it cannot be avoided, explain the term in text rather than expecting readers to click on a link to an article that explains it.
- Tone: "BLPs should be written...in a dispassionate tone. Articles should document in a non-partisan.... Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking."
+++
|
|
|
|
|
The Socratic Barnstar | |
| IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF YOUR SCHOLARLY, PATIENT, COURTEOUS, INCISIVE AND ELOQUENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FASCISM-RELATED TALK PAGES Writegeist (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
The LGBT Barnstar | |
| because that's how you roll. |
|
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
| For cleaning up and categorizing politics related articles. LK (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
| For hard work and fearlessness in jumping into the fray. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
The Burkie Barnstar | |
| For your many efforts to improve articles on Conservatism-related articles, I give you the Edmund Burke Barnstar. Keep up the good work. Will Beback talk 04:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
| In honor of your disagreeing without being disagreeable and your turd-polishing expertise. V7-sport (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
The Golden Wiki | |
| Dear TFD, Wikipedia owes you a huge collective thank you for researching the origins of the horrid "Jews & Communism" article and bringing about its well-deserved final demise. Thank you so much!! Your consistent rejection of its premises and clear recognition that it was pseudo-scholarship and your fearless first nomination of it for deletion and never wavering from your highly principled reasoning served as an intellectual and moral beacon in what at some points became an "insane world" by those defending the indefensible. May you go from strength to strength. Your sincerely, IZAK (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| Thank you for your contribution to a successful mediation. Sunray (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |