Wikipedia talk:Accuracy dispute/Archive 1

2003
Very nice idea! Well done. --Eloquence 09:52 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * One of them had to be, just by pure chance :) Thanks. Martin 10:56 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Note that if you do this, then you're taking responsibility for the accuracy of the content just as if you had originally written it yourself

I don't know what to make of this sentence... in the context it seems rather negative, even threatening - but I do see what's being got at. Hmm - I'll sleep on it. Martin

I removed it. The thing is, everyone is always responsible for their own edits, anywhere on Wikipedia. This isn't a special case. It's also not true that removing an accuracy disclaimer is "taking responsibility" - the responsibility for the accuracy of the article is shared between the original poster and any peer reviewers. Obviously one shouldn't remove accuracy disclaimers unless one is reasonably convinced of the accuracy of the article. Similarly one shouldn't add accuracy disclaimers unless one is reasonably concerned about the accuracy of the article. Martin

Unfortunately, I don't think that it's obvious enough. On mailing list discussions, people have referred to thinking «Well, this looks reasonable to me.» and restoring Michael's edits. As I've mentioned on the mailing list, if people restore text from Michael, then they can't do this; they need to trust the information as much as they would as if they were writing it anew. Indeed, I've often written things in articles that I'd never have written on my own, but instead because I was explaining something that had been written by another person on Wikipedia. We don't want people to do that with Michael. -- Toby Bartels 06:33 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sure, but this page isn't Michael-specific. Martin 09:10 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it is supposed to work in that case! (BTW, is this being used for anybody besides Michael yet?) Anyway, I think that what you put in looks fine. -- Toby Bartels 02:12 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

So, I'm still not sure I completely understand. For example, I have marked the article Uqbar to question its accuracy and have raised my arguments on its talk page. I doubt this is a page more than a couple of people are watching, so I'm liable to have no one else weigh in. Is there somewhere else I should raise the issue? (In effect, I guess, I'm doing so by asking here, but I assume that's not the preferred way to do this. I'd like to know for next time.) -- Jmabel 02:08, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I hope you realise that south of morocco should not be disputed. Mauritania is below Western Sahara, and western sahara is part of morocco, therefore, Mauritania is sout of Morocco. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk • contribs) September 2006.
 * This comment is from nearly 3 years after comment it replies to. Meanwhile, the Uqbar article has been completely rewritten. I suspect that the person who wrote it is referring to something about the current article, not about the entirely fictional article we had in 2003. - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

2007
Everybody knows Gert Bastian fought for the Nazis and was released from prison. Why is this not even mentioned on his Web page?

Why is it not mentioned that SATURNALIA was an ancient roman holiday?! Stop being so f*cking radical, this doesn't have anything to do with NAZIS or video games. well NAZIS, yes. a little.

2004
Should we restrict this to parts of articles rather than complete articles as it is very confusing which part of the article is disputed. --Hemanshu 18:40, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Below Morocco is Western Sahara, below that, is Mauritania. Western Sahara is part of Morocco, Mauritania is therefore south of Morocco. what is there not to get.

Why is this article itself disputed?
i dunno...


 * It isn't. It contains the dispute tag as an illustration. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It repeats some cities, such as Leeds and Sheffield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.19.86.4 (talk • contribs) 7 February 2006
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. This project page does not mention Leeds or Sheffield. - Jmabel | Talk 21:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Leeds and Sheffeild have nothing to do with this. The dispute tag is not even an Illustration. it is there, because people dispute the topic.

What to do with dubious accuracy
Sometimes, the article accuracy is dubious, but no dispute arises. Should we have another procedure called "Dubious accuracy" ? The warning would say: The accuracy of this article is dubious: see talk:ARTICLENAME. The procedure would be similar, but with less emphasis on dispute. (anon)


 * This tag was created for articles of dubious accuracy - such as those by user:Michael. It sounds like it would be wise to remove the word "dispute" from it, as that might be misleading. Martin 16:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Implied inaccuracies
If an inaccuracy is implied, it it just as much an inaccuracy. Gzornenplatz 07:53, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * ... but not a factual inaccuracy. My apologies for the delayed response.


 * Often a case arises where one person looks at an article (on Saddam Hussein say), and says "all the explicitly stated facts in this article are correct, but this article implies that Saddam has been bad for Iraq - whereas in fact he has been good for Iraq". Such a case should not be given an accuracy dispute tag, I believe. This is because the basic problem is one of opinions and neutrality: the complainant has an opinion about whether Saddam has been good for Iraq, and believes that the article is not neutral and promotes a contrary opinion. While the complainant believes that his opinion is a fact, it is not an undisputed fact, so for our purposes we have to treat it as an opinion. Hence, a neutrality dispute.


 * This tag was created for information from unreliable sources (notably user:Michael), and similar situations: indeed, this article gives the specific situations were this arises. NPOV disputes were already well catered for by the neutrality dispute tag. All articles subject to a neutrality dispute naturally involve the implication of some opinions that some people dispute. Using this accuracy dispute tag in the broad sense that you propose seems redundant to me.


 * One solution might be to tweak the wordings. Thus, we might change this tag to say "this article requires fact-checking", and have the neutrality dispute tag say "The neutrality of this article is disputed. It may state or imply opinions as fact". This would ensure that people viewing a NPOV-disputed article are aware that it may contain contant that some or many people view as making inaccurate implications. Martin 16:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What pages are lists of pages to be worked on for Accuracy?
It's not clear (to me, at least) where lists of pages which need accuracy work can be found. Please respond. I'm trying to update the Template:Resources_for_collaboration, and I think it needs to be divided into two parts, one of which is a list of lists of pages which need various kinds of work, but I can't list the Accuracy pages until I know what they are. See my User page for my notes on this process. Thanks! Jesse 23:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) –Śýļ It is known to me that you need to look at syria in order for you to continue...One in gods Golden light

Why are there two different pages on this?
{minor mouth foaming} The Template:Dubious (supposedly used for specific statements which are inaccurate, rather than whole articles) links to Disputed_statement(it's also in category Category:Dubious), while Template:Disputed(used for whole articles) links to Accuracy dispute(and is in category Category:Accuracy disputes). Of course, both of them link from the word: "disputed". Sigh. This appears to be non-sensible. Why are there two pages? They are substantially alike, but not exactly. While it may make sense to have the two different templates link to different explanations, in that case, neither of them should include information on how to mark new pages as accuracy disputes. That should be on a third page. Yes? Or am I just losing my mind... JesseW 00:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"leave the door to the unknown ajar"
"Accuracy" is hard to determine at the cutting edge of science. Richard Feynman advised to "leave the door to the unknown ajar in case we do not have it right". Therefore best to err on side of tolerance rather than premature censorship with appropriate caveats of course. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adastra (talk • contribs) 11 Sept 2005

Inaccurate and unverifiable in many cases
Moved to Talk:Paul Cain.

Inaccurate section
Sometimes there is an inaccurate section within a good article. Is there any template that refers to a section, not to the whole article? See, for example, Street light.


 * You can stick disputed at the top of the section rather than the top of the article, or you can stick it at the top of the article with an italic section afterwards indicating that the dispute is confined to a particular section. I don't think there is a distinct tag. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

it helps further to spell "inaccurate" correctly ... then you appear to know what you're doing ... quack! ... cb

Out of date?
Is there a tag for article that is not actually giving false information, but which is severely out-of-date? 80.221.61.8 14:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * update - Jmabel | Talk 03:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article itself disputed?
Moved to Talk:Miyamoto Musashi.

A rewrite of the article with correct info, and correction of captions.
I just completed a month of studying Spanish in Antigua Guatemala. While there I tried to learn as much about the history of the city as I could. All of my information is coming from Antigua Guatemala, The city and it's heritage by Elisabeth Bell.

What is now called Antigua Guatemala was founded on November 22nd, 1527. It was named Santiago de Guatemala or "Saint James of Guatemala". St. James is the patron saint of Guatemala. Santiago was built up the slope of Volcano Agua, at this time the volcano's crater was filled to the brim with water. On the night of September 10th, 1541 an earthquake unleashed a mudslide and flood that wiped out the city of Santiago. on March 10th, 1543 the capitol was moved to the present location of Anitgua. The new capitol retained the name of Santiago de Guatemala, and the previous capitol was known as Ciudad Vieja (the old city). Santiago's official name of Muy Leal y Muy Noble Ciudad de Santiago de los Caballeros de Goathemala, "Very Loyal and Very Noble City of Saint James of the Knights of Guatemala" was given by Spain's King Phillip II in 1566.

On July 29th, 1773 two earthquakes all but leveled the city. The city was then moved on July 24th 1774 to the present location of Guatemala City. Muy Leal y Muy Noble Ciudad de Santiago de los Caballeros de Goathemala was then officially named La Antigua Guatemala (The old guatemala or the anitquity of Guatemala). Over the next years Anitigua Guatemala was the target of several royal decrees banning the market of Antigua, as well as forcing people to move to the new city. No forced march or move was ever executed but by July 28th, 1777 Antigua was all but evacuated. Over the next century Antigua was cannibalised for building materials. The ruins of the Churches, as well as all exposed wood was taken to help build the new city. By the mid 1800's the city began to become populated once again. Thankfully many of the colonial houses where renovated instead of torn down. However the mid 1960's Antigua began to become modernized. Houses were destroyed to make way for gas stations, hotels, movie theatres and other things of the 20th century. By this time the citizens of Antigua began to desire the colonial feel of the past century. They united together and established a council that established laws for Antigua. All billboards, gas stations and other modern sign were ordered taken down. All building could only be two stories, you can only paint building certain colors, and you can not destroy colonial homes. To this day there is only one gas station in the city, and no billboards or neon signs. The city feels very much like a colonial city that has been brought into the modern era.

Today in Antigua you can enjoy ruins of some 15 colonial Churches. The city is awash with around 75 Spanish schools. The city is also renowed for its Lent, Holy Week, and Easter services all over the city.

Correction of Picture Captions

The picture caption A colonial church facade is El Carmen Church, and the picture of the arch should be captioned Arch of Catalina, with Volcano Agua in the Distance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jt.friel (talk • contribs) 5 May 2006.


 * What does any of this have to do with any accuracy dispute? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Saturnalia
Saturnalia: Dr. Alexander Hislop; The Two Babylons, sec. American ed,: Hislop, pg.93: "In Egypt, the son of Isis, the Egyptian title for the queen of heaven, was born at this very time, about the time of the Winter Soltace;" quoted from: Wilkinson's Egyptians, vol. iv. pg. 405 Plutarch (De Iside, vol ii. p. 377, B) states that the Egyptian priests pretended that the birth of the divine son of Isis, at the end of December, was premature.

Hislop, pg. 153: "From Fuss we learn that 'gladiatorial shows were sacred to Saturn' (Roman Antiquities, pg. 359); and in Ausonius we read that 'the amphitheatre claims its gladiatord for itself, when at the end of December they propitiate with their blood the sickle-bearing Son of Heaven' (Ausonius, Eclog. i. p. 156). On this pagge, Justus Lipsius, who quotes it, thus comments: 'Where you will observe two things, both, that the gladiators fought on the Saturnalia, and that they did so for the purpose of appeasing and propitiating Saturn' (Lipsius, tom. ii, Saturnal., lib. i. cap. 5.).

Hislop, pg. 97: "It was no mere astronomic festival, then, that the Pagans celebrated at the Winter Solstice. That festival at Rome was called the feast of Saturn, and the mode in which it was celebrated there, showed whence it had derived.  The feast, as regulated by Caligula, lasted five days (Subsequently the number of the days of Saturnalia was increased to seven. See Justus Lipeius, Opera, tom. ii., Saturnal, lib. i. cap. 4.)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.229.229.121 (talk • contribs) 1 June 2006.


 * As with the above section: what does any of this have to do with any accuracy dispute? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy?
Is this a Wikipedia Policy or a Guideline? If it is, the appropriate template would stop people like me from first smirking about an (apparent) accuracy dispute over Accruacy Disputes before reading the article. It's like a computer dictionary which reads "Recursive¹ re KUR səv (adj): See Recursive¹." -{Kevin/Lastin posting sans cookies} 12.96.58.22 19:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC) lol emo rofl! :D Gold nigger

NOT ALL CHINESE REGARD THE NUMBER 4 AS "DIE" The interpretation for Number 4 in Chinese numerology article here does not necessarily mean "die" to all Chinese. Chinese Teochew regard it as "Hee" meaning "Good News" and "Happiness" and so it is an auspicious number to them. Only the Chinese Cantonese regard the number 4 as "die". And so it is very subjective for each particular Chinese dialect group.

Yadavas of devagiri

 * I want to compalin against usage of dubious and partisan regionalistic books by mr.Kannambadi. He is using selective books to paint few Maharashtra history articles with Kannada colors. If I use Marathi language books (of prominent historians which can be checked) he deletes it and seniors are all praise for him because of their elitist attitude and have no regards for other's opinion.
 * Al though yadavas of devagiri are their new target but my objection is with usage of only one writer that endorses what Mr.Kannambadi wants. U can go to any article of Mr.kannambadi and seach for Kannada there. Any sane person will understand that the articles shape up with kannada viewpoint. If he is allowed to use this regionalistic books why i am not allowed to use Marathi books? His books being in english doesnt make it pristine and Marathi is not a lesser language than English.
 * Plz answer back on vishu123.

59.95.3.193 05:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ironclad warship
Recently, I got into a dispute with user:Askari Mark over content related to the subsection titled "the Monitor and the Merrimack" within this article. He attempted to correct the subheading to "Monitor Vs Virginia". I would have let that line go, except for the fact that when he did his correction, he wrote a statment stating that everyone who had used the title "Monitor vs. Merrimack" was wrong. I challenged him on this, and he furthur altered the subheading to reflect a revisionist history of the battle between the Monitor and Merrimack, something which cannot be tolerated. The exchange between us, as well as proof of my own correctness in the matter, is contained within the ironclad warship talk page.

What I have seen by this man, as well as seing it from many others within Wikipedia, is an attempt to alter a historical or scientific article to reflect a personal belief or set of beliefs without any basis in fact. What happened in ironclad warship is pretty minor, but that minor altering has larger implications. Students are reading these articles; they are learning from these articles, they are dependent on these articles. As such, they must be as factual and reliable as possible. To have anyone come into Wikipedia and alter them because they don't like it is wrong. I had challenged this man to provide original sources to support his assertion; he would not, and accused me of personal bias; in fact, he underhandly called me a "troll". I had provided facts, links, and documents supporting the fact that his original line was wrong, which are posted on the talk page.

I am truly sorry it had come to this, as I believe that disputes should not happen at all. There are too many people on Wikipedia who are doing what they can to make the whole better. But what I have cited is "revisionist history", that kind of history which is altered by an individual who ignores established fact and posts that which he feels is "correct", without sources. Carajou 12:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ha\

the article on victoria toensing may be factually misrepresentative and contains some inaccuracies.
who is victoria plame? did we get confused on who the article was to be about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.67.163.128 (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Is "dispute" representative of the template's meaning?
Stanislav Petrov, for example, was tagged. The article's content isn't really disputed, it's just dubious. The description of the template "If an article links to this page, it is because someone is concerned that the article may be significantly inaccurate." applies, but it seems the template's title doesn't. Am I missing something? Should the template be renamed?--Chealer 04:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Gold Seal Campaign
For the sake of Wikipedia and controversial articles...

Gold Seal Campaign:

What do you think of this? The administrators of Wikipedia establish a Gold Seal campaign for certain articles. This “Gold Seal” will indicate for a given article it’s factuality and lack of vandalism. Basically it will show..

1-This page is properly cited.

2-This page has been verified.

This will be an important step for Wikipedia. It means students, high school included will be able to cite Wikipedia in their work. As of now many schools do not allow students to this.

As for editing an article, It will still be allowed yet a person can easily revert to the Gold Sealed, verified page on Wikipedia. This will be an amazing step for Wikipedia, though difficult, it will allow readers to know for sure what they are reading is true. It will surely improve Wikipedia’s image in the public sphere. Of course someone will have to organize this, but in then it will be sufficient use of labour. — mattawa

United States has zero submarines? What?!
This information is obviously factually incorrect. I personally know a seaman who served on a US submarine. Hell there is even anothe wikipedia page on the different classes of submarine in the US! Here is a list of some or all of the submarines active in the US navy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_the_United_States_Navy

Nedic's Serbia
There is serious controversy erupting over the entire content of the article Nedic's Serbia, an article about Serbia under German occupation during World War II. There is not enough referenced material to prove any side of the arguments erupting. User:R-41 August 11, 2007.

This is written from the slav point of view
This page is written from the slav point of view. Magyarization was not violent. Those executions in 1848 were in the middle of a revolution where the slavs allied the oppressive Habsburg empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.78.250 (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Not here, sorry... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.78.250 (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)