Wikipedia talk:Accuracy dispute/Archive 3

Warning
This page says that a general warning should be added if there are more than 5 dubious statements. However, if the article is long enough, it can have 10 dubious statements and still be mostly legitimate. There seems to be a template called created for this purpose; maybe we should call attention to this template, perhaps by saying something like "If there are more than 5 dubious statements, bout not all of the article is disputed, then insert  at the top of the page?  seems to imply that the whole article is disputed. Exabyte (talk)&shy; 13:36, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Template
I've created a new dispute template for cases where a strong disagreement exists on content of a page leading to an edit war but it is not a major issue of NPOV or factual accuracy but a lesser (but still strong) disagreement.

The template is

A disagreement exists as to what should be included in this article. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion on the talk page.

Adding in the existing templates can make the dispute worse where people also dispute whether the template being used is itself POV and provocative. This template is calmer in tone and more low-key, so suitable for more minor but still quite angry disputes where some users demand a template but an edit war erupts even over the type of template being added in. This one could be described as minimalist in tone, enough to say hey guys, lets stop edit waring, agree that there is a disagreement and discuss it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to tag a reference as dubious?
In Polygamy, two references have been marked as dubious. There is a discussion in Talk:Polygamy. My interpretation is that references references are not subject to the dubious tag, that they provide further information about topics in the article. References should be provided with different POVs. That doesn't make the references dubious, though the description of the reference could be subject to disagreement. Could someone help me with this interpretation? Nereocystis 17:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Peer review???
This article suggests using Peer review to check disputed facts; however peer review states This page is for nearly Featured-standard articles that need the final checking by peers before being nominated as Featured article candidates.. The two ideas don't seem compatible Mozzerati 22:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No kidding. I recently removed a peer review that someone had posted in order to point out that a single sentence wasn't supported by its source.  Peer review is just not set up for that sort of thing. Steering people there as a way of dealing with minor content problems is doing them no favors.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have changed the recommendation to use Third opinion, a page designed to help people with content disputes. --Allen3 talk 02:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Third Opinion would be appropriate when two editors are in conflict, but the way the instructions read now, it's telling people to go there immediately after finding a questionable statement and placing the template. It makes no sense to send people to dispute resolution before there is a dispute....  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  02:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like Pizza92.18.170.138 (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Template Talk
Template:Dubious versus Template:DisputedAssertion. See WP:TFD.

Personally, I think that the name of the latter is more consistent with other templates, though the former has more history. Also, I like the idea of a picture separating a line item as a functional element of the page, and not a parenthetical. If Template:DisputedAssertion makes it, this page may need to be revised to include it, or differentiate it from Template:Dubious.

&mdash; &lt; T A L K JNDRLINE T A L K &gt;

Discuss: entry for List of British Idioms
The entry has near the top:

"A good seeing to" defined as "energetic sexual intercourse" and "a sound beating."

I believe the 'beating' def. should be listed first; it's probably the origin of the 'intercourse' def., which seems not dubious at all to me: it's similar to a vulgar macho U.S. idiom, "punish the wife."

"A good seeing to" is kin to another Brit idiom: "sorted out," sometimes clipped to 'sorted.' Maybe be used in all tenses. As with 'seeing to' its meaning is not fixed beyond the idea of 'deal with'; actual meaning must be derived from context. "I'll get him sorted out" can be benign ("I'll get the guest registered, show him to his room and have his luggage taken up") or not ("I'm going to kick his ass").

I have no published sources to cite, but I'm a writer and I pay attention to idioms and words as a mater of professional interest. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.32.39 (talk • contribs)


 * The former meaning, "energetic sexual intercourse", is the common meaning. -- The Anome (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Quotes in German LabVIEW entry
The statement "Neben den genannten Vorteilen hat die graphische Programmierung gegenüber der textbasierten auch Nachteile, die mit der Größe des Projekts schwerer wiegen:

(...) aufgrund der vorprogrammierten Blöcke, die in den vorgefertigten Libraries von Labview angeboten werden, die wiederum aus verschiedensten Unterebenen bestehen, die noch mehr Blöcke enthalten für Simulationen oder Erstellung von Reglern für mechatronische Systeme mit Echtzeitanforderung weniger geeignet als zum Beispiel "Simulink", in der jeder Block eine bestimmte Funktion besitzt und man daher die volle Kontrolle über sein grafisch erstelltes Programm inne hat."

does not make sense from an experienced LabVIEW user's view. Hierarchy is part of every programming language and essential to "projects of large scale".

MoS naming style
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

At least semi-protect
Can you please at least semi-protect the article? I don't want some spammer to overwrite this article with junk. ~ 68.164.9.193 (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Verbose Language
Hi I find the first discussion about peer review to use verbose language, could you try and make the language simpler to understand for non-writers or journalists please?