Misplaced Pages

:Accuracy dispute: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:28, 27 December 2005 editPhidauex (talk | contribs)913 editsm →[]: typo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:58, 20 December 2024 edit undoChew (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions1,687 edits Reverted 1 edit by JayceeCorp (talk)Tags: Twinkle Undo 
(712 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{shortcut|]}} {{Redirect|WP:AD||WP:AD (disambiguation)}}
{{Subcat guideline|content guideline|Dispute resolution|WP:DISPUTED|WP:DUBIOUS|WP:AD}}
If an article links to this page, it is because someone is concerned that the article may be significantly inaccurate. Such articles have the {{tl|disputed}} warning at the top:

{{disputed}}

The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:
* it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
* it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
* in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
* it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.


{{Resources for collaboration}} {{Resources for collaboration}}


Some articles on Misplaced Pages may contain significant factual inaccuracies, i.e. information that is ] wrong. Articles for which much of the factual accuracy is actively disputed should have a {{Tl|Disputed}} warning place at the top, and they are listed at ]. Also see a , and the ].
A related collaboration mechanism is concerned with ]s.

If you come across an '''article with an accuracy warning''', please do the following:
* don't remove the warning simply because the material ''looks'' reasonable: please take the time to properly ] it.
* visit the talk page to see what the issues are.
* correct it right away if you can. Please take the time to properly ] it. Please also add to the article any sources you used to verify the information in it: see ].


If you come across an '''article whose content seems or is inaccurate''', please do the following:
* correct it right away if you can. Please take the time to properly ] it. Please also add to the article any sources you used to verify the information in it: see ].
* if the neutrality of the content is in question, please look at ].

* if only a few statements seem inaccurate:
** insert '''<nowiki>{{dubious}}</nowiki>''' after the relevant sentence or paragraph.
** insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem.
** (Or insert '''<nowiki>{{dubious|section}}</nowiki>''' replacing 'section' with the appropriate section on the talk page.)

* if there are more than five dubious statements, or if a dispute arises:
** insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus contributions from others.
** paste '''<nowiki>{{disputed}}</nowiki>''' in the beginning of the article to add a general warning. Check ] for ways to resolve it.
** if you find that the article remains unnoticed, you can draw more attention to it by listing it on ].
** once you've found the correct information, edit the page to correct it, remove the warnings, and put something like the following in your ]:
:: Verified article -- removed accuracy dispute


When you add an accuracy warning, you are invited to also '''help resolve accuracy disputes''' by checking the
* (or the ] and related ]).

== Alternative terminology pages that redirect here ==
Many Misplaced Pages contributors are newbies not familiar with Misplaced Pages's specific terminiology. For their convenience, the following alternative terms for "Accuracy dispute" all redirect here. If you can think of additional terms a newbie is likely to use, please create a redirect page and list it here alphabetically. To create a redirect page, put the exact term in Search and press Go, not Search. the entire text of the page should be: #REDIRECT Misplaced Pages:Accuracy dispute

* Misplaced Pages:Accuracy disputed
* Misplaced Pages:Accuracy disputes
* Misplaced Pages:Accuracy contested
* Misplaced Pages:Contains factual errors
* Misplaced Pages:Contains wrong information
* Misplaced Pages:Contains inaccurate information
* Misplaced Pages:Disputed accuracy
* Misplaced Pages:Disputing accuracy

==Current disputes==
=== ] ===
Recently, an editor inserted a statement that he commutes to work every day in a single-engine jet, and that he lives in Massachusetts with his (presumably gay) partner. Graham, upon seeing this article, debunked this himself in . This article clearly needs work on making sure that its information is factual. --] 01:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===
Check the discussion page, but basically another user disputes referenced recipes and the availibility of variants of the Italian Beef including cheese despite the fact that menus from several chains that have websites were sourced as references to the existance of Italian Beefs with cheese. As stated before, check the discussion page and a history or edits. This editor also removed all external links that were part of the article including recipe's since he himself did not agree with the contents of the recipe.] 00:29, 4 July 2005

=== ] ===
This article has been subjected to considerable ], since I unwatched it many months ago. Anyone can have a look at its talkpage to see concerns raised by readers about its accurracy. I understand that it is a fringe subject that very few people have any knowledge of, but I hope that users who have not been implied in any revert wars about the page in the past can have a look at the facts..--] 11:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

This article has been stripped to the bare bones and apparently (according to reports on the 3RR and Vandalism report pages) locked by an admin (or possibly multiple admins) who is abusing his powers and enforcing POV. Motive for the stripping of the article seems to have been the failure of a Vote for Deletion attempt by a group who have their own POV to push. It would be far better for the article to be locked back to the state it was prior to the initial vandalism (wholesale content deletion) by ].


=== ] ===

This article neglects to present many, many necessary facts. Firstly, The Turkish Northern Cyprus is not a country in and of itself -- or at least as far as international legitimacy is concerned -- and has no right to consider itself plainly as "Cyprus." The article needs to better represent the history of the dispute between the Turkish-Cypriot North and the Greek-Cypriot South, as well as the uncertainty as to the North's existance as a state, rather than an occupier. Some user has recently replaced the articles pertaining to the legitimate Greek government, ] and the article pertaining to the island itself, ], with highly disputable information. For instance, the article pertaining to the EU-Member Greek ] with a short stint about Turkey being the country and the democratically elected Greek leader being a "rebel" terrorist.

:I'm not sure how long this comment has been here,but I have been working to turn ] into a neutral and balanced article. Some of these criticisms appear to be irrelevant now, and as the comment is unsigned I don't know when it was made. Further discussion welcome on ] or ]. ] 22:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===
There is much discussion and no agreement.

=== ] ===
This article seems to mix two basic Germanic roots of which many names derived, <I> Haimirich </I> and <I> Amalric </I>. The latter isn't mentioned in the text, but quite some examples given of nowadays forms of Haimirich are either from Amalric (like <I> Emeric </I>) or their history is doubtful, i.e. could go both ways, could have a totally different root from the mentioned two or its history is very unclear. This problems arises because of the similarity of the two Germanic roots, not in their ancient form, but in the forms that appeared later, with the possibility of growing almost together. <I> Amerigo </I> is an example of a name that could be from both. It could either be a variant of the Italian name Enrico, which is from Haimirich, or from Amalric, through Imre, the Hungarian Saint. In other words, we need some expertise here sorting this out and change this article into something more accurate, distinguishing the two groups clearly and off course we have to create a new article, one about Amalric. 13:55 (GMT), 22 Dec 2004

=== ] ===
This article seems to be a conclusion searching for evidence. Except for some very small stories in the mainstream press, this article takes data from unverifiable and dubious (partisan) sources, and attempts to expand the "controversy" into something much bigger than reality. Other editors have produced chartes and graphs based on this dubious data, which firmly goes against ]. All unverifiable and unreliable data or conclusions should be removed from this article and replaced with brief summaries of the concerns. -- ] ] 17:55, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)


=== ] ===

I'm wiping this clear, my comments, and the comments of others fell into two categories, out of date (IE, objections to things that have already been fixed in the article), or coffeeshop debate, things irrelevant to the actual article itself (my comments included). They didn't have a place in on the talk page either.

I'm going to recommend that Intelligent Design be removed from Accuracy Disputes, since a recent series of updates have resulted in a high quality article, with vast citations, and good NPOV. It can still be improved, of course, but there are no egregious problems at the moment.

Could someone else verify or deny my instinct by reading the article, and then either removing Intelligent Design from Accuracy Disputes, or adding a note here outlining the reason it should remain here? ] 17:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

The article seems presents a large number of facts with no references to back them up. Some facts are internally inconsistent (eg, the speed of a sneeze). Some parts have already been removed for being inaccurate and implausible. The whole article smacks of one of those 'did you know' e-mails that are regularly circulated around offices, and many of the statements therein seem dubious at best. The culture-related facts are not something I can't easily verify.

I'm sure there is some good material in the article, but it's difficult to tell what's truth and what's not. I'd love this to be reviewed by anyone with a more detailed knowledge of sneezing. --] ] 02:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===
In an attempt to push a POV, ] has inserted many errors into this biology article ranging from simple typos (such as dysmorphic, but note that dimorphic, which was clearly intended is also innacurate) to injections of non-sequitor references to psycological, social and political topics relating to ]. Attempts to address some of this problems have been reverted by the above user.


== Handling content that may be factually inaccurate ==
=== ]/] ===
Without consensus, and in spite of a similar dispute occuring due to the inclusion of the flag of Palestine, a user has begun to add the flags of non-recognized countries. ''']''', and their inclusion here is inapprorpriate for the reasons I outline on the Talk pages of both articles ( ). Furthermore, one of these articles should probably be a redirect to the other. ] 03:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


If you see an article that may be inaccurate, you should do the following:
=== ] ===
* Correct it yourself if you can. Add ] to ] to verify the information.
Some long-time editors resist (and revert) efforts/requests to provide citational evidence of listed names. I don't think these editors are ill-intentioned as such, but a small clique seems to wish to use the page as a proselytic device rather than an explicitly evidenced list. Most likely a few rejoinders about WP, the wiki-way, NPOV, and page quality would nudge the long-timers in the right direction. In initial examination, a large percentage of the names listed have prima facia negative evidence against their inclusion (but how do you fully prove a negative?): No mention of "born-again" in corresponding WP article, official site, fansite, etc; Google fails to show any affirmative statement by the public figure. ] 17:17, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
* If the neutrality of the content is in question, see ] for more details about how to handle it.
* If only a few statements seem inaccurate, see ].
* If there are several dubious statements, or if a dispute arises:
** Begin a "Disputed" section on the talk page to describe the problem, alert other editors, and gain more opinions on whether the content is inaccurate and how to handle it.
** Paste '''{{Tl|Disputed}}''' at the beginning of the article to add a general warning.
** If only the accuracy of a section is disputed, add '''{{Tl|Disputed-section}}''' at the beginning of the section.


== Handling factual inaccuracy warnings ==
=== ] and ] ===


If you see an article with a factual accuracy warning, please do the following:
The term "timeline" is wrongly used in the titles of these articles. Indeed, it is wrongly used throughout ''Misplaced Pages'', being a widespread linguistic error that needs to be remedied. See the discussion in the talk section of the ] or ].
* Don't remove the warning simply because the material appears reasonable: please ensure that content is ] using ], that it is ] and that it contains ] before removing the notice.
: Moot point , the terms timeline and chronology as somewhat interchangeable in common english usage. --] 06:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
* Visit the ] to see what the issues are.
* Correct it yourself if you can. Add ] to ] to verify the information.
* If you are sure that a statement is factually inaccurate then remove it, or move it to the talk page for further discussion. If you are familiar with the subject matter contained in the article but are not sure about the accuracy of a statement, then add "{{Tl|Citation needed}}" at the end of the statement. If you are not familiar with the subject matter contained in the article but wish to ask about the accuracy of a statement, then raise the issue on the article's talk page. Please see ] and ] for a more detailed explanation of how to handle potentially false or misleading information.


== Resolving disputes ==
* Check ] for ways to resolve it.
* There are several noticeboards at which accuracy disputes may be listed to gain the views of other editors, particularly the ], ], ], and ] noticeboards (see {{Tl|Noticeboard links}} for a fuller list).
* Once you have found the correct information, edit the page to correct it, remove the warnings, and put something like the following in your ]:
:: Verified article{{spaced ndash}}removed accuracy dispute


==Disputed statement==
=== ] ===


If a Misplaced Pages article links to this page, it is due to an editor's concerns regarding the accuracy of statements within that article. Statements causing such concern are marked with the tags <code></code> or <code></code>. An editor can insert such a warning by using the templates '''{{tl|Disputed inline}}''' or '''{{tl|Dubious}}'''.
We've had an ongoing edit war between an anonymous IP putting information into the article and a user (]) taking information away. The anon user uses edit summaries, but ignores the talk page. I took the section out of ] to keep the wars out of ], which has slowed down the onslaught... but there's still no way to resolve this. Anyone who knows a lot about steroids in football... actually, anyone, period... please help out. ] 17:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


Several factors can prompt concerns about the accuracy of a statement, including:
=== Issues in ] ===
* Implausible information, without providing adequate references;
* Information that is particularly difficult to verify;
* Highly detailed information subject to frequent changes, rendering its accuracy variable over time;
* Reference to sources that are outdated or whose reliability has been subsequently questioned;
* Contributions from users with a history of providing inaccurate information on the subject matter;
* Ambiguously worded statements that allow for multiple interpretations due to grammatical issues or subjective phrasing; or
* Existence of reliable sources that corroborate divergent claims.


If '''your work has been tagged''':
I've made a post in the talk page that no one has yet disputed to indicate that the Christian Science Church is indeed a Christian cult (due to its contradictions with the '''doctrines of Christianity'''). Yet at the same time people insist to directly refer to it as Christian despite evidence to the contrary that still has not been disputed. Since people can not respond to my comments on the talk page I am posting this here to prevent a needless edit war. I will accept that they claim to be Christian but that alone doesn't make it so. For example, Christianity holds ] first, while the ] holds the Bible up as it is interpreted in ] by its founder ] and is stark contrast to the teachings of Christianity such as the ]. Note that this is also in contrast to denominations of Christianity which the ] claims itself to also be a member. If this dispute is steadfastly removed as many other reasonable attempts at editing the article, without responding to any discussion, I would go so far as to say the article '''still''' has ] issues. ] 22:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
* ] unsourced statements by providing a ]. Add a citation using the ] menu at the top of the ],<!--note that this is the same in markup or Visual Editor, hurrah for simplicity--> or manually insert a citation using ]. There are ] available.
* If necessary, rephrase the statement to ensure it is ] and clear.
* Engage in ] if the reason for the tag is unclear. If you do not get a response, use the "View history" tab to identify who added the tag and ] them of your intention to discuss. Alternatively, you can use the {{tl|Help me}} template for assistance.


If you encounter a '''statement with an accuracy warning''', please:
=== ] ===
* Refrain from removing the warning simply because the material ''looks'' plausible. Instead, ] it properly.
* Consult the article's talk page to understand the underlying issues.
* If possible, correct the statement right away, ensuring ]. Additionally, incorporate any sources utilized for verification into the article, see ].


If you encounter a '''statement that seems to be or is inaccurate''', please:
I have added a factual dispute on Loyola University Chicago's page... it's just a factual mess... --] (]) 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
* If feasible, correct the statement right away, ensuring ]. Additionally, incorporate any sources utilized for verification into the article, see ].
* I'm confused. No tag on the linked page. No indication of anything being disputed. -- ] | ] 21:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
* Should the statement's ''neutrality'' be contentious, see ] for more details about addressing the issue.


If you cannot correct it right away:
]
* First, insert a "Dubious" section on the talk page to describe the problem. (Please don't mark up the article text without first describing the problem on the talk page.)
]
* Insert {{Tl|Disputed inline}} or {{Tl|Dubious}} after the relevant sentence or paragraph. Use {{Tl|Disputed inline}} to directly challenge the statement with sources to back up your claim, or {{Tl|Dubious}} to point out uncertainty over sources. Add the correct/current month and year to the template.
]
* (Or insert {{Tl|Dubious|talkpage section}} replacing 'talkpage section' with the appropriate section on the talk page, if one already exists.)
* If there are more than 5 dubious statements, or if a dispute arises:
** First, insert a "Disputed" section on the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus on contributions from others.
** Insert {{Tl|Disputed}} at the beginning of the article to add a general warning. Check ] for ways to resolve it.
** Once you've found the correct information, edit the page to correct it, remove the warnings, and put something like the following in your ]:
:: Verified article – removed accuracy dispute


When you add an accuracy warning, you are invited to also '''help resolve other accuracy disputes''' or '''fact-check other articles''' listed in:
=== ] ===
* ]
* ]


== See also ==
There is an ongoing fight about who is the Chief of State of Puerto Rico (the infobox), since people are vandalizing this information by removing it from the article. If anybody can please help and contribute to fix this problem, it would be very appreciated. Here is other US Territories that use a different infobox than what Puerto Rico uses: ], ], ].
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] <small>(the phrase doesn't mean what you think it does)</small>
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ''Note: This page was previously a noticeboard for accuracy disputes. See the ] for previous disputes, and also the talk page archives for further disputes.''


]
What people are fighting about is that Puerto Rico is using its "own" country infobox, which should NOT be used since its a US Territory. Thanks for your assistance, and happy holidays!

Latest revision as of 04:58, 20 December 2024

"WP:AD" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:AD (disambiguation).
Blue tickThis page documents an English Misplaced Pages content guideline.
Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.		Shortcuts
Resources for maintenance
and collaboration
Cleanup
Categories
Create an article
Referencing
Stubs
Deletion
Polishing
Translation into English
Images
Controversy
To-do lists
Disambiguation
More
For a listing of ongoing discussions,
see the dashboard.

Some articles on Misplaced Pages may contain significant factual inaccuracies, i.e. information that is verifiably wrong. Articles for which much of the factual accuracy is actively disputed should have a {{Disputed}} warning place at the top, and they are listed at Category:Accuracy disputes. Also see a recent list of disputed articles, and the current list of articles that link here.

Handling content that may be factually inaccurate

If you see an article that may be inaccurate, you should do the following:

  • Correct it yourself if you can. Add citations to reliable sources to verify the information.
  • If the neutrality of the content is in question, see Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute for more details about how to handle it.
  • If only a few statements seem inaccurate, see Disputed statement.
  • If there are several dubious statements, or if a dispute arises:
    • Begin a "Disputed" section on the talk page to describe the problem, alert other editors, and gain more opinions on whether the content is inaccurate and how to handle it.
    • Paste {{Disputed}} at the beginning of the article to add a general warning.
    • If only the accuracy of a section is disputed, add {{Disputed-section}} at the beginning of the section.

Handling factual inaccuracy warnings

If you see an article with a factual accuracy warning, please do the following:

  • Don't remove the warning simply because the material appears reasonable: please ensure that content is verifiable using reliable sources, that it is unbiased and that it contains no original research before removing the notice.
  • Visit the talk page to see what the issues are.
  • Correct it yourself if you can. Add citations to reliable sources to verify the information.
  • If you are sure that a statement is factually inaccurate then remove it, or move it to the talk page for further discussion. If you are familiar with the subject matter contained in the article but are not sure about the accuracy of a statement, then add "{{Citation needed}}" at the end of the statement. If you are not familiar with the subject matter contained in the article but wish to ask about the accuracy of a statement, then raise the issue on the article's talk page. Please see WP:BURDEN and WP:HANDLE for a more detailed explanation of how to handle potentially false or misleading information.

Resolving disputes

Verified article – removed accuracy dispute

Disputed statement

If a Misplaced Pages article links to this page, it is due to an editor's concerns regarding the accuracy of statements within that article. Statements causing such concern are marked with the tags or . An editor can insert such a warning by using the templates {{Disputed inline}} or {{Dubious}}.

Several factors can prompt concerns about the accuracy of a statement, including:

  • Implausible information, without providing adequate references;
  • Information that is particularly difficult to verify;
  • Highly detailed information subject to frequent changes, rendering its accuracy variable over time;
  • Reference to sources that are outdated or whose reliability has been subsequently questioned;
  • Contributions from users with a history of providing inaccurate information on the subject matter;
  • Ambiguously worded statements that allow for multiple interpretations due to grammatical issues or subjective phrasing; or
  • Existence of reliable sources that corroborate divergent claims.

If your work has been tagged:

If you encounter a statement with an accuracy warning, please:

  • Refrain from removing the warning simply because the material looks plausible. Instead, verify it properly.
  • Consult the article's talk page to understand the underlying issues.
  • If possible, correct the statement right away, ensuring verifiability. Additionally, incorporate any sources utilized for verification into the article, see Misplaced Pages:Cite your sources.

If you encounter a statement that seems to be or is inaccurate, please:

If you cannot correct it right away:

  • First, insert a "Dubious" section on the talk page to describe the problem. (Please don't mark up the article text without first describing the problem on the talk page.)
  • Insert {{Disputed inline}} or {{Dubious}} after the relevant sentence or paragraph. Use {{Disputed inline}} to directly challenge the statement with sources to back up your claim, or {{Dubious}} to point out uncertainty over sources. Add the correct/current month and year to the template.
  • (Or insert {{Dubious}} replacing 'talkpage section' with the appropriate section on the talk page, if one already exists.)
  • If there are more than 5 dubious statements, or if a dispute arises:
    • First, insert a "Disputed" section on the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus on contributions from others.
    • Insert {{Disputed}} at the beginning of the article to add a general warning. Check dispute resolution for ways to resolve it.
    • Once you've found the correct information, edit the page to correct it, remove the warnings, and put something like the following in your edit summary:
Verified article – removed accuracy dispute

When you add an accuracy warning, you are invited to also help resolve other accuracy disputes or fact-check other articles listed in:

See also

Categories: