| Revision as of 06:47, 16 January 2006 edit137.216.208.82 (talk) →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:09, 18 January 2006 edit undo68.73.66.133 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{shortcut|]}}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}} | |||
| 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: <nowiki>#REDIRECT ]</nowiki> | |||
| * 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== | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| This article has some serious problems with factual accuracy and POV pushing. It contains a reference to NY Times article with a problematic interpretation of the title (to say the least). The article may damage Misplaced Pages through this defamation of NY Times. There are other PoV issues and insulting accusations being pushed. Discussion page is bordering personal attacks and attempts to make the article NPoV through discussion is either being ignored or disregarded.--] 02:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| 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. | |||
| === ]/] === | |||
| 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) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| 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) | |||
| === ] and ] === | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| : Moot point , the terms timeline and chronology as somewhat interchangeable in common english usage. --] 06:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| 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) | |||
| === Issues in ] === | |||
| 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) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| I have added a factual dispute on Loyola University Chicago's page... it's just a factual mess... --] (]) 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * I'm confused. No tag on the linked page. No indication of anything being disputed. -- ] | ] 21:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| === ] === | |||
| 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: ], ], ]. | |||
| 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! | |||
| * No signature above. Puerto Rico and Northern Marianas are not equal commonwealths associated to US. The infobox is correct and meets wikipedia standars for non sovereign states with a high degree of autonomy(UN country code for Puerto Rico:630). Any POV information that is not required by standard infobox could be considered as vandalism. --] 02:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| Sam Sloan is using Misplaced Pages to publicize his unverifiable attacks on the United States Chess Federation. For example, at | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Chess_Life#Authors_Banned_or_Blacklisted_by_USCF_Sales | |||
| he is claiming that Anatoly Karpov is "Banned or Blacklisted by USCF Sales". There is a need for an inspection of his supposed evidence for such a claim, so that a judgment can be made about whether or not it is appropriate for such claims to appear where there is an aspiration to present verifiable information. I am ready to help with assessing whatever evidence Sam Sloan produces. Thank you for your attention. | |||
| Update: Sam Sloan has removed Anatoly Karpov from his list, but, in the discussion, he continues to maintain that "it is obvious that Karpov is blacklisted". I have moved on to another name on the list (Ron Henley), but I have seen nothing further from Sam Sloan. Is there a way to initiate proceedings for the removal of the unverifiable claims of Sam Sloan - claims that he no longer seems willing to even discuss? If so, I would be grateful if someone would contribute a description of the procedure to the discussion. (I am sorry, but I do not know much about Misplaced Pages. I am only here because I heard about how Sam Sloan was using Misplaced Pages to publicize his attacks on others.) | |||
| Further update: For the moment, the supposed blacklist is gone, but Sam Sloan is still defending it in the discussion section. His unverifiable attacks should be removed from there as well. | |||