Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute
From Freepedia
If an article links to this page, it is because someone is concerned that the article may be significantly inaccurate. Such articles have the following warning at the top:
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.
A related collaboration mechanism is concerned with disputed statements.
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 verify it.
- visit the talk page to see what the issues are.
- correct it right away if you can. Please take the time to properly verify it. Please also add to the article any sources you used to verify the information in it: see cite your sources.
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 verify it. Please also add to the article any sources you used to verify the information in it: see cite your sources.
- if the neutrality of the content is in question, please look at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute.
- if only a few statements seem inaccurate:
- insert {{dubious}} after the relevant sentence or paragraph.
- insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem.
- 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 {{disputed}} in the beginning of the article to add a general warning. Check dispute resolution for ways to resolve it.
- if you find that the article remains unnoticed, you can draw more attention to it by listing it on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention.
- 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 accuracy disputes by checking the
- recent list of disputed articles (or the latest (noisy) list and related Accuracy disputes).
Current disputes
Italian_Beef
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 menu's 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.User:MysteriousMystery 00:29, 4 July 2005
Heruli
This article has been subjected to considerable original research, 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.--Wiglaf 11:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Islamofascism
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 Grace_Note.
Cyprus
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, Republic of Cyprus and the article pertaining to the island itself, Cyprus, with highly disputable information. For instance, the article pertaining to the EU-Member Greek Republic of Cyprus 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 Cyprus 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 Talk:Cyprus or my talk page. Peeper 22:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Taiwan
There is much discussion and no agreement.
Haimirich
This article seems to mix two basic Germanic roots of which many names derived, Haimirich and Amalric . The latter isn't mentioned in the text, but quite some examples given of nowadays forms of Haimirich are either from Amalric (like Emeric ) 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. Amerigo 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
2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities
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 Wikipedia:No original research. All unverifiable and unreliable data or conclusions should be removed from this article and replaced with brief summaries of the concerns. -- Netoholic @ 17:55, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
Intelligent Design
This article's dissembling and soft pedalling of the subject would do a holocaust denier proud. It has a crowd of editors who clearly know nothing about ev-bio, and several who are clearly POV warriors. ID is as fringe as anything you care to name on wikipedia. If it can't be worked over in a credible manner, then wikipedia is nothing but an advertising conduit for any group with a large budget and many followers. Stirling Newberry 03:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The above objection does not relate to accuracy, but to NPOV. I venture that nearly every person will either come down very hard on one side of this issue or the other, or have little to no interest in it at all. Thus, a full-size, well-researched, unbiased survey of the topic is improbable. I find this article to be quite an achievement, giving full voice to both sides of the debate and even detailing specific instances of public figures whose positions are moderate or ambiguous. This effort to find a middle ground, however tenuous, is commendable. I believe a fair test of NPOV is whether I can detect where the writer's sympathies lie; in this article, I cannot. Xiong 23:49, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
( Removed comment from user who does not understand NPOV -- Tim )
Sneeze
The article seems presents a large number of facts with no references to back them up. Some facts are internally inconsistant (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. --PJF (talk) 02:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Alien experiment (Lilo & Stitch)
Someone keeps adding invalid entries and misinformation to this list. See Talk:Alien_experiment_(Lilo_&_Stitch)#Disputed --Jtalledo (talk) 00:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sexual characteristics
In an attempt to push a POV, AlexR 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 Heteronormativity. Attempts to address some of this problems have been reverted by the above user.
Gallery of sovereign state flags/List of sovereign state flags
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. These entities already have their own page, and their inclusion here is inapprorpriate for the reasons I outline on the Talk pages of both articles (1 2). Furthermore, one of these articles should probably be a redirect to the other. Justin (koavf) 03:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
List of born-again Christian laypeople
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. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:17, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
Timeline of the Muslim occupation of the Iberian Peninsula and List of themed timelines
The term "timeline" is wrongly used in the titles of these articles. Indeed, it is wrongly used throughout Wikipedia, being a widespread linguistic error that needs to be remedied. See the discussion in the talk section of the first article or the second.
- Moot point , the terms timeline and chronology as somewhat interchangeable in common english usage. --Dewiro 06:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
