Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute/Archive
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
What is Macedonia?
Macedonia is a Greek region in Southern Balkans with great history, starting from pre-historic times to modern times. Its people identified themselves as Macedonians were Greeks from pre-historic times until 1946. In 1946 another tribe of Slavic origin idetified themselves as Macedonians, and since then, there is a dispute between Macedonians and the Slavic tribe self-called Macedonians. Oh, there is also a country named like this. Is this so difficult for Wikipedia to write about it? Chrusts 12:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC) That was my real statement. Someone is changing my words here. TACTICS OF PROPAGANDA!!!!!Pyraechmes (talkChrusts 17:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually ancient Macedonians identified themselves as Hellenes (Greeks)
Alexander's letter to Persian king Darius in response to a truce plea:
" ...Your ancestors came to Macedonia and the rest of Hellas and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury. I have been appointed leader of the Hellenes, and wanting to punish the Persians I have come to Asia, which I took from you..."
Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander II, 14, 4 (Loeb, P. A. Brunt) - Arrianos II (Anabasis) Historian, 95-175 AD
vfdjvdfhvoiiiiiiiiiiidf
- I have also noticed that the article "Republic of Macedonia" has been moved to "Macedonia". This absurd should be mended. I will make a simple comparison - it would be the same if we moved United States of America under the name of "America". Macedonia is a very broad term, incorporating various historical, ethnic and cultural concepts. The article should be immediately returned to either "Republic of Macedonia" (although this is also a disputed and not an universally recognized name) or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (United Nations aknowledged name). -
Tourbillon A ? 10:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that the question is wrong, cause Wikipedia itself defines Macedonia as several regions of the world, and I think Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. Macedonia is a region like Bohemia is a region within a contemporary countries. BCLH 15:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The article on The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management) has some links that are wrong and outdated. Plus, I feel only one or two editors have been majorly involved in editing and changing the tone of the page. When I question one of the editors on using references of blogs and uncited statements, I am steamrolled and told that I am a sock puppet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management#Blog_and_JAM). I have a dispute with respect to a particular link of a website called career 360 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management#cite_note-Careers360_story_about_IIPM-8) being used to create a completely new section within the article. I believe the secondary source link of career 360 is not reliable. I need help in resolving the dispute. Thanks Wifione (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, Wifione who posted the complaint above, has been exhibiting behavior very similar to Mrinal_Pandey, a sockmaster banned some months ago. Very non-specific and generic complaints, running away when any specifics are demanded, and a continuous effort to whitewash the IIPM page to remove any information that is uncomplimentary or negative. Typical Pr-department stunts. And now, after 4 weeks of not responding to any queries on the talk pages, this user is going around indulging in Wikipedia:Forum_shop. I still maintain my suspicions that this user is a sockpuppet of User:Mrinal_Pandey based on this behavior. Makrandjoshi (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- dear makrand. you have already been informed by a wiki editor on wikiquette to stop making such accusations. you have already been informed about how you got the reply within an hour of this user logging in. and accusing editors of forum shopping is in bad faith. i kindly request you to add to the knowledge base of this article in question rather than accusations. this forum is for civil, mature, responsible discussion. i will support you on all your productive issues. kindly do not remove tags (you have wrongly removed the tag of factual dispute from the article. you have removed the tag that mentions i've put up a citation of yours for third party reference) kindly do not put tags on my discussion page that say that i am a sock puppet. please correct your behaviour and be proactive. this forum is for discussing the factuality dispute. cheers Wifione (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Many editors/IPs continue to list Paris-CDG as a DL hub. Their press releases list CDG as a hub. I have brought this matter to the airline's talk page and gotten no where. Delta only has 3 non-hub destinations from CDG and the rest are to DL hubs. Help! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Article ignores findings of recent scholars and uses old, outdated scholarship for biographical section. A group of editors removes the disputed tag whenever it is added. — goethean ॐ 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Detailed analysis here: Talk:Ramakrishna#Accuracy_disputed_and_reply_to_Goethean. Even a outside opinion, other editors at AN/I indicated WP:POINT and usage of unreliable sources. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've previously raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Nationality categories, but that isn't generating any real discussion so I've just added {{Categorisation of people disputed}} to the category, which directs people here -- ratarsed (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Facts and information contains in this article are either false or unverifiable. The article was written to support aggressive promotion of a particular point of view with extremely racist overtone. Facts and information in this article must be verifiable. I have tried to reason with the author of the article, however, he played the "race" card and started personal attacks. Okkar 11:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The discussion about the Latin mass in this article (being forbidden) is false.
I do not think that the titles of the Patriarch are correct in the Greek language. Perhaps someone who speaks Greek fluently could check it. The titles in English are correct. I checked them with the first line of: http://www.ec-patr.org/athp/index.php?lang=en --Msl5046 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
18 March 2008: In the current Wikipedia page the English and Greek titles match correctly. In the Greek version of the page you mentioned the titles simply do not appear in full.
- At the official site], in English, Bartholomew is used. Even though Maybe Bartholomeos is more correct since we don't translate people's names. Shadowmorph ^"^ 22:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I am greek and I can tell you with certainty that in greek the name of this patriarch is pronounced Vartholomeos (not B, but V and not -mew but -eos in the end)I don't know if this is of any help in the dispute. On my opinion we should all try to pronounce and write the names as they are pronounced in the persons native language but this is not always possible, Regards, olga
Bio of a "free energy scientist" containing many seemly unverified claims. Page is maintained mostly by one user, FDM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FDM), a major contributor to searlsolution.com, who makes untold dozens of edits a day, removing anything incorrect about the subject matter. Alvis 04:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like he responded to reason after his actions were pointed out to him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Searl#FDM I'll keep an eye on edits, but this may be resolved. Alvis 09:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Supporters of Searl have posted clips on Youtube showing him wearing UNEARNED university garb and a senior-level military uniform (also unearned) BOTH at the same time. I would therefore suggest that the Searl biography be deleted in its entirety because Searl is either a pathological liar or is insane. Wikipedia should therefore not encourage his lying nor hold a demented person up to ridicule. [just moved paragraph posted by 86.144.44.187 on 4 June 2007 from below John Campbell 11:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)]
Dispute over whether this minor English poet, who found religion and stopped writing in the early 1970s, can be considered to have "disappeared." The editor supporting the "disappeared" claim cites a web page stating Tonks' career was cut short by her conversion, and a 2004 article by Andrew Motion describing his unsuccessful attempts to track her down. Three other editors (including me) say the term "disappeared" is misleading, because there is no evidence Tonks has ever been reported as a missing person, and she may simply have chosen to live in obscurity. Further views would be welcome. Thanks. --Perodicticus 11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC) With no evidence that she disappeared, and no evidence that she chose to live in obscurity, why not just say "she is no longer a public figure"? Alvis 05:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- We have an explicit statement by the British Poet Laureate in one of the world's most prestigious newspapers, The Times, that she has disappeared; it is hard to imagine a better source. Nobody has produced a shred of evidence to the contrary. What is proposed here violates WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE. I invite Perodicticus and Alvis to check everyone in the "disappeared" category and see how many of them have such a good source. --Runcorn 15:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The subject of this article has personally intervened to revert edits containing factual and properly cited information, resulting into a revert war. The additions he has substituted instead are disputed. Subject of article has a record of leaving linkbait to his blog and internet site. --Daniel 16:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The 1967 war led to a dramatic increase in the number of Palestinians, especially from the West Bank, living in Jordan. Its Palestinian refugee population{{spaced ndash}}700,000 in 1966{{spaced ndash}}grew by another 300,000 from the West Bank. The period following the 1967 war saw an upsurge in the power and importance of Palestinian resistance elements (''fedayeen'') in Jordan. The heavily armed ''fedayeen'' constituted a growing threat to the sovereignty and security of the Hashemite state, and open fighting erupted in June 1970. The battle in which Palestinian fighters from various [[Palestinian Liberation Organization]] (PLO) groups were expelled from Jordan is commonly known as [[Black September in Jordan|Black September]], and this was from Palestinians point of view. [[Image:Kingabdullahbinhussein.jpg|thumb|250px|right|King Abdullah I]] Other Arab governments attempted to work out a peaceful solution, but by September, continuing ''fedayeen'' actions in Jordan{{spaced ndash}}including the destruction of three international airliners hijacked by the [[Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine]] and held in the desert east of [[Amman]]{{spaced ndash}}prompted the government to take action to regain control over its territory and population. In the ensuing heavy fighting, a Syrian tank force invaded northern Jordan to support the ''fedayeen'' but subsequently retreated because King [[Hussein of Jordan|Hussein]] has asked the help from Israel{{dubious}}, then Israel threatened that it will invade Jordan if Syria internvenes{{dubious}}. By [[22 September]], Arab foreign ministers meeting at Cairo had arranged a cease-fire beginning the following day. Sporadic violence continued, however, until Jordanian forces led by [[Habis Al-Majali]] and with the help of the Pakistani - and other nationalities - forces (which had basis in Jordan){{dubious}} won a decisive victory over the ''fedayeen'' in July 1971, expelling them from the country. At the [[Rabat summit conference]] in 1974, Jordan agreed, along with the rest of the [[Arab League]], that the PLO was the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people", thereby relinquishing to that organization its role as representative of the West Bank Palestinians.
- King Hussein "asked help" from Israel
- Israel threatened to invade
- Jordan got help from Pakistan and other countries
Eshcorp 08:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a dispute as to whether a fan created website can be used as an authoritative source and can actually be cited and have much of its information used as basis for the article. --Duhon 06:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a serious amount of reverting between users as to whether he actually becomes president or not. this consequently leads to factual inaccuarcies based on whether he becomes president or not.--Lucy-marie 22:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
A general request for guidance over persistent factual errors which keep getting added to the page and then reverted. People in violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball by putting information about things not even created or built, such as new toy engines et al.. I don't know who is right anymore. Editors have been contacted and informed about what is wrong with little effect. Your guidance would be welcomed. Thor Malmjursson 13:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Thor's Multilingual Talk page
- Bachmann Thomas and Friends has since been merged into a more generic page and the disputed lists removed. As it is now a redirect it could probably be removed from here. EdJogg 00:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a tiny request for fact-checking. I'm unable to verify the bit about Innocent III changing the manner Latin-Rite Catholics make the sign, and rather than starting an edit war, decided flagging it for review would be a better idea. -Pentai 07:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
In the article referring to Mohammed Sylla, there are consistent lies about racist abuse. I believe this to be a blatant lie, yet my corrections are constantly ignored. A reference to back up this astounding claim is certainly needed.
Urban75
I've read numerous several critical media reports of this site but they are barely mentioned. It is known to be a home of anarchists and left wing extremists. Yet it is painted as somesort of rosy domestic paradise! A bit more truth would not be amiss!
I've listed a number of inaccuracies on the Talk page. The most notable ones are that the article conflates two land rushes into one and needs to be split, and that "Land Rush" is preferred over "Land Run." I'm not even sure where to start on fixing this article. --D Wilbanks 19:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Many of the per capita incomes of the locations listed are incorrect, and do not match the number found on the articles about the towns.
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 column. This article clearly needs work on making sure that its information is factual. --Idont Havaname 01:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Check the discussion page, but basically another user disputes referenced recipes and the availability 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 existence 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
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)
This article has been stripped to the bare bones and was protected by admins, who could possibly be sympathetic to other admins editing the article. Motive for the stripping of the article seems to have been the failure of the AfD attempt by a group who have their own POV to push.
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 existence 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)
There is much discussion and no agreement. Agree to disagree. ...I agree?
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
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) Karissa is the best
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? Phidauex 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. --PJF (talk) 02:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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 inaccurate) to injections of non-sequitur references to psychological, social and political topics relating to Heteronormativity. Attempts to address some of these problems have been reverted by the above user.
Without consensus, and in spite of a similar dispute occurring 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)
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)
- The second article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of themed timelines. - brenneman{L} 23:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
We've had an ongoing edit war between an anonymous IP putting information into the article and a user (Mithotyn) taking information away. The anon user uses edit summaries, but ignores the talk page. I took the section out of American football to keep the wars out of American Football, 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. Matt Yeager 17:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Issues in Church of Christ, Scientist
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 The Bible first, while the Christian Science Church holds the Bible up as it is interpreted in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by its founder Mary Baker Eddy and is stark contrast to the teachings of Christianity such as the Trinity. Note that this is also in contrast to denominations of Christianity which the Christian Science Church 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 NPOV issues. Quadra23 22:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The trinity is not taught anywhere in the bible, John 1:1 which is often quoted by the "Christian Churches" actually says that the word was with God and the word was "a" God (Ho theos) in the Koine Greek that John used to write the Gospel, this is the same word used in Greek for references to false gods. All references to The Almighty God invariably use "the" God (or the definite article). The indefinite article in John 1:1 was dropped by the translators of the KJV and many English versions since. The trinity is in fact a carry over from ancient Greek myths and further back to Babylonian triune Gods.
Presumably God does not have a personality disorder (talking to another personality of himself), so it is safe to assume that Jesus' prayers were directed to God as a separate entity, united only in purpose, and not the mumblings of a mental ill person talking to himself.
On the point of them being a cult, this is only true if the adherents worship a living person (see a dictionary for the definition of cult), so a Christian cult is one which worships a living person as the reincarnation of Jesus Christ or as a living emissary of Jesus and God. A Christian sect would be a more precise definition in this context.
-- Reply to comment: Regarding translation of the article, you have it backwards, unfortunately. Koine Greek had no indefinite article, and the article you mention (Ho) is without question the definite article. It is instead the absence of any article in the Greek that demands the translator choose either the definite and indefinite article, based largely on context. (See Logos and John_1:1) The translation issue is not as "cut-and-dried" as you suggest, and is instead a point of contention with no foreseeable resolution, given that any translation is almost inevitably impacted by the theology of the translator. Also, your assertion regarding God's mental health and Jesus' prayers is based on an assumption that God--like humans--can only have as many persons/personalities as he has "beings" in which to fit them, short of suffering a mental illness. Perhaps God (having an entirely different state of being to humans) is not limited to a quota of one person per being. Lastly, and more on topic, the term "cult" suggests nothing so singularly restrictive as "the worship of a living person." In fact, both "cult" and "sect" are rather ambiguous, though 'sect' is slightly more narrow and comes closer to the root of the matter here: heresy.
I have added a factual dispute on Loyola University Chicago's page... it's just a factual mess... --Nick Catalano (Talk) 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm confused. No tag on the linked page. No indication of anything being disputed. – Jmabel | Talk 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: Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands.
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 standards 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. --User:Vertical123 02:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Since 1917, when the Puertoricans were granted US citizenship, there have been a strong move among the inhabitants of this island towards full independence. The fact is that it remains a commonwealth associated to the US, though with some distinguishable differences, Puerto Rico is still a US possession as much as Hawaii and Alaska. Source: CIA - The World Factbook (2006).
- Hawaii and Alaska are states, not possessions. A.J.A. 02:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has a history of being barely sourced. The only real reference, for over a hundred entries, is an old list from the Internet, which I believe may have allowed for open submissions (plus some misc references, and a changed link) Most of the terms are unverifiable by Googling (i.e. "1/4") ). There have been many exhortations over the last year or so to clean up the list, and User:Guettarda recently proposed to start requiring sources, Talk:List of ethnic slurs#WP:V and WP:CITE, with which I strongly agree. OTOH, another editor is saying that no entry may be removed except by a special vote showing consensus, and that until then the status quo trumps WP:V and WP:NOR. The questions are: What kind of reliable sources are even possible for slang terms of foreign cultures? Does the removal of unsourced material require a positive, specific consensus, even if it has been tagged and other requests for sources have been made? Thanks, -Will Beback 04:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The article presents an overwhelmingly telepathy-exists stance. Very little discussion on why it is regarded as junk science is in the article. Has to be totally rewritten. Tyir 18:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Needs to become more accurate. the opinion hav got to be thew most impartial one so that the impersonal amd research oriented individuals could benefit from it
The article is being roosted upon by what are clearly the subject of the articles detractors who are posing as editors of Wikipedia. Virtually all of these editors have identical account names on Yahoo SCOX, a message board which is engaged in the SCO/IBM lawsuits. The article paints a "merkey is bad" message which is unbalanced, and much of the content is unverifiable and POV, and does not allow any other viewpoints to be added. Attempts by any editors outside of a small circle of rather vocal detractors to enhance the article results in revert wars and distortion and "spinning" of the content. The article needs review and impartial editing. Waya sahoni 05:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- My knee-jerk reaction was to remove the dispute tags without discussion. I apologize for that reaction, even though I am convinced this article has been thoroughly verified. It has been fairly obvious from the first that Waya sahoni (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of Jeff Merkey's original account, Gadugi (talk · contribs), which has been permanently blocked. The contextual and behavioral evidence alone is very persuasive, but he has also forgotten to logon on several occasions and has edited as 67.177.11.129 (talk · contribs). Mr. Merkey has acknowledged using the following sock puppets: 67.177.35.25 (talk · contribs), 67.137.28.187 (talk · contribs), 67.137.28.189 (talk · contribs), 67.177.35.211 (talk · contribs) and 67.177.35.222 (talk · contribs). Despite Waya sahoni's claims to live in Houston, he is editing from an IP in Utah in the same range as all the other IPs used by Merkey. So long as he was contributing positively, it didn't seem worthwhile to make an issue of his sock puppetry. Now that he appears to be resuming his past behaviour, perhaps it is time to make it an issue. – MediaMangler 14:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Can waya^WJeff point to any specific instances of inaccuracy, and cite sources where we can verify his version of events? Jeff's complaint seems to be a big nonspecific handwave at us, and given the article uses a lot of readily available internet sources, he really should at least state specifically what's wrong with the article, and why whatever sources cited are wrong, if applicable. Otherwise the tag should be removed. --Aim Here 20:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- I do not appreciate either set of accusatory commentary. Please don't make allegations against other users. It's WP:NPA. Waya sahoni 02:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- You mean it's a personal attack to give evidence suggesting that a Wikipedia user is using a sockpuppet account to evade his ban? If that's the case, how could Wikipedia work to ban sockpuppets at all? You're a real piece of work, Jeff. – Aim Here 20:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: Article is now subject of ARBCOM Proceedings. Waya sahoni 05:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Edward Winter biography
Once again, Wikipedia is being used to publicize an unverifiable attack. In this case, the target is Edward Winter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_G._Winter
Some sample ridiculous statements:
- "For the past more than 30 years, every time a new book by Keene has come out or a new article by Keene has been published, Edward Winter has written articles attacking it."
- "Kingston is from the same part of England that Winter is believed to be from." ("Wow, I didn't know that ... San Diego, California (where I was born and lived until 1980) [is] part of England." - Taylor Kingston comment)
- "Edward Winter filed an ethics complaint with the FIDE Congress accusing Keene of unethical conduct in writing books almost exclusively about opening theory, whereas Winter said there should be more books about chess history."
- "Keene's opponent was Florencio Campomanes who Winter supported."
- "Chess Notes ... contains brief commentaries usually not more than one or two paragraphs in length attacking usually insignificant errors and spelling mistakes made by this or that chess writer."
- "If a book by Keene contains a spelling mistake, Chess Notes will point it out."
At rec.games.chess.politics, samhsloan@gmail.com has referred to this as "my biography". Sam Sloan is the one who contributed the subsequently deleted supposed USCF blacklist. See discussion at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_Life#Authors_Banned_or_Blacklisted_by_USCF_Sales
He also contributed the subsequently deleted Tom Dorsch "biography". See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch
It should not be necessary for anyone to do a point by point refutation of the Edward Winter "biography". The "verifiable" sources do not exist and the author will not be able to produce them, as even a minimal amount of inquiry would reveal. I apologize once again for not being acquainted with the details of Wikipedia procedure. I have no interest in Wikipedia beyond the hope that those in charge will take measures to prevent its use for the promotion of garbage.
Update: The Edward Winter entry has been much improved. (I understand that this has been against the will of the writer of the original version.) I still think the best thing would be to delete the article altogether. Still, I am grateful that it is no longer the disaster that it was. My thanks to those responsible.
This article cites the events from The Great Escape as occurring at this camp. The accuracy of that assertion is questioned. See the comment below, taken from the talk page. I'm not an expert on this stuff or I'd take care of it myself. --Lendorien 18:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that The Great Escape actually happened in Stalag Luft III, located at Sagan, Poland (I believe it is now Zägan or something like that). For one thing, every man that was a part of the escape was a airman officer, so they would have been in a Stalag Luft, not a Stalag (which was a prison camp for enlisted men, not officers or airmen). Also, I just watched a documentary of the making of the movie, which clearly stated the camp being in Sagan, not Luckenwald. – Filmcom 02:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Trying to avoid a revert war. Flannel prefers a version that has a cause of death different from what the article has had for at least a year, instead preferring a version that makes claims of a conspiracy theory. He provides sources from
I prefer a version that is close to the original. I provide a sources of
- "Lenny Bruce: Britannica Concise". Retrieved March 27, 2006.
- "Bruce, Lenny - The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05". Retrieved March 27, 2006.
- "Lenny Bruce: A Who2 Profile". Retrieved March 27, 2006.
- "Lenny Bruce". Retrieved March 27, 2006.
I removed the unproven allegation of suicide in this edit but that was not enough.
Flannel and I are not going to agree on this, so time to bring in other views. Wikibofh(talk) 14:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Some unregistered user/s continue to change the country's formal name from Nēpāl Adhirājya to Nēpāl, while there is no single information sources anywhere that indicated such constitutional name change. Please check for this. – G.S.K.Lee 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Recently parliament has passed the resolution to change country's formal name from Nēpāl Adhirājya to "Nēpāl rājya".
Nepal never had the name "Royal Nepal". – KJ 9:40, 30 Oct 2006 (UTC)
Both articles' talk pages are utterly dominated by debate about whether these are the same language are not. If they are there needs to be a merge; if they aren't, both articles need to consistently address the difference. In either case, there is a dire need for reference citation. Basically, it appears to be a 2+ year flame war in both places of nothing but opinion, most of it quasi-nationalistic/political/ethnocentrist in flavor. Pretty embarrassing really. The Talk page on Catalan was so full of random flaming one had to page down again and again to even find the table of contents. I fixed that, but I'm not touching the debate. Disclosure/Disclaimer: I have no stake in the debate either way, I was just dismayed to see such a morass of ad hominem attacks, edit warring (admittedly slow, more like edit coldwarring), confusion, insistence on "facts" with no provenance, etc., etc., when I just came looking for simple information about this/these langugage[s]. Worse yet, a third contingent insists that V. is one language, and that C. is actually a dialect of a third language, Occitan. Yet ANOTHER take on this is that the language is Valencian-Catalan-Balear[ic]! So I think some merging is in order, with cleanup needed on all of these such that either one article has the majority of info, and each of the separate ones (if they exist as anything but redirects) addresses nothing but what makes that particular dialect distinct; or, each article needs to clearly explain the differences between it and the other three of V., C., B. and O., cite sources, and cite sources that militate against the "same language" theory. Or something along those lines. We're not at that point yet (the question hasn't been answered, after all) so I have not used a merge template, just a dispute template. – SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
An accuracy dispute has erupted over this article, after one editor used a single reference to claim that the victim of (fatal) aggression was actually the culprit himself. His version of the facts is not supported by any other reference than his (not verifiable online) what others consider to be a tabloid. After other editors reverted his changes, he keeps demanding that his entries be restored. 15:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Current politician in Sudan. A few weeks ago the article claimed his phd was from University of Bedford- a diploma mill- in 1984. Now someone changed where the phd is from. It has no source and the doctorate's subject sounds made up. 75.0.16.4 04:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Charles Jacobs (political activist) (and all articles related to him and linked in the "See also" section of that article)
Please state the specific accuracy issues you have, NYScholar. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You know that all of the problems concerning inaccuracies are listed on the talk page. You've written some of them yourself. And you've seen my continuing concerns there for days. These two articles are discussed together below. Read on (below).--NYScholar 01:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Jayjg knows the issues is not very useful here. Please either clarify what is disputed or remove this section from this page. - 21:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I have encountered apparent vandalism and apparently willful and apparently malicious reverting of bonafide corrections rendering these articles inaccurate and less useful to other readers. I have spent hours trying to improve these articles and continually encountered resistance and perverse editing comments from one or more other editors, including one named SlimVirgin.
After causing me great grief for an entire week, constantly reverting every contribution that I have tried to make to the articles pertaining to Charles Jacobs, she has now gone to my "contributions" and to another article that I have spent many, many hours expanding and improving for over a month and is now also making perverse alterations in the content and documentation format, which, until she began doing so yesterday, was correct formatting and correct information. She does not know what she is doing, and, it seems to me, that she is doing this either purely or primarily out of spite, due to the problems with the articles relating to Charles Jacobs. On my talk page and on talk pages of these articles, I have asked her to cease and desist. She continually and in a very hypocritical fashion is harassing me with Wikipedia:3RR warnings, when she has been the one starting a "revert" war. Most other editors who try to contribute something to this article, she reverts. I have spent a lot of time checking verifiability of sources, correcting erratic formatting of documentation styles, and she continues to undo every change. I believe that she is abusing her privileges as an editor and as an administrator (if she is one).
These matters need arbitration. Warning: due to the extensive nature of comments in talk pages relating to these articles, the issues are detailed and complex and one must have a lot of patience in reading through the material in and linked to the various talk pages.
As a professional editor and teacher of research and writing at the college/university level, I am expert in the matter of documentation styles. I do not need instruction in these matters; I provide instruction in them (including all the multiple styles listed on Wikipedia as possibilities) for over four decades.
Aware that these subjects are biographies of living persons, I have continually been extremely vigilant about the WP:BLP and had to make many points about this policy to people re: the articles pertaining particularly to Charles Jacobs.
--NYScholar 00:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- NYScholar should be more precise about what the factual inaccuracies are. So far, all he has told me is that he has a Ph.D, has been teaching for four decades, is a professional editor, and is an expert on citations. He insists that I, on the other hand, am completely uneducated, cannot write, know nothing about citations, have probably not even heard of MLA style, and know nothing about English grammar.
- An example of NYScholar's editing at Harold Pinter was to go through the article adding "Harold Pinter," instead of "Pinter" or "he". [1] It's editing like that that's being fixed. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin is clearly being extremely disingenous here: she knows precisely what the disputes are about; I placed them clearly in the talk pages of the articles in question; and the editing summaries describe them. Apparently, she just doesn't care. I am a professional editor with over four decades of experience using and teaching documentation formats. I am sure that she is not. (At least I hope that she's not as old as I am, given her editing screen name!) My name is also descriptive: I am a scholar from New York; my gender is not relevant. I take it that "Slim Virgin" is a she; but I suppose the person could be a he. She make personal attacks when I am discussing "format" and accuracy of facts in biographies of living persons.
Re: Charles Jacobs (political activist):
Based on SlimVirgin's comments for many days, I can tell that she (or he) is not familiar with MLA style format and that she does not understand its appropriate use or usefulness as described in Wikipedia:Citing sources and elsewhere on Wikipedia. She/he is totally callous about using quotation marks accurately so as to avoid plagiarizing from sources and mocks use of them when they are being used correctly and for appropriate reasons (when quoting from a source cited in a following note). She does not understand the difference between the style of a note and that of a bibliographical "reference" entry, and other matters of documentation format. She takes material from undated sources and attributes time frames to material from such sources, assuming when events occur without verifiable sources for them and skews the claims about the subject in the article due to such mistakes. --NYScholar 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I placed a "cleanup" tag on the Harold Pinter article and a "disputed" tag on the Charles Jacobs article/related articles, explained on this page (above) in close association with comments that I have made on the talk pages of each of the articles in dispute.
She did not go to the Harold Pinter article to make (unnecessary) changes to it until after there were charges back and forth regarding the Wikipedia:3RR on the Charles Jacobs-related articles. I see that as intentional trouble-making, not true interest in the article or its subject or the accuracy of the article. She made changes that cause verifiability problems, already explained in the talk page of the article. She knows that. She is being disingenuous here, since the explanations have been in the talk page of the Harold Pinter article well before I posted about the cleanup problem in Harold Pinter and disputed accuracy problems in the Charles Jacobs article(s) here. I suggest that people review the talk pages carefully. Because SlimVirgin is involved in both sets of problems, the same concerns relate to both articles, and I have made them very clear in the talk pages of these articles already; no need to repeat them any further. --NYScholar 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The article says, Aspasia was a hetaera. This is definitely false. Modern science knows, she never was. It was said by ancient authors who dislike woman with influence and intelligence. A long time the calssical scholars take it for real but since a lot of year we know it's untrue. So the article must be revisited. I would do it, but my English isn't good enough. Kenwilliams 11:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Glengordon01 has been deleting my edits and calling them vandalism, even though they are corroborated in several books, as well as Wikipedia mirror sites in other languages. As you will see from the talk page, he is demanding that only the work of a certain scholar who has never written on Charun be considered, and has been resprting to personal attacks on me for disagreeing.Scottandrewhutchins 13:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- User:Glengordon01 has now altered the French page as he sees fit, without ever citing a source that makes reference to Charun.Scottandrewhutchins 18:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I am fairly new to Wikipedia, months new. I am a film scholar and frequently speak at engagement in various cities throughout the country. I decided to join Wikipedia as an intellectual adventure, but instead, I have encountered personal attacks, and constant problems, ironically the majority being with this "One" article American Mutoscope and Biograph Company. There is an apparent neutrality problem, biased opinions, and forceful reverting of verified inclusions making this article inaccurate and therefore ambiguous which confuses other readers. After two months I constantly encountered defiance and biased replies from one or more certain editors; Will beback, Walloon, DPSmith.
There have been cases of incorrect inclusions by some of these certain editors that were added on, not verified or misquoted and forced into the article. This been difficult virtually impossible to correct. This has caused me personally great dissatisfaction with Wikipedia and its mission, which is a good one if enforced. It came to the point that any inclusions I contributed were immediately deleted by these editors and any questioning of this resulted in personal accusations against me (This can be reviewed in the "Talk" pages of me "User talk:Roger the red", the article "Talk:American Mutoscope and Biograph Company" and our AMA User talk:Tutmosis). With this I posted several "Tags" that are legitimate with my concerns and felt this would give notice to other "Neutral" editors to contribute to this article. However, after the tags posted, I am now being harassed again by the same editor(s) who again makes personal attacks on me, and insist on removing the tags, therefore not allowing the article to be contributed to, or changed in any way by any other editors other than themselves. Also, the formatting of this article is disheveled at best and confusing at its worst. I have also worked on several other articles including "Gaumont Films", "Pathe" and others in which I have posted tags, without any disagreement or problems whatsoever. Yet on this article if anything is changed at all, there is a "Firestorm" and barrage of accusations and problems by these editors. After all this, I have contacted an AMA Tutmosis who will hopefully be able to help so I will not have to go into arbitration.
To me, Wikipedia should be a collaborative effort of ALL ediotrs to contribute knowledge to the best of their ability, not for it to be a grandstand stage, nor a "Battleground". However, this somewhat simple article has turned into that. --Roger the red 05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
(mostly reposted from talk page)
This article reads like it was written in entirety by some priest(ess)(es) of the deity who like(s) to make wild claims. Particularly the section about the etymology of the name needs attention from an expert linguist: it reeks of OR. You can't say a word stems from an Ancient Egyptian word just because it "sounds like" it. [2]
Note that whoever wrote the section seems to have inserted a reference every time they say there was a deity called Somethingorother in ancient Somewhere but I don't see how these establish the connection between these names and the modern Mami Wata. Note also that the article itself refers to a "Maman Dlo" --so much for the Ancient Egyptian origin of the name. That's a French-lexified calque of an English-lexified name for you right there. - ∅ (∅), 14:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The company's history ist mostly incorrect, cf. talk page. --EvaK 10:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have doubts about the assertion that DCB went to St Nazaire on 10 May 1968 - he attended and spoke at the 13 May demo in Paris (widely known, and asserted in books such as those cited), and later that week went to St Nazaire. He held a meeting on the evening of the 18th in St Nazaire, then a discussion on the beach the next day (Sunday 19th).
Does anyone know his precise movements in between these dates?
- Why not ask him? He has an e-mail address. Maikel 21:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The page lists discusses the band as though it is a currently active entity and lists Lisa "Left Eye" Lopes as a "current member" despite the fact that she is deceased. It is scientifically impossible for a dead person to be an active member in an active band. On the talk page, an analogy to the Beatles is made which states that John Lennon and George Harrison are not considered "former Beatles" even though they are both deceased. Still, it is worth noting that the Beatles page refers to the Beatles as a former band rather than an active one. If they were still active, the two deceased Beatles would most likely then be considered "former Beatles." Hence, Lisa Lopes should either be listed as a former member, or TLC should be referred to as a former band.Trixen 05:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
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 statement stating that everyone who had used the title "Monitor vs. Merrimack" was wrong. I challenged him on this, and he further 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 seeing 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 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
CSS Virginia, formerly USS Merrimac
This article reads like a political essay. Shouldn't it, at best, only discuss the history of the phrase "The ends justify the means"? I'm not even sure it's worth an encyclopedic entry at all.--67.62.103.180 20:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Has been fully protected from editing since 1 July 2007 following an edit war, hence locking in place for now an article believed by the majority of editors involved is inaccurate & highly POV. Editors interested in improving the article are currently working hard trying on conducting research on the article's topic & building consensus, but are basically being stonewalled by the POV editor whose version is currently locked in. We did manage to get an admin to remove copyvio text & an intentionally falsified quote that the POV editor had placed. It would be great if other editors interested in ensuring that articles adhere to WP:NPOV & WP:NOR, in particular, could check out the talk page & help us build a consensus reflecting that. --Yksin 22:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- 'autonomous' region
When talking about autonomy of a region - it must be clear: who granted that autonomy, what kind of autonomy it was, and what scope. German military and civil administration in Belgrade was strictly hierarhically organized. Also, it is pointless even to talk about autnomy of a conquered and occupied region. Occupation and autonomy are mutual exclusive notions.
- the map of 'autonomous' Banat is not from a valid scholar source.
It is just a misinterpretation of a map that depict inner organization of the occupier's administration of this region and drawn by an amateur.
- Demographic data are from the year 1931 which does not fit into 1941-44 time interval
- The references selected here do not have any data supporting the text of this article
- 1. History of Europe, The Times, London, 2001. (?)
- This title uses full-colour digital mapping to chart 3000 years of European history. The subjects covered range from the difference between the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire to the origins of Europe's states. Not a single map supports the idea about autonomous Banat in the years of 1941-44
- 2. Richard Overy, History of the 20th century, The Times, London, 2003. (1996 and 2000)(?)
- The sixteen well known academics who contribute essays cover the century in six chapters:
- The End of the Old World Order,
- The World between the Wars,
- The World at War II,
- The Cold War World,
- Towards the New World Order and
- The Revolutionary Century
- Not a single essay ever touched Banat nor supports claim that Banat was an autonomous region in 1941-44
- Note: I tried to locate the questionable reference and discovered that they do not exist in any university or public library database here in the USA or any publisher's database worldwide. My closest guess that it is about these two books:
- The "Times" History of Europe by Mark Almond (Author)
- Paperback: 208 pages
- Publisher: Times Books; 3rd Ed edition (November 5, 2001)
- ISBN-10: 0007131615
- The Times History of the 20th Century by Richard (Edited) Overy (Author)
- Hardcover: 256 pages
- Publisher: Times Books (1999)
- ISBN-10: 0723010285
- ISBN-13: 978-0723010289
- My comments are about these two books. If I am wrong - please, correct the books titles, the publisher house name, and/or provide the ISBN for both of them.
--4.249.72.121 21:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Title - Nedic's Serbia
- Valid and verifiable scholar sources uses just simple term - Serbia. See, for example
- Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman, Editor in Chief, Vol. 3, Macmillan, New York - london, 1990 entry Serbia
- The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg Holmes & Meier 1985 entry Serbia
- Karl-Heinz Schlarp, Wirtschaft and Besetzung, Serbien 1941-1944 (Wiesbaden and Stuttgart 1986)
- Neither of given references does support the Nedic's Serbia title use. My suggestion - Serbia 1941 -45 - as per Karl-Heinz Schlarp above
- puppet-state is definitively wrong term here. No reference uses this term for Serbia 1941-45.
- However, there was a puppet regime installed by Germans which, by no means, was a puppet state. There is the strict distinction, in the plain English language, between the regime and the puppet state. This regime lacked judicial and legislative branch of government and, as an executive branch, was completely subdued to the German civil and military administration. Also, this regime had not have foreign diplomacy nor it was internationally recognized as a state - even not by Germans.
- autonomous Banat. Banat was not autonomous.
- When talking abou autonomy of a region - it must be clear: who granted that autonomy, what kind of autonomy it was, and what scope. German military and civil administration in Belgrade was strictly hierarhically organized. Also, it is pointless even to talk about autnomy of a conquered and occupied region. Occupation and autonomy contradicts and denies each other.
- map of the occupied Serbia is not from a valid scholar source.
- It is just a misinterpretation of a map that depict inner organization of the occupier's administration of this region.
- antisemitism of the Serbs - denied by both Jewish sources above. Germans shall be blamed of the extermination of Serbian Jews. This statement "The other objective by Nedic was an attempt to turn away Nazi support of the Ustashe in the Independent State of Croatia by endorsing Nazi anti-Semitic laws." is completely false. Also, Sajmiste was not on the Serbian territory
This article speaks of Paris' economy, which is officially measured through its region's administrative divisions, and its employment/demography statistics, that are measured in very defined statistical entities created by the official French INSEE statistics bureau.
A single contributor is aggressively trying to group all of the above into a single "metropolitan area" appellation, a term that has never been used as an English translation of any of the above by any official French organisation. Not only that, but the same contributor has even added header notes referring readers to a footer where he "explains" how the official economy statistics are "almost the same" as his "metropolitan area" that is a "translation" of the INSEE aire urbaine commuter-based statistical area - that has nothing to do with anything economy - when the official translation of aire urbaine, "urban area," is clearly available on the site of those who created it.
The solution to this problem is evident and the fact available even in the references cited for phrases using erroneous terminology, but this contributor has been quite aggressive in reverting to his "greater scheme" ambitions that do not amount, unfortunately, to anything referencable fact. THEPROMENADER 22:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I just placed the "disputed" tag on the page.
The article is currently geared to give the impression there is an old continuous tradition of use of this symbol. However, the individual instances only show vaguely similar symbols, from wildly divergent traditions, and explain them as variants of the "flower of life" or as otherwise related symbols. It avoids the very obvious question of where the actual symbol, and its name, originated. With the length of the article and the excessive sourcing provided, I find it hard to interpret this omission as anything else than
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |