Wikipedia talk:Accuracy dispute/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Consideration of randomness in migration for graphical representation

The existence of easter island show us that people did not always follow the most direct path from their places of origin to where they are today. Given the birds eye view of this map it seems obvious that migrating species would follow that route. However, migrations sometimes lead species on a variety of path's. For example the image, in the proceeding URL of bird, seal and whale migration patterns derived from empirical data collected from radio collars show that whether you are a bird, whale or seal; migration can be chaotic and indirect. <http://rogerbourland.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/taggedbirds.jpg>. Given the fact that we did not have any knowledge of our global geography and that we would have been controlled by the will of our wits and nature. It can be assumed that we did not travel directly or even in one linear direction. Our purposes for migration would have evolved and changed based on climate and availability of resources. How many times did we procreate and in what direction relative to our place of origin where we going when we did? The fact that we are still grouped in observable phenotypes today; even by population demographics; does not indicate that we always traveled together in a lineage away from our place of origin. Only that we ended up this way. When you compare a map like this to one derived from empirical data collected from living organisms with many of the same genetic roots as us. One can see that the theoretical lines drawn to show human migrations have a very high level of uncertainty. They lack specific detail and would be more accurately represented as a regional map indicating regions where phenotypes are located and demonstrate uncertainty by overlapping the borders and coloring coding the map. Several maps would be required for the different time periods. Once the regions are defined with a particular uncertainty at different times; it would then be possible to project the path of each phenotype as a colored and shaded region from the point of origin and the beginning of the time scale to present time and positioning. It would look like each phenotype was represented as a country originating at the origin covering some shape of land to the present day location. And regions with high uncertainty, like borders of phenotype regions could be shaded differently using a gradient. If individual maps were generated for each phenotype demonstrating the migrated region of the globe. The maps envisioned would look just like those used in GIS (Geographic Information Systems...URL<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_information_system>) with gradient coloring around obvious natural obstacles like mountains and harsh terrain. They could be combined to show more accurately how we may have migrated around the world. Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.4.8 (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Dundee Harp v Arbroath record Football Scores

I think that there is a prima facie case that DUNDEE HARPs record football score of 37v0 on the same day ABROATH recorded 36v0 should be correct, as the referee on the day at Dundee recorded a score of 37v0 and this was only changed when someone claimed it was only 35v0.

Surely the Referees decision should have been the correct one.......How could the Referee alter the scoreline after the event ???? when he clearly had recorded 37v0!!!!!

Steven Gascoigne, Perth,W.A. 11.10.2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.52.62 (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Eric Saenz played football for new mexico state univ 1983 to 1986 transfer student —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esaenz0921 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Eric Saenz played football for New Mexico State Univ 1983 to 1986 stand out transfer student from Texas A&M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esaenz0921 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Leave Politics out!

The entire ideaology of Human Sacrific is to supposedly satisfy the Diety involved. Connecting capital punishment to it is mearly someones political opinion because capital punishment is the outcome of consequences of not following the laws of the community; not an offering to satisfy a particular Diety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.213.33 (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of disputed tag

Hi, I've often noticed that if there are two editor who prefer different versions of a page, one might be willing to forgo edit warning if a disputed tag is in place (a tag that links here). However, the editor who likes the version that a de facto on the page might even object to the placing of the disputed tag. I've even noted a recent example of and editor getting a 3RR warning over trying to keep a "disputed" tag on a page [1]. Is it possible to have a rule about a strong right to place this tag. i.e. conditions like that the editor is actively engaged in any conversation. Having a hard and fast rule might help in situations where an argument can devolve to an argument over if there is an argument going on--this generally delays actual work on making the page better. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

kachei

kinchei — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.7.114.74 (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonisation

sorry i am new in this but while reading the content in above link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonisation :Decolonization after 1918, United Kingdom.

The para: London dealt with the white dominions, retained strategic resources at the cost of reducing direct control in Egypt, and made numerous reforms in the British Raj, culminating in the Government of India Act (1935). Despite these efforts though, the British Government continued to slowly lose their control of the Raj. The end of World War II allowed India, in addition to various other European colonies, to take advantage of the postwar chaos that had began to exist in Europe during the mid 1940s. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, India's independence movement leader, realized the advantage in conducting a peaceful resistance to the British Empire's attempts to retake control of their "crown jewel". By becoming a symbol of both peace and opposition to British imperialism, many Indian citizens began to view the British as the cause of India's violence leading to a new found sense of nationalism among its population. With this new wave of Indian nationalism, Gandhi was eventually able to garner the support needed to push back the British and create an independent India in 1947. suggest that Mr. Gandhi only responsible. if I am not wrong Mr. Gandhi was not of the ideology of Purna Swaraj ( full freedom) even the uprising in 1942 would helped get the independence early it was due to the Myrtrs like Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and all the other team members that after their death the indian community started to talk about purna swaraj hence only giving the credit to Gandhi is a bit biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.30.74.186 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

rachel hunter was in a movie called cloud 9 and it wasn't mentioned in her bio

i happened to be looking at rachel hunter's bio and didn't notice cloud 9 listed. she stared in it with burt reynolds. i know cause i was an extra in it lmao. maybe you should update your information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.31.82 (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Age of Abu bakr may be more then 61 years

Age of Abu bakr he was born eight years before Muhammad and die after him and prophet Mohammed lived 61to63 years therefore Abu bakr may be lived more then 61 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.58.221 (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I flew the AC-47 from Phang Rang Air Base and then from Udorn, Thailand during the fall-winter of 1969. Although no one I knew was silly enough to take a tape measure to actually confirm the area covered by a one-second burst from all three mini-guns; covering an area approximately the size of a football field in one second was generally agreed as a good approximation by everyone I knew that flew the airplane. 76.113.60.214 (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Lt Col Charles Kreis

Guideline or Essay?

It seems unclear whether this page is a guideline, or just an essay, as both templates are used. —Rutebega (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

75.6% of People in DC Own Guns? What a Joke!

It goes to show just how desperate the anti-gun crowd is.. When the facts don't fit their scenario they just change them. The true number was 3.6% and then a lying slime ball changed it yesterday after the site had been posted on the Internet. What scum buzzards. Well it shows a real problem with Wikipedia. Anyone can change what is said. Does anyone actually believe that 75.6% of the people in DC own guns? Yeah, there are probably people that stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.235.199 (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

cricket

India has played more number of T20 world cup Final (2). Which India Won the Inaugural &the 1st T20 World Cup in 2007.and again came to Finals this year 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salt7 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

america dont get global warming

someone sort them out already. make them pay attention and ac — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.146.144 (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Self-referring link

At present this article contains a self-referring link (via a redirect): Disputed statement. Can someone who knows more about this than I do deal with it ... ? Afterbrunel (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I just ran into this myself. Just what are we supposed to do with a few disputed statement? This issue seems to be a result of the 2012 redirect the of the disputed statement article. Meters (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Punted to the user who made the redirect. Meters (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

And he's undone to the correct version. Thanks. Meters (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Disputed statement redirect

Copied from my talkpage, for the record. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Your 2012 redirect of Wp:Disputed statement here left this redirect to itself in Wp:Accuracy dispute: "If only a few statements seem inaccurate, see Wikipedia:Disputed statement." Just what are we supposed to do when only 1 or 2 statements are disputed? Meters (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There was some recent vandalism: [2], that removed the section you were looking for. I'll restore it. Thanks for noticing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Meters (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

And I have blocked for two years the IP account responsible: User talk:207.70.191.74. It is a school IP, and there has been persistent vandalism from that school for several years. It has been blocked for increasing periods, and whenever the block wears off, the vandalism returns. If it happens again when this block ends, I suspect the next admin with do an indefinite block. Again, thanks for the heads up - we need people to be alert to when something odd has happened. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy in an article regarding Adam according to Islam

Adam in Islam

"Returning to the Qur'an, when God asked all the angels to prostrate before Adam, they all obeyed except Iblis. For this, God banished Iblis to earth where he would be a tester of humans.[6]"

Iblis (satan) is not an Angel. He is a being created independent of being an Angel, rather he is from Djinn. According to Islam, Angels have no free will. Humans and Djinn have free will.

The correct position in regards to this verse is;

"Behold! We said to the angels, "Bow down to Adam": They bowed down except Iblis. He was one of the Jinns, and he broke the Command of his Lord. Will ye then take him and his progeny as protectors rather than Me? And they are enemies to you! Evil would be the exchange for the wrong-doers!" (018.050)

-- somedude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.63.248 (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Should we add date to {{Dubious}}?

The article says "(add the correct month and year to the template)", but my edit to demonstrate how to add the date are reverted, with this piece of text reinstated. So are we supposed to add date or not? --Alan Tam (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We should in articles, but not on this Wikipedia namespace page, where the tag is brought as an example, not to actually tag a dubious statement. Debresser (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about the Wikipedia namespace page. I am saying, do we expect people to put a date for their dubious tags on articles? If so, why this is not reflected in the example (in place of the "(add the correct month and year to the template)" instructions). I attempted to remove this piece of text and add the date tag to the example here and it got reverted. And the reverted version now bears the original problem that I wanted to correct. --Alan Tam (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

On this page the template is mentioned only so that editors should know what the template is called. For instructions on proper use, always see the documentation page. Conclusion, This is not an example, so it should not have the date. Debresser (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Unit Assigned to Taji or Camp Cook

I was assigned to the HSC, 878th Engineer Battalion, Georgia Army National Guard at Taji or Camp Cook during late 2003 till June 2004, it would be nice to get credit for the missions and projects we completed in Iraq. Our Battalion Headquarters and our line units supported numerous Combat Heavy Engineer Missions. It should also be noted that we were in Nasiriyah, Iraq also but Wikipedia does not give us credit for that mission either. Considering I was deployed in Iraq for 366 days boots on the ground; I would think our Battalion would at least be listed once. Michael S. Wood, SFC, Retired, USA, (AGR). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.204.70 (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a general page about Wikipedia guidelines how to deal with accuracy policies. I recommend you repost this on the talkpages of the relevant articles. Debresser (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Who is Vituzzu?

Who is Vituzzu? There is information on my deceased FIL on Japan wiki. The data is incorrect. When trying to access, a block message came up with some Italian "steward" claiming he owns the rights. It was written by my FIL's former students at Seikei University.

Has the mob hijacked my dead FIL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6400:1704:CD2D:F73D:F9DF:14EE (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

I removed the following statement that has been tagged since last May:

* It contains secondary reliably sourced information that would be demonstrably false if tertiary sources were brought to bear.

I also don't know what this means, but I find it hard to visualize a situation in which a tertiary source would trump a reliable secondary source. If there is something more at play here, please clarify it before adding it back. This [3] is the edit that added the statement but the explanation on the edit summary uses a very unlikely example that doesn't seem to justify the broad material added.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Inaccuracy gives such examples.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The article of the Islamic conquest of Egypt is highly biased

The article of the Islamic conquest of Egypt is highly biased please look at the Arabic version of it and see how unbiased it is as it starts with the agreed upon things and states the few which are controversial and in the english version there is a statement that a part of it says that some of the Copts sided with the Byzantines without any proof while in the Arabic version all sources said that no Copt sided with them. Even the christian ones and a lot of things that showed that the Muslims didn't harm any Egyptian were removed please check your pages because i am an Egyptian and I am incredibly offended as you are reinforcing the claims that Afrocentrics make about ancient Egyptians and the article has only one side of the view which is also not stated as it is just look at the Arabic version of the article to understand more User Talk:197.48.174.204

Accuracy of statement about the vaulted arch at the palace in Ctesiphon

The Iwan at Ctesiphon that the article is referring to is not attributed to the reign of Shapur I in the 3rd century. It is attributed to Khosrow I and construction was probably started around 540 A.D.

"India Developed. How can any country with swarms of street children and entire villages without electricity be called developed?"

"India Developed. How can any country with swarms of street children and entire villages without electricity be called developed?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.15.10 (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

TOWER OF BABEL

THIS IS NOT NOT NOT A MYTH. HOW DARE YOU REFER TO IT AS SUCH. THIS IS THE BIBLE, THE WORD OF GOD. HOW DARE YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.213.176 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Inline templates "Dubious" vs "Disputed inline"

The difference between {{Disputed inline}} and {{Dubious}} is clearly explained on each template page: {{Disputed inline}} is more strongly worded, appropriate when "at least one editor believes there is no question that the statement has a verifiability problem," whereas {{Dubious}} is more mildly worded, appropriate when there is uncertainty about the veracity of a statement, but it is not being directly challenged with another source.

Both templates currently link to Wikipedia:Accuracy Dispute#Disputed statement, but unfortunately this section doesn't explain the two templates and the difference between them. In fact, the current version is internally inconsistent, as the first paragraph of the section links only to {{Disputed inline}}, while the subsequent detailed instructions link only to {{Dubious}}. So I'm boldly adjusting the section to mention both templates in both paragraphs. Krubo (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The Crests were not "the first interracially mixed doo-wop group." That distinction, to my knowledge, went to The Del-Vikings (1956)

The Crests were not "the first interracially mixed doo-wop group." That distinction, to my knowledge, went to The Del-Vikings (1956). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lengsmedia (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Graph "Number of Deaths" inconsistent with graph "Deaths and Recoveries"

Graph "Number of Deaths" inconsistent with graph "Deaths and Recoveries." for March 30 and 31. Black dots for March 30 and 31 in "Deaths and Recoveries" seems to have been inverted according to the graph just above "Number of Deaths" appearing as if the greater number of deaths occurred on the 31st. The greater number of deaths according to "Number of Deaths" actually occurred on the 30th with 42. On the 31st there were 23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:8402:6800:40A9:4D13:2E80:B0D6 (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"Accuracy dispute" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Accuracy dispute. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 8#Accuracy dispute until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — J947 ^[cont] 00:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The present caliph of Islam is no one......The last caliph of Islam is Muhammad S.A.W. and there is no one after the last prophet .

I found that Wikipedia is Showing that the present caliph is Mirza Masroor Ahmad. This is absolutely wrong and disputed information.

In Islam there is not any caliph in present as Our Last prophet is Muhammad s.a.w , after that no one can be caliph of Islam.

Remove this information immediately from your site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imrana2510 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)