Wikipedia talk:Accuracy dispute

Merge of these pages

I think that having separate pages about handling disputed articles and disputed statements isn't helpful. We could easily consolidate the two into one guideline, as what to do in both cases is pretty similar - it's just a matter of scale. Fences&Windows 22:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - The Disputed statement guideline was originally split off from this essay. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral - In my view both articles are too wordy and it took me a long time, for example, to learn there was a <nokiki></nowiki> tag. Whatever the outcome the process needs to be clearer and less agressive.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I think there is value in treating the concepts of a single statement possibly being wrong and an entire article fraught with potential mistakes separately. However, I think the names of the two guidelines do not sufficiently clarify their domain of validity. For instance, why does the "dubious" template link to a page called "Wikipedia:Disputed statement" instead of "Wikipedia:Dubious statement"? And major confusingly, why does the disputed template point to "Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute" instead of "Wikipedia:Disputed statement"? It seems to me that whatever split-off occurred it wasn't well thought-out. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment I wouldn't mind seeing "Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute" renamed to "Wikipedia:General accuracy dispute" or "Wikipedia:Overall accuracy dispute" for clarity. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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)