Wikipedia talk:Accuracy dispute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

.

Self-referring link[edit]

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[edit]

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: [1], 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[edit]

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)

[1]

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

References

Should we add date to {{Dubious}}?[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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.[clarification needed]

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 [2] 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 article of the Islamic conquest of egypt is highly biased[edit]

The article of the Islamic conquest of egypt is highly biased please look at the arabic version of it and see how unbaised it is as it starts with the agreed upon things and states the few wich are controversial and in the english version there is a statment that a part of it says that some e of the copts sided with the byzanntise without any proof while in the arabic version all sources said that no copt sided with them. Even the christian ones and alot of things that showed that the muslims didnt 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 srticle 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