Βικιπαίδεια:Αμφισβήτηση ακρίβειας

If an article links to this page, it is because someone is concerned that the article may be significantly inaccurate. Such articles have the following warning at the top: "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed: see talk:ARTICLENAME".

The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:

• it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
• it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
• in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
• it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

A related collaboration mechanism is concerned with disputed statements.

If you come across an article with an accuracy warning, please do the following:

• don't remove the warning simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time to properly verify it.
• visit the talk page to see what the issues are.
• correct it right away if you can. Please take the time to properly verify it. Please also add to the article any sources you used to verify the information in it: see cite your sources.

If you come across an article whose content seems or is inaccurate, please do the following:

• correct it right away if you can. Please take the time to properly verify it. Please also add to the article any sources you used to verify the information in it: see cite your sources.
• if the neutrality of the content is in question, please look at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute.

• if only a few statements seem inaccurate:
  • insert {{dubious}} after the relevant sentence or paragraph.
  • insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem.
  • request peer review to obtain correct information.

• if there are more than five dubious statements, or if a dispute arises:
  • insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus contributions from others.
  • paste {{disputed}} in the beginning of the article to add a general warning. Check dispute resolution for ways to resolve it.
  • request peer review to obtain correct information.
  • if you find that the article remains unnoticed, you can draw more attention to it by listing it on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention.
  • once you've found the correct information, edit the page to correct it, remove the warnings, and put something like the following in your edit summary:

Verified article -- removed accuracy dispute

When you add an accuracy warning, you are invited to also help resolve accuracy disputes by checking the

• Category:Dubious - Listing of articles containing disputed statements.
• recent list of disputed articles (or the latest (noisy) list and related Accuracy disputes).

Current disputes

Haimirich

This article seems to mix two basic Germanic roots of which many names derived, Haimirich and Amalric . The latter isn't mentioned in the text, but quite some examples given of nowadays forms of Haimirich are either from Amalric (like Emeric ) or their history is doubtful, i.e. could go both ways, could have a totally different root from the mentioned two or its history is very unclear. This problems arises because of the similarity of the two Germanic roots, not in their ancient form, but in the forms that appeared later, with the possibility of growing almost together. Amerigo is an example of a name that could be from both. It could either be a variant of the Italian name Enrico, which is from Haimirich, or from Amalric, through Imre, the Hungarian Saint. In other words, we need some expertise here sorting this out and change this article into something more accurate, distinguishing the two groups clearly and off course we have to create a new article, one about Amalric. 13:55 (GMT), 22 Dec 2004

2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities

This article seems to be a conclusion searching for evidence. Except for some very small stories in the mainstream press, this article takes data from unverifiable and dubious (partisan) sources, and attempts to expand the "controversy" into something much bigger than reality. Other editors have produced chartes and graphs based on this dubious data, which firmly goes against Wikipedia:No original research. All unverifiable and unreliable data or conclusions should be removed from this article and replaced with brief summaries of the concerns. -- Netoholic @ 17:55, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

This article's dissembling and soft pedalling of the subject would do a holocaust denier proud. It has a crowd of editors who clearly know nothing about ev-bio, and several who are clearly POV warriors. ID is as fringe as anything you care to name on wikipedia. If it can't be worked over in a credible manner, then wikipedia is nothing but an advertising conduit for any group with a large budget and many followers. Stirling Newberry 03:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The above objection does not relate to accuracy, but to NPOV. I venture that nearly every person will either come down very hard on one side of this issue or the other, or have little to no interest in it at all. Thus, a full-size, well-researched, unbiased survey of the topic is improbable. I find this article to be quite an achievement, giving full voice to both sides of the debate and even detailing specific instances of public figures whose positions are moderate or ambiguous. This effort to find a middle ground, however tenuous, is commendable. I believe a fair test of NPOV is whether I can detect where the writer's sympathies lie; in this article, I cannot. Xiong 23:49, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Sneeze

The article seems presents a large number of facts with no references to back them up. Some facts are internally inconsistant (eg, the speed of a sneeze). Some parts have already been removed for being inaccurate and implausible. The whole article smacks of one of those 'did you know' e-mails that are regularly circulated around offices, and many of the statements therein seem dubious at best. The culture-related facts are not something I can't easily verify.

I'm sure there is some good material in the article, but it's difficult to tell what's truth and what's not. I'd love this to be reviewed by anyone with a more detailed knowledge of sneezing. --PJF ^(talk) 02:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)