How do you dispute an article on Wikipedia?

[magomago]

accurately depicting the situation, as well as having "original research" and lack of citations. Some of the claims are outlandish and false if anyone knew a little bit of history. I don't want to go in and outright edit it, but I want to flag the page first to start a discussion. How do I go about doing that? Do I have to register?

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: magomago
accurately depicting the situation, as well as having "original research" and lack of citations. Some of the claims are outlandish and false if anyone knew a little bit of history. I don't want to go in and outright edit it, but I want to flag the page first to start a discussion. How do I go about doing that? Do I have to register?

You don't have to register...just click 'edit' and begin editing away!

 

[magomago]

I want to dispute first Not just change..

and oops this was supposed to be in OT >< but if it fits here...why not

 

[Abraxas]

Go into the discussion page, state you believe the article is one sided and poorly researched and stamp it with an NPOV flag.

 

[Czar]

link?

 

[Moonbeam]

The article is completely accurate.

 

[Abraxas]

The article is completely accurate.

How can it be? The article is composed of language and language itself is imprecise. If one were to take a subjective reality, that is to say, that the person who wrote the article described reality as they know it, you are probably correct. However, our ability to describe our reality is limited by our language which only makes up a portion of how we interpret things. Subconcious impulses, the visual, the context provided to us through prior experience, emotional context and other factors that go into the formation of that reality cannot be readily conveyed through language alone and thus the article would not be complete even as a means of describing private reality. If reality is objective, then our words are still inadequate to describe what is for what is is more complex than the language we built to describe it. We use generalities and gloss over many details in our descriptions of things and events for the sake of expediency.

If we argue author intent is what is described in the article rather than any attempt at factuality, objective or percieved, we cannot know if it is completely accurate for such requires us to be the author and know if their intent was to display only that or something else. Alternatively, if we draw power from the words themselves, that the words describe precisely what the words describe and thus do so with complete accuracy, we must take into account differance, the posibility of the word to mean something else than the word means and thereby subject to change of reality at any time. Unless the article in some way accounts for all possible meanings of the words therein it is again in complete. If the reader is required to supply their own definitions to the article, their own baggage so to speak, we are returned to early problems in the imprecission of language. Granted the article would provide a mirror as to what one makes of the article at any given time, discounting imperfections caused by frame of mind and imprecise reading of said article, however, to be completely accurate as a mirror, the article would have to me expansive enough to reveal the entirety of the mind of the reader.

The final way that it could be completely accurate, which is plausible, I admit, is that the article is inherently meaningless and simultaneously conveys no meaning thus reflecting its own uselesness. Perhaps though, I am missing something crucial to the article's accuracy and you could enlighten this poor philosopher as to what that might be.

 

[magomago]

I think he is trying to say something else I'm not the one to say whether things are right or wrong...but there is a point where a pure bias comes out in full force and no attempt at understanding and analyzing a situation is made...

 

[Abraxas]

He could be, it is Moonie after all. I just figured I would cover random bases and be contrary to serve my own amusement and dispute the accuracy of the article as much as possible without having any idea what it says.

 

[firewall]

Which article? Link?

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Abraxas

The article is completely accurate.

How can it be? The article is composed of language and language itself is imprecise. If one were to take a subjective reality, that is to say, that the person who wrote the article described reality as they know it, you are probably correct. However, our ability to describe our reality is limited by our language which only makes up a portion of how we interpret things. Subconcious impulses, the visual, the context provided to us through prior experience, emotional context and other factors that go into the formation of that reality cannot be readily conveyed through language alone and thus the article would not be complete even as a means of describing private reality. If reality is objective, then our words are still inadequate to describe what is for what is is more complex than the language we built to describe it. We use generalities and gloss over many details in our descriptions of things and events for the sake of expediency.

If we argue author intent is what is described in the article rather than any attempt at factuality, objective or percieved, we cannot know if it is completely accurate for such requires us to be the author and know if their intent was to display only that or something else. Alternatively, if we draw power from the words themselves, that the words describe precisely what the words describe and thus do so with complete accuracy, we must take into account differance, the posibility of the word to mean something else than the word means and thereby subject to change of reality at any time. Unless the article in some way accounts for all possible meanings of the words therein it is again in complete. If the reader is required to supply their own definitions to the article, their own baggage so to speak, we are returned to early problems in the imprecission of language. Granted the article would provide a mirror as to what one makes of the article at any given time, discounting imperfections caused by frame of mind and imprecise reading of said article, however, to be completely accurate as a mirror, the article would have to me expansive enough to reveal the entirety of the mind of the reader.

The final way that it could be completely accurate, which is plausible, I admit, is that the article is inherently meaningless and simultaneously conveys no meaning thus reflecting its own uselesness. Perhaps though, I am missing something crucial to the article's accuracy and you could enlighten this poor philosopher as to what that might be.

The moon is not made of green cheese. Accurate? Thought so.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: magomago
I found an article that is extremely one sided and not even... accurately depicting the situation, as well as having "original research" and lack of citations. Some of the claims are outlandish and false if anyone knew a little bit of history.

Sounds like wikipedia to me.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Abraxas

The article is completely accurate.

How can it be? The article is composed of language and language itself is imprecise. If one were to take a subjective reality, that is to say, that the person who wrote the article described reality as they know it, you are probably correct. However, our ability to describe our reality is limited by our language which only makes up a portion of how we interpret things. Subconcious impulses, the visual, the context provided to us through prior experience, emotional context and other factors that go into the formation of that reality cannot be readily conveyed through language alone and thus the article would not be complete even as a means of describing private reality. If reality is objective, then our words are still inadequate to describe what is for what is is more complex than the language we built to describe it. We use generalities and gloss over many details in our descriptions of things and events for the sake of expediency.

If we argue author intent is what is described in the article rather than any attempt at factuality, objective or percieved, we cannot know if it is completely accurate for such requires us to be the author and know if their intent was to display only that or something else. Alternatively, if we draw power from the words themselves, that the words describe precisely what the words describe and thus do so with complete accuracy, we must take into account differance, the posibility of the word to mean something else than the word means and thereby subject to change of reality at any time. Unless the article in some way accounts for all possible meanings of the words therein it is again in complete. If the reader is required to supply their own definitions to the article, their own baggage so to speak, we are returned to early problems in the imprecission of language. Granted the article would provide a mirror as to what one makes of the article at any given time, discounting imperfections caused by frame of mind and imprecise reading of said article, however, to be completely accurate as a mirror, the article would have to me expansive enough to reveal the entirety of the mind of the reader.

The final way that it could be completely accurate, which is plausible, I admit, is that the article is inherently meaningless and simultaneously conveys no meaning thus reflecting its own uselesness. Perhaps though, I am missing something crucial to the article's accuracy and you could enlighten this poor philosopher as to what that might be.

The moon is not made of green cheese. Accurate? Thought so.

LOL you destroyed his essay in less than a dozen words.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Abraxas

The article is completely accurate.

How can it be? The article is composed of language and language itself is imprecise. If one were to take a subjective reality, that is to say, that the person who wrote the article described reality as they know it, you are probably correct. However, our ability to describe our reality is limited by our language which only makes up a portion of how we interpret things. Subconcious impulses, the visual, the context provided to us through prior experience, emotional context and other factors that go into the formation of that reality cannot be readily conveyed through language alone and thus the article would not be complete even as a means of describing private reality. If reality is objective, then our words are still inadequate to describe what is for what is is more complex than the language we built to describe it. We use generalities and gloss over many details in our descriptions of things and events for the sake of expediency.

If we argue author intent is what is described in the article rather than any attempt at factuality, objective or percieved, we cannot know if it is completely accurate for such requires us to be the author and know if their intent was to display only that or something else. Alternatively, if we draw power from the words themselves, that the words describe precisely what the words describe and thus do so with complete accuracy, we must take into account differance, the posibility of the word to mean something else than the word means and thereby subject to change of reality at any time. Unless the article in some way accounts for all possible meanings of the words therein it is again in complete. If the reader is required to supply their own definitions to the article, their own baggage so to speak, we are returned to early problems in the imprecission of language. Granted the article would provide a mirror as to what one makes of the article at any given time, discounting imperfections caused by frame of mind and imprecise reading of said article, however, to be completely accurate as a mirror, the article would have to me expansive enough to reveal the entirety of the mind of the reader.

The final way that it could be completely accurate, which is plausible, I admit, is that the article is inherently meaningless and simultaneously conveys no meaning thus reflecting its own uselesness. Perhaps though, I am missing something crucial to the article's accuracy and you could enlighten this poor philosopher as to what that might be.

The moon is not made of green cheese. Accurate? Thought so.

No, it is not accurate. There is no "The Moon". There are many moons spanning many realities both fictional and non. To proclaim that there is a single moon and that it is not made of green cheese is false.

EDIT: In fact, upon reflection, your statement went quite far in demonstrating my post to be accurate. "The moon" inherently requires outside context supplied by the observer to make any kind of sense; context that your use of language did not provide. It relied on numerous concepts, some more explicitly stated than others, for the reader to decipher, interpret, and judge the validity of the content contained therein. Without complete context and subtext, you cannot have complete accuracy.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Abraxas

The article is completely accurate.

How can it be? The article is composed of language and language itself is imprecise. If one were to take a subjective reality, that is to say, that the person who wrote the article described reality as they know it, you are probably correct. However, our ability to describe our reality is limited by our language which only makes up a portion of how we interpret things. Subconcious impulses, the visual, the context provided to us through prior experience, emotional context and other factors that go into the formation of that reality cannot be readily conveyed through language alone and thus the article would not be complete even as a means of describing private reality. If reality is objective, then our words are still inadequate to describe what is for what is is more complex than the language we built to describe it. We use generalities and gloss over many details in our descriptions of things and events for the sake of expediency.

If we argue author intent is what is described in the article rather than any attempt at factuality, objective or percieved, we cannot know if it is completely accurate for such requires us to be the author and know if their intent was to display only that or something else. Alternatively, if we draw power from the words themselves, that the words describe precisely what the words describe and thus do so with complete accuracy, we must take into account differance, the posibility of the word to mean something else than the word means and thereby subject to change of reality at any time. Unless the article in some way accounts for all possible meanings of the words therein it is again in complete. If the reader is required to supply their own definitions to the article, their own baggage so to speak, we are returned to early problems in the imprecission of language. Granted the article would provide a mirror as to what one makes of the article at any given time, discounting imperfections caused by frame of mind and imprecise reading of said article, however, to be completely accurate as a mirror, the article would have to me expansive enough to reveal the entirety of the mind of the reader.

The final way that it could be completely accurate, which is plausible, I admit, is that the article is inherently meaningless and simultaneously conveys no meaning thus reflecting its own uselesness. Perhaps though, I am missing something crucial to the article's accuracy and you could enlighten this poor philosopher as to what that might be.

The moon is not made of green cheese. Accurate? Thought so.

LOL you destroyed his essay in less than a dozen words.

You should not be so quick to declare ownage where none exists. I'm also sorry you consider two and a half paragraphs to be an essay.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Abraxas

The article is completely accurate.

How can it be? The article is composed of language and language itself is imprecise. If one were to take a subjective reality, that is to say, that the person who wrote the article described reality as they know it, you are probably correct. However, our ability to describe our reality is limited by our language which only makes up a portion of how we interpret things. Subconcious impulses, the visual, the context provided to us through prior experience, emotional context and other factors that go into the formation of that reality cannot be readily conveyed through language alone and thus the article would not be complete even as a means of describing private reality. If reality is objective, then our words are still inadequate to describe what is for what is is more complex than the language we built to describe it. We use generalities and gloss over many details in our descriptions of things and events for the sake of expediency.

If we argue author intent is what is described in the article rather than any attempt at factuality, objective or percieved, we cannot know if it is completely accurate for such requires us to be the author and know if their intent was to display only that or something else. Alternatively, if we draw power from the words themselves, that the words describe precisely what the words describe and thus do so with complete accuracy, we must take into account differance, the posibility of the word to mean something else than the word means and thereby subject to change of reality at any time. Unless the article in some way accounts for all possible meanings of the words therein it is again in complete. If the reader is required to supply their own definitions to the article, their own baggage so to speak, we are returned to early problems in the imprecission of language. Granted the article would provide a mirror as to what one makes of the article at any given time, discounting imperfections caused by frame of mind and imprecise reading of said article, however, to be completely accurate as a mirror, the article would have to me expansive enough to reveal the entirety of the mind of the reader.

The final way that it could be completely accurate, which is plausible, I admit, is that the article is inherently meaningless and simultaneously conveys no meaning thus reflecting its own uselesness. Perhaps though, I am missing something crucial to the article's accuracy and you could enlighten this poor philosopher as to what that might be.

The moon is not made of green cheese. Accurate? Thought so.

LOL you destroyed his essay in less than a dozen words.

You should not be so quick to declare ownage where none exists. I'm also sorry you consider two and a half paragraphs to be an essay.

I'm sorry, I don't understand imprecise, subjective, language written from other's private realities man. Did you say something that we should be listenting to?

 

[Proletariat]

Which article is this?

Link it since I'm probably going to disagree with you.

 

[daveymark]

got a link?

EDIT: nvm, figured it out on my own

 

[ViRGE]

If you want to dispute an article due to bias problems, you'll first want to read the NPOV policy page. It'll lay out what Wikipedia's exact intentions are with a NPOV, and how to attempt to politely resolve them if there's a disagreement. If that fails, then you can move on to flagging an article to highlight a potential NPOV problem.

If it's a political article, the odds are it'll never leave NPOV-hell, there will always be partisan hacks that attempt to swing it around, and it may be kept on a very short leash as a result.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Abraxas

The article is completely accurate.

How can it be? The article is composed of language and language itself is imprecise. If one were to take a subjective reality, that is to say, that the person who wrote the article described reality as they know it, you are probably correct. However, our ability to describe our reality is limited by our language which only makes up a portion of how we interpret things. Subconcious impulses, the visual, the context provided to us through prior experience, emotional context and other factors that go into the formation of that reality cannot be readily conveyed through language alone and thus the article would not be complete even as a means of describing private reality. If reality is objective, then our words are still inadequate to describe what is for what is is more complex than the language we built to describe it. We use generalities and gloss over many details in our descriptions of things and events for the sake of expediency.

If we argue author intent is what is described in the article rather than any attempt at factuality, objective or percieved, we cannot know if it is completely accurate for such requires us to be the author and know if their intent was to display only that or something else. Alternatively, if we draw power from the words themselves, that the words describe precisely what the words describe and thus do so with complete accuracy, we must take into account differance, the posibility of the word to mean something else than the word means and thereby subject to change of reality at any time. Unless the article in some way accounts for all possible meanings of the words therein it is again in complete. If the reader is required to supply their own definitions to the article, their own baggage so to speak, we are returned to early problems in the imprecission of language. Granted the article would provide a mirror as to what one makes of the article at any given time, discounting imperfections caused by frame of mind and imprecise reading of said article, however, to be completely accurate as a mirror, the article would have to me expansive enough to reveal the entirety of the mind of the reader.

The final way that it could be completely accurate, which is plausible, I admit, is that the article is inherently meaningless and simultaneously conveys no meaning thus reflecting its own uselesness. Perhaps though, I am missing something crucial to the article's accuracy and you could enlighten this poor philosopher as to what that might be.

The moon is not made of green cheese. Accurate? Thought so.

LOL you destroyed his essay in less than a dozen words.

You should not be so quick to declare ownage where none exists. I'm also sorry you consider two and a half paragraphs to be an essay.

I'm sorry, I don't understand imprecise, subjective, language written from other's private realities man. Did you say something that we should be listenting to?

That's fine. I understood yours. You took my humour intended comments towards Moonie and decided to try to pick a fight over them, immediately draining all attempts at humor in favor of confronation designed not to entertain but discredit and humiliate. You produced a smart alek comment towards that end.

The problem with this attempt to stroke your own ego was that you used language that was not completely precise and thus supported my initial claim that no language is. When defeated, you realized that instead of challenging me on my rebuttal of your moon claim, you had no choice but to admit defeat or engage in ad hominem attacks, taking jabs at me rather than my argument. You chose the latter and towards that end produced your latest post in this thread. I can only assume the cause was pettiness and jealousy on your part.

Now, if you would like to join in the merriment of this faux debate and muse on the nature of language go ahead and let whimsy take us where it may. If that is not your thing, kindly depart this thread, or at least this line of discussion, so that those who wish may be so allowed. Indeed, all I really ask is that you spend less time trying to tear others down for your own amusement and allow joy to flourish in the place of abrasive conflict.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: magomago
I found an article that is extremely one sided and not even... accurately depicting the situation, as well as having "original research" and lack of citations. Some of the claims are outlandish and false if anyone knew a little bit of history.

Sounds like wikipedia to me.

Yeah well, your idea of an incredible source is simpy when you don't agree with it :roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: magomago
I found an article that is extremely one sided and not even... accurately depicting the situation, as well as having "original research" and lack of citations. Some of the claims are outlandish and false if anyone knew a little bit of history.

Sounds like wikipedia to me.

Yeah well, your idea of an incredible source is simpy when you don't agree with it :roll:

But when you've made the assumption that you really know something it's an easy trap to fall into. Of course, as your observed, the self flattery is pretty obvious to others.

 

[palehorse]

mango, can we get the link in question, please?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: magomago
I found an article that is extremely one sided and not even... accurately depicting the situation, as well as having "original research" and lack of citations. Some of the claims are outlandish and false if anyone knew a little bit of history.

Sounds like wikipedia to me.

Yeah well, your idea of an incredible source is simpy when you don't agree with it :roll:

Yay... I have my own stalker. One with a Hitler quote in his profile, no less.

Actually, you should replace it with one of Goebbels:
"If you tell a lie big enough, and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: magomago
I found an article that is extremely one sided and not even... accurately depicting the situation, as well as having "original research" and lack of citations. Some of the claims are outlandish and false if anyone knew a little bit of history.

Sounds like wikipedia to me.

Yeah well, your idea of an incredible source is simpy when you don't agree with it :roll:

Yay... I have my own stalker. One with a Hitler quote in his profile, no less.

Actually, you should replace it with one of Goebbels:
"If you tell a lie big enough, and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

That quote would be adequate for a lot of people on ATP&N.