Wikipedia talk:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia

message: It's arguable that EB is correct with respect to the cardinality of the real numbers. It may simply be a matter of definition. In some texts, \aleph_{1} is defined as the cardinality of the real numbers. The continuum hypothesis then asks the question whether there's anything between \aleph_{0} and \aleph_{1}. not whether the cardinality of the reals is \aleph_{1}. Elliotte Rusty Harold 12:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transfinite Numbers

message: EB does not contain a definition or list of Archimedean solids. Britannica Student Encyclopedia contains the following definition:
:in geometry, any one of 13 solids whose faces are all convex polyhedrons; first described by ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes; faces of one solid can represent more than one kind of 
only this one..
only this one..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.121.193 (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archimedean Solids 

message: The first sentence of EB's article on deconstruction calls it a "Method of philosophical and literary analysis." This directly contradicts Derrida's famous "Letter to a Japanese Friend", which states clearly that "Deconstruction is not a method and cannot be transformed into one."  (Deconstruction, Wikipedia's article, is currently [Feb 2004] self-contradictory on this topic.)
:I'd rather say that Deconstruction would have been self-contradictory if Derrida had not said such a thing; but obviously, Derrida's statement should not prescribe how we talk about it nowadays. — mark ✎ 15:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deconstruction and method 

message: On the History of Bucharest, 1911 Britannica writes:
:More modern historians declare that it was originally a fortress, erected on the site of the Daco-Roman Thyanus, to command the approaches to Tirgovishtea, formerly the capital of Walachia.
I was surprised that I couldn't find anything on the mythical fortress of Thyanus, and then I realized the meaning:
: "...a fortress erected on Thy-anus..."
Britannica has been trolled.
PS: they're also mixing historical ages in this phrase. Târgoviştea was built about a thousand years after the Daco-Romans. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 18:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The original poster unfortunately linked to the LoveToKnow copy of the 1911 Britannica, which has the nasty habit of splitting articles into different web pages in mid-sentence. On their site, the quote is now found on anpother page - or on many other web copies of the 1911 Britannica, such as Wikisource's. Regards, High on a tree 21:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNAA troll in 1911 Britannica 

message: : Does EB actually spell "Cario" like that? Or was that just a mistake in copying from EB? -- John Owens (talk) 23:51, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
:: No, that was my typo :P. Good catch! — mark ✎ 08:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qala'un Mosque (spelling) 

message: You do realise that large reference works contain several deliberate errors (usually on non-controversial and barely notable minor areas) to protect against copyright fraud - if the errors turn up in other reference works with similar content, they are highly likely to have been copied, and act as evidence of such in court. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Nihilartikel. They might do so, but that doesn't excuse their mistakes. For the researcher relying on it, an error is still an error, whether deliberate or not. — Matt Crypto 18:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deliberate errors

message: I removed this section:
:EB gives the name of this pleasant Russian city as Novohrad-Volynskyy, an impressive average of one typo per word. However the Russian name is correctly given as Novograd-Volynsky.
It is either mockery or ignorance of the contributor. The city is an Ukrainian one, not Russian. The wikipedia article must be fixed accordingly, not to say that it is error-ridden. mikka (t) 00:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novograd-Volynsky 

message: What the heck is this "Don't Panic" article section supposed to mean? mikka (t) 00:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in current version. David Spector (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't Panic 

message: See Talk:Elsa Morante for a mistake thah should be verified. David Shay 03:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Elsa Morante

message: Wouldn't a place where one can see the sources of the information be required? If I have to give sources in a research paper, shouldn't this article be complete with sources? I just think it is odd that everybody says, "Yes, this is correct." but has nothing to back it up. 3 October 2005
:Of course, just like some basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia say. This is why some of us include sources for the errors they point out. Not everyone does that here; the reason is probably that this list points to Wikipedia articles and these should be sourced, so if all is well, you can go to the Wikipedia article and check out the sources there. You might also want to check out the following Wikipedia policies: Cite your sources, Check your facts, Reliable sources, and Verifiability. — mark ✎ 06:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Britannica says:
:Charles Philipon
:born April 19, 1806, Lyon, France
:died Jan. 25, 1862, Paris
French Wikipedia says:
:born April 19, 1800 
:died 1861 January 25, 1862
English Wikipedia says:
:born April 19, 1800
:died 1861 January 25, 1861
Can somebody check which is correct ? bogdan | Talk 18:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britannica vs. French Wikipedia 

message: Kostroma - Krylov - Karamzin - Dolgorukov (a note to myself) --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian mistakes 

message: Just come across this today.  I have previously noticed errors in EB too, but cataloguing them seems a pretty useless thing to do - unless we plan to actually bring them to the attention of EB's editors.  If it's just for ego-fulfillment, why pick out just one encyclopedia to score points off?  We could set ourselves up the standard against which ALL other encyclopedias in the world are judged, not just EB.  But that would be silly, so why do this at all?  This seems like a waste of time to me.  Why not just get on with making Wikipedia the best we can make it, without worrying too much about the mistakes of others.  A similar page called "Errors in Wikipedia" would be a very, very long list.  Mistakes are being corrected all the time, but other wrong info is being added all the time too.  That's the nature of the beast.  It ill behoves us to be too superior about other reference works, particularly since we cite them endlessly when it suits us.   JackofOz 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I largely agree with you here. However, to speak for myself, the errors I added are simply those I happened to come across while cross-checking the research I did for Wikipedia articles. I guess that holds for most of the contributions here. In other words, most people here are not wasting their time by actively searching for errors in EB; they're listing errors they stumble upon while improving Wikipedia. — mark ✎ 14:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the Purpose of this page?

message: I just discovered an entire site dedicated to this topic - Internet Accuracy Project Interesting stuff, though a little scary if you think about all the millions using EB and other encyclopedias as their only source of reference. brucethompson 21:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors contained in reference books

message: "The Encyclopædia Britannica article "Encyclopædia Britannica" indicates that the Encyclopædia Britannica is "the oldest and largest English-language general encyclopaedia". It is still the oldest. But it is now the second-largest to Wikipedia as measured by number of words and number of articles, among other standards."
Whether this statement is true or false depends on one's POV.  As such, it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to describe it as an error the same way that an incorrect birthdate is an error.
To properly write the paragraph neutrally, it should say something like "One statement that has been sometimes called an error is Britannica's statement that it is the largest encyclopedia.  If Wikipedia's claim to be an encyclopedia is accepted, then this statement is erroneous because Wikipedia contains more words and articles than Britannica.  However, Britannica disputes Wikipedia's classification as an encyclopedia, referring to it as a "database" instead."
Even then, you would need to give a reliable source that calls Britannica's statement an error, other than Wikipedia itself.  (And User:Hawkestone isn't a reference unless he has a greater claim to fame than just being a Wikipedia user.) Ken Arromdee 01:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized this isn't in the main article space, which means that articles can be as biased as we want.  Still, there's nothing *prohibiting* neutral material here.  If nobody objects, I'll probably change the main article's paragraph to something like the neutral paragraph above. Ken Arromdee 01:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, do it, it looks better. — mark ✎ 14:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size?

message: EB will never be as up-to-date as Wikipedia. People race to create an article on the latest current event here but EB may take days or more likely weeks (for the website). My question is should this be mentioned? It may seem a bit big headed. James086Talk | Contribs 07:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it has nothing to do with an error of the EB; it is by design. — mark ✎ 08:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. James086Talk | Contribs 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current events?

message: EB claims that Lafia is in the Plateau State of Nigeria (). But it's the capital city of Nasarawa State. --Bohr 16:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct . I added it. Regards, High on a tree 22:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lafia]] 

message: It appears that the experts who contributed to the writing of encyclopedias were not perfect individuals; i. e., they made errors, and their errors were printed.  GhostofSuperslum 03:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A [[New International Encyclopedia]] errors page exists, too

message: People, you have been signing your additions to the article. You are not supposed to do that. Signatures are for talk pages. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk_pages#When signatures should and should not be used we see that signatures should be used on "user talk pages, article talk pages, or other discussion pages" but not on "articles", and it says "articles" in general (as opposed of specifically main namespace articles). And I do believe that the signatures make this article look unprofessional. And remember that even if it is not in the main namespace, it gets linked from other sites (it was featured on Slashdot for example) -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not sign your additions to the article! 

message: The 6 May 2009 entry of Page-A-Day's Wacky Web Sites calendar lists this article and notes after providing a general overview of the article, "Wikipedia is no stranger to inaccuracies, and given the trivial nature of many of the corrections-Roger Waters's correct birth date, whether frank Zappa was christended Frank or Francis-it has a long way to go to unseat Britannica as the most comprehensive and reliable source."  Interesting, no?  The multi-setence paragraph on the entry is headed "Battle of the Books" (funny, because we aren't a book...) and makes it as if Wikipedia and Britannica are rivals with Britannica looking dismissively at us.  Might actually be worth noting somewhere that this article has actually attracted real world interest.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This article referenced in a calendar!?

message: I know that this is completly off topic, but this page makes me happy. *Feels warm and fuzzy inside* --ThePastaKing (Talk) 20:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A comment 

message: This sentence seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia: "By the way, I am using Pinyin, while Britannica still uses Wade–Giles. Here is the transliteration of the Wade–Giles in this Britannica article to Pinyin:".  The use of the word 'I' doesn't seem right here.  I'm not sure how to change it, as I'm worried that the fact that I don't speak or read Chinese will cause me to make some crucial mistake.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.27.85 (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-encyclopediac language in section Nanking - History 

message: Come on, guys, really? This is just whining, and we are not going to get anywhere with this. This is not very NPOV at all! (Yes, I know that NPOV is for mainspace only, but we still need to at least use it as a guideline in all namespaces.) Stop with the hoopla, please. We should respect EB, not saying the sophisticated equivalent of EB SUXORZ!!!! WIKIPEEDIA RULEZ!111!!1!!! (Because that is what this article seems to be saying, albeit under the cover of civility.) Agent 78787 talk contribs 01:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That or it's a comprehensive page to point at when people say "Wikipedia is a useless source compared to EB."  I know people who assume that anything in EB is just short of the word of God, and/or assume that Wikipedia is nothing but vandalism, trolling, and spamming.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we have this page? 

message: The article is riddled with postings that should be on the talk page, not in the article. Since I don't absolutely know that this isn't kosher by Wikipedia norms, and since I don't know what the acceptable approach to fixing it is, I'm not going to try to fix it myself. However, I do urge that someone who does know about such protocols please take some time on this.
Poihths (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't talk items be on the talk page? 

message: Why were my edits reverted? --65.94.97.241 (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See  Teishin (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was not blanking the page though. What was the actual problem with my edits? --65.94.97.241 (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

text:  Like, I was not even intending to delete it or anything. Just add a couple of constructive things. What was the problem? --65.94.97.241 (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  1. The addition of { {historical} }. 2. Recent massive problem with sockpuppets on this article. 3. IP address with no edit history making technically sophisticated edits about obscure matters. Sure looks like a sockpuppet. WP:QUACK. Teishin (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The historical tag is from 2019. But ok. Can my other edits stay then?2605:8D80:604:1D5E:8441:277A:7DD7:4416 (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lovely, another IP address now. That tag wasn't there an hour ago. That tag is your edit. Teishin (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  sorry. Switched to my phone... Am actually on my way.... The historical tag was a consensus from more than a year ago... See  Here also, can my other edits stay then? 2605:8D80:604:1D5E:8441:277A:7DD7:4416 (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no record of such a consensus anywhere above on this page. Teishin (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  it's not my edit. I simply restored what was for a long time.... But ok, can my other edits stay? 2605:8D80:604:1D5E:8441:277A:7DD7:4416 (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was once put on the page without any discussion. The claim that there was consensus is false. HaeB restored the page ages ago. It's your edit now.  Teishin (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   I could have been wrong. Now, can my other edits (other than the archived thing) stay?2605:8D80:604:1D5E:8441:277A:7DD7:4416 (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will just edit the thing again without the archive. You tell me if there is a problem ok?2605:8D80:604:1D5E:8441:277A:7DD7:4416 (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  hey 

message: Yasuke has been popular in Japanese media for decades but has abruptly become a controversial figure in America due to his central role in Assassin's Creed Shadows. Yasuke is the earliest known "black person" to be described in Japanese literature. He entered the service of Oda Nobunaga, but in what capacity is a point of contention. The general public and the Encyclopædia Britannica believe that Yasuke was a proper samurai; however, Wikipedia at time of writing never refers to him with this term and states he was a koshō. Does this constitute "an error in the Encyclopædia Britannica corrected by Wikipedia"? 2601:206:8200:DA90:A096:6DEB:F499:51C7 (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yasuke, "the first black samurai"