1416 and Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
added Year_nav + intro, topic-box |
|||
Line 1:
{|align=right
|-
__toc__
|}This page catalogs some mistakes and omissions in ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' (''EB'') and shows how they have been corrected in [[Wikipedia]]. Some errors have already been corrected in Britannica's online version.
==
===Largest English-language Encyclopedia===
One statement that has been sometimes called an error is Britannica's statement in the article "Encyclopedia Britannica" that it is the "oldest and largest English-language general 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. (Source: [http://en.wikipedia.org Wikipedia] article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Wikipedia]") Although Britannica has at times referred to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9433599/Wikipedia], it has also referred to Wikipedia as "the Internet database that allows anyone... to edit" when responding to Nature's defense of Wikipedia, apparently rejecting Wikipedia's claim to be an encyclopedia. [http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf]
It is perhaps worth noting that the accuracy of the label "oldest English-language general encyclopedia" hinges on the meaning of the words "oldest" and "general". Encyclopedia Britannica is certainly not the '''first''' English-language encyclopedia; though it may be considered the one with the greatest longevity, as many of the earlier English-language encyclopedias are no longer published.
p
===Wikipedia===
The Encyclopædia Britannica article "Wikipedia" incorrectly suggests that it was only after the [[John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy|Seigenthaler affair]] that administrators got the power to block particular IP addresses.
==History==
===Birth year of Ben Turpin===
[[Ben Turpin]]'s birthdate is September 19, 1869 but other years were used at various times in his Hollywood publicity material. In the 1900 US Census he used the year "1869", and his death certificate lists his birthday as "September 19, 1869". Encyclopedia Britannica wrongly lists the year of his birth as "1874". The New York Times obituary mentions the alternate years as fabrications. The Internet Movie Database lists his birthday properly as "September 19, 1869".
===Buster Crabbe===
For [[Buster Crabbe]] there is a conflict between the birthdate given in his official documents, and the one used in his Hollywood publicity biographies. His birth certificate and his Social Security application both use the birthdate of "February 07, 1908" and that will be used here. The Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Internet Movie Database both use an incorrect birthdate based on his Hollywood publicity biography.
===Birth year of Abraham Bosse===
Research deemed recent at the beginning of 2004 has uncovered that [[Abraham Bosse]] was born around 1604, not 1602, as previously thought. As of May 2005, Encyclopedia Britannica still gives 1601 as his birth year.
===[[Pushkin]] in Bohemia===
It is a basic fact of Russian history that the tsarist administration never allowed the poet [[Alexander Pushkin]] to go abroad, a nuisance that he deplored in ''[[Eugene Onegin]]'' and other verses. Therefore, [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9044736 Britannica's assertion] that "frequent guests" of [[Karlovy Vary]] included Alexander Pushkin and Tsar Peter I the Great is untrue. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]] 10:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
=== Manuel Castells ===
In its brief entry on sociologist [[Manuel Castells]] EB claims that he is an American. Wikipedia notes that he was born in Spain, and has lived in France and the US. (At least one Wikipedia contributor submitted this as an error of fact to EB but it is uncertain whether EB has, in fact, made the appropriate change.)
* '' Should probably change "six months ago" to a date, so it remains accurate... '' -- [[User:Timwi|Timwi]] 12:57, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
* Did EB state he was born in America? It's quite possible he has American citizenship. Please clarify.
* He is Spanish and currently works in Barcelona.
* No such entry exists in the 2004 DVD (URS) edition, or in the online version. Article seems to have been dropped. Although in the DVD it says in a reference page for Castells, that he is an "Am. socio.", but this is not mentioned in the online version.
===Nanking - History===
-Britannica's Nanking, History article states:
:''Nanking?under the name of Chien-yeh?emerged as the political and cultural centre of Southeast China during the period of the Three Kingdoms, when Sun Chien and his son Sun Ch'üan made it the capital of the kingdom of Wu from 229 to 280.''
[[Sun Jian]] never settled in [[Nanking]]; he was the governor of Changsha while a Chinese warlord and killed by Liu Biao's army while governor. It was [[Sun Quan]] who moved the capital of his state to Chien-yeh in 212, following the advice of a dying Zhang Hong. There was no Wu state at the time, as [[Sun Quan]] had not yet crowned himself emperor.
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:
Chien-yeh - [[Jianye]]
Sun Chien - [[Sun Jian]] (156-192)
Sun Ch'uan - [[Sun Quan]] (182-252)
=== [[Polish September Campaign]] ===
Britannica 2001 DVD I checked stated that 'Polish casualties are not known'. In fact, Polish casualties are known since 1950s. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] <sup>[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</sup> 02:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
===Invention of the Safety Razor===<!-- This section is linked from [[King C. Gillette]] -->
EB wrongly credits [[King Camp Gillette]] with the invention of the [[safety razor]]. The safety razor was invented in the mid 1870s by the Kampfe brothers long before Gillette's first razor. He just made some changes so that the razor could be made more cheaply. The safety razor King C. Gillette made makes the blades disposable.
=== Henry VIII and Leviticus ===
According to EB's entry on Henry VIII, he resolved to appeal to the Pope that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon had been against divine law under ''"the biblical injunction (Lev.) forbidding marriage with a brother's widow"''. The entries in Leviticus both forbid a man sexual relations (18 v.v. 16) and give the promise of a childless marriage (20 v.v. 21) with his brother's ''wife''. The inclusion or exclusion of a brother's ''widow'' in any interpretation depends on the view of the reader and would, arguably, be not one commonly held. Under Ecclesiastical law at the time of Henry, a man ''could'' in fact marry his brother's widow if the marriage was not consummated. In reality, Henry unsuccessfully lobbied the Pope for an annulment of the marriage claiming that Catherine had lied when she said she hadn't consummated her marriage with Arthur. [[User:Dainamo|Dainamo]]
:Actually, the traditional Jewish legal interpretation is that a man is ''obligated'' to marry his brother's childless widow and ''forbidden'' to marry his brother's widow if she has had a child. If you don't have evidence that Henry '''didn't''' appeal to his own convenient version of Biblical interpretation, then this may not be an "error". [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]]
::This very contradiction is what Henry VIII used. When he married Catherine, he used Deut 25:5 [http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0525.htm#5]. When he wanted to divorce her, he used Leviticus 18:16 [http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0318.htm#16]. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 11:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Irrespective of what interpretation Henry used, the EB does not state it as "interpretation" but refers specifically to the injunction of Leviticus 18:16 forbidding marriage with a brother's ''widow''. In other words, if this interpretation was used by Henry as stated then EB is in error by referring to it as fact when the passage unambiguously refers to a Brother's ''wife''. The different treatment of a ''widow'' in Judaic law based on Deut 25:5 can arguably be used to enforce this point. [[User:Dainamo|Dainamo]] 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
=== Tudor Vladimirescu ===
According to Britannica [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9075616], Romanian revolutionary leader [[Tudor Vladimirescu]] was assassinated on June 7 instead of May 27, the real date.
: The facts that these dates differ by 10 days and that the event in question takes place in Romania in the 19th Century suggest that the discrepancy is due to the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars. See [[Gregorian_Calendar]] and [[Old Style and New Style dates]]. Both Britannica and Wikipedia should specify which calendar is referred to. [[User:64.230.161.79|64.230.161.79]]
:: Fixed in Wikipedia. :-) [[User:Bogdangiusca|Bogdan]] | [[User talk:Bogdangiusca|Talk]] 12:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ten days? Try eleven.
=== Birthname of William J. Clinton, 42nd US President ===
Britannica lists the birthname of William J. Clinton (Bill Clinton) as "''William Jefferson Blythe IV''" [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9003019]. It has been confirmed by the Clinton Library [http://www.clintonlibrary.gov] that the correct birthname is "''William Jefferson Blythe III''". Refer to respective [[Talk:Bill_Clinton/Archive2#William_Jefferson_Blythe_III_or_IV.3F.21|Talk thread]].
:Fixed as of 22 July 2007 ("Clinton, Bill." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 22 July 2007 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003019>.)
=== Sheila Scott's birth date ===
According to Britannica she was born on April 27, 1927. The [[Oxford DNB]], based on her birth certificate, confirms her birth date was actually April 27, 1922.
=== Titles of Scottish peers ===
Many Scottish peers are referred to in the style of '''John Carter, 6th Viscount of Mars''', rather than the usual '''John Carter, 6th Viscount Mars'''. As [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] put it, ''almost all Scottish viscountcies use the preposition "of". No other viscountcies do this.'' Britannica refers to, for instance, [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9045079?query=William%20Gordon%2C%206th%20Viscount%20Kenmure&ct= William Gordon, 6th Viscount Kenmure] instead of [[William Gordon, 6th Viscount of Kenmure]]. [[User:Grendelkhan|grendel]]|[[User_talk:Grendelkhan|khan]] 20:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
=== John Mitchell's birth date ===
The American National Biography, ''Washington Post'', and ''Guardian'' confirm his birth date was September 15, 1913 not "Sept. 5, 1913", the date given by Britannica. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lotsofissues lots of issues] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lotsofissues&action=edit§ion=new leave me a message] 22:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
=== Biography of [[Josquin Desprez]] ===
Recent research has established that Josquin Desprez was born between 1450 and 1455, and first went to Italy in the 1480s, NOT in 1459 as Britannica has it. The confusion arose because a singer with a similar name was part of the Sforza chapel in Milan from 1459 to 1472; this is now known to be a different person. The New Grove online also has it right ([http://www.grovemusic.com]). Josquin was in France the whole time, and Britannica is writing about a completely different person. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 03:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
===Biography of [[Seymour Cray]]===
The [http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9361844?query=seymour%20cray&ct= short online version] is very different than the similarily short version on the CD, but both are extremely inaccurate. In fact, '''almost every statement in the online version is incorrect''':
#Cray did not work on the [[UNIVAC I]]. At the time that machine was being assembled Cray was at ERA working on the [[ERA 1101]]. I believe they are confused due to the fact that the 110x line ''later'' became Univac's main product line in the 1960s.
#The [[CDC 1604]] was not the first transistorized computer, by a long shot. Bell Labs built [[TRADIC]] in 1954, [[Metropolitan-Vickers]] started ''selling'' the [[Metrovick 950]] in 1955, and [[TX-0]] was running in 1956. The 1604 was released in 1959, five years after TRADIC.
#Cray Research started with a uniprocessor design, the [[Cray-1]]. The company's first multiprocessor machine was designed by [[Steve Chen]], after Cray had left for Boulder. Cray had to be dragged into multiprocessing kicking and screaming, something that anyone who has read a biography on him would know.
#The [[Cray-2]] could perform either 2Gflops or 4Gflops, depending on the version. The 1.2 number is an average speed for the 4-CPU version.
=== Birth year of Roger Waters ===
According to
:Pink Floyd. (2005). Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 19, 2005, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9105888
Roger Waters was born on Sept. 6, 1944.
According to [http://www.pink-floyd.org/faq/faq2.html this Pink Floyd FAQ] this is an error, and the correct birth date is September 6, 1943, as confirmed by Mark Fenwick, Roger Waters' manager. That is the date found in the wikipedia article [[Roger Waters]]. regards, [[User:High on a tree|High on a tree]] 01:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
=== Birthday and birthyear of Joseph Stalin ===
According to Encyclopaedia Britannica [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108469?query=Joseph%20Stalin&ct=] it is December 21 (Dec 9 OS), 1879; but this date was made up by Stalin later in his life. The actual date and the one in the [[Joseph Stalin|wikipedia article]] is December 18 (Dec 6 OS), 1878.
===Kostroma Cathedral===
[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9046118 Britannica article] on [[Kostroma]] says that "the city's cathedral, dating from 1239 and rebuilt in 1773, is situated in the kremlin (fortress) and is a fine example of old Russian architecture". Actually, the Dormition cathedral, first mentioned in the 16th century, was destroyed by the Bolsheviks on [[June 8]], [[1934]]. They cited the ugliness of this Neoclassical structure as a pretext for its demolition, so the cathedral could hardly be described as "a fine example of old Russian architecture". --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]] 10:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
===The origin of the [[Dolgorukov]] family ===
[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9030821 Britannica article] on [[Dolgorukov|Dolgoruky Family]] alleges that its origins "are believed by some to go back to [[Yury Dolgoruky]]". This is a typical example of pseudo-science. Every genealogical account of the family, starting with the 16th-century Royal Genealogical Book and the 17th-century [[Velvet Book]], asserts their descent from one of [[Upper Oka Principalities|medieval princes of Obolensk]], whose sobriquet was Dolgoruky (or the "Long-Armed"). In fact, their original surname was "Dolgorukov-Obolensky" but they dropped the second part of this name later in history. Therefore, the family descended not from [[Vladimir Monomakh]] or his son Yury, as Britannica states, but from his cousin and woe [[Oleg of Chernigov]]. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]] 10:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
=== [[Matthew Basarab]] ===
According to Encyclopedia Britannica [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9051446?hook=258373], he was "a last scion of the ancient Basarab dynasty". However, according to the Wikipedia article, he was not a real heir to the dynasty, but it was a fabricated lineage. [[User:Bogdangiusca|bogdan]] 22:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
=== Dispute official name change of [[Democratic-Republican Party]] in 1798 ===
A knowledgeable Wikipedia contributor disputes Britannica's claim that the old Republican Party officially changed its name to [[Democratic-Republican Party]] in the year 1798.[http://www.britannica.com/presidentsWebapp/article.do?articleID=9063241] The details of the dispute can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic-Republican_Party_%28United_States%29#Accuracy_dispute_and_Britannica_article here]. The [[Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition]] claimed that the name was officially changed in 1801.[http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/DEM_DIO/DEMOCRATIC_PARTY.html] This is also disputed. In fact, the claim of any official name change prior to the break-up of the party is disputed.
=== [[Ruth Prawer Jhabvala]]===
In the [http://search.eb.com/ebc/article-9368545 EB article], it states that she was born to a family of Polish Jews. However, her mother was German Jewish, not Polish Jewish. Sources: [http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/jhab.htm] [http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1440242,00.html] — <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] • 2006-07-16 16:04</small>
===History of European cuisine===
The history of European cuisine contained in the article "gastronomy" is really, ''really'' bad. The article is largely unenyclopedic and hopelessly POV:ed. For example, any feast before the Renaissance is characterized as being vulgar, and the entire Middle Ages is described as being notable pretty much only for its "crudity and extravagance". The tired old myth of (horribly expensive) spices used to hide the taste of (dirt cheap) spoiled meat is repeated in the article, with the explanation that refrigeration was not available in the Middle Ages. There's absolutely no logic in such an explanation, since pretty much the same preservation techniques were used from antiquity up to the early modern period.
In describing the Italian Renaissance as the only glimmer of hope in a compact culinary darkness he describes the rest of Europe as eating nothing but "crude slabs of meat". He then goes on to describe a late 16th century banquet which, absurdly enough, features dishes that are almost all of late medieval origin. The only notable Renaissance exceptions seem to be the roast turkeys (brought over in the [[Columbian Exchange]]).
Now compare this with [[medieval cuisine]]. I can also assure you that all the nonsense about the ultimate superiority of French ''grand cuisine'' will be addressed and nuanced in upcoming articles on the history of European cuisine.
[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 09:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
==Mathematics==
=== Logarithmic spiral ===
EB's article on ''spiral'' suffers from severe problems in the layout of mathematical formula, at least in the online version. The formula for the logarithmic spiral is given as exp θ cot φ, which should be exp(θ cot φ). See [[logarithmic spiral]].
:Where φ is what? --[[User:Fibonacci|Fibonacci]] 03:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::<math>\phi = \frac{1 + \sqrt{5}}{2}</math>. -- <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"> [[User:Denelson83|Denelson]][[User talk:Denelson83|'''83''']] </span> 14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
=== NP problems ===
In "NP-complete problem" you can find the statement
:''A problem is called NP if its solution (if one exists) can be guessed and verified in polynomial time; ''
The insert "(if one exists)" makes clear that the author does not understand that only [[decision problem]]s belong to the class NP. Every instance of every problem in NP has a solution: it is either YES or NO. Only YES answers need to be verified quickly. See [[Complexity classes P and NP]].
: Arguably, they weren't actually talking about the Yes/No solution to the NP problem, but a solution to the underlying problem (which in our lectures was called a "certificate"). Example boolean satisfiability: Whether an expression is satisfiable is a Yes/No question, but if the answer is "Yes", you'd really like to know the truth values that satisfy the expression. It is my understanding that a problem is indeed NP if you can verify such a certificate in polynomial time. -- [[User:Timwi|Timwi]] 13:04, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
::That doesn't resolve the fundamental mistake: the insert implies that a problem may be in NP even if a solution does not exist. This cannot be: if a solution really didn't exist, the problem would be [[undecidable]], or at least only partially decidable, but certainly not in NP. You're right when you say that a problem is in NP if it has a certificate verifiable in polynomial time, but a problem without a solution has no certificate at all. (NO answers have certificates too, but these need not be verifiable in polynomial time.) The author of the sentence might indeed have been thinking about the underlying problem (either conflating "not satisfiable" for SAT or "YES" answers without an accompanying certificate with "no solution") -- that explains it, but doesn't correct it. As an aside, the sentence is also sloppy when it states that the solution "can be guessed and verfied in polynomial time": the author means "can be guessed [nondeterministically] in polynomial time and [has a certificate that] can be verified in polynomial time", not (as might easily be read) "can be guessed and then verified in polynomial time". Not wrong, but not award-winning either. --[[User:JRM|JRM]] 11:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:::Guessed in polynomial time, and then verified in polynomial time? Please forgive my ignorance, but, wouldn't that be P instead of NP? --[[User:Fibonacci|Fibonacci]] 03:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::::No, it is correct with the right interpretation of "guess". What this really states is that one can make '''a''' guess in polynomial time and then proceed with the computation verifying in some way if the guess was correct (all in polynomial time). It does not mean that it should guess the ''correct'' solution on the first try, just that it can make ''one'' guess in polynomial time. The core property of NP is that the time the computation uses is defined as the time the ''longest'' computation path a guess can cause uses. If one wants a "realistic" view on how a device that calculates this works it actually makes all possible guesses at once and then proceeds with all the following calculations in parallel, when all computations paths are done it will answer "yes" if and only if ''one'' path answered "yes". I suspect that the wording about solutions existing is really meant to talk about decision problems about existence (which is after all what most decision problems come down to), it is still not quite right to say that a NP problem is always solved by guessing the solution and verifying it. Sure some guess about some property of the problem is made, it is far from clear that it must (or even that it can) always be the something one should call the solution.
:Yes, this seems correct in EB, even if it could be better expressed. It mixes the notions of [[FNP (complexity)|FNP]] and [[NP (complexity)|NP]] but this is a rather finicky distinction and is often glossed over in informal prose. [[User talk:Gdr|Gdr]] 06:33:50, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
::I don't think the EB is supposed to contain ''informal prose''. It's formally wrong, and the fact that people who already know about the correct definition of NP can ''guess'' the author's intention doesn't make it any better. [[User:Aragorn2]] 12:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
===Poincaré Conjecture===
The EB entry on [[Henri Poincaré]] gives the following description of the [[Poincaré conjecture]]:
"Poincaré asked if a three-dimensional manifold in which every curve can be shrunk to a point is topologically equivalent to a three-dimensional sphere (a solid ball). This problem (now known as the Poincaré conjecture)..."
It would seem that EB is equating a [[3-sphere]] with a solid ball, which is completely wrong. The actual entry on the conjecture is part of the topology entry and is correct. Not a surprise really, since the topology entry was written by [[RH Bing]].
Wikipedia's entries on Poincaré and his conjecture make no such mistake, or any mathematical mistakes, for that matter (as of now).
:By "topologically equivalent" do they mean [[homeomorphism|homeomorphic]]? --[[User:Fibonacci|Fibonacci]] 22:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
::Yes. --[[User:C S|C S]][[User talk:C S| (Talk)]] 03:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
===Real numbers===
In the article about "real number", it is claimed that
:''The real numbers can be characterized by the important mathematical property of completeness, meaning that every set that has an upper bound has a smallest such bound''
This is incorrect, since it doesn't take the empty set into account, which has an upper bound but not a smallest upper bound.
:''The class of real numbers is generally extended to include the first transfinite number''
This is not correct. In integration and measure theory, the real numbers are sometimes extended by adding ''two'' symbols, +∞ and -∞, neither of which is a transfinite number. A transfinite number is either a [[cardinal number]] of an infinite set, or an [[ordinal number]] of an infinite well-ordered set. See [[real number]] and [[extended real number line]].
:Should also say "... every '''sub'''set that has ...". --[[User:Fibonacci|Fibonacci]] 03:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
===Transfinite numbers===
The entry about "transfinite number" in EB claims that aleph-one is the cardinality of the real numbers. This is in fact neither provable nor disprovable in the currently accepted formalization of [[set theory]]; see [[cardinality]] and [[continuum hypothesis]] for the full story.
===Ferrers graph/diagram===
The entry in EB is titled ''[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-21883/combinatorics The Ferrer diagram]''. Of course, this notion is named after [[Norman Macleod Ferrers|Norman Ferrers]] and
is corrected in [[Ferrers_diagram#Ferrers_graph|this]] subsection.
==Science==
===Carnot efficiency===
EB claims in its article on steam power that Sadi Carnot gave the formula for the efficiency of a steam engine is (T1-T2)/T1 where T1 (T2) is the absolute temperature of the hot (cold) reservoir. Carnot actually did not give this formula. He rather stated that the efficiency is some function of the two temperatures, independent of the working fluid. The concept of absolute temperature was unknown to him, so he was not able to put the formula into the form accredited to him.
===Crookes Radiometer===
EB states that [[Crookes Radiometer]] rotates the direction it does because of pressure differences. This is false. Actually it rotates due to the effect of the gas molecules on the edges of the vanes.
:Is it false? The Einstein effect on the edges of the vanes is a pressure difference. The Reynolds effect of thermal transpiration is also a pressure difference.
::It is debated, which is exactly what the Wikipedia article goes on to say. EB simply states the one opinion as fact.
=== Leap years ===
EB claims in its leap year article that years divisible by 4000 may be non-leap years. This is in fact not an official rule and would not increase the calendar's accuracy. See [[leap year]].
* I couldn't find anything in our [[leap year]] article that mentions this. [[User:Timwi|Timwi]] 16:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
* Umm, years divisible by 400 (not 4000) are NOT leap years. This is the 400 year exception.
* Hi, no, the opposite is true. Years divisible by 100 are not leap, except if they are also divisible by 400 (in which case they are indeed leap). For example, 2000, being divisible by 400, was leap. [[User:Gakrivas|Gakrivas]] 10:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
===Lungs and swim bladders===
In its article on fish, EB claims
:''Most bony fish have a swim bladder, a gas-filled organ used to adjust swimming depth. In a few species the swim bladder has evolved into a lunglike respiratory organ, enabling these fishes to breathe air.''
This was the view of Charles Darwin; nowadays it is generally accepted that primitive [[lung]]s came first and [[swim bladder]]s evolved from them. See e.g. [http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb2002/1014304962.Ev.r.html], [http://courses.washington.edu/vertebra/451/notes/bony_fish_introduction.htm].
I think your assumption "that it is generally accepted" is false. Richard Dawkins agrees with Darwin on this. I would suggest it is still open to debate.
In ''[[The Ancestor's Tale]]'', Dawkins' newest book, he says that swim bladders evolved from primitive lungs.
:The EB is correct. A small number of [[ray-finned fish]] have developed mechanisms for breathing air using their swim bladder, for example the [[tarpon]]s, ''Megalops'' spp. See for example [http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/422056&erFrom=-6855688307661860976Guest], [http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=7c8f95af953a4e07a6f76e6c099fc1d2&referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,12;journal,50,88;linkingpublicationresults,1:102877,1]. (The general point about swim bladders evolving from lungs is correct too, but I think that is not what the EB is referring to here.) [[User talk:Gdr|Gdr]] 06:50:29, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
=== Speed of X-rays in glass ===
Under "refractive index" in EB, the definition of the [[refractive index]] does not clarify the crucial distinction between phase velocity and signal velocity; it is stated that the velocity of x-rays in glass is higher than the velocity of x-rays in a vacuum. This is true for the [[phase velocity]], but the speed with which information can be transmitted is not higher in glass than in a vacuum.
I agree that that is pretty serious if correctly represented --[[User:AndrewCates|AndrewCates]] 15:23, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
=== Sperm storage ===
In the entry on "Semen", EB writes:
:''Sperm mature in the epididymis; they then pass through a long tube called the ductus, or vas deferens to another storage area, the ampulla. [...] During the process of ejaculation, liquids from the prostate gland and seminal vesicles are added''
In fact, the vas deferens propels sperm directly from the epididymis to the outside during ejaculation. Sperm is stored before the ejaculation in the epididymis, not in the ampulla. They describe it correctly in their article on "Ejaculation". See also [[Ejaculation]] and [[vas deferens]].
=== Statcoulombs ===
The article on "Electric charge" claims that 1 [[Coulomb]] equals 3 billion [[statcoulomb]]s. This is incorrect.
*The original quote is:
:'' One coulomb of electric charge equals 3,000,000,000 esu, or one-tenth emu.''
Ok, so the exact number is 2,997,961,386.257345. Perhaps they should have added ''roughly 3,000,000,000 esu''. --Cantus
:No, that wouldn't be correct. By convention, every digit you give for a constant is presumed to be accurate, unless you indicate otherwise. So, "approximately 3 billion" would be right, "approximately 3x10^9" would be right, and "approximately 3.000x10^9" would be right. "3,000,000,000 +/- 50,000" would be technically correct but misleading (because it falsely suggests that there is uncertainty about the value). Generally, the EB statement suggests that the person who wrote the entry isn't a working scientist.
Which could be pretty serious if you were relying on it! --Soapy
:Sure, this is nitpicking, but it ''is'' wrong, and it helps make the point that even the most "authoritative" general reference still contains errors.
:They should at least make it clear that they're only giving one sig fig instead of 10. --[[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] | [[User talk:Laurascudder|Talk]] 23:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
::Well, to anyone who would use the number, sig fig rules imply that there would only be one. And for those that need the number that critically, but don't know how to use sig figs.... well, yippie for them.
:::Anyone who needs the number ''that'' critically should probably be getting it from a technical publication, not a general reference...[[User:Matt.zellman|mzellman]]
Actually the original quote does not suggest 10 significant figures since the zeros if not followed by a decimal point are not considered significant but only place holders. So the original quote only has 1 significant figure. I am pretty sure that that was not by accident. -- René Kanters
:In science there is a requirement for one (and only one) specific meaning in any quantified statement. The number "3,000,000" does not have a specified number of significant figures. It is equal to both 3.000000 x 10^6 and 3 x 10^6. This is why standard notation is used. In either case, it's clear that whether a simple breach of proper format or actual mistake of value, the article was in error. Arguments following the form "If the stipulation is that minor (from my biased perspective) then you should look elsewhere" are nebulous regardless of where they are found.
You are all incorrect. Trailing zeroes are not presumed significant figures unless there is a bar over a zero (or sometimes under it). This convention is common in chemistry, but seen in other scientific fields as well. Maybe they don't teach this in science classes anymore, but one can hardly fault EB for following it. Besides, the online concise article for "electric charge" now says "The unit of charge is the coulomb, which consists of 6.24 * 10^18 natural units of electric charge" so this whole "error" has been corrected and this listing is now irrelevant. [[User:JamieMcCarthy|JamieMcCarthy]] 13:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
=== Uncertainty Principle ===
EB has two articles about Heisenberg's [[Uncertainty Principle]]: one about the principle itself and another one inside the quantum mechanics treatment. Unfortunately, the two articles give different formulas: one uses ''h''/2π and the other ''h''/4π. Furthermore, they never make clear what exactly is meant by "uncertainty".
* The latter is true. I'm not sure why they would have the first one in there. The only non-editing mistake explanation I can think of is if they took some specific example. The principle is that Δ''x'' Δ''p'' ≥ ''h''/4π, so it is possible to pick specific examples where Δ''x'' Δ''p'' = ''h''/2π. Still sounds fishy. [[User:laurascudder]]
=== Zymase ===
In the article Organic Compounds/Alcohols/Ethanol, EB claims that yeast secrete an enzyme called "zymase" to convert sugar into alcohol. In fact there is no such secreted enzyme; the conversion is much more complicated and takes place within the yeast cell. See [[alcohol dehydrogenase]].
===Rotor machines in cryptography===
In their article on ''cryptology'', Britannica credits US inventor [[Edward Hebern]] for the [[rotor machine]] (a type of cipher machine of which the German [[Enigma machine]] is the most famous example). Research published in January [[2003]] revealed that the machine had been invented earlier by Dutch engineers Van Hengel and Spengler. This has been reflected in the Wikipedia article on [[rotor machine]]s since September 2004; the EB is still out of date. [[User:Matt Crypto|— Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 19:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
===Solid vs. liquid nitroglycerin sensitivity===
From the [[Talk:Nitroglycerin|Nitroglycerin talk page]]:
The solid is less sensitive. There are historical instances where an explosion of the liquid material has caused heavy machinery and big blocks of iron to fall on the frozen material in storage without additional incident. The assumption the solid was more sensitive is a very early mistake not repeated in academic books for a good 60 years or so... [next commentor:]
A very early mistake not repeated for a good 60 years or so? How about the current Encyclopedia Brittanica? "A serious problem in the use of nitroglycerin results from its high freezing point (13{degree} C [55{degree} F]) and the fact that the solid is even more shock-sensitive than the liquid." Source: http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/426_77.html [[User:4.242.147.110|4.242.147.110]] 21:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
== Languages and linguistics ==
=== Dogon ===
In the article 'Dogon language' the EB recites the popular belief that Dogon, the language spoken by the [[Dogon]] peoples, is one language (acknowledging that 'six ''dialects'' of Dogon have been identified'). However, starting with Bertho (1953) it has been established that Dogon is in fact a family with a high internal diversity and that the varieties are not merely dialects of one monolithic language. In the most recent published survey, Hochstetler (2004) distinguishes at least seventeen distinct speech varieties, noting that many of these are not mutually intelligible. The Wikipedia article [[Dogon languages]] has all the details.
*Bertho, J. (1953) 'La place des dialectes dogon de la falaise de Bandiagara parmi les autres groupes linguistiques de la zone soudanaise,' ''Bulletin de l'IFAN'', 15, 405–441.
*Hochstetler, J. Lee, Durieux, J.A. & E.I.K. Durieux-Boon (2004) ''Sociolinguistic Survey of the Dogon Language Area.'' SIL International. [http://www.sil.org/silesr/2004/silesr2004-004.pdf online version]
— [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]]
=== Kwa languages ===
In the article 'Nigeria', section 'Linguistic composition' the EB (2005 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD) claims that the Nigerian languages [[Yoruba language|Yoruba]] and [[Igbo]], among others, are [[Kwa languages]]. It is true that Joseph Greenberg classified them as such in his 1966 ''[[The Languages of Africa]]'', but since Bennett & Sterk 1977 it is widely accepted that the Yoruboid and Igboid languages are in fact members of the [[Benue-Congo languages|Benue-Congo]] family, as acknowledged in the Wikipedia article [[Kwa languages]]. Strangely enough, EB's article on the Kwa languages has it right; it seems that they have updated the main article, but have forgotten to update other ones affected by advancing insights.
*Bennett, Patrick R. & Sterk, Jan P. (1977) 'South Central Niger-Congo: A reclassification'. ''Studies in African Linguistics'', 8, 241–273.
— [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]]
=== Gbe languages ===
In its article "Kwa languages", EB2005 claims that "''..of these languages'' [i.e. the Left bank Kwa languages] ''the Gbe cluster (better known as Ewe) is by far the largest with some two million speakers.''"
This statement is erroneous and misleading because it first equates Ewe to Gbe and then takes into account only the speakers of [[Ewe language|Ewe]], the largest of the [[Gbe languages]]. According to recent statistics (Ethologue 15th edition, Kluge 2002), Ewe has about three million speakers and other Gbe languages like [[Fon languages|Fon]] and [[Aja languages|Aja]] account for at least another 1,5 million each. EB2005 furthermore fails to mention that ''Ewe'' as a term for the Gbe cluster as a whole has fallen out of use at least since 1980 (Capo 1988, 1991, Kluge 2002, Ameka 2001). To add to the confusion, EB2005 claims in its article 'Fon' that [[Fon language|Fon]] is a dialect of Ewe and that "''the Fon numbered some 3,010,000 in the late 20th century''"
*Capo, Hounkpati B.C. (1991) ''A Comparative Phonology of Gbe'', Publications in African Languages and Linguistics, 14. Berlin/New York: Foris Publications & Garome, Bénin: Labo Gbe (Int).
*Gordon, Raymond G. Jr. (ed.) (2005) [http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90716 Ethnologue report for Gbe]. (''Ethnologue, 15th edition''.) Retrieved May 11, 2005.
*Kluge, Angela [2000] ‘The Gbe language varieties of West Africa – a quantitative analysis of lexical and grammatical features’. [unpublished MA thesis, University of Wales, College of Cardiff].
— [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]]
=== Belarusian language ===
The entry (I saw it in 2000 or 2001 editions, needs to be checked):
:"Belarusian also spelled BELORUSSIAN, or BYELORUSSIAN, also called WHITE RUTHENIAN, or WHITE RUSSIAN, Belarusian <i>Beloruska</i>, East Slavic language that is the major language of Belarus. Belarusian forms the link between the Russian and Ukrainian languages, since it has dialects transitional to them both. Although two dialect areas exist, standard Belarusian is based on the dialect of Minsk, the capital city of Belarus. The language contains many Polish loanwords and is written in a form of the Cyrillic alphabet. An older form of Belarusian was used by the Lithuanians as the official language of administration during the 14th century, when they were in control of the area of present-day Belarus."
I couldn't understand the purpose of this word "Beloruska" implanted into the English-language text until I looked up the entries for other languages. In the article on Bulgarian language it said "bulgarski ezik," so I figured here we should have the name of our own language in our own tongue. This should then have read "''bielaruskaja mova''". To the best of my knowledge, "''Beloruska''" is the adjective "Belarusian" in Bulgarian and some other Slavic languages.
[http://www.pravapis.org/art_brit.asp More mistakes or misconceptions in this short but error-ridden entry]
=== Kalenjin ===
In its article "Kalenjin", EB2005 defines Kalenjin as follows: "''any member of the Nandi, Kipsikis, Pokot, Tatoga, and other related peoples of west-central Kenya, northern Tanzania, and Uganda who speak Nilotic languages of the Nilo-Saharan language family''".
First, a glaring error: the Tatoga (Datoga) are not Kalenjin, but form together with the Omotik a separate branch of the Southern Nilotes called ''Omotik-Datoga'' (cf. Rottland 1982, Ethnologue 15th edition). This is outlined in the Wikipedia articles [[Kalenjin languages]] and [[Southern Nilotic languages]].
Second, this entry could be interpreted as suggesting that the [[Maasai]] and the [[Luo]], also speakers of Nilotic languages and certainly historically and genetically related to the peoples mentioned, are Kalenjin peoples as well. In fact, [[Maasai language|Maasai]] and [[Luo language|Luo]] are [[Eastern Nilotic languages|Eastern Nilotic]] and [[Western Nilotic languages|Western Nilotic]] languages, respectively, whereas the [[Kalenjin languages]] are [[Southern Nilotic languages]]; EB2005 fails to make this important distinction.
Third, EB fails to make clear that there are two crucially different uses of the term Kalenjin and indiscriminately uses 'Kalenjin' in wholly different contexts. In its article 'Eastern Africa', subsection 'Identifying and classifying peoples', it observes that "''the Kalenjin of western Kenya have come into being since 1960 by a conscious fusing together of older and smaller peoples''". 'Kalenjin' in this context is the name various Nandi-speaking peoples adopted in the late 1940's/early 1950's when they united to form a larger ethnical and political entity (cf. [[Kalenjin]] and references cited therein). This use is different from the term 'Kalenjin' in the linguistic sense as outlined in the Wikipedia articles [[Kalenjin languages]] and [[Kalenjin language]].
*Omosule, Monone (1989) 'Kalenjin: the emergence of a corporate name for the 'Nandi-speaking tribes' of East Africa', ''Genève-Afrique'', 27, 1, pp. 73–88.
*Rottland, Franz (1982) ''Die Südnilotischen Sprachen: Beschreibung, Vergleichung und Rekonstruktion'' (Kölner Beiträge zur Afrikanistik vol. 7). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
*Sutton, J.E.G. (1978) 'The Kalenjin', in Ogot, B.A. (ed.) ''Kenya before 1900'', pp. 21–52.
— [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]]
===First extant book written in an African language===
In the article 'Niger-Congo languages', section 'Early records', the EB (2005 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD) tells us that ''The first extant book written in an African language was published in 1624 (...) It consists of a catechism in Portuguese with an interlinear translation into Kongo''. It probably should have read "the first extant book written in a ''Niger-Congo'' language", because literature has been produced in some African languages long before this; see for example [[Old Nubian language]], [[Coptic language]] and others.
— [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]]
:Not to mention [[Ancient Egyptian language|Ancient Egyptian]] and [[Ge'ez]]
[[User:Yom|Yom]] 23:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
== Other topics ==
=== Hip-hop ===
This may be a bit nitpicky, but [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117537 EB thinks] there is [[hip hop music]] (which they problematically call [[rap]]) that is either not rhythmic or non-rhyming. I suppose there may be hip hop with no rhymes at all (I've never heard of it), but it's certainly always rhythmic. Also, hip hop as ''the backing music for rap, the musical style incorporating rhythmic and/or rhyming speech that became the movement's most lasting and influential art form'' is a bit odd, I think. They apparently use "hip hop" to refer to the beat/instrumentation behind the rapping, which is not normal, at least -- if "rap" is the "musical style", then the "backing music" is an integral part of it, and "rap" doesn't "incorporate" a kind of speech... it is a kind of speech, and is only a "musical style" when combined with "hip hop". Furthermore, "most lasting and influential art form" being applied to "rap" is silly -- graffiti, breakdancing and DJing have lasted just as long as rapping (early 70s to present); I suppose EB is allowed to be biased and call "rap" more influential than DJing, but I note that rapping is not widely used outside of hip hop, while DJing had a major influence on electronic music. Of course, if by "rap", they are referring to [[hip hop music]], then that would make sense, but that would be inconsistent with the first part. So, it's at best confusingly written and misleading. [[User:TUF-KAT|Tuf-Kat]] 19:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
* Rap evolved from MC'ing over the beats, and the origin of hip hop came from looping music (soul, funk, jimi hendrix) so the core is correct, but the phrasing is bad.
It seems that hip-hop music is the hardest genre for some music scholars to write about. --[[User:FuriousFreddy|FuriousFreddy]] 23:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
=== Fenghuang ("Phoenix") ===
Concise EB sees [[fenghuang]] as female ([http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=389618 EB article]). But the accurate (as defined in all non-children Chinese dictionaries) and still popular Chinese mythology says that fenghuang is a species with both males and females. In fact, "full" EB http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9033972 says "Like the qilin (a unicorn-like creature), the fenghuang is often considered to signify both male and female elements [...]".
=== Matsu Island[s] ===
''Matsu'' is
# the alternate (and now rare) name of an island (the Nankan Island), and
# the official name of a micro-archipelago of 20 islands, which contains Nankan
However, EB chose to give only an article on the first (single island), thereby misguiding the reader into thinking that Matsu of the [[Republic of China]] is ''one'' island (Nankan). (See [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=52689&tocid=0&query=matsu&ct= Matsu Island])
However, the country controls the entire mini-archipelago of the [[Matsu Islands|Matsu Island'''''s''''']] as a county (called Lienchiang). Although Nankan is the largest of the Matsu Islands, when referring to Matsu, one usually speaks of the entire archipelago. Metonymy, in this case, ignores other integral parts of Matsu and provides an incomplete picture of Lienchiang County.
=== Quemoy Island[s] ===
Same problem as Matsu (see above). See also [[Quemoy]].
===Frank Zappa===
According to [[User:Gareth Owen|a long-time Wikipedian]] (in a [http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=129854&cid=10830802 post] on [[Slashdot]]), Britannica [http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9383274 states] (see also the title of the article [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9113485/Zappa-Francis-Vincent Zappa, Francis Vincent]) that [[Frank Zappa]] was originally named "Francis", while the Wikipedia article is consistent with Zappa's autobiography in stating that he was christened "Frank" and was never named "Francis".
* In the Britannica 2005 Ultimate Reference Suite, Frank Zappa's full name is given as 'Frank Vincent Zappa'. I can see no mention of 'Francis' in the text. -JonB.
** As the person who pointed this out, it's nice to see EB catching up :) I'm sure they gave me a credit. (What? They didn't? I'm shocked, shocked.) -- [[User:Gareth Owen|GWO]]
*But the Britannica Concise Online Edition given in the link does in fact state his first name as 'Francis'. So Britannica has some diversity in its various editions.
** Now see, that's the problem with Britannica. You just never know whether you're looking at a good edit or bad at any one time. ;) -- [[User:JohnOwens|John Owens]] [[User talk:JohnOwens|(talk)]] 23:48, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
* I keep checking EB for a sandbox. No joy. [[User:Basilwhite|Basilwhite]] 18:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
=== Qala'un Mosque ===
In its article "Qala'un Mosque", EB2005 claims that the Mosque is a "''building complex, including a mausoleum, a madrasah, and a hospital, built in 1283-85 on the site of present-day Cairo by the fifth Mamluk sultan.''"
There is, indeed, a building complex in Cairo that was built in 1283-85 by the fifth Mamluk sultan, and this complex includes a mausoleum, a madrasah and a hospital. However, this complex is not the Qala'un Mosque; usually, it is called the ''Qala'un Complex''. The [[Qala'un Mosque]] itself, more exactly termed the ''Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad ibn Qala'un Mosque'' is generally not considered part of the complex (though it is adjacent to it), and it was built about forty years later (in [[1318]]) by the [[Mamluk]] sultan [[Al-Nasr Muhammad]], '''son''' of [[Qalawun]] referred to as 'the fifth Mamluk sultan' by EB2005. This EB2005 article therefore is a dangerous misnomer at best. The EB article proceeds to talk about the madrasah and mausoleum of the older Qala'un Complex and fails to even mention anything about the history or the architecture of the (very notable) Mosque itself.
*Behrens-Abouseif, Doris (1989) 'Architecture of the Bahri Mamluks'. In ''Islamic Architecture in Cairo: An Introduction''. Leiden/New York: E.J. Brill, pp. 94–132. {{inote|see esp. pp. 108-110}}
* Rabbat, Nasser O. (1995) ''The citadel of Cairo: a new interpretation of royal Mamluk architecture'' (Islamic history and civilization, vol. 14). Leiden/New York: E.J. Brill. ISBN 90-04-10124-1
— [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]]
=== The creator deity of the Gbe peoples ===
In the traditional religion of the Gbe peoples, there is a creator deity called ''Mawu'' (see [[Ewe (people)]], [[Dahomey mythology]] and [[Mawu]]). EB2005, in its article 'Ewe', states that "''Ewe religion is organized around a creator god, '''Mawa'''''". A typo, and an unfortunate one at that — who is going to point out that this [[Ewe language|foreign language word]] should in fact be spelled ''Mawu''?
*Gavua, Kodzo (2000) 'Religious Practices', in Kodzo (ed.) ''A Handbook of Eweland'' (vol. 2). Accra: Woeli Publishing Services, pp. 84–98.
*Greene, Sandra E. (1996) 'Religion, history and the Supreme Gods of Africa: a contribution to the debate', ''Journal of Religion in Africa'', vol. 26, fasc. 2, pp. 122–138.
— [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]]
=== Reseau Jean Bernard ===
EB claims that [[Reseau Jean Bernard]] is the deepest cave in the world, but this fact, although widely reported, is incorrect. There are at least three caves known to be deeper [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4472585.stm].
=== [[Giacomo Casanova]] ===
EB claims that full name of Casanova is "[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9020600?query=casanova&ct= Giacomo Giovanni Casanova]", but according to his birth certificate the right name is "Giacomo Girolamo Casanova" (take a look at the transcription of the certificate, [[:s:it:Documenti su Giacomo Casanova|here]]).
=== Eastern Europe ===
EB claims that [[Chotyn]] lies in [[Moldova]] (actually it lies in [[Ukraine]]), errors in the ___location of [[Belovezhskaya Forest]], and that the [[European bison]] only exists in [[Poland]] (as opposed to elsewhere in Eastern Europe). All these errors were discovered by a twelve-year-old boy. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4209575.stm (BBC)]
===NSA===
The article on the US [[National Security Agency]] (NSA) in EB's online edition, December 2005, states that:
:"''Being a target of the highest priority for penetration by hostile intelligence services, the NSA maintains no contact with the public or the press.''"[http://0-www.search.eb.com.library.uor.edu/eb/article-9055012].
This is false. The NSA maintains an extensive [http://www.nsa.gov website] which includes an "about NSA page", numerous press releases, a section on declassification initiatives, a kid's zone, etc. Moreover, the "NSA press room" page states that, "The NSA/CSS Public and Media Affairs Office fosters relationships with media outlets throughout the world, responding to thousands of requests each year for information about NSA/CSS and its missions, interviews with leadership or experts, and filming opportunities."
The NSA has communicated with the public or press in the past as well. [[Bobby Ray Inman]], the NSA director in the late 1970s, provided information to the press (as long as it was in NSA's interests), even appearing on TV (ABC [[Nightline]]). [[User:Matt Crypto|— Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 13:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
: The [http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9373112/National-Security-Agency concise version] reads, "until recently it maintained no contact with the public or the press". That's less egregious an error, but still inaccurate unless "recently" includes the 1970s. [[User:Matt Crypto|— Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 11:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
===[[St James's Square]]===
EB states that, "although some of the structures were built in the 20th century, most date to the 17th and 18th centuries". This is not true. There isn't one surviving 17th century building in the square (though it was originally developed in the 17th century); well under half are 18th century (only 4-5, 9-13, 15, 20, 31A and 33) ; and there are a good number which date to the 19th century, which EB omits to mention altogether. Wikipedia has complete information based on the authoritative [[Survey of London]], confirmed by personal observation and updated for recent reconstructions (none of which involved magically reappearing a 17th century building). [[User:Hawkestone|Hawkestone]] 21:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
===[[Arnold Palmer]]===
The Britannica article is a catalogue of errors and omissions. It doesn't mention that his tally of PGA Tour wins was revised from 61 to 62 when British Open victories before 1995 were retrospectively designated as PGA Tour wins in 2002. It doesn't mention that from 1968 the PGA Tour was independent of the [[Professional Golfers' Association of America]], meaning that it is incorrect about the sanctioning body for all his PGA Tour wins after that date (indeed it doesn't mention the [[PGA Tour]] at all). The statement that he was the leading figure in world golf through to the mid 1960s is incomplete at best (see [[Jack Nicklaus]]). There is no such event as the "PGA Senior Open"; in 1981 he won the [[United States Senior Open]], which is organised by the [[USGA]] not the PGA. He did however win the [[Senior PGA Championship]] in 1980 and 1984, as well as two other [[Senior major golf championships|senior majors]] which EB doesn't mention at all.
As well as getting its facts wrong, EB omits ''all'' the broader reasons why Palmer is important in the history of golf: his charismatic prominence in the early TV era; his rivalry with Nicklaus; his popularisation of the British Open in the U.S; his status as the first client of the key figure in the history of sports marketing ([[Mark McCormack]]). [[User:Hawkestone|Hawkestone]] 22:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
===Language of the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo|Congo (DRC)]] ===
In 2006, the online edition of EB lists French and English as official languages. However this has never been the case. English was added as an official language in a proposal by Laurent Desiré Kabila, but that proposed constitution never got promulgated. The newest constitution still specifies French is the only official language, along with 4 national languages.
* [http://www.britannica.com/nations/Congo,-Democratic-Republic-Of-The Britannica's article on the DRC]
--[[User:Moyogo|moyogo]] 09:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Update: EB has updated this webpage accordingly.
==See also==
* [[meta:Wikipedia is more popular than...|Wikipedia is more popular than...]]
* [http://members.cox.net/kevin82/eberrors.htm Errors in the Encylopædia Britannica] (a list of typos collected by an individual)
* [http://www.accuracyproject.org/cbe-errors-books.html Internet Accuracy Project - Errors contained in reference books]
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4209575.stm This BBC article on a potential wikipedian]
| |||