This one's only semi-cute, as it shows a lingering bias within the USA between the north and the south which is more than sad.

CSS Nashville (1871)

For other ships named Nashville, see USS Nashville.

First of all, this may come as a complete surprise, but there have been non-warcraft named Nashville. But exclusive of that, there is a disambiguation page already in existence for the CSS Nashvilles.

Absolute

Absolute monarchy, a form of government found in Saudi Arabia, Nepal and Swaziland

While I'm unsure regarding Saudi Arabia and Swaziland, it's my understanding the events of the past year included a renunciation of absolute monarchy by the king of Nepal.

How unstartling, en.Wikipedia still has cross-namespace redirects. Empress of China should be a disambiguation page: of course there have been many Empresses of China, but this was also the name of at least one locomotive engine and several sailing vessels including the historically significant Empress of China owned by Robert Morris which was the first United States vessel to visit China, and thus established both diplomatic and commercial links between the countries. It was so significant a voyage that the current government of China still refers to the ship in official speeches.[1]

But en.wp redirects everything to the category Chinese Empresses.

Hmm... interesting...

The HTML element article fails to mention lists of any form. I believe they're a block-level element. Not that I'd expect the Wikipedia article to be comprehensive, but still...

17 February:

1977 - Sean Watkins, American guitarist and songwrite

I've always wanted to be a songwrite, too.

Lovely. It seems Wikipedia is also a purveyor of rumour and conspiracy theories: Alleged theft of remains

While I do not dispute the facts, or lack there of, regarding the accusation, the point is that it's a rumour. It's unproven. If I accuse Premier Putin's grandfather of having necrophilial relations with Lenin's body, it should not be reported in Wikipedia until there is evidence that it happened. Even if a hundred thousand people demand an examination of Lenin's cavities. Because it is a verifiable fact which has not been verified.

The simplest and most obvious method of giving this story justification is if the gravesite of Goyaałé (Geronimo) were opened and examined. If Harlyn Geronimo had an honest interest in resolving this it would be the first step. It would determine *if* the skull or femurs were missing.

Hmm... this is interesting for the wrong reason of course:

1867 - The first ship passes through the Suez Canal.17 February

Mind you, I don't necessarily dispute the claim. It's just there's no corroboration in the article, no sources, no support. The Suez Canal officially opened 17 November 1869.

1568 - The entire population of the Netherlands - three million people - was sentenced to death by the Roman Catholic Church for heresy; see Eighty Years' War.

This lovely entry in the 16 February is, of course, completely unsupported in the current version of the article. Did the Pope excommunicate the 17 provinces, and condemn the inhabitants to death? I don't know, though I think it possible and even likely.

Goodness! The Dreyfus Affair article is in full spin cycle. It now qualifies, imltho, as a prime example of pro-judaism propaganda, with little or no attempt to source or support gross generalizations and hyperbole.

1873 - Feodor Chaliapin, Russian bass (d. 1938)(13 February)

What is a Russian bass? is it some variety of fish? (insert a dozen more witty quips based on the disambiguation page) No, it is a vocalist who sings in the bass vocal range.

So why not say "Russian bass vocalist"?

WTH?

# 1901 - May be the day after a truncated January 19, 2038 on Unix and Unix-like computer systems still suffering from the year 2038 problem

Yes, there may be a problem with unix-like OSes in 20+ years. It may, in fact, cause them to show the date as 13 February 1901. But it does not support mention in a page of historical events. If it deserves mention at all, it would be under the date at which the event would happen, 19 January 2038, in a page of future events.

Well, it's pretty clear the same person who worships Sir Samuel Hood in that article also wrote the Battle of St. Kitts article. Just for accuracy's sake, in 1782 there was no island called "St. Kitts". The island was St. Christophers (name changed in 1968, iirc.)

And as long as we're questioning the clear and obvious bias of the Hood fan, let's at least mention the undeclared bias of

Both islands, despite being only 2 miles apart and quite diminutive in size were widely recognized as being separate entities with separate identities, until they were forcefully unified in the late 19th century.

While I'm as supportive as possible of local determination, the facts of the matter are that St. Kitts and Nevis (also not its name for much of the time under discussion) were settled by the same group of people (Nevis by europeans from St. Kitts), and have spent the vast majority of their modern history in constant exchange of culture and people due to their close proximity to each other, and in joint governance. They were not "forcefully unified" in any way, in that no force was used. Their independence was negotiated, as a group (St. Kitts, Nevis, and Anguilla), which does not support that line from the opening of the article.

There are many very poorly written articles in Wikipedia. This does not make it a poor resource; it just makes it a starting point to be viewed extremely skeptically, as every resource should be viewed.

But a good example of a bad article on so many levels is the History of Martinique. Even if you ignore the uncorrected vandalism, it's just... bad. Bad writing, unsourced, inaccurate, even plain wrong.

Thomas Edison was born(he sdfgsdfgsdfg sdf in Milan, Ohio, the seventh and last child of Samuel Ogden Edison, Jr. (1804–1896) (born in Marshalltown, Nova Scotia, Canada) and the former Nancy Matthews Elliott (1810–1871).

And thus spake Zarathustra in [[Thomas Edison]], and yet I cannot find this edit in the history of the article.

Pointless.

1998 - A college dropout becomes the first person to be convicted of a hate crime committed in cyberspace. (10 February)

It contains no verifiable information, no link to a relevant Wikipedia article.

Gotta love advertisements in day's history...

2007 David Lam and the Pistols takes on Tommy in the Geno Bowl (9 February)

Lovely. Yet again the edit has been oversighted, only in this case there is no possible justification for it.

Very strange... I clipped this from 7 Feb. on Wikipedia:

1986 - XXXXXXXXXXX, Malaysian student

to comment on it. Now I cannot find it anywhere in the article's history. One presumes it has been deleted from the history using Oversight. The reason being there was a person's real name where the Xs are. What bothers me is not that it was done, but that it happened so rapidly. It suggests that not only is Oversight used regularly, it's "instant on", with no questions being asked.