Spot the deliberate? mistake(s)

[Skipman]

How many mistakes/untruths etc etc can you spot in this?

Top ten bloodiest battles

Mike

[archangel9]

The intro was enough for me. My grandfather was fond of saying 'paper won't refuse ink'. I wonder what he would have made of the tripe on the internet

[squirrel]

Too many to enumerate - nil points for research.

[Steven Broomfield]

Is there going to be a top 10 of rubbish articles on the GW?

(That said, I see Victorian Plumbing are advertising on this site. We have just used them to supply new taps at work and they're pretty efficient. Just thought I'd comment that there is always a positive side to everything).

[centurion]

The picture editor should be SAD!:-Q Especially for the first illustration.

[jay dubaya]

I didn't get past 'toptenz' so can't really comment on the content

[Guest]

I didn't get past 'toptenz' so can't really comment on the content

Because you couldn't, or didn't want to? Either way, you're missing nothing.

Mike

[Staffsyeoman]

Read it and weep. Well, I did.

[jay dubaya]

Because you couldn't, or didn't want to? Either way, you're missing nothing.

Mike

Both thankfully

Jon

[Mark Hone]

Hah, despite numerous gaffes and the usual confusion over what a 'casualty' is, in my opinion this is still not a patch on the dreadful rubbish the Economist saw fit to publish in its 'World in 2014' special (see other thread).

[snapperxv]

Hah, despite numerous gaffes and the usual confusion over what a 'casualty' is, in my opinion this is still not a patch on the dreadful rubbish the Economist saw fit to publish in its 'World in 2014' special (see other thread).

I agree! The worst I've seen........ so far.

[David Ridgus]

Very depressing. I found the format itself bizarre and started finding myself reading it in my head in the voice of Alan Freeman with the Pick of the Pops music in the background. Totally tasteless as well as inaccurate.

However my vote is still with the Economist because they should have known better.

David