Talk:Korean Peninsula on the 'brink of war': DPRK

NPOV

The article has no mention of the fact that, if I recall correctly, that the South shelled back. — μ 18:25, November 24 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Comment

It should be mentioned that Sarah Palin's comment was made in error and quickly corrected, so as not to portray her as a supporter of North Korea.

I removed the comment. A politician's minor gaffe is completely irrelevant in the face of what could end up being WWIII. I don't like Palin one bit, but her slip of the tongue has no place in this news article. Falconus (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews, as a matter of policy, does not mess around with the content of its articles after they've passed 24 hours since publication (copyedits, yes; content, no). If something does need to be changed later, a correction notice is required. Late removal of material also happens, accompanied by a correction notice, but only for serious cause: copyvio, defamation.

The recent qualification clearly violated policy; I (and others) should have showed some backbone and disallowed it. I had the chance to revert before it was sighted, and didn't, so I won't waffle by reverting now, but if someone else proposes reverting it I won't oppose and might support.

Altogether removing the Palin mention, though, is a substantially worse violation of policy than that qualification, because it's a bigger change, later, and [not] even addressing a difficulty with the factual content.

As for the entirely separate question of whether the Palin comment should have gone in at all —granting that the qualification should have been taken care of at that time— frankly, I think it's relevant. She's being talked about as a candidate for president, so it's of international interest how well or badly she performs in an international crisis like this. --Pi zero (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is this Qualification policy? I can't find it. Anyway, it seems to me that bringing in Sarah Palin's gaffe does not help the article, does not add any information, and is not significant. I won't revert back, but I disagree with having that distraction in the article. It seems to me as if somebody just inserted it solely for the purpose of jabbing at Palin, especially as in the original edit, they failed to mention that it was merely a slip of the tongue. Note again that I am not saying this out of support for Palin - that couldn't be farther from the truth. 65.87.167.166 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no "Qualification policy"; you've misunderstood my post. The only policy involved here is the 24-hour horizon, which was violated by the qualification edit, and would be violated even more badly by removing the Palin quote. And because of that policy, it no longer matters whether the article would be better without the Palin quote; the time for mere stylistic improvements is long past. --Pi zero (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1133854 [Passed]

Revision 1133854 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1133854 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.