Talk:Korean family reunited after over three years of separation
Retracted — August 19, 2013
This article was published in error and retracted.
Review of revision 1972552 [Passed]
 |
Revision 1972552 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC).
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 1972552 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC).
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. |
- I feel awful. Crap like this shouldn't ever happen. I started trying to fix the problems with the article post-publication —which clearly should have been not-ready'd— but was unable to even figure out how to rename the article. The current title is completely inaccurate. The families have not yet been reunited, and they weren't separated for three years but over sixty. I wish I had time to do a full review on this right now, though we're once again outside our normal workflow and I'm not sure what I'd do with the results of a full review. At any rate, it pretty clearly should have been an easy not-ready. --Pi zero (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Btw, the dates are misformatted and there are no categories. --Pi zero (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, if you would have looked at the sources closely enough then you would realise that the facts I have presented ARE accurate. The families were separated by the war over sixty years ago, however they have been reunited at certain times for brief periods since 2000, most notably the last one being in 2010. The title is accurate. The facts are accurate. I would suggest that this article is submitted ASAP before it becomes stale. -- CLD934
Checking Sources accurately.
Hi, if you would have looked at the sources closely enough then you would realise that the facts I have presented ARE accurate. The families were separated by the war over sixty years ago, however they have been reunited at certain times for brief periods since 2000, most notably the last one being in 2010. The title is accurate. The facts are accurate. I would suggest that this article is submitted ASAP before it becomes stale. -- CLD934
Review of revision 1973300 [Not ready]
 |
Revision 1973300 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 08:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: The first paragraph does not answer when. No categories of any worth. Sources are not formatted correctly. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Revision 1973300 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 08:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: The first paragraph does not answer when. No categories of any worth. Sources are not formatted correctly. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Delete the text?
@Michael.C.Wright: If the article has been retracted, I think that the text ought to be deleted. Right now it's unclear whether Wikinews is treating this article as valid or not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- We would need to find the retraction discussion to see what exactly went wrong with the article and if they discussed blanking it at the time. There was a contingent of contributors back in the day who did not want to simply 'break the archive.'
- There was a discussion in which it was decided that blanking would be decided on a case-by-case basis, I believe. I can't find it at the moment. However, if you look through all of the articles in Category:Retracted articles, you'll see some that were blanked and some that were not. Because there was no policy or guideline for how or when to retract an article, nor was there a habit of consistently linking article talk pages to retraction discussions, the knowledge of how we did it left in the heads of that generation of contributors (which is why I was on a long campaign against institutional knowledge, and in favor of documenting as much as possible).
- As an aside, it's refreshing to look back on discussions like this one and see people disagree in a constructive and civil manner, without taking everything as a personal slight or some power grab.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 13:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)