Talk:401 children from Texas sect compound taken into custody

"Found" ?
This isn't really the correct title here - no one was "found", they were already there. A better title would be something like "Hundreds leave Texas sect compound", or "401 children from Texas sect compound taken into custody". Cirt - (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Renamed to "401 children from Texas sect compound taken into custody". Cirt - (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. I'm not really good at naming things. I like your name much better. 99.226.39.245 11:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Late edits
There seem to be massive amounts of late edits to this article. Please stop. If there are new developments or new information coming to light they should be written about in a new article. --SVTCobra 22:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed massive content changes made way after articles publish date, per this comment by and per WN:ARCHIVE.  Cirt - (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits are to correct problems with the article, which include statements that Warren Jeffs founded the FLDS church (which he did not, he merely led it for a time), that the call came from Eldorado, Texas (which it did not, as it is stated in the sources that it came from the YFZ Ranch which is near, but not in Eldorado), and a non-specific link out to Department of Public Safety when there is a WP article for Texas Department of Public Safety which is what should be used. I was unable to fix this earlier as I was not aware of this article until a link to it was added to the pertinent WP articles. Also the statement on beliefs (about the 3-wives) is not quite correct (which is why it was edited), and the article is not using the name of the LDS Church properly. -- 208.81.184.4 22:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am aware that some of the changes were legitimate corrections. But you were not the only one that added to the article. It will require some sorting out. Also, any claims will have to be properly sourced. --SVTCobra 22:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are so many new changes and major content additions and changes that this would probably be best for a new article on the subject matter - there has certainly been enough new developments and coverage in literally thousands of mainstream news/media sources for a new article. Cirt - (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly ... this is definitely an ongoing story. --SVTCobra 22:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, 208.81.184.4, for summarizing your changes. It makes it easier to evaluate and restore them as appropriate. --SVTCobra 22:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually those particular points above by seem valid, though I am still against major content changes to articles after time of publish.  Cirt - (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So what is the value of this existing article if an editor cannot fix demonstratively incorrect facts (such Warren Jeffs founding the FLDS church). Major publications print retractions & corrections; here at wikinew if you freeze an article, does that get appended to the bottom of the article? I'm afraid I'm not sure how that works here, and would like to know where to go to learn more from the applicable guidelines. -- 208.81.184.4 23:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that since it has been 3 days since this article was published, a note or correction at the bottom of the article would be the best way to go - Either that or a note/correction in a follow-up article (I could write the follow-up article in a few hours). Cirt - (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We do issue corrections (see Iranian-American woman in space) and retractions (see Chinese submarine "embarrasses" U.S. Navy). --SVTCobra 23:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay thanks for those examples. Btw your recent changes look fine.  Cirt - (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it was more intended for 208.81.184.4, but if you also find the examples useful, then all-the-better. --SVTCobra 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)