![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"With retracted articles from both Science and Nature the number of retracted articles with questionable data from physicist Jan Hendrik Schön reaches 12."
The Jan Hendrik Schön page says 15. Anyone know for sure? JWSchmidt 00:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
So... what the heck IS a "retraction poem" ? 68.39.174.238 09:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The current article might be interpreted to mean that any correction of an error is a retraction but this is not current usage.
The NYT has a nice article on the differences between retractions and corrections.
Here is what Merriam-Webster says on retraction and retract:
and
A retraction is a withdrawal of the main point of an article (or statement). While a correction may harm the credibility of the article or statement it does not withdraw the underlying point article.
Example: if we start with this statement:
In this example statement the death of notorious criminals is the main point being made. The cloths worn by Bonnie and Clyde at the time of death, while perhaps interesting, is not the key point of the statement.
and then consider the following two corrections:
In the first correction above a factual inaccuracy is corrected but the key point of the original statement is unchanged. This is generally viewed as a correction. In the second correction above the underlying point of the original statement is changed. This is the generally accepted meaning of a retraction.
While all retractions are corrections, not all corrections are retractions. Funkyj 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
How do we want to handle the notation regarding the recent MMR vaccine controversy, which recently saw a retraction published in The Lancet medical journal for its prior findings and the vaccine's alleged link to autism in children? I suppose it would be a brief explanation, a link to the main article and a source, but I'm not sure how one should state it. [[ Briguy52748 ( talk) 02:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)]]
Is this going to be an exhaustive list of retractions? Or just some selected examples? The first seems almost unattainable, the second would need clear criteria for what to include and what not. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 12:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This page (except for the vaguely worded lead) seems to be all about retractions of scientific articles. Given this discrepancy and the vague title of the current article, I think it should be moved to retractions in science or something like that, and the lead reworded--perhaps it can be replaced with the current article's "retraction in science" section. Everymorning (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is unfocused and appears to be about two different things. As
User:Everymorning
User:IntoThinAir stated
above, there is a disconnect between the
lead and the entire rest of the article. Either the title of the article should be changed to reflect most of the content and the lead reworked to reflect it, or else if we keep the current title and lead, then the body should be significantly expanded to match the scope of the title. In its current state, the article is neither fish nor fowl.
Mathglot (
talk)
03:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Retraction (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 05:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 7 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lilmisnicole,
Viri0831 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Kitterbitter160,
Lmlr,
NeptunePlayss,
Dmath1117,
Ajb074.
— Assignment last updated by Kitterbitter160 ( talk) 00:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"With retracted articles from both Science and Nature the number of retracted articles with questionable data from physicist Jan Hendrik Schön reaches 12."
The Jan Hendrik Schön page says 15. Anyone know for sure? JWSchmidt 00:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
So... what the heck IS a "retraction poem" ? 68.39.174.238 09:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The current article might be interpreted to mean that any correction of an error is a retraction but this is not current usage.
The NYT has a nice article on the differences between retractions and corrections.
Here is what Merriam-Webster says on retraction and retract:
and
A retraction is a withdrawal of the main point of an article (or statement). While a correction may harm the credibility of the article or statement it does not withdraw the underlying point article.
Example: if we start with this statement:
In this example statement the death of notorious criminals is the main point being made. The cloths worn by Bonnie and Clyde at the time of death, while perhaps interesting, is not the key point of the statement.
and then consider the following two corrections:
In the first correction above a factual inaccuracy is corrected but the key point of the original statement is unchanged. This is generally viewed as a correction. In the second correction above the underlying point of the original statement is changed. This is the generally accepted meaning of a retraction.
While all retractions are corrections, not all corrections are retractions. Funkyj 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
How do we want to handle the notation regarding the recent MMR vaccine controversy, which recently saw a retraction published in The Lancet medical journal for its prior findings and the vaccine's alleged link to autism in children? I suppose it would be a brief explanation, a link to the main article and a source, but I'm not sure how one should state it. [[ Briguy52748 ( talk) 02:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)]]
Is this going to be an exhaustive list of retractions? Or just some selected examples? The first seems almost unattainable, the second would need clear criteria for what to include and what not. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 12:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This page (except for the vaguely worded lead) seems to be all about retractions of scientific articles. Given this discrepancy and the vague title of the current article, I think it should be moved to retractions in science or something like that, and the lead reworded--perhaps it can be replaced with the current article's "retraction in science" section. Everymorning (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is unfocused and appears to be about two different things. As
User:Everymorning
User:IntoThinAir stated
above, there is a disconnect between the
lead and the entire rest of the article. Either the title of the article should be changed to reflect most of the content and the lead reworked to reflect it, or else if we keep the current title and lead, then the body should be significantly expanded to match the scope of the title. In its current state, the article is neither fish nor fowl.
Mathglot (
talk)
03:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Retraction (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 05:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 7 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lilmisnicole,
Viri0831 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Kitterbitter160,
Lmlr,
NeptunePlayss,
Dmath1117,
Ajb074.
— Assignment last updated by Kitterbitter160 ( talk) 00:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)