Talk:Parents prosecuted after homeopathic treatment leads to daughter's death

Citing sources

Where citing in the sources section, the {{source}} template should be used. I've never seen a citation template used before, but it may be useful in an 'external links' section (below sources) to cite scientific papers or other things that are not timely news reports of the event. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are the sources for the discussion of homeopathy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The SMH isn't, and you didn't use {{source}} --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now (Takes a little time to fix, but I did start when you mentioned that =) ). I also found another newspaper source. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Great! once you've used the source template a few times it becomes natural. I'd like someone else's opinion on how to arrange a mix of sources and citations as it's rare. Generally for items in the source section sorting newest at the top is done, if that conveniently puts the papers justifying calling homoeopathy quackery at the bottom - so much the better. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My spell checker says it's homoeopath, not the current spelling in the title. Is this a US spelling, or a spelling mistake?

The opening two paragraphs don't give a 'where'. A key rule of writing news reports is to answer Who Where What Why When and How as much as possible in the first paragraph. Adjunct to this is writing for an international audience. You can assume local in a local publication, but the closest to clues as to the location of this are that it is Crown and a QC is involved. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added in a specific reference to location, and did a full copyedit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

near-Copyvio

In the SMH source... "On the few occasions that they did follow conventional medical advice, Gloria would improve, but they would soon revert to homeopathic remedies and she would continue to deteriorate."

In the Wikinews article... "On the few times they did accept conventional treatment, their daughter improved, but they returned to homeopathy afterwards."

I highlight this here, rather than do a failed review - this one struck me as just too close, it pretty much passes on everything else with the minor edits you can see I've done. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't lookign at the sentence at the time, but clearly my mind was primed by the structure. I've changed it to "Gloria temporarily improved during the rare times they used conventional treatments, but they soon dropped them in favour of homeopathy, and she got worse again." Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision 815769 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:20, 8 May 2009 (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 815769 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:20, 8 May 2009 (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.

WN:WEASEL

It has been cleaned up, but this was first published with very weaselly wording in the first paragraph. Please stay on the lookout for that when reviewing. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the wording is now much more specific and better. Cirt (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in no small part thanks to your edit ... thx Cirt. --SVTCobra 23:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and no worries. :) Cirt (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability

"She died from infection caused by severe eczema" <-- Please list the sources and quote the evidence that supports this claim. "homeopathic treatment leads to daughter's death" <-- Please list the sources and quote the evidence that supports this claim. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Here you are. [1]. They were found guilty so these claims are true. Computerjoe's talk 10:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide quotes from that source that support these statements: "She died from infection caused by severe eczema" and "homeopathic treatment leads to daughter's death". --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

'THE parents of a nine-month-old girl who died from septicemia were responsible for their baby's death because they shunned conventional medical treatment for her eczema in favour of homeopathic remedies'. Computerjoe's talk 19:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You did not provide the entire statement which included the qualifier, "...a court heard yesterday." That article appears to be an account by Harriet Alexander of the prosecutor's claims. The sentence you quote appears to be synthesis by the newspaper and does not quote either an expert medical witness or a judgment of the court. Did the court rule on the cause of death? Did a testifying medical expert or the judge say, "She died from infection caused by severe eczema"? Did any of the medical experts who testified say, "homeopathic treatment leads to daughter's death"? A court reporter's summary of the prosecutor's claims becomes a "verified" flat statement of fact in Wikinews: "homeopathic treatment leads to daughter's death"? --JWSchmidt (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)