Talk:Finnish parliamentary ombudsman faults infant formula study

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Originality: The article is based on a public document (the Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsman's resolution) and information publicized on websites. The ombudsman's resolution has not been publicized or reported earlier as far as is known to the original author of the article. Flj 00:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents[edit]

Do we need the different sections? --Nzgabriel | Talk 04:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sections which explain the association and Ombudsman's functions, looks better. 83.216.22.83 06:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The lede paragraph is clumsy, and I don't know how to fix it. No consent by whom? the infants or the parents? -Edbrown05 07:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, infants are not capable of giving informed consent, so it should be evident the parents are meant, but I agree the paragraph could be better. Flj 07:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I jested about infant consent :) The lede needs to be understood, concise, and did I mention I'm going to bed <-- that's concise! -Edbrown05 08:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

first source[edit]

is this[1] it?  — Doldrums(talk) 07:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That is the latest paper in a series of correspondense between the Association and the Ombudsman, written by the Association. The resolution by the Ombudsman is not online as of yet. Flj 07:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

ok.  — Doldrums(talk) 07:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I think I may have goofed and reverted your edits, a bit new to Wikinews, sorry. Flj 07:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
no sweat, will fix it.  — Doldrums(talk) 07:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

balance[edit]

some reactions from the group that carried out the study would help add some balance to the story.  — Doldrums(talk) 09:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No reaction has been seen so far in response to the resolution, which arrived on October 31, 2006. Some of the reactions during the discovery phase are mentioned in the article. Flj 09:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
the article cites material from one of the involved parties quite extensively, so i think it would be very good, if not required, to make an effort to find some views from the other side. ways to do that include looking for coverage of this in other news sources, which may have carried reactions (even older ones are ok) or e-mailing someone in the study group for a response.
Most Finns communicate quite well in English and many also in Swedish, so it's shouldn't be a problem for some English or Swedish speaking Wikinews reporter to try and get some commentary from NPHI. Press information in English can be found at http://www.ktl.fi/portal/english/osiot/press___information_service/ Flj 09:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Email and name information for the PI of the study can be found at http://www.ktl.fi/portal/suomi/julkaisut/kansanterveyslehti/lehdet_2004/3_2004/paakirjoitus__tyypin_1_diabetes_-_suomalaisten_lasten_kansantauti/ Flj 09:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


The only major media coverage on the complaint was YLE (public broadcasting corporation) news at their website in 2004, and that didn't include any reaction from NPHI or others. The complaint has been mentioned in a few blogs, but there hasn't been anything from the NPHI either, so as far as can be told, there's been absolute silence from "the other side", as far as can been seen, the only statements made are in the official correspondence during the discovery phase in the handling of the complaint Flj 09:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


as for the finished tag, i think the article is a little long and some of it can be trimmed. however, as i'm not planning to do it myself, i won't insist that somebedy else do it. it's a recommendation, not "requirement".  — Doldrums(talk) 09:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
OK; thanks for the advice and helping a newcomer. I'll mark it ready, but it's good also if someone trims it down, gets commentary from NPHI or makes it otherwise better. Unless that kind of editing is a no-no for published articles, maybe the idea was to write a new article if new commentary is added? Flj 09:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)