Talk:Death sentences in 2008 Chinese tainted milk scandal

Revision 12345 of this article has been reviewed by Planoneck (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Took a while to review, but it was worth it. Comprehensive and thorough. --~Planoneck~ 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC) 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 12345 of this article has been reviewed by Planoneck (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Took a while to review, but it was worth it. Comprehensive and thorough. --~Planoneck~ 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC) 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 CREATED this Chinese death sentence article. Death sentence shocks the conscience of the civilized world. When I was studying law in 1978, we had the famous case of Furman v. Georgia. Please help in publishing it. Cheers.--Florentino Floro (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Linking

Links to Wikipedia should not be repeated throughout the article. For example, melamine should be linked once to w:melamine, not each time the term is used. --SVTCobra 00:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, for the message. I knew it was a mistake, and I noticed this, when I was developing the article. However, when a news article is difficult, complicated, - and when places, persons or technical terms like melamine are repeated all over, and not many times, the problem for the reader is to search the blue link on top or somewhere. So, I opted to blue link the China local court and places including melamine (since I myself had earlier thought that the true spelling is melaNine).

Off-tangent remark: in Chinese news articles, you will notice that even tons of news sources are just copy pasting Xinhua and China Daily. Reporters are gagged and fear being outcast in China. So, for us, it is so difficult to create a more detailed picture of Chinese news. ALSO, in Nicolaides, Australian jailed lecturere, reporters are deeply afraid and could be called coward to report in Thailand, the many critical facts on the Thai Royal Family. For this reason, when I develop and put REVIEW, I leave the 100% discretion to editors and especially accredited reporters to re-write the STYLE of my creation or to trim down and fix the whole thing even with more than 20 corrections. Please deeply understand that even in TIME, I could not possibly match the style of journalists and reporters amid my ZERO subject in journalism from 1971-1982, Ateneo de Manila. Even with reading the highly complex Wikinews rules on style guide, and even if I read books on styles, EACH news article, especially the very complicated ones, would require ORIGINAL style writing. Hence, since this is COLLABORATION, unlike in Wikipedia Eng. ency., then, please bear with my difficulties in writing a very good STYLE of news. But rest assured, that, even if I trim down the sources, with all honest and integrity, what I write is fully backed up with verifiable references, which I do often do not include due to so many of them.

A final note, perhaps. If only I had had sit more than 6 months as judge here in Philippines, I could have written here better in style: since in decision writing, judges follow the same manual of decision writing akin to journalists' manuals of style. I sat on my first session in court in January 25, 1999 and suspended on July 20, 1999, could'nt practice, and had been separated due to alleged dwarf consultation on April 7, 2006 and jobless in pretend world until now. But I had read tons of news amid 140 forums I joined since May 2006. I found that many reporters do write silly contents - lies, lies and lies. More often than not, many news articles are plain lies and wacky. Just sayin. Cheers.--Florentino Floro (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Off-tangent remark: in Chinese news articles, you will notice that even tons of news sources are just copy pasting Xinhua and China Daily. — The same thing is true here. Almost all English language news stories you read come from either AP or Reuters. It's sad. Many news organizations have completely eliminated their investigative journalism departments; they now get their news prepackaged from centralized sources:(. Often it's just copy/paste, but even when they bother to rewrite the articles they just copy from Reuters and AP. I've read stories from multiple news agencies that were not identical, but had the same typos in them. IE, spelling the US coastguard ship "Mellon" as "Melon" (or maybe it was the other way around, I don't remember). Gopher65_talk 01:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Fonterra board of directors off the hook, Kung Hei Fat Choy?

FOR SURE, that is why, I take pains in reading all news sources including NYT or NYP blog news. There are neutral and objective stuffs hidden there. This will MAKE Wikinews different. We search for something different that they hide. News journalists are oftentimes gagged or they sing the same tone before publishing. It is a conspiracy. I had faced Filipino and UK journalists. They do not just publish, they had their news approved by the desk (editor-in-chief). More often than not, the Supreme Court and politicians ENVELOPEmentally censor the news.

As a lawyer/judge, I am just amazed how death and life imprisonment can cover-up a pyramid milk scam. "Alibi is the weakest defense in law." Who will believe that Fonterra who owns 43% of Sanlu and is the biggest in NZ in dairy, as dairy giant, would not be criminally and civilly liable for this mess? In USA and Philippine jurisprudence, we just file criminal cases (with life imprisonment tag since we have no death penalty here since 1986 on and off) against the board of directors, detain them pending trial then let the judges sentence them for life. So, PM Key was gagged but now MONDAY spoke forcibly since the Green Party is speaking amid AI opposition to death penalty. Will Fonterra directors go off this Chinese hook. Well, it is now the year of the OX. Kung hei Fat Choy.--Florentino Floro (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Publishing?

This is a nice comprehensive article, will someone review it soon so it can be published? 65.1.171.163 07:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Some sources, only 14 sources left in article, have some patience please

I transferred here some sources from article - seems they quite duplicate the others.

• Nzpa. "Fonterra breaks silence on milk scandal" — Stuff.co.nz, January 24, 2009
• DPA. "New Zealand company quiet on Chinese death sentences" — The Earth Times, January 23, 2009
• Tania Branigan. "Chinese figures show fivefold rise in babies sick from contaminated milk" — guardian.co.uk, December 2, 2008
• "Timeline: China milk scandal" — BBC News Online, January 22, 2009--Florentino Floro (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dire tragedy, but Fonterra, how? PM Key, why?

I deeply understand that It is so terrifying to REVIEW a very comprehensive articles. But, but, but, this Milk Scandal is the worst and first in history of milk, it has no duplicate. REMEMBER, Fonterra is the BIGGEST in NZ, and TODAY, PM Key who was so slow on this due to politics, was pressured to TALK on Fonterra's NEGLIGENCE at the very least, and lawyer do know that the board of directors are more liable than TIAN and the 2 who get death, since they know and know and know this. But of course, the fraud covers the whole thing. Wikinews is this: Neutral and comprehensive. IF I just write a news copying 2 to 5 news, then Wikinews will not be different. So, please bear with this difficulty, anyway, as day passes, the TRUTH NEWS comes in balancing the death and life imprisonment things. Please help in painfully publishing this hard news. Cheers.--Florentino Floro (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

FF, could you please explain why you simply removed a few sources in one of your recent edits? Were those sources not actually used for the article, or did you just think that there were too many sources listed? Wikidsoup (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And here you removed four other sources. Wikidsoup (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Florentino Floro has been encouraged to crop sources that were unnecessary and/or redundant, in order to ease the burden of the reviewer. Once the article has been reviewed and published, that cropping should probably stop. But I don't think any have been removed since Planoneck's review. --SVTCobra 00:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds good, as long as the facts are covered by the sources listed. Wikidsoup (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think, there was an edit summary by our very good writer and one of our best editor here - that - 13:56, 25 January 2009 Anonymous101 (Talk | contribs) (22,075 bytes) (very sorry, no time to reivew article with so many sources :() (undo) -- So, I tried my best to remove the rather not so important sources which only backed up non-critical fact, but AT THE SAME TIME, putting the trimmed sources into this talk page above. THIS CHINESE article is VERY DIFFICULT. XINHUA is very very censor-minded, putting just drops of news daily, like on lawsuits, data etc. Therefore, the publication of this article even if delayed, still, results in most COMPREHENSIVE coverage of the landmark and only MILK SCANDAL in Chinese history.--Florentino Floro (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your patience, I will try my best to trim sources amid difficulties

Yes, I know your pains in reviewing some of my articles which are so complex and comprehensive - and amid our stress in reviewing long/tons of sources. I want to be sure that each of my critical facts put in there in the article are backed up; there are editors here that do have a fundamental view that each paragraph that has a fact must be backed up by reliable source. MORE OFTEN than not, when I read for developing about 20 to 30 sources, some facts are only inside one news source. So, if there are 10 different facts, and are available in 10 different non-duplicate sources, then, what can I do? Like here, daily, there are inputs from Xinhua and others from NZ news.

So, I had earlier suggested that, since the main articles' sources should really have an average of 5-7 sources (for the news readers would not bother to read all those sources, except, if they are involved in court or expert presentation of this Wiki news article), those in excess should rather be put in the talk page.

Anyway, a talk page is still part of the article - I think as far as reliability is concerned. An editor in the history tab had long wanted to review this, but, due to tons of sources - and it is not my fault - it is really too difficult to check and review each - especially among those of you who work or study with limited times. REMEMBER this is a Chinese article. And ONLY Xinhua and Chinese daily are the sole sources, the others are just copy pasting, with FEAR of Chinese blocking reporters' IDs. Of course we have the New Zealand thing, on Fonterra, but that is just a part of the whole thing. THANKS for your having trusted my development. And I will try my best not to put duplicate sources for easy review. Cheers.--Florentino Floro (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)