Talk:Yushchenko's illness a result of poisoning, doctors confirm

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

I think it is already a little old news, but also very interesting. It is the first article i begin and i hope it's good??? can someone give me some feedbakc?? (i ve already edited some articles)


Well, sure it's old but that's not necessarily a problem. However, there are several problems:

  1. You didn't date it, so it might be mistaken for new news unless you read carefully.
  2. You used the dutch spelling of Yushchenko, not the english one.
  3. The headline "was poisoned" sounds like there now is proof for it, but in fact, it's only the old news that Yushchenko has fallen ill and that the cause may be poisoning.
  4. There is an error in the usage of the template:develop so it didn't work.

Maybe a new article with the headline "Yushchenko seriously ill" and proper dating? --Regebro 11:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know the news is old, but today on belga, there is a message that the doctors have confirmed, Yushchenko was really poisoned and not just ill. Therfor I wrote it that way, but I changed it.

Aha. OK, "Doctors confirm Yushchenko's illness was caused by poison" would be a good headline then. --Regebro 12:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How about "Yushchenko illness caused by poison" - Doctor? As far as I can see, there's still no confirmation, just a whole load of contradictory opinions. Lankiveil 11:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I tried to correct some typos and spelling. I am not a native speaker, so I hope others can join.
Other things I found by a quick search:
  • The Times (of London) reported that Dr. Nikolai Korpan who saw Yoshchenko said it was a poisoning to kill him.
  • The name of the hospital is Rudolfinerhaus hospital
  • Rudolfinerhaus director, Dr. Michael Zimpfer, said the London's report was untrue.
  • Yoshchenko visited and stayed in the hospital 2 times.
  • There was an assessment at one point that he would die for 15%.
  • Some British toxicoogist said it could be dioxin. But many are not certain if it was a poison, and what kind of poison it was.

Hope it helps. Tomos 12:37, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Very helpful. I think we can make this article into an article about Yushchenkos illness. I'll give it a go. --Regebro 12:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Done! --Regebro 13:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit. After re-reading the discussion so far, the article, and external sources, I came to think that this article should emphasize not about Yushchenko's illness, but about the doctors' statements that it was a result of someone trying to kill him.

So I reorganized the body quite a bit, emphasizing the doctors' findings/assessments at the top, and making other things more like a context. I am hoping it is an improvement.

A better pagename for that is something like "Yushchenko's illness a result of poisoning, doctors confirm" or something along that line.

But I also noticed that media reports are not unanimous. Some emphasize poisoning, some the three hypothesis, some inconclusiveness of the tests so far. Zimpfer and Korpan, who were at the same press conference it seems, seem to not explicitly agree how much is known for sure. So I am not sure what's the best pagename.

Some sources explain that if it is found to be a poisoning by dioxin or whatever, it will be very bad for his opponent in the presidential race. Others explain how Yushchenko has been behaving (not following doctors' recommendation to stay in/return to hospital). Yet others explain death threats a doctor at Rudolfinerhaus receives. Those are the things that would be nice to have. But I think the article is fine without them.

How do you think? Tomos 09:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Renaming the page once has already been done, and I think that there is no need to have two different articles, one saying that Yuchshenko is ill, and another that the doctor confirms it's poison. So therefore I think the "Yuchshenko is seriously ill" headline works, with the later addition that the doctor confirms that it is poison. Now in this specific case, the news is that the doctor confirmed it, but as a general rule I think it's better to enhance an article with new information than to make another article that duplicates some of the old information.
This means, that either we keep your reorganisation, and rename the article (again) or we go back to the earlier organisation. Both works for this article. --Regebro 11:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think now I understand why you kept the latest info at the bottom, and put the article's focus on the illness itself, rather than vice versa. I also think either way would work. But the later development (that the high concentration of Dioxin was found) was made into a separate article, and I thought it would be easier to let them be separate and have each articles a focus on a latest development. But, again, as a general principle, either way would work, I think.
I should have came and done earlier, but I moved the page, and kept the main text.
I also added "related stories" and "see also" sections. Tomos 19:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm. Yeah, you have a point that a new article focuses on the new developments. Haven't really thought of that. I have to ponder this. ;)
However, as these articles stand, we now have two articles about exactly the same thing. They should be merged. --Regebro 20:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article and the other one are products of two separate press conferences at two different times. So couldn't they be separate articles? I guess it is okay to be separate. Not that we cannot merge them. Tomos 21:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why on earth would we want two articles saying exactly the same thing just because the people who said it said it twice? :-) That make exactly zero sense to me... --Regebro 01:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well yes, they are almost the same thing. But at the time of this article, there was no evidence of "high concentration of dioxin." That is why dioxin toxication was one of the three hypotheses for Korpan. And the director of the hospital emphasized that everything was inconclusive. Although not in the article, some reports at this time said Yoshchenko did not have a plan to go back to the hospital, though doctors seemed to want to have him and examine further. Now in the next article, there is a solid evidence, doctors say. That's how they are separate. And, Yoshchenko is going to the hospital. How different these two stories are? Not that much, but they are not exactly the same. Think, for example, a reader who was suspicious of Yoshchenko's motives in this whole thing. "He must have eaten some bad sushi, but wanted to use the symptom to make his opponent look bad," such a person might think. Reading this article alone or next article together could give such a reader very different impression about the nature of the event. After the doctors claiming that evidence is found, it is either Yoshchenko is really poisoned by someone, or the doctors are part of the fabrication, for example. Well, but let me say, I still think it is possible to merge them. Tomos 02:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So the difference is that on one story we should say that there is no evidence of dioxin and in the other we shouldsay that there is evidence. I think that is an extremely bad idea. --Regebro 21:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, if you think having two articles is extremely bad, I think that merging two is possible, and nobody else says anything, I think we should try to merge them. Hope you could help. Tomos 21:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)