Talk:Samoan government temporarily shuts down for nationwide measles vaccination drive

For the record
A search for "history of measles in Samoa" came up with hits only for the recent outbreak. It's probably out there, though. The source I cited refers to Hawaii and Fiji. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Remarks

 * The second paragraph starts with "An official government Twitter account made the following announcement" but the day or time is not specified.
 * The first paragraph does not say how the announcement of planned shutdown was made. Was it made on twitter or in person or by radio or something else?
 * Paragraph number five starts with ``"Let us work together to``, and it in my opinion should be moved to the top, to be somewhere near second.

--Gryllida (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Last paragraph says "and scientists believe" and other things which are a bit vague and I think it should be rewritten to be more neutral... "drastically reduced" by how much? "A vaccine was introduced" was it the first vaccine ever made for this? "a scientist named Andrew Wakefield" can he be characterized more specifically such as what uni or what school he belongs to, to avoid blind belief that he is accurate? "work was later proven to have been deliberately falsified" by whom? "many parents continued to believe" according to whom?

--Gryllida (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesn't need to say the day or time of the Tweet, but add it if you want it. It's here:
 * The source did not say how the announcement was made, whether it was in Twitter or in person or by radio, just that it was the Prime Minister who made the announcement.
 * Go ahead and move it wherever looks good to you.
 * I wrote the background paragraph a little big with the expectation that it would be trimmed down. The details of Andrew Wakefield's fraud are given in the Wikipedia article to which this Wikinews draft links.  If you read it, I am confident you will figure out which details you want.  The history of measles and the anti-vaccination movement in the United States is very long and has many interesting details.  If I put them all in here, the article would become bottom-heavy indeed.  I think it would be better to achieve a smooth article by removing anything that seems ragged to you rather than adding more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, got out of the cafe before it closed. Short version about the last paragraph: Who proved Wakefield's research was false is far, far less important than the fact that it was proven false at all, hence the passive voice.  It was actually a multi-step process.  First, no one was able to replicate Wakefield's results, then Lancet kind of withdrew its endorsement of Wakefield's paper, then six years later it completely withdrew its endorsement, then an investigative journalist published one expose and finds out he was getting blood samples by paying kids at a birthday party five pounds or something, then there was another expose finding out that Wakefield was part of a company making its own vaccine and stood to profit if the standard one was discredited (but not if all vaccines were discredited), then Wakefield himself is investigated for ethical violations, then he lost his license, then the anti-vax movement decided he was their martyr child etc. etc. etc.  It is a huge dramafest.
 * Now I'm confident we all agree that not all of that needs to go in the Wikinews article. So hop over to the  and pick out whichever detail or details you think fit your vision best&mdash;or cut what you think needs cutting.  I've reread and reread the paragraph, and it looks good as it is to my eye. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4531397 [Not ready]

 * If I did things that way to start, I believe the reviewer would complain that the text was too different from the source. Best to wait for the complaint and then address it.
 * Cut whatever you want from the last paragraph. I wrote it extra large for that reason. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of too different from the source. Don't see what it would mean.  If you're seeing a real possibility, I don't get it; if it's not a real possibility, I point out that the strategy you're advocating is very hard on reviewers (inefficient use of project resources). --Pi zero (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you mean "real possibility" of getting the article out on time, then no big deal. It may be possible to retread for the actual closure tomorrow.
 * I got complaints about being too different from the source early on. They were along the lines of "Hey! I didn't see [recognize] that information in the source!" or "Hey!  That's not what [I think] the source meant!  You're putting in too much of your own interpretation." It's a balance to strike.
 * Project resources include my time and mental energy. What I've observed is if I write "gray" the reviewer may prefer "grey," even if he or she would have preferred "gray" if I'd written "grey" instead, to give an oversimplified example.  Best to wait and see what people ask for. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a different kind of distance. Organizing the same material differently doesn't call for altering the meaning.  We're discussing ways to say the same thing in a different way. Evidently the reporter's time is a project resource.  The strategy starts by being very hard on the reviewer (which you too have noted, I recall, is a particular bottleneck on the project).  From there, the damage expands to impact the article, and the reporter.  Pro-active measures by the reporter are most efficient for the reporter, as well as for the article and for the reviewer.  I take you to be saying you don't see how to anticipate what reviewers are going to complain about, and that would certainly be a problem; but the viable solution in the long term would then be to find a way to more effectively avoid the difficulties so that the whole process goes more smoothly for everyone. --Pi zero (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you think the project would "go more smoothly for everyone" if I did a Herculean amount of work studying you to predict what you will happen to want at any given time. To use your words, that would damage me.
 * Pi zero, you change your mind a lot. To assume good faith, perhaps you don't realize how much.  It's not a war crime, but I'm not going to dance left and dance right on command either.  I'm not an employee or subordinate and I don't feel like pretending to be one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The 'subordinate' thing is a red herring; it's not what anyone here is asking for, nor wants. The status quo isn't working well either, of course, but it's not an either-or choice between those two things. Nobody is asking for a Herculean amount of work from you, either.  Indeed, it's an important feature of this situation that even if you did apply such an effort, it would not have the effect you describe. The mind-changing you describe is an illusion.  I'm pursuing my target consistently; but clearly when you look at the same situation you don't see my target.  Seeing nothing for me to be aiming at, you've evidently concluded that I'm aiming at nothing.  Most importantly, though, what you see isn't going to change fundamentally.  We want a solution that doesn't involve you (nor any of the rest of us) magically turning into somebody else. --Pi zero (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If your target exists, then write it down. It is is so very important, it should be stored somewhere outside your head where other people can read it.  It might even make a good guideline.  You want help?  I'd be glad to collaborate.  Until then, I reserve the core-concept right to value what I can see and verify over any person's cherished beliefs. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems we're disconnecting at multiple levels simultaneously. Starts out looking like technical disagreement; on a closer look, seems to be about disagreeing on rules; still deeper, I fear, it blurs into a problem of epistemology. --Pi zero (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4531419 [Not ready]

 * Gryllida, I can't read your mind. Even if I could, it would not my responsibility to do so.  I'm not a personal shopper here to hold something up to the left and right and fetch version after version while you decide what you want.  While I certainly wouldn't revert anyone who felt like adding that information, you did not convince me that it was necessary or a good use of my time.  Just like I didn't manage to convince you that reading about the background was a good use of your time.  Oh well, but we're all volunteers and it is your decision, just as what to do with my time is mine.
 * I am not here to provide anyone with the pleasure of telling someone else what to do. That's not the kind of relationship I'm seeking here.  I wish you loads of fun if you happen to find anyone who is into that sort of thing, but it's not for me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Re-submitting signals to others that reviewer concerns are already addressed, and confuses volunteers who may help with the remaining unsolved issues. Gryllida (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)