This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Universal health care previously redirected to Publicly-funded medicine. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that this article deserves to stand-alone. A Google search of "Universal health care" receives 1,460,000 hits, whereas "Publicly-funded medicine" receives only 11,800 (many of which simply mirror the Wikipedia article). - AED 00:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
How about you register a user name, so we can hammer out this article properly? The Support and Opposition sections are to reflect what views exist on the subject. Not what you believe to be factual or not factual?- AED 05:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC) - AED 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that User:Sir kris posted the link for Citizens for Universal Health Care ("Site design, administration, and hosting provided in-kind by Kris Craig."), then you begin citing it as a reference 8 hours later. If Kris Craig, User:Sir kris, and User:24.17.137.180 are one and the same, then posting your blog and citing yourself violates Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. -06:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
We are not going to get anywhere if we keep reverting each others edits. I perceive plenty of POV in the Support section, but I'll leave those points alone until we can discuss them here to work out something mutually acceptable. I expect that you will share the same courtesy with the Opponents section. - AED 06:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
As I stated quite clearly in the edit notes, the news article I cited came from a blog for an organization that I'm an active member of. It is NOT a personal blog, but rather a news blog for the organization, which is the primary means through which they publish their articles.
When I first looked at the universal health care entry, there were 7 points supporting, and 14 points against, or a 2:1 ratio. Many of those opposing points were overly broad, generalized, and even factually inaccurate. In addition, nearly half of them all came from the same source, an article from the CATO institute, a political think-tank organization with very strong ties to the neo-liberal sector of the Republican party. The CATO institute is one of the most vocal opponents of universal health care, or anything that is not run by the private sector for that matter. Citing talking points from such an organization, particularly talking points that are simply not grounded in fact, is not in the spirit of what Wikipedia is here for. Furthermore, it misleads readers into thinking statements such as that universal health care creates a "decreased quality of care" are factual, when they clearly are not. Universal health care has never been directly tied to a decrease in quality of care; in fact, in most countries it has led to an increased quality of care according to statistical data. And on top of all that, while CATO was referenced as a resource, it was not even listed as an opposing organization, which only serves to further mislead readers about the content of the article.
All I did was balanced it out a bit. I left most of the opposing points there unchanged, while making minimal revisions to others where possible (i.e. changing "increased waiting times" to "increased waiting times in some cases," since that point only even applies to governments with excessive control over private practices and/or that don't have sufficient infrustructure, such as an adequite number of hospitals or nurses, to compensate for a possible increase in demand created by increased access to health care).
Oh and as for the username thing, that's because I logon from on campus and at home, as well as on my laptop sometimes, and I usually don't bother to login every time I switch computers. That's also why the IP address varies a little. Not intended to deceive anyone!
I think it's fine now as-is. There were a few points you legitimately corrected me on, such as an unnecessary wording change in opposition and forgetting to cite a source, and those I did not change back. I would like to see more opposing organizations listed so it's a little more balanced there as well, but somehow I think you would be better at finding those than I would. :)
Other than that, I think we have a reasonable compromise as it stands right now. I removed the few opposing points that were just aggregiously unfactual, revised a few others, and added some very commonly-cited facts to the support side of it. I understand that I kinda stepped on your turf here, and I apologize; but I'm willing to leave support and opposition at this reasonable compromise now if you are. =)
--Kris
AED Responded:
It's not my turf; I think we agree that it is an article that deserves to be created and expanded. I would just like the opportunity to discuss our differences on how certain items should be edited before they are edited.
Let's see what we can achieve here.- AED 20:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I've listed below how the article currently looks. The Support section makes the points you think should be made the Opposition section makes the points I think should be made. Let's please suggest our changes before making them. - AED 20:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Kris Responded:
You keep saying that things like "in some cases" are not essential to the opposition's argument. You fail to realize that this isn't the standard by which it should be cited. It may not be essential to their argument, but it IS essential to accuracy of fact. If CATO published an article saying that doctors kill more people than they save, I think you'll agree that citing that as a point of opposition would not be the right thing to do. Otherwise, readers have no way of knowing whether or not the "facts" in the article are accurate, or if the article is simply regurgitating baseless claims made by each group. Therefore, the only other recourse is to ensure that the information we list, even in the opposing and supporting arguments, is as accurate as possible.
Secondly, one could reasonably argue that citing material from biased and unverifiable political articles by the CATO Institute is just as bad (if not worse) than citing information from a news article posted by a supporting organization. Google hits are irrelevant in terms of whether a source is reliable. If we are to bar all articles from biased political groups, then all those points you took from CATO would have to be removed as well. Instead, I think it's sufficient to filter out any inaccurate information based on unfounded claims, and list those sources (i.e. CATO and CUHC) as external links in supporting and opposing orgs, so people are aware that these references do come from biased sources. Then, if someone wants to learn more about what CATO has to say, they can visit the external link, with the understanding that Wikipedia is not responsible for the accuracy of the information on that external link.
The Wiki article should not be biased, which it very much was before I fixed it. You'll notice that I didn't reverse it so it was dominated by supporting points; rather, I evened it out so the reader does not get the impression that the article is either for or against universal health care. If you like, I'll be happy to double-cite my sources (i.e. cite another source or two in addition to the news articles from the CUHC blog). However, I will not back down on my stance to keep blatantly false information out of the article. I don't care if that false information is part of the opposition's argument (or the support's argument for that matter), it cannot be listed if it's inaccurate. That's what the external links section is for.
--Kris
Kris Responded:
I think the readers will agree that I've been more than fair in trying to reach a reasonable compromise on this. But with all due respect, you seem to be more interested in using the Wiki article as a platform to propagate your biased political viewpoint. While I don't shy away from being an avid supporter of universal health care, I limited my changes to fixing factual inaccuracies and making the for/against points more equally balanced (i.e. no longer a 2:1 ratio against).
You have followed an aggressive posture ever since I made the initial modification. I have offered an olive branch on a number of occasions, and every time you responded by attacking me and reversing my revisions. I even offered to double/triple-cite all the points I added, including statistical evidence to back up what I said about your statements taken from the CATO Institute being overly broad and inaccurate. You once again resopnded with an adversarial mindset, threatening yet again to engage in a childish Wiki war.
Well, I feel I've done more than my part in trying to negotiate the details of this in good-faith on a professional level. But if you'd rather just butt heads and keep revising and re-revising each other's revisions, then I'm game. Political idiologies aside, I cannot in good conscience allow false and deceptive statements to remain in this article. The readers deserve better, and I intend to make sure that's exactly what they get. Game on. =)
--Kris
Kris Added:
While I'm at it, I'll go ahead and do a point-by-point analysis of what you posted above:
[Moved statements to above outline]
Well, there ya go. Now you can't accuse me of not providing specifics. But if you'd still like to do a back-and-forth revision war over this, it's not like I have anything better to do. =)
--Kris
Hi, I'm from Massachusetts and our Governor backed by our State House just passed a comprehensive Universal Health Care coverage plan. As far I know its the first one in the country. Our Governor is Republican (Romney) and our State House has a majority of Democrats. Only time will tell if we can make it work in Massachusetts, but if it does it might be a template for the rest of the USA. I'm an Unenrolled voter, as are a majority from Massachusetts and it seems here we dont have the bitter party politics gripping the rest of the country. We do still get legislation done... self evidenly. -- merlinus 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Merlinus-- merlinus 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Ps, I know I have to Wikify the link I added, its just a copy of a newspaer page right now, but I will get to it. ______________________________________________________
Info: Publicly Funded Health Care is a derogatory/ insulting way that "Big Insuranse Companies" in Massachusetts use to slur "Universal Health Care in our newspapers." It is a propaganda word, no more/ no less. Its like someone with a beef against my state calling it Taxachewstts and not Massachusetts. Universal Health Coverage... (Thats the "legal name" for it in Massachusetts and not Publicly Funded... They say it to Malign our plan to imply that it makes an unfair "tax burden" on the taxpayers that the quality healthcare will be destroyed. I really don't want to get into this argument but make no changes on the listing due to propaganda by Big Insurance lobbyists. Just state the facts. Its called Universal Health Coverage... -- merlinus 12:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Merlinus-- merlinus 12:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)( talk) Things to Ponder Submitted by Tom Dodamead (not verified) on Thu, 2006-01-05 23:55.
Publicly-funded medicine and Universal health care are two separate things. Specifically, the term "publicly-funded medicine" is much broader, and could be used to describe programs such as HMO's, medicare, medicaid, emergency pandemic vaccinations, subsidies to private insurance and drug companies, etc. None of those things just described could be referred to as universal health care. Granted, universal health care does probably fall under the category of publicly-funded medicine, but that doesn't mean the two articles should be merged. That would be like saying you should merge an article about oranges with an article about fruits because they're essentially the same thing-- when, in fact, an orange merely falls under the category of fruit, and is worthy of its own stand-alone article. The same thing applies to publicly-funded medicine and universal health care. --Kris/ 24.19.255.254 04:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I have moved a lengthy advocacy post that was origionally place under this section by Merlinusdawna to that users talk page, based on the Wikipedia is not a soapbox principle. I will let others determine if that material is OK for the userspace, but based on the guidance it has no place here. -- Argon233 T C @ ∉ 20:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is one of the links being repeatedly deleted? Salvor Hardin 18:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The above editors appear to be involved in a revert war regarding the following links. I would like to add my thoughts:
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Universal health care previously redirected to Publicly-funded medicine. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that this article deserves to stand-alone. A Google search of "Universal health care" receives 1,460,000 hits, whereas "Publicly-funded medicine" receives only 11,800 (many of which simply mirror the Wikipedia article). - AED 00:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
How about you register a user name, so we can hammer out this article properly? The Support and Opposition sections are to reflect what views exist on the subject. Not what you believe to be factual or not factual?- AED 05:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC) - AED 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that User:Sir kris posted the link for Citizens for Universal Health Care ("Site design, administration, and hosting provided in-kind by Kris Craig."), then you begin citing it as a reference 8 hours later. If Kris Craig, User:Sir kris, and User:24.17.137.180 are one and the same, then posting your blog and citing yourself violates Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. -06:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
We are not going to get anywhere if we keep reverting each others edits. I perceive plenty of POV in the Support section, but I'll leave those points alone until we can discuss them here to work out something mutually acceptable. I expect that you will share the same courtesy with the Opponents section. - AED 06:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
As I stated quite clearly in the edit notes, the news article I cited came from a blog for an organization that I'm an active member of. It is NOT a personal blog, but rather a news blog for the organization, which is the primary means through which they publish their articles.
When I first looked at the universal health care entry, there were 7 points supporting, and 14 points against, or a 2:1 ratio. Many of those opposing points were overly broad, generalized, and even factually inaccurate. In addition, nearly half of them all came from the same source, an article from the CATO institute, a political think-tank organization with very strong ties to the neo-liberal sector of the Republican party. The CATO institute is one of the most vocal opponents of universal health care, or anything that is not run by the private sector for that matter. Citing talking points from such an organization, particularly talking points that are simply not grounded in fact, is not in the spirit of what Wikipedia is here for. Furthermore, it misleads readers into thinking statements such as that universal health care creates a "decreased quality of care" are factual, when they clearly are not. Universal health care has never been directly tied to a decrease in quality of care; in fact, in most countries it has led to an increased quality of care according to statistical data. And on top of all that, while CATO was referenced as a resource, it was not even listed as an opposing organization, which only serves to further mislead readers about the content of the article.
All I did was balanced it out a bit. I left most of the opposing points there unchanged, while making minimal revisions to others where possible (i.e. changing "increased waiting times" to "increased waiting times in some cases," since that point only even applies to governments with excessive control over private practices and/or that don't have sufficient infrustructure, such as an adequite number of hospitals or nurses, to compensate for a possible increase in demand created by increased access to health care).
Oh and as for the username thing, that's because I logon from on campus and at home, as well as on my laptop sometimes, and I usually don't bother to login every time I switch computers. That's also why the IP address varies a little. Not intended to deceive anyone!
I think it's fine now as-is. There were a few points you legitimately corrected me on, such as an unnecessary wording change in opposition and forgetting to cite a source, and those I did not change back. I would like to see more opposing organizations listed so it's a little more balanced there as well, but somehow I think you would be better at finding those than I would. :)
Other than that, I think we have a reasonable compromise as it stands right now. I removed the few opposing points that were just aggregiously unfactual, revised a few others, and added some very commonly-cited facts to the support side of it. I understand that I kinda stepped on your turf here, and I apologize; but I'm willing to leave support and opposition at this reasonable compromise now if you are. =)
--Kris
AED Responded:
It's not my turf; I think we agree that it is an article that deserves to be created and expanded. I would just like the opportunity to discuss our differences on how certain items should be edited before they are edited.
Let's see what we can achieve here.- AED 20:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I've listed below how the article currently looks. The Support section makes the points you think should be made the Opposition section makes the points I think should be made. Let's please suggest our changes before making them. - AED 20:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Kris Responded:
You keep saying that things like "in some cases" are not essential to the opposition's argument. You fail to realize that this isn't the standard by which it should be cited. It may not be essential to their argument, but it IS essential to accuracy of fact. If CATO published an article saying that doctors kill more people than they save, I think you'll agree that citing that as a point of opposition would not be the right thing to do. Otherwise, readers have no way of knowing whether or not the "facts" in the article are accurate, or if the article is simply regurgitating baseless claims made by each group. Therefore, the only other recourse is to ensure that the information we list, even in the opposing and supporting arguments, is as accurate as possible.
Secondly, one could reasonably argue that citing material from biased and unverifiable political articles by the CATO Institute is just as bad (if not worse) than citing information from a news article posted by a supporting organization. Google hits are irrelevant in terms of whether a source is reliable. If we are to bar all articles from biased political groups, then all those points you took from CATO would have to be removed as well. Instead, I think it's sufficient to filter out any inaccurate information based on unfounded claims, and list those sources (i.e. CATO and CUHC) as external links in supporting and opposing orgs, so people are aware that these references do come from biased sources. Then, if someone wants to learn more about what CATO has to say, they can visit the external link, with the understanding that Wikipedia is not responsible for the accuracy of the information on that external link.
The Wiki article should not be biased, which it very much was before I fixed it. You'll notice that I didn't reverse it so it was dominated by supporting points; rather, I evened it out so the reader does not get the impression that the article is either for or against universal health care. If you like, I'll be happy to double-cite my sources (i.e. cite another source or two in addition to the news articles from the CUHC blog). However, I will not back down on my stance to keep blatantly false information out of the article. I don't care if that false information is part of the opposition's argument (or the support's argument for that matter), it cannot be listed if it's inaccurate. That's what the external links section is for.
--Kris
Kris Responded:
I think the readers will agree that I've been more than fair in trying to reach a reasonable compromise on this. But with all due respect, you seem to be more interested in using the Wiki article as a platform to propagate your biased political viewpoint. While I don't shy away from being an avid supporter of universal health care, I limited my changes to fixing factual inaccuracies and making the for/against points more equally balanced (i.e. no longer a 2:1 ratio against).
You have followed an aggressive posture ever since I made the initial modification. I have offered an olive branch on a number of occasions, and every time you responded by attacking me and reversing my revisions. I even offered to double/triple-cite all the points I added, including statistical evidence to back up what I said about your statements taken from the CATO Institute being overly broad and inaccurate. You once again resopnded with an adversarial mindset, threatening yet again to engage in a childish Wiki war.
Well, I feel I've done more than my part in trying to negotiate the details of this in good-faith on a professional level. But if you'd rather just butt heads and keep revising and re-revising each other's revisions, then I'm game. Political idiologies aside, I cannot in good conscience allow false and deceptive statements to remain in this article. The readers deserve better, and I intend to make sure that's exactly what they get. Game on. =)
--Kris
Kris Added:
While I'm at it, I'll go ahead and do a point-by-point analysis of what you posted above:
[Moved statements to above outline]
Well, there ya go. Now you can't accuse me of not providing specifics. But if you'd still like to do a back-and-forth revision war over this, it's not like I have anything better to do. =)
--Kris
Hi, I'm from Massachusetts and our Governor backed by our State House just passed a comprehensive Universal Health Care coverage plan. As far I know its the first one in the country. Our Governor is Republican (Romney) and our State House has a majority of Democrats. Only time will tell if we can make it work in Massachusetts, but if it does it might be a template for the rest of the USA. I'm an Unenrolled voter, as are a majority from Massachusetts and it seems here we dont have the bitter party politics gripping the rest of the country. We do still get legislation done... self evidenly. -- merlinus 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Merlinus-- merlinus 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Ps, I know I have to Wikify the link I added, its just a copy of a newspaer page right now, but I will get to it. ______________________________________________________
Info: Publicly Funded Health Care is a derogatory/ insulting way that "Big Insuranse Companies" in Massachusetts use to slur "Universal Health Care in our newspapers." It is a propaganda word, no more/ no less. Its like someone with a beef against my state calling it Taxachewstts and not Massachusetts. Universal Health Coverage... (Thats the "legal name" for it in Massachusetts and not Publicly Funded... They say it to Malign our plan to imply that it makes an unfair "tax burden" on the taxpayers that the quality healthcare will be destroyed. I really don't want to get into this argument but make no changes on the listing due to propaganda by Big Insurance lobbyists. Just state the facts. Its called Universal Health Coverage... -- merlinus 12:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Merlinus-- merlinus 12:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)( talk) Things to Ponder Submitted by Tom Dodamead (not verified) on Thu, 2006-01-05 23:55.
Publicly-funded medicine and Universal health care are two separate things. Specifically, the term "publicly-funded medicine" is much broader, and could be used to describe programs such as HMO's, medicare, medicaid, emergency pandemic vaccinations, subsidies to private insurance and drug companies, etc. None of those things just described could be referred to as universal health care. Granted, universal health care does probably fall under the category of publicly-funded medicine, but that doesn't mean the two articles should be merged. That would be like saying you should merge an article about oranges with an article about fruits because they're essentially the same thing-- when, in fact, an orange merely falls under the category of fruit, and is worthy of its own stand-alone article. The same thing applies to publicly-funded medicine and universal health care. --Kris/ 24.19.255.254 04:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I have moved a lengthy advocacy post that was origionally place under this section by Merlinusdawna to that users talk page, based on the Wikipedia is not a soapbox principle. I will let others determine if that material is OK for the userspace, but based on the guidance it has no place here. -- Argon233 T C @ ∉ 20:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is one of the links being repeatedly deleted? Salvor Hardin 18:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The above editors appear to be involved in a revert war regarding the following links. I would like to add my thoughts: