Jump to content

Talk:Health Care for America NOW!

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2013 Changes and Updates

[edit]

I've made some changes to this article to bring it up to date, make it more neutral, and make it more faithful to sources. I think the rationale for my changes rests on pretty solid ground (indeed, a couple of them are required to make the article compliant with Wikipedia policy), so if any other editors have issues with what I've done I would encourage them to discuss their objections here rather than disrupt the article. Roccodrift (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the changes to be harmful to the article, particularly the removal of cited material. MilesMoney (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary doesn't agree with reality. You claim that your revert is to comply with policy, but since you didn't bother to elucidate that here in Talk I have to wonder what policy that might be, since your edit...
  • re-added material that fails WP:V (which was tagged)
  • re-added outdated material that speaks of a now-past event as being in the future
  • re-added a deceptive Wikilink that violates WP:SURPRISE
  • re-added a citation containing a broken URL
  • re-added at least two, and perhaps three, flagrant violations of NPOV
Clearly, if there has been an edit that is "harmful" to the article, it was your revert. Please be more careful in the future. Roccodrift (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to ask you to be more specific, as a check of the diff did not reveal what you described. MilesMoney (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can you claim that you reverted to an earlier version for reasons of policy compliance when you don't know what was in the intervening diffs???
OK, let's see you justify your edit from your perspective. Since you performed the last edit, why don't you tell me what policies you were observing? Naturally, you know and can explain exactly which policies dictated the reversal of each and every one of the 12 edits you reverted, right? Roccodrift (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You made five specific claims but I don't see where they match the article, so I can't evaluate them. It's up to you to be more clear: specify where in the article they apply. I'm not a mind-reader. MilesMoney (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You made two claims (earlier edits were "harmful"; changes were reverted to comply with policy). Can you back up either one? Are you even willing to discuss them? Roccodrift (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said that I "re-added material that fails WP:V (which was tagged)". Please identify this material so that I can check whether the source is verifiable. MilesMoney (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put the tag back on it so you can see it. That source is an informative account of how ACA was passed, but it doesn't mention HCAN. Using that source to support the statement is textbook WP:SYNTH. Roccodrift (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to. Re-read WP:SYNTH. MilesMoney (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you acknowledge that the source isn't talking about HCAN. What's it doing on this page? Roccodrift (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ACA is the reason for HCAN's existence, so it's not surprising that explaining the context means mentioning relevant details about the ACA. Since someone challenged this particular detail (for no good reason), we have to stick a citation on it. But the cited source is reliable for what is cited, so your tag is incorrect.
You've lost this one. Move on to your next claim. Perhaps it has more merit. MilesMoney (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There Is no "winning" or "losing" here. That's WP:BATTLEGROUND thinking.
So, we've established that the citation doesn't cover anything about HCAN. It doesn't discuss anything about extending Medicare down to age 55, nor does it support any notion of compromise as the price of passage. I'll allow that you've at least approached the issue of relevance, but the paragraph clearly needs more editing to make it accurate.
I'm still waiting for you to explain your claims: that your version is policy-compliant and that the earlier changes were harmful. Do you intend to explain that, or not? Roccodrift (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for you to read the cited source and notice that it directly backs up the statement that these compromises were needed for passage.
"As the argument goes, if only Obama, Pelosi, and Reid had pushed harder—if only they hadn’t made so many compromises—the bill would be better."
It also has five other mentions of compromises. So the citation covers the statement, and the statement is needed to put HCAN into context, so we keep both. MilesMoney (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for the third time...' How did your edit make the article more policy compliant? And how did the previous edits harm the article? Roccodrift (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before we go on, you do concede my point about the appropriateness of the ACA "compromise" sentence and its citation? MilesMoney (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to be perfectly clear... you're refusing to discuss your edit? Is that right? Roccodrift (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to be perfectly clear, you're ducking my relevant question? Is that right? MilesMoney (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've already answered that question. The entire paragraph under the heading "Affordable Care Act" is SYNTH without better sources to support the statements it makes. Now... are you or are you not willing to explain your edit and the policy claims you have made? Roccodrift (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I refuted this claim already. If you're going to just ignore what I say, I'm not going to waste any more time saying it. MilesMoney (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ACA section now has 4 citations to directly support every statement made. No concrete complaints exist, so I'm ready to discuss the next issue, if there are any remaining. MilesMoney (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to WP:30 request
Hey there, I happened across someone's third opinion request and swung by to answer...Disclaimer: I've never edited this article or had anything to do with either of you before, to the best of my knowledge, and this is a non-binding method of receiving additional input into a disagreement. I have a few comments:

  • Looking at the edit in question, I see no issues with the removal of the phrase "This is the cost of the rite of passage" Roccodrift made. It's a pointless phrase.
  • The revert to remove the phrase "The HCAN says" in the final body paragraph is wrong. It needs to be in there, otherwise the article is claiming the information is false, and that's a violation of WP:POV.
  • Using a Youtube video is tricky, per the Wikipedia:Video links page. I get that it's a notable enough event of published a two-part video series, but I don't think it qualified as a WP:V source. Perhaps hyperlinking it to a phrase instead would be better?
  • MilesMoney, after reading this talk page conversation, it doesn't strike me that you've justified whatsoever why you reverted Roccodrift's edits. Could you enlighten me to your thinking? It'd be appreciated to help understand why you feel this way.
  • I think this conversation has gotten fairly tense...I'd just like to mention I think all edits have been done in good faith. We're on the same team here - improving Wikipedia. Please let me know if you need anything else, my talk page is certainly open. GRUcrule (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking, GRU. In the interest of clarity, would mind specifically addressing a few of the edits? Here are the ones I am most concerned about: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Roccodrift (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, to address the specifics...note I'm looking at just the edits themselves. MilesMoney, your input is also welcomed from my vantage point.
  • Edit one: I addresses that in my second point above.
  • Edit two: Agree it violated WP:SURPRISE.
  • Edit three: I'm fine with the statement being included IF a proper source (or two) can be attributed to back this statement up. Also, there's two grammatical errors: It's 'winding' and 'near-unanimous' is hyphenated, as it modifies 'agreement'. Hope I don't sound like a loser on this one :)
  • Edit four: The phrase "modest fine" violates WP:POV. It's simply not neutral. Removing the word 'modest' would work. I don't know if it's actually a tax penalty or not, so I can't comment on inserting the phrase 'tax penalty' but from a POV assessment, that certainly works better.
  • Edit five: That make sense to me, I'd think any challenges to the ACA would be in that referenced article. MilesMoney, do you disagree?
  • Edit six: It begins a new section, so directly referencing "changes to the ACA" instead of "these" works better in terms of readability.
Again, I'm just addressing these edits you've brought up. If MilesMoney has any specific edits for me to glance over, I'd be more than happy to. As always, I'm available on my talk page to help. GRUcrule (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming here. I do have some feedback, but I think it's more efficient for me to wait until Rocco's SPI ends. MilesMoney (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair 'nough - I'm watching the page, but feel free to ping me if/when you post your feedback to ensure I'm looped in. (Or, of course, just lemme know on my talk page. I'm happy to help any way I can). GRUcrule (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. FWIW, I mostly agree with you; I'm just nitpicky. MilesMoney (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Health Care for America NOW!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute over the Article

[edit]

I have nominated this article for review based on it's tone. I don't believe this to be an impartial article. Additionally, a number of the sources do not provide the information that they purport to provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange.County.Steve (talk • contribs) 02:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I have read the article in its entirety, and it seems to me that it is neutral, please keep in mind that everybody has some sort of bias and that bias however small it may be will always be present, and the sources do provide the information that is present Aiden LaBonne (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with sources

[edit]

There are a number of articles that do not provide the information that the purport to provide. For example

  • "HCAN is directed by a steering committee that consists of a wide range of tax-exempt public charities, advocacy organizations, labor unions[citation needed] and civil rights groups.[3]". The sentence in question, and the subsequent source, would seem to imply that the source would provide information on the steering committee. It is in fact a list of members of the organization.
  • An outside evaluation praised HCAN's "effective and disciplined strategic planning, decision-making and implementation; well-thought-out benchmarks; strong and effective internal leadership, efficient allocation of resources to staff and to fund a wide-ranging field program; resilience to buffeting external events; and its creation of opportunities for supporters to meaningfully engage with the movement for reform through multiple points of entry."[2] The source here does not have the sentence in question.
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange.County.Steve (talk • contribs) 02:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Health_Care_for_America_NOW!&oldid=1202644826"