Talk:nib Health Funds

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Nib Health Funds is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Written largely from nib's own web site?

11 of the 17 alleged 'references' are from the nib web site. This does indeed seem to be a self-promotion article, as per the 'issues box'.

If I can find the time and motivation I'll come back to it and try to write in some objectivity. Maybe even with some external sources! For now I have done some minor copy edits clarifying the refs that are in fact from nib's web site, and tried to cull some of the weasels.
Wayne 19:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, further to the above ... I have done a fistful of edits. The article is still in need of work but I feel it is much improved.
The article still has several refs from nib's own web site, though I have replaced several of the nib refs, and added a couple of 'external' ones. Some of the language is still a bit sales/weasel-ish.
(Disclaimer: I have no personal, financial, professional or commercial relationship with nib.) On the basis of all this I have removed the 'íssues' tag to reflect that it is probably out of 'intensive care needed' and is now just 'slightly awful'.
Wayne 05:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that assessment. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Change

I am proposing the following edit be made permanent:

"In 1995, nib was involved in a landmark court case after they rejected family health cover to a homosexual couple. The subsequent court case, Hope & Brown vs NIB, found that nib had violated the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, setting a legal precedent that redefined 'family' to include same-sex couples and their children for the purposes of health insurance.[3]"

The original paragraph read:

"In 1995, nib was involved in a landmark court case after they rejected family health cover to a homosexual couple. The subsequent court case, Hope & Brown vs NIB, found that nib had violated the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, setting a legal precedent that redefined 'family' to include same-sex couples and their children for the purposes of health insurance.[3] nib appealed the ruling, though their arguments for continuing to discriminate against same-sex couples were dismissed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.[3]"

As mentioned in the edit comments, I reworded this paragraph was reworded to make it more concise and consistent with the format of the other historical listings on this page, as well as the removal of the editorialised language.

@Damien Linnane: Happy to hear your conflicting arguments. Maranello10 (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the concern is the removal of the appeal reference, I am happy to drop the conflict if the language is less editorialised. Something like "nib appealed the ruling, but their application was dismissed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales". I will add this new line to the page. Maranello10 (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That addresses half the concern. You never explained what you thought was editorialised, and if you thought something was written in an editorialised manner, the appropriate initial course of action would be rewording the sentence, rather than deleting the entire sentence. Also as per WP:SUMMARYNO, giving a vague edit summary (I.e "Rewording of section" [1]) as opposed to explaining why you reworded it, is not helpful, nor is not explaining your edit at all, like the first time you removed the content [2]. Potential disputes can be avoided by taking the time to explain your edits in the first place.

Contrary to your above post, the original wording also contained the following sentence:

"While most health insurers at the time were choosing to recognise homosexual relationships, there had been no official ruling on the matter."

This is extremely relevant. It shows to the reader that nib's behaviour at the time was the exception, rather than a standard practice. I propose adding it back. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Damien Linnane: I'm fine with adding that back. I am satisfied with how it now reads, so I consider it a consensus reached on my end. I will take on board your feedback in future edits. Maranello10 (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]