Talk:Single-payer healthcare/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

External links

User:EllenCT reverted my removal of the external links wholesale while saying she didn't have time to go through them. That's telling right there, but our external links guideline is pretty clear that the directory of advocacy links are not appropriate. They provide significant undue weight toward one side of the discussion, as well as a lot of this list. I'm hoping that, seeing as she wants the material included, she can explain why. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I was objecting to the section blanking. Let's go through them one by one:

---

• Citizen action or resource groups

1. Single-Payer Healthcare Resources. A collection of links to primers, national/state resources, comparisons to other nations, bills/terminology, etc.
2. Healthcare-NOW!. A nonprofit advocacy group for single-payer healthcare.
3. Progressive Democrats of America Advocates for single-payer system.
4. Physicians for a National Health Program. Advocates for single-payer system. Extensive source material from peer-reviewed journals.
5. Single Payer Action. Activist nonprofit organization supporting single-payer universal healthcare.
6. Single Payer Central. An independent/unaffiliated central clearing house of information (groups, legislation, etc.), for single-payer.
   • Articles, books, and broadcast programs
7. Five myths about health care around the world "For people over 65, we're Canada ... for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we're Burundi or Burma" by T.R. Reid, a former Washington Post reporter.
8. Institute of Medicine Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance. Hidden costs, value lost: uninsurance in America. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2003. Frequently cited monograph.
9. Pros and cons of single-payer healthcare Pros & Cons List from Formosa Post.
10. Sick Around the World: Can the U.S. learn anything from the rest of the world about how to run a health care system? from Frontline, PBS.
11. Single Payer Healthcare Now. An activist blog supporting single payer healthcare
12. States Moving Towards Comprehensive Health Care Reform in the U.S., The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
13. The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States
14. The Socialists Are Coming! The Socialists Are Coming! by Phillip Boffey. Editorial on U.S. "socialized medicine" in the military, the Veterans Health Administration, and Medicare, The New York Times, September 28, 2007.
15. Whither a health-care solution? Oh Canada BusinessWeek, March 21, 1994, by William C. Symonds, article in a business journal writing favorably about single payer.
    • FAQ and summaries by NGOs favoring single payer
16. Get the Facts on Health Care Reform Single-payer solution myths and facts from Public Citizen.
17. Report Card on Single-Payer and Public Option from PDA and Healthcare-now comparing, contrasting, and grading the two proposals.
18. Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts summary from PNHP.
19. What is Single-Payer Healthcare? from Healthcare-Now.org (expanded from PNHP with additional information)
    • News feeds
20. Latest news and analysis about current and upcoming State based single-payer legislation in United States

---

Which are the top three least objectionable? Without looking at the content, I would be inclined to keep at least one from every category, whether an anti-single payer site can be found for the first category. But that is difficult because single payer is almost impossible to oppose mathematically. Therefore I would agree with only including an advocacy group in this case, if a specific opposition group can't be found. EllenCT (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a single one worthy of keeping. The relevant news articles to the topic are already inline citations, the advocacy group positions are in the article, and that leaves more advocacy that doesn't fit in the article. They add no value and are clearly not providing a neutral point of view. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If you had to pick three least objectionable, which would those be? EllenCT (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

In terms of an external links section, they are all objectionable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. Are external links to civil rights organizations inappropriate in civil rights articles? The Wikipedia:EL#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view guideline is overridden by the WP:V policy explicitly preferring greater accuracy when one side of a dispute is clearly more accurate than another, because it says, "On articles with multiple points of view...." Where are the multiple points of view on this subject? Even AHIP wants single payer as soon as it looks like their convoluted Obamacare demands aren't making them more money. EllenCT (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The multiple points of view are points regarding systems other than single payer, of the Americentricness of the links in an American society that rejects it,and the fact that it's just a one-sided directory of links pushing a specific point of view. Yes, an article about "freedom of speech" would be inappropriate to have links to a bunch of free speech proponents. That's not what the section is for. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

So if there are no anti-freedom of speech organizations which meet the criteria for external link inclusion ("contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail" per WP:ELYES) but a large number of pro-freedom of speech organizations do because they list all the popular anti-freedom of speech reasons and address them with accurate statistics, mathematical, or logical reasoning? EllenCT (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Chances are, those pro-organizations would not "contain neutral and accurate material" due to being advocacy groups. Obviously, they would be taken on a case-by-case basis, but none of the links listed above "contain neutral and accurate material." The advocacy groups in particular, if you check the archives, tend to outright lie about what the polling says about certain issues. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

So again I ask, which are the three least objectionable to you? EllenCT (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, they're all objectionable. Opinion pieces don't belong, misleading advocacy sites violate the guideline, as do commercial links. We cannot use any of them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering why you seem to be thinking that I am asking you whether you think any links are or are not acceptable when I have been trying to ask you which three you think are least objectionable. EllenCT (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"Least objectionable" assumes there are some that would be appropriate. There is not one that is "more" objectionable than any others, as none conform to our external links guideline. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Do rules supporting useful, comprehensive, and accurate information ever overrule the EL guidelines? If you were to use e.g. WP:BIASED and WP:NEWSBLOG to help you rank them, would that allow you to assign more than just a binary yes/no to each link? EllenCT (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No, because it's still an NPOV issue beyond the fact that they're inappropriate external links. The information PNHP provides that is relevant to the article is already present in in-line citations. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

So if you had to pick the top three news blogs on WP:BIASED sites, because there are no opposing sites, then which would those three be? EllenCT (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I would incorporate them into the article if appropriate and not add them to the external links, as we have already done with the points of view expressed by groups like PNHP. You're still not understanding that our guidelines on external links nor our policy on NPOV does not allow for what you're trying to do. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to get you to say which of the biased advocacy sites which do exist you think have the best news blogs, per the rules. How is it possible to incorporate biased news blogs into the article? EllenCT (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

None of them are acceptable as external links per the rules. Those that have acceptable information appear to already be incorporated into the article appropriately. If there's further discussion about adding some of them to the article, a new talk section would be appropriate as to not detract from the external link issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree and have started a new section asking about biased news blogs, pro and con, below. EllenCT (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the new section on how we can incorporate some of those links, if possible. You have not, however, demonstrated how we can add "some" biased sites into the external links. That's not what the section is for. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't need a list of links to advocacy sites. That's a clear violation of NPOV. This article should just be about briefly and neutrally explaining what single payer is. Ellen's preposterous claim about it being "mathematically" difficult to disagree with her on this political issue betrays a narrow-minded soapbox mentality, which isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. VictorD7 (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Very often, when two sides disagree, one side is correct and the other is incorrect. Mathematical reasoning makes such situations obvious. Do you care more about accuracy or the view from nowhere? EllenCT (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Including advocacy groups (when their position is stated) is not a violation of NPOV. Since they're obviously relevant to single-payer and their positions are stated, it's barely even worth debating. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct. There's really no debate that this directory of links provide significant undue weight toward one side of the discussion and are inappropriate for the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you say "correct"? EllenCT (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct that it's hardly worth debating. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

In complex political debates both sides have an array of "mathematical reasoning", but deciding whether single payer is a good thing or not isn't Wikipedia's purpose. Certainly advocating for one side or the other is contrary to Wiki policy. Indulge that crusading compulsion on another site. VictorD7 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

When two instances of mathematical reasoning disagree, it is a property of mathematics that at least one of them is wrong. EllenCT (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless they're counting different things and/or starting from different premises. VictorD7 (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Different premises do not allow two contradictory mathematical statements to both be true. EllenCT (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

True, which is why I pointed out that complex political issues like this aren't a simple math problem. They involve different premises and areas of focus. VictorD7 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt / contested, suggest sticking to those specifically sanctioned by the guideline which are "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material......" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

So how about 6-10, 15, and 20 then? EllenCT (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The only one of those links that would be acceptable anywhere in the article is the Frontline piece, and even then, it's advocacy journalism that would immediately be shunted to an opinion section if relevant. The links don't conform to our guidelines on external links. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Why exclude the National Academy of Medicine? EllenCT (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Two reasons: 1) It's a commercial link to purchase their book, and 2) it's not about single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

They are a nonprofit government agency. "The potential economic value to be gained in better health outcomes from uninterrupted coverage for all Americans is estimated to be between $65 and $130 billion each year" is not about single payer? (Click on the ellipsis.) EllenCT (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Being a nonprofit entity does not change that it's a commercial link. And no, it's not about single payer, it's about universal coverage, something that can be achieved without single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Commercial offers to buy scholarly works are prohibited, but ad-supported sites aren't? What proportion of universal coverage is single payer? EllenCT (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct on the former, unknown on the latter. This article, however, is about single-payer health care. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Which specific rule prohibits links to sites offering to sell scholarly works? Again, what proportion of universal coverage is single payer? My understanding is that it exceeds 95% worldwide. EllenCT (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

#15 in the top list in particular

The National Academy of Medicine is not a "commercial book site". They are a nonprofit government organization. EllenCT (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The NAM sells their book. The link was directly to the purchase page. That's commercial. I am not against citing the book in the article if and when appropriate, but putting it in the external links section is a clear violation of the guideline. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, activist sources as external links (provided we state their positions) do not violate NPOV. As to the question of Undue, there aren't a lot of "anti"-single-payer groups but there are quite a number of pro ones. If it's a question of balance I agree we should provide anti-single-payer groups. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you found any? EllenCT (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't and I'm not sure there are any, unless someone else can it would be silly to claim Undue for a "balance" that doesn't exist. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone found any? If not, what are the reasons for not linking to the top three most popular, if any? EllenCT (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The reasons remain the same as to not linking the three most popular: they violate our guidelines on appropriate links for an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree because of the reasons I have stated above. EllenCT (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

And your reasons, unfortunately, do not conform with our guidelines. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I think many of the external links are appropriate and in compliance with WP guidelines. In particular, the PNHP site has a wealth of reliable information, much of it from peer-reviewed journals. There are other useful ones. It might be appropriate to remove dead links, sites that are no longer current, etc.

I am familiar with the National Academy of Medicine and I have read many of their publications. All of its publications are available free online in addition to being sold as printed vFolumes. I can't imagine how it could be a commercial site. You might as well call the Supreme Court web site http://www.supremecourt.gov/ a commerical site because they sell books and souveniers in their gift shop.--Nbauman (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

PNHP is a dedicated single payer advocacy group. That's the kind of thing we shouldn't be linking to. It's not our job to help them campaign. VictorD7 (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Again for the nth time, "activist sources as external links (provided we state their positions) do not violate NPOV." CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The PNHP advocacy information is already in the article, so there's no need to duplicate the POV material in the external links as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

They may be acceptable as sources in certain contexts, but just dumping the links in an "external link" section does violate NPOV. It turns the page into an advertisement for single payer rather than an encyclopedia article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, PNHP is an advocacy organization and they do not belong in the external links section. Their point of view is already expressed appropriately in the article. As for the NAM piece, perhaps, if that volume can be found in full without the commercial links attached, we could possibly use that assuming it's actually a neutral piece about single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the PNHP site. http://www.pnhp.org/ They have a huge amount of information on single payer. They're essentially a medical journal dedicated to single payer. That resource would clearly add to the value of the entry. This subject is extremely complicated and detailed, and the Wikipedia article doesn't begin to approach it. That link would help anyone who reads this article and needs further information. The one link in the body of the article is inadequate.

For those reasons, I think it would be a bad idea to delete it. --Nbauman (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not the amount of information. It's that it's an advocacy site, those are very clearly outside the realm of the guideline. Their voice is heard loud and clear within the text of the article already. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The amount of high-quality information on the PNHP site -- mostly references to the peer-reviewed literature -- makes it a valuable contribution to the article. They're probably the main source of information on single payer in the U.S. There are many questions that a reader would have, that this entry doesn't answer, that the reader could find on the PNHP site. That's the purpose of an external link. They've been cited twice in the article, which I don't think is "loud and clear."

The article Health insurance in the United States has links to http://www.ahip.org/ which is as much an advocacy site as PNHP.

I don't think you have consensus to delete all the links. The links could be reduced to a few important links, but if you start by insisting that PNHP must be deleted, we're not getting anywhere. --Nbauman (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

i haven't gotten to the links at Health insurance in the United States yet, but that should be deleted. Even if some of the links here were allowable, PNHP would never be. That's a fairly hard stop. At some point, we will have to make sure this article conforms with our policies on NPOV and our guideline on external links, my job is to get the handful of you opposed on board. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that with both general external link policy/guideline problems as well as bias problems that a fix is clearly in order. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. VictorD7 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, we don't have consensus. I don't agree and EllenCT doesn't agree. Have you read the PNHP web site? One of the board members is Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. It's as reliable as the NEJM. Can you suggest an alternate site that is as comprehensive and "neutral"? --Nbauman (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion of its quality doesn't change the fact that it's a political advocacy group. We aren't required to have an "External link" section. VictorD7 (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Can the consensus here (or lack thereof) override policy and guideline? I don't think so. As for the PNHP website, I'm very familiar. As an advocacy group, the link is not allowable per NPOV and WP:EL. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind deleting the external if there was a comprehensive discussion in the entry of PNHP's arguments and evidence.

I also wouldn't mind if there was a comprehensive discussion on the PNHP page that we could link to.

After all, PNHP's board members are highly respected doctors. They've made the case for single payer almost single-handedly. They're clearly WP:NOTABLE.

However, this entry has almost nothing about PNHP. Where in the entry does it tell you what PNHP's many arguments are? It should. When we've explained PNHP's case in the entry, we can delete the PNHP external link. Until then, the reader has no way of finding a good case for single payer -- which is what an entry on single payer should include.

I think the inadequacy of the current entry is reason to temporarily override the guidelines, until we have a better entry.

I don't want to use PNHP as the only source of articles on single payer, but can't find another source that is as comprehensive and evidence-based, certainly not in the major peer-reviewed journals.--Nbauman (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You want to fill the article with arguments from an advocacy group? Sounds like you're on a soapbox mission. Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place for you to indulge your political crusade. There are plenty of other sites for that. VictorD7 (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

PNHP's opinion is noted in many places in the article. As this article is about single payer health care and not PNHP, the "comprehensive discussion" about them doesn't really belong here. Furthermore, you're making our point: "the reader has no way of finding a good case for single payer -- which is what an entry on single payer should include" is the exact opposite way we should be handling this article. The article is about the concept, the idea. We're not here to "make the case" for any specific type of health care, just give a neutral take on the topic. Your proposal fundamentally misunderstands the project and what we do here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

We're here to give the best arguments for single payer, and the best arguments against single payer. That's what WP:NPOV is. That's what medical journals do. WP:NPOV isn't deleting all POV ideas and leaving the article in the middle with a bland, general "neutral take" that doesn't explain the arguments, and supporting facts, on each side.--Nbauman (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, we're not. We're here to give a neutral informative understanding of what single payer is. We are not here to "give the best arguments" for anything. You fundamentally misunderstand the goals of this product. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Does a "neutral" informative understanding include assisting with finding the latest news items? What is the difference between giving the best arguments for something and giving the best arguments for and against it? Does the WP:NPOV policy directive to do the latter disappear when there are no good arguments against something? EllenCT (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You're still trying to inject your point of view into the article. This is why we're not getting anywhere, and why there's currently no argument for including the section that conforms with policy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your assumption is incorrect. I have repeatedly asked you to rank the links so we can compromise on a set to include, and you have repeatedly refused to do so, claiming that the National Academy of Medicine is commercial, making up stories about copyright issues, calling the WP:ELNO guideline a policy, and trying to use the fact that there is no organized opposition to single payer as a way to try to delete external links to more comprehensive information and news. EllenCT (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There unfortunately is no room for compromise on the matter because the links do not conform to our policies of neutral point of view or our guidelines on external links. I am, once again, happy to include any and all external links that conform to those policies and guidelines. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think the National Academy of Medicine book does not conform? It's available for download for free directly from that link, and it specifically discusses single payer dozens of times in nine of its chapters. How many of the links have you personally examined? EllenCT (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It is, yet again, a link to purchase their book. I have examined all of them, none of them appear to qualify for an external link. The book may be worth using as a reference in some sections of the article, but not as an external link. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you or are you not able to obtain a complete free copy of that book by download from that link more easily than from any other link? Your persistent absolutist stubbornness is a waste of our time, and of the time of any unlucky (would-be) editors who come across this pathetic conversation. Do you think that persistent, absolutist stubbornness is a positive behavior trait for editors? EllenCT (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if that's so, it's still not an external link. It's a reference for the specific points it wants to be made. Again, if you don't like the guideline, you're free to propose changes, but if you do not have any policy-based arguments, the external links must go. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop the inanity

I no longer have any confidence in Thargor's ability to see that the National Institutes of Medicine book or the newsblogs "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail". Therefore I will no longer attempt to interact with Thargor except to undo edits which demonstrate this clear WP:COMPETENCE deficit, and I urge other editors to do the same. I would have hoped that compromise was possible. It most clearly is not. EllenCT (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So, in other words, you don't have any guideline or policy-based arguments in favor of keeping them in? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I was quoting directly from WP:EL. Since you clearly lack the competence to realize that, let alone to work constructively with others and make improvements to articles without wasting everyone's time on ELs, please do everyone a favor and find another hobby. EllenCT (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I know you are. The problem is that you aren't using the guideline properly. The guideline very clearly tells us to avoid links like above, not include them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

Do we have any policy arguments for keeping the externals links as is at this point? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

With no further comments, I'm removing these. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Because I am busy at work, I ask that you wait at least three weeks before concluding that I do not wish to reply. If you are unwilling to do that, please let me know why. Also, please do not interpret silence as consent. Again, if that is something you are unwilling or unable to do, then please say why. Furthermore, you have not presented any reasons that the news blogs or the National Academy of Medicine's free book are not appropriate external links. Finally, your unwillingness to rank the links shows that you are not editing in good faith. If there is a reason to believe otherwise, please state it. I am reverting your section blanking and I look forward to either an objective reason that you are unable to rank the external links or a good-faith attempt to do so. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Him not wanting to indulge your red herring isn't a sign of bad faith. Speaking of bad faith and red herrings, Ellen, while I've got you here, did you ever find an answer to this question (at the bottom)? I also asked you on your user page and various other places, but maybe you keep missing it. VictorD7 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If Victor sees fit to answer my eleven questions about his POV-pushing his politics against the peer-reviewed literature which he promised he would answer almost a month ago, then I would be happy to take a look at his more recent questions. EllenCT (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your inane ad hominem questions have already been answered in detail across various Talk Pages, and I said I'd reply to them all at once as a courtesy if you ever cooperated in clearing up the substantive ITEP dispute, which you've failed to do. You're the one who made a big deal about this, repeating your false claims across numerous pages and sparking multiple extensive debates. Do you have a sourced quote supporting your claims about consumers bearing "half to three fourths" the incidence burden or not? VictorD7 (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ellen, the burden is not on me to include information. It is on the person who wishes to have the information added. You have had more than enough time to present policy arguments to support the additions, and you have failed to do so. I am not assuming your silence as consent, I am assuming that your inability to offer policy arguments for inclusion as evidence that we cannot include them. You are not the only one busy with work, but you found plenty of time to edit other articles and talk pages between the time of my question and the time of removal. So fewer personal attacks, more evidence stemming from policy, please. I will remove them per that point until there is some evidence to support their inclusion based on guideline and policy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

All of those links "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail" per WP:EL and you haven't showed any reason why they do not. Nor have you cited any applicable reasons from WP:ELNO why any of them don't pass muster. At one point you cited #15 ("Sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools") for the National Academy of Medicine book which is not linked elsewhere in the article, but you have made no other references to specific reasons on the NOEL list. And then above you say the NAM book is not qualified to be an external link because it is "a reference for the specific points it wants to be made." What is that supposed to mean, and what does it have to do with the policies and guideline pertaining to external links? Is there any book published by any of the National Academies which is not a reference for the specific points that the authors want to make? The lack of editorial WP:COMPETENCE displayed by your editing behavior is profound. EllenCT (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ellen, I have pointed out countless times that all of those links fall under WP:ELNO, links to be avoided, not to mention the significant violations of WP:NPOV regarding undue weight and the significant weight given to United States debates about a minority viewpoint. The NAM link is a link to their store, we don't just link to random books in an external links section anyway. It's better as a reference if there's specific points to be made for it. If you have actual policy reasons, I've been asking for them for weeks. At some point we need to move forward and improve the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Where have you referred to any of the specific numbered provisions of WP:NOEL other than the one time for the National Academy of Medicine book which I mentioned? EllenCT (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read the lengthy discussion that you were part of. You've offered no policy reasons for inclusion. In good faith, in spite of your activity, I'll wait until your RFC is over before removing anything yet again for the policy and guideline violations, but you're not going to get any traction on this if you can't quote policy and guideline on the matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Medicare.

The current source used for the sentence identifying Medicare as "single payer" doesn't use the term "single payer". It's questionable since Medicare typically doesn't pay for all healthcare per this article's definition. Whether Medicare is considered single payer or not, we should add that the minority eligible for it are subsidized by the entire population, making it different from systems where an entire population gets healthcare subsidized by that same population. VictorD7 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have a real source establishing that Medicare is "single payer"? And if no one objects, I'm going to make the described edit soon on the difference between Medicare and national single payer systems. VictorD7 (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There are a few people, ranging from experts to politicians, who do so. It may be more colloquial, although the record does show that single payer systems are not universally the same, but I don't see this as a necessarily controversial claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Your first link doesn't directly call Medicare "single-payer" (though the lone advocate quoted in the piece implies some similarities), and the second one is an opinion piece by socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. Is there a better source defining Medicare as "single-payer"? I'm not saying there's not, because I haven't really looked yet, but I'm asking because the current source linked is only about whether those on Medicare meet the requirements for coverage under Obamacare, and doesn't mention the term "single-payer" or even really describe what Medicare is. I'm not sure if it got posted by accident or what. Also, would you oppose me adding a clause clarifying that while Medicare reception is restricted (as described by the text), it's subsidized by the entire working population? Because the current text could be misinterpreted as claiming that only seniors participate at all, including by paying in. VictorD7 (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not married to any specific text for the Medicare section, honestly. My only suggestion is that we should refer to it as a form of single payer in the United States, as it's understood by many to be exactly that. Caveats are reasonable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

News items

I propose summarizing Hughes, Claire (January 12, 2014). "Single-payer activism gets boost from Obamacare". Albany Times Union. Retrieved 16 January 2014. and Harrop, Froma (January 14, 2014). "Single-Payer Is Not Dead". Real Clear Politics. Retrieved 16 January 2014.. EllenCT (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Where and why? Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In the United States section because they describe substantial developments in several state legislatures which are not included in the article at present. EllenCT (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Opposed, as undue weight. This article already has a WP:WORLDVIEW problem that is exacerbated by the fact that we don't even have a single-payer system in this country. There's way too much U.S. domestic WP:ADVOCACY, and not nearly enough global coverage. Enough already with the progressive cheerleading. Roccodrift (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ellen, the RCP piece is good new information for Hawaii, and I'll add that in. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Roccodrift about there being way too much US coverage when the US isn't single payer. This article still slants toward advocacy. VictorD7 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"The US isn't single payer"? Tell that to Medicare, Medicaid, and VA patients. EllenCT (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

So now a country is "single payer" if a program serving a minority of the population is described by some as such? Then what's all your activism about? VictorD7 (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Single payer is a U.S. concept used exclusively in the debate over U.S. health care policy. I read U.S., U.K., and sometimes Canadian medical journals, and I have never seen anyone in the U.K. or Canada (or anywhere else) refer to their own health care system as single payer. I would challenge you to find any WP:RS from outside the U.S. that even uses the term. You could with the same logic say that the article on Times Square has undue weight because it doesn't have a worldview. --Nbauman (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Americans don't typically refer to their own national healthcare as "single-payer". Who uses the term is irrelevant. You don't seem to have a point. VictorD7 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Journal of Oncology Practice

Journal of Oncology Practice just had an article on single payer which a lot of news sources are citing. It's published by ASCO, which is the main and largest organization of oncologists. Einhorn is a former president of ASCO and distinguished in his own right.

http://jop.ascopubs.org/content/10/1.toc

Why Oncologists Should Support Single-Payer National Health Insurance

The authors support the establishment of a single-payer national health insurance plan and encourage ASCO to put its advocacy behind such a program.

Ray E. Drasga and Lawrence H. Einhorn

JOP Jan 1, 2014:7-11.

I think this is a WP:RS. Anybody disagree? --Nbauman (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Something is "RS" on a case by case basis depending on context and what it's being used to source. We typically don't disqualify a source across the board from ever being used on Wikipedia (even personal blogs can be used to source that blogger's opinion), nor does something being considered a generally RS mean that anything and everything that appears in it is appropriate for a particular section/article. VictorD7 (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs to presented in context. It can be a reliable source if what's pulled from it is germane to the article.Mattnad (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What, specifically, are you looking to add from it? Also, what news sources are covering this? A Google News search isn't showing much of anything, it may not even be worthy of note. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a primary peer reviewed source at best, or maybe a journal editorial, and certainly not a secondary peer reviewed source like the National Academy of Medicine book. EllenCT (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC on external links

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The discussion above has clearly not yeilded agreement on the external links, so I am opening an RFC on them:

(Since the numbering may be used in discussions, please do not make any changes that would affect the numbering of existing entries)North8000 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Citizen action or resource groups

1. Single-Payer Healthcare Resources. A collection of links to primers, national/state resources, comparisons to other nations, bills/terminology, etc.
2. Healthcare-NOW!. A nonprofit advocacy group for single-payer healthcare.
3. Progressive Democrats of America Advocates for single-payer system.
4. Physicians for a National Health Program. Advocates for single-payer system. Extensive source material from peer-reviewed journals.
5. Single Payer Action. Activist nonprofit organization supporting single-payer universal healthcare.
6. Single Payer Central. An independent/unaffiliated central clearing house of information (groups, legislation, etc.), for single-payer.
   • Articles, books, and broadcast programs
7. Five myths about health care around the world "For people over 65, we're Canada ... for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we're Burundi or Burma" by T.R. Reid, a former Washington Post reporter.
8. Institute of Medicine Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance. Hidden costs, value lost: uninsurance in America. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2003. Frequently cited monograph.
9. Pros and cons of single-payer healthcare Pros & Cons List from Formosa Post.
10. Sick Around the World: Can the U.S. learn anything from the rest of the world about how to run a health care system? from Frontline, PBS.
11. Single Payer Healthcare Now. An activist blog supporting single payer healthcare
12. States Moving Towards Comprehensive Health Care Reform in the U.S., The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
13. The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States
14. The Socialists Are Coming! The Socialists Are Coming! by Phillip Boffey. Editorial on U.S. "socialized medicine" in the military, the Veterans Health Administration, and Medicare, The New York Times, September 28, 2007.
15. Whither a health-care solution? Oh Canada BusinessWeek, March 21, 1994, by William C. Symonds, article in a business journal writing favorably about single payer.
    • FAQ and summaries by NGOs favoring single payer
16. Get the Facts on Health Care Reform Single-payer solution myths and facts from Public Citizen.
17. Report Card on Single-Payer and Public Option from PDA and Healthcare-now comparing, contrasting, and grading the two proposals.
18. Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts summary from PNHP.
19. What is Single-Payer Healthcare? from Healthcare-Now.org (expanded from PNHP with additional information)
    • News feeds
20. Latest news and analysis about current and upcoming State based single-payer legislation in United States
    • News blogs from WP:BIASED sites:
21. http://www.healthcare-now.org/category/news
22. http://www.pdamerica.org/issues/healthcare-for-allsingle-payer
23. http://www.pnhp.org/news/latest-news
24. http://www.singlepayeraction.org/category/news/
25. http://www.pnhp.org/news/state-single-payer-news

Which of the external links numbered above are appropriate? Are there other links which would also be appropriate? EllenCT (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Link numbers 6-10, 15, and 20-25 from the list above are appropriate. The National Academy of Medicine book (link number 8) is the most appropriate of them. EllenCT (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Remove all. All the links fail our guideline on external links, many of them violate our policy on point of view. These are not negotiable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Which specific guideline or policy provisions prohibits the free National Academy of Medicine book, and why? You have given no applicable specifics for your assertion here in the sections above. EllenCT (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a commercial link. Use it as a reference if appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose including any of them. It's inappropriate to create a section that's basically just a link dump to advocacy groups. The purpose of this article is to concisely explain what "single payer" is, not advertise for activist groups or promote a point of view.VictorD7 (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Include all. I agree with EllenCT. After carefully reviewing them, I might be able to eliminate some of them on a case-by-case basis. In addition, if we are doing an RFC, I think we should also include medical groups, not just Politics, government, and law and Economy, trade, and companies. Politics and Business groups don't necessarily have expertise in health care policy. --Nbauman (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you please quote the policy or guideline that allows inclusion of all? If not, your claim would rightfully be discounted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment (invited by the bot) Please don't close this too quickly. I'm intending to do a thorough review with respect to this and the policy but that will take a little time. North8000 (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Recommend including none of these or else only #10 and #15 (invited by the bot) (see analysis below) Even though these are also biased, they both provide some good information and are produced by professionals as coverage rather than simple advocacy. as an overview. And maybe 1 or 2 good quality pieces elucidating the opposite view. Relevant thoughts are:

• The most relevant policies and guidelines are WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:External links
• WP:NPOV is a core policy. I think that an external links section where 100% of the 24 or 25 links advocate one side of the issue, with most of those being pure advocacy certainly violates that
• In two places, WP:EL clearly forbids long lists like this
• WP:ELSays to avoid "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". IMHO arguments from one side of the debate would not be included in this.
• WP:EL says: "On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view" I think that 24 to 0 or 25 to 0 certainly violates this.
• WP:EL says to avoid multiple links to the same website. Per the analysis below, at least 10 of the links are such multiple links, with 5 links to one advocacy site being at the top of the list.
• I think on what to include, I think that both WP:EL and myself lean towards things that provide information rather than arguments for one side. And IMHO material that is simply a part of the argument is simply a part of the argument. By that standard, IMHO only #10 and #15 really provide some information, even though they are also biased.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Both 10 and 15, for the record, violate #1 at WP:ELNO, as they offer nothing no unique resource. They would be appropriate as references in some regards, but even then, we should probably avoid advocacy journalism when appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right. I guess that's why I also listed "none" as a recommendation. To me those were the only two that had some information quality vs. pure advocacy. I wasn't sure what to recommend on those two. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• remove all just use as references Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• None - Per many discussion points above. Mattnad (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Include All Randomly selected by the 'bot. Include all of the external links, they are all testable, falsifiable, and they meet Wikipedia's general requirement guidelines. The general rule of thumb is that more information is better provided said information has legitimate citations and references. Checking the links, all of the proposed links which are provided in the Talk:: above are suitable for conclusion.

Also the RFC usually describes whether there are editors in disagreement about a proposed edit and there is usually a brief and concise explanation of what the merits are for different proposed edits. Since all of the proposed external links are suitable for inclusion, I'm not sure why one or more editors felt an RFC was needed. Damotclese (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Damotclese, can you please share as to why you believe the links meet our guideline on external links? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Remove all - They come off as references (at best) more than anything. Many of them seem opinion based and not really factual or information based. Maybe if there were some unbiased fact-based sites that everyone could agree are unbiased (maybe the PBS link? or do people some folks not trust them..) The other links seem to have some bias and making an argument favoring one side rather than providing both sides or just facts. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 16:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Exclude all - The article contains links to notable publishers of web sites and their official links can be located in their respective articles, so there's no need for a link farm here. If any of these contain information that supports article content they should be used as references not external links. A Wikipedia article should not be a directory of links. Jojalozzo 04:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Analysis of "side" of the content Not counting the one dead link (#12), I think that 100% of these are promoting single payer health care, and 92% are simple advocacy type wording. The other "8%" are the NPR piece (#10) and #15 (The Bloomberg-published piece). North8000 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of site owners/publishers The first one is mysterious .....it's just an completely anonymous (no author, organization etc. noted) document on google docs. Not counting this or the dead link, of the others, >82.6% (all except #7,8,10 & 16) are links on websites run by groups that are clear about having strong advocacy role towards Single Payer Health Care. North8000 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of multiple links to the same web site: There may be others but I spotted these:

• 5 External links to the "Physicians for a National Health Care Program" website
• 3 External links to the "Progressive Democrats of America" website
• 2 External links to the "Healthcare-NOW!" website

North8000 (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BIASED says the following:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

I think the PNHP site is a good source for supporting information. Does anybody disagree? --Nbauman (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I do. They're a violation of NPOV and the links are ones "normally to be avoided" according to our external link guidelines, specifically numbers 1, 13, and 19, as well as the WP:ELPOV section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you think the American Cancer Society is an advocacy organization to be avoided because they advocate against smoking? I think you should review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_disputes_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources --Nbauman (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Nbauman, it's important not to conflate RS as used in the article body (bias can be ok, depending on context) with external links. Two different things. The latter should not be a link dump to advocacy sites. VictorD7 (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7, PHNP is the best source of information I know of on single payer overall, pro or con. And most of their sources are publications in peer-reviewed journals, since that's what doctors want to see. Do you know of a better source of information? If I knew one, I'd use it, pro or con. --Nbauman (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Nbauman, your reply had nothing to do with my post. I think Woolhandler and her buddies at PNHP are hack propagandists, but I didn't mention PNHP. I just observed that you quoted a rule that doesn't necessarily apply to this discussion on external links. VictorD7 (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Victor. We're not talking about reliable sources for the article, we're talking about the external links section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Have there been any valid arguments so far against the National Academy of Medicine book? EllenCT (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that it's a valid reference, not an external link. It's not even about single payer, it's about uninsurance. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It discusses single payer in at least seven separate chapters, meets all the EL criteria, and doesn't meet any of the ELNO criteria. EllenCT (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not an external link, it's a book. It's literally a link to a book. Beyond that, again, it's a commercial page. It's a page designed to sell you something, meeting one of the ELNO criteria. I'm not sure how many ways I need to rephrase this for you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

TO, your claim that the National Academy of Medicine is a commercial page is tendentious. If you don't accept our explanations, go to WP:RSN and see what they say. --Nbauman (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's a reliable source if it is to be used for a reference. The issue is that a link to the commercial page does not belong in an external links section. Please stop confusing the issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

How does it not "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail" per WP:EL? Sure it's a book; plenty of links to books appear in external links of Featured Articles. The idea that it's commercial is completely absurd. Not only is it easier to download the entire book for free than order a printed copy (if you want a paper copy for your library or whatever) it's from a nonprofit, government national academy. EllenCT (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If many books appear in the external links of FAs, those should be removed as well. It's still a commercial link (a link that provides a form of commerce), no matter how much you like it. The book itself is not about single payer (even if some chapters touch upon it), so it's not really "further research" under that scenario even if it didn't violate ELNO. Again, I encourage you to incorporate relevant information from this book into the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging

Here's a Senate hearing with a comprehensive discussion of single payer, including points of view pro and con. There are submissions by people who are recognized experts, and they are questioned afterwards.

http://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=8acab996-5056-a032-522e-e39ca45fcfbe Subcommittee Hearing - Access and Cost: What the US Health Care System Can Learn from Other Countries

Committee: Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging

Date: Tuesday, March 11 2014, 10:00 AM

Place: 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Panel I

Tsung-Mei Cheng, LLB, MA , Health Policy Research Analyst, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ

Ching-Chuan Yeh, MD, MPH , former Minister of Health for Taiwan; Professor, School of Public Health, College of Medicine, Tzu-Chi University, Hualien City, Taiwan

Sally C. Pipes , President and CEO, Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco, CA

Danielle Martin, MD, MPP , Vice-President Medical Affairs & Health System Solutions, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Canada

Jakob Kjellberg, MSc , Professor, Program Director for Health, KORA-Danish Institute for Local and Regional Government Research, Copenhagen, Denmark

David Hogberg, PhD , Health Care Policy Analyst, National Center for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C

Victor G. Rodwin, PhD, MPH , Professor of Health Policy and Management, Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, New York University, New York, NY

--Nbauman (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's the press release that summarizes the hearings. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/what-the-us-health-care-system-can-learn --Nbauman (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Overlooked sources

I propose including summaries of HealthAffairs.org[1], US Senate testimony [2], New Republic [3], and National Academies Press [4], some of which were manually archived after obtaining consensus for inclusion. EllenCT (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC) (edited to name links EllenCT (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

I'm not opposed to #3 being incorporated in some form and #4 being incorporated where appropriate. I am strongly opposed to #1, as it's not really germane to the topic, and #2 seems to be just some advocacy piece that isn't especially valuable, so I'm not really seeing that as worthwhile. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with any of them provided they are put in the right sections. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

#2 is not "just some advocacy piece," it's actually a LAT story http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-watch-a-canadian-20140312,0,2995139.story#axzz2xgEbnfTm reporting on the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging hearing, which I cited above. I think it's especially valuable because it shows the criticism a U.S. Senator has about single payer and a rebuttal to that criticism, which has led others to believe that the Senator is wrong and misinformed. It's been reported in many WP:RSs, so it meets WP requirements for WP:WEIGHT and many professional editors at those WP:RSs thought it was valuable. --Nbauman (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not "reporting" at all, it's clickbait from the HealthcareNow advocacy group. The LAT piece that you've linked is a much better source on the material (even if it's also clickbaity), but I'm not sure it has enough weight for a worldwide piece on single payer, nor am I seeing this significant weight in actual news searches. It might be a better fit in a comparison article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The link should be to the LAT, not HealthcareNow.

Try searching Google for "Richard Burr Danielle Martin" without the quotes.

In addition to the LAT, this exchange was reported in The Star and the National Post, which (I think) are Canada's 2 main newspapers (and the Post is conservative and a frequent critic of the Canadian government health system). It was also reported on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and in the U.S. by more publications. Multiple reports in WP:RS is the criteria that Wikipedia uses to decide whether something is important enough to belong in an entry.

http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2014/03/13/toronto_doctor_smacks_down_us_senators_myths_about_canadian_health_care.html

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/12/toronto-doctor-smacks-down-u-s-senate-question-on-canadian-waitlist-deaths/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/dr-danielle-martin-gives-washington-a-lesson-on-canadian-health-care-1.2570872

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/features/2014/03/12/canadian-doctor-schools-us-senator-on-public-health-care/

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/13/canadian_doctor_makes_anti_obamacare_senator_look_like_a_buffoon/

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/martin-1-burr-0

It is a comparison of the health care system in the U.S., Canada and Australia, not just the U.S. and Canada, so it's international.

It compares the results of a more government-run system with a more privatized system. The issue of public vs. private is one that health care systems are dealing with internationally.

The many editors at WP:RSs who chose to report this exchange realize that it addresses an important, critical part of the health care debate. --Nbauman (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, a small amount of media have used it as a short hit on a wider debate. I don't see the weight that it would have for this article, but I can see it perhaps having a place in a comparison article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

To me it looks like it looks like 5 articles about one speech renouncing a straw man, renouncing an erroneous argument made by one person. In essence,, for effect, and off topic. North8000 (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Why off topic? EllenCT (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I should have expanded that to "too far removed from the topic of the article to be in the article". It is basically a comment about a (straw man selection of a) comment that was about the topic. North8000 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Richard Burr isn't a straw man. He's a U.S. Senator, who has significant power over health policy. I've seen his arguments repeatedly, when people argue against single payer, in many WP:RSs, including the Wall Street Journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Manhattan Institute.

For example, many critics of single payer have said that doctors are leaving the Canadian system, and many defenders have cited evidence to the contrary. Danielle Martin is rebutting Burr's objections. This is exactly on topic.

Criticism and defenses of single payer are essential to the article, according to WP:NPOV. How can we can comply with WP:NPOV if we don't give the arguments against single payer and the responses to those arguments? --Nbauman (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

For one, it's not an advocacy article. For second, there are surely better sources to use for point-counterpoint style offerings than a virally-shared-but-otherwise-ignored portion of government testimony given in a nation without single payer, no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I said a straw man comment, and so someone created and implied another straw man - that I had said the Senator is a straw man. BTW the selected straw man comment was a factul error about the situation in Canada. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is not an advocacy article, but under WP:NPOV it should provide both sides or all significant sides of controversies. Burr and Martin are presenting two sides of a controversy. If you have other sources that present both sides better, I'd like to see them; until then, this should go in.

The exchange is not merely virally-shared, it has been reported by many WP:RS national newspapers and broadcasters, some of which I cited. That's the criteria for including something in Wikipedia.

The purpose of legislative hearings is to establish the facts and debate the arguments about matters of legislative importance. They are standard references widely used by journalists, book authors, academics, policy analysts, and others interested in the topics they cover. If you have other sources that present the issues better, I'd like to see them. But you have consistently refused to tell us what sources you would like to use.

A straw man by definition misrepresents an opponent's argument. Barr is arguing that Canadian doctors are leaving the public system, and that Canadians are going to America rather than Canada for surgery, and that Canadians die on wating lists. Those arguments might be straw men, but those are the arguments I've seen repeatedly by policy analysts at the Manhattan Institute and elsewhere in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, in many WP:RSs (according to Wikipedia's definition of "reliable," which is verifiability and not truth). If you believe that those are straw man arguments, you should be happy to include them in the article followed by Martin's rebuttal, according to WP:NPOV. --Nbauman (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

And yet that's still not quite what we do. We're not necessarily here to offer arguments, we're here to provide information. What information does a little-interest short debate in a House committee provide with the proper weight to this article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Several major newspapers and news outlets report the Senate (not House) testimony, but Thargor prefers to champion his view from nowhere Wikipedia hobby horse, pretending that both sides of political debates are always equally valid, as he brags about on his user page, instead of examining the sources (which Thargor very rarely does.) So he asks us to ignore the news reports and believe him when he says the fact-based rebuttal is "little-interest" because it doesn't fit his worldview of political neutrality over accuracy. That is POV pushing, Thargor. Cut it out. EllenCT (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you can explain why it's relevant instead of resorting to personal attacks, I might be swayed on agreeing with you on inclusion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have completely lost track of which sources are being referred to by pretty much everyone at this point, so I named them: HealthAffairs.org [1], US Senate testimony [2], New Republic [3], and National Academies Press [4]. Please succinctly restate your objections and the reasons for them, if any. EllenCT (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

My only objection is that for the US Senate testimony, we should use the LAT article rather than the Healthcare Now article, to avoid any debate about whether Healthcare Now is an advocacy organization or a WP:RS. (And I think it's a better editorial practice to link to the original LAT article rather than a reprint.) --Nbauman (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree because the news article is the secondary counterpart to the primary source video of the Senate testimony. How do you feel about this Wired article? EllenCT (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That Wired article is a great story, and I'll file it (and the Yglesias aritcle) away for the next time somebody mentions Stephen Brill, who seems to have gotten a free ride as a brilliant health care policy analyst from people who haven't done much critical thinking. However, for Wikipedia, Dobbs doesn't seem to be a WP:RS. It's a blog, and for WP the guideline is WP:NEWSBLOG:

"Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process."

Dobbs was giving his own personal account, which was good but it's not verifiable. It doesn't look like it's been fact-checked. He doesn't even give the name of the hospital. There have been many first-person accounts of Canadian health-care horror stories, and Obamacare horror stories, and when journalists checked them out, they turned out not to be true.

It should be possible to find a WP:RS with the same argument, that free-market health care isn't really a free market because consumers don't have adequate information. Then we can have a section on the argument that free-market health care is more efficient than single payer (which I don't think Brill makes). --Nbauman (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it worth asking [1] whether the blog post was fact checked? EllenCT (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a WP:NEWSBLOG, so it would be fine if it were relevant. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If anybody else wants to use it I won't object. --Nbauman (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying it isn't relevant, Thargor? It's an consumer-perspective account of the relative costs of single payer by a highly reputable medicine and science journalist. If it was fact-checked, per the excerpt above, then we can use its conclusions, right? EllenCT (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The Wired piece has nothing to do with single payer at all, simply one man's opinion on the market for health care. I don't see how it's relevant at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The article's conclusion: "You want a market-driven healthcare economy? You’ll get it when the payer has as much clout as the biller does. And as Yglesias notes, the name of that payer is government."

That clearly makes it secondary to the original Brill and Yglesias pieces. So if the editors put it through their fact checking process before publication, it meets the stated criteria for inclusion. EllenCT (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It merely states the author's opinion. The meat of the piece is a criticism of the marketplace. I'm not saying it's not reliable, I'm saying it's not relevant. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The assertion that the article isn't directly about single payer defies reason and renews my opinion that you are clearly WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia and you lack the WP:COMPETENCE to contribute to improving it. You are merely pushing your personal point of view that political neutrality is superior to accuracy. EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, ensuring we have a neutral point of view is pretty much one of the most important things we do here with the project. It's not my point of view on the matter, it's Wikipedia's regarding neutrality. If you can explain why a newsblog post about the United States marketplace is relevant to a worldwide article on single payer health care, I could be swayed into agreeing with you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If the reliable sources agree that 1+1=2, one political party says 1+1=3, and another political party says 1+1=4, then what does WP:NPOV require? It requires 1+1=2 featured prominently as a controversy, with citations to the reliable sources, and an explanation of why the other popular but incorrect points of view are being espoused by their backers. EllenCT (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Using this basis, we should barely have mention of single payer in the American context at all. You're not really understanding how this works, and I'm struggling to figure out how to fix that. What this article needs is a broader expansion of what single payer is and the history behind it from a worldwide viewpoint, not an accounting of every little battle that occurs in the chambers of a Senate committee or every mention in the press. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

TO, I think you're the one who doesn't understand how this works. According to WP:WEIGHT, Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." There is a huge, prominent literature of WP:RSs on single payer in the U.S. There is no similar prominent literature on single payer outside the U.S. So it follows Wikipedia policy that this article gives greater WP:WEIGHT to the U.S. If you want to include the "worldwide viewpoint," you are welcome to add it if you can find it -- but you haven't provided it despite our many requests. Let's have it. Where are your citations for the "worldwide viewpoint" according to WP:WEIGHT? --Nbauman (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The prominent point of view on single payer in the United States is not pro. I'm not sure how you're coming to such a conclusion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Among whom? Likely voters? Accountants? CEOs? Those who are covered by single payer systems in the US are most strongly in favor of them. EllenCT (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The polling is quite clear on the matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The polling that you deleted was quite clear that a plurality or majority of the U.S. public supports single payer. I think we should restore that polling to the article.

But even if the support for single payer was a minority position, it should still go into the article. To repeat, according to WP:WEIGHT, Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If there is a significant minority of opinions supporting single payer, that goes into the article. There are many WP:RSs supporting single payer. I think you would have more difficulty finding opinions opposing single payer, and you haven't done so. --Nbauman (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no single payer polling missing from this article as far as I can tell. I agree that significant positions should be included, and this article is chock full of them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the single payer polling missing from the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Single-payer_health_care&oldid=588333061 In addition, when this table was deleted, the editor did not preserve the links to the sources, so readers could no longer check the original sources to evaluate it themselves. --Nbauman (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You can check the archives for the discussions on those, as the polls you claim are "missing" were not about single payer or did not ask about single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What the archives demonstrate is that you don't understand polling or how poll questions are written. --Nbauman (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you stick to the topic at hand instead of vague ad hominem attacks? North8000 (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not an ad hominem attack to say that somebody was deleting essential information from the article because he doesn't understand polling. If you want me to be specific instead of vague, Thargor Orlando doesn't understand that standard polling practice is to repeat polls using synonyms for the topic (single payer) being polled. He also doesn't understand that in reporting on polls, it's important to quote the exact wording of the questions. I will return to this matter when I can find other Wikipedia editors who understand polls. --Nbauman (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is any point in your discussed post (17:43 April 12) that is not simply ad hominem?

It is not Wikipedia practice to put in polls named as being on the same topic where the poll is not on that topic because the wikipedia editor has decided that they are "synonyms". BTW, if it were determined that they are synonyms, then some articles will need to get deleted as forks, because there are separate articles on the named topics of those polls that you are discussing. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Give me the specific text and citation of Wikipedia guidelines which say that polls are on a different topic if they use different terms to refer to related ideas. --Nbauman (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)