Loading AI tools
– New discussion.Filed by 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 on 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- CFCF (talk · contribs)
- Drbogdan (talk · contribs)
- Materialscientist (talk · contribs)
- Escape Orbit (talk · contribs)
- Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs)
- Ozzie10aaaa (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is a conflict on whether the several articles that relate to the Healthcare of the United States contain excessive negativity and are biased towards such negative opinions, including the sources that are largely opinion based and not reliable. It can potentially affect the neutrality and reliability of the articles in question as well.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussing the issue constructively with the user on the article's talk page. Notifying another administrator for possible assistance as well. The admin is: User:The Blade of the Northern Lights
How do you think we can help?
Provide neutral insights on this issue and give a constructive decision on how to resolve this heated problem regarding an important aspect of Wikipedia.
Summary of dispute by CFCF
The filing user has provided no sources for any statements whatsoever and simply deletes properly sourced material they find objectionable. There are other parties present in the discussion, also detailed in the currently active post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Health_system_article. Even a cursory glance at the page histories show that this single editor has seen unilateral opposition (from at least 6 other editors) and is now engaging in yet another time sink. (I have added more editors to the list of involved parties, because they have either edited the articles in question or commented about the behavior of the IP-user)
Please disregard this notice and close as appropriate. CFCF 💌 📧 22:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Drbogdan
I also agree with the comments made by "User:CFCF" re the issue(s) presented (hopefully, this is a better location for my comment than my earlier post below) - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by MaterialScientist
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Escape Orbit
I have some sympathy for the specific issue that filing editor 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 raised regarding the view that "Issues like injuries, homicides and sexually transmitted infections cannot be atributed to the system of healthcare or can be atributed at most a little."
However, when it was suggested that perhaps the content in question be moved to a new, more suitable article (like Health in the USA), this was rejected on the grounds that this article would also "portray the U.S. in a negative light". So the chief concern isn't accuracy or neutrality, but the image of the U.S.?
The other thrust of the filing editor's argument is that the fact was poorly sourced. It was sourced from an academic paper written for the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Some may disagree with the conclusions reached, but there are no grounds for questioning its reliability as a source.
The topic of this article can be controversial, and naturally opinions differ. It would be more profitable use of time to balance the opinions (and facts that they are based on) with others authoritative sources, rather than simply requesting that content is removed because you don't like it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Flyer22 Reborn
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Ozzie10aaaa
I would concur with CFCF appraisal of the situation on the article in question,( and have little to add beyond his statement above) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Health care in the United States discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Once again, CFCF is attacking me for my efforts to improve Wikipedia, even if some appear to not adhere to the editing protocols. We need a constructive way to resolve this problem, not just simply demanding this discussion to be closed and disregarded without any user input from others and let the issue prevail with possibly even more negative consequences. I agree that I have deleted too much without giving an appropriate edit summary but since the changes have been undone before this dispute occurred, I think we should move on to resolving the dispute and the quality of the articles itself. 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC) |
Volunteer note: 
Verified There has been sufficient prior discussion on the talk page. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
|
- Volunteer note: Not all participants have been notified on their talk pages. Filing party should do so, otherwise I will do so shortly. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note to participants: Please keep discussion to a minimum before the case is opened by a volunteer. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: Verified All participants have been notified on their talk pages. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: Recusing myself from volunteering on this request as I have interactions with at least two editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: After a close look, I don't see any rules this chapter break and the consensus go toward keeping it. Everyone seem open for a sourced replacement or addition. However, this would require an actual suggestion. Iluvalar (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: - There are errors in the filing of this case. The filing party has failed to list themselves as a party to the case, but has listed two editors who have not been involved either in the discussion on the article talk page or in editing the article. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but am recommending that it be procedurally declined. All editors are advised to be civil and concise, both here and on the article talk page. Civility is not optional in Wikipedia, and excessively long posts are often ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: New volunteer, so I'm not sure of the conventional approach to this question/suggestion: Wouldn't it be more practical to just edit it to include the filing party as a party (which is just a technicality) and hat the "invitations" of the irrelevant parties and any commentary they made? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: - Having read the unhatted statements and discussion, I think sending this back to WPMedicine or to the article's talk page for the 2601 IPv6 user to establish consensus for the changes that they want to make. Pending no reasoned objections, I intend to close this thread with those reccomendations 48 hours from my timestamp. Hasteur (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
