Talk:Affordable Care Act/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Unreliable Sources Cited as Fact

Disputed reversions are here. Politifact and Factcheck.org should not be used as factual sources just because they decided to include "fact" in their organization titles. They are not primary sources. They are editorial/political-entertainment websites, both of which have a very strong bias regarding the PPACA. Hence, their claims must be treated as nothing more than their editors' opinions. The citations to Jonathan Cohn's, Jonathan Chait's, or Paul Krugman's opinions as fact also suffer from the same problems. An article that declares the GOP "insane" in the title is clearly not coming from a level-headed fact-gathering operation. This is an encyclopedic page, not a JournoList forum thread. TBSchemer (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how familar you are with the policy on Reliable Sources but much of the above contradicts the guidelines everybody is thought to be operating under (or at least striving for as a whole).

After a review of the change log, the reversion of your changes is indeed inline with that & the other related policies - though there were some grammatical, etc. changes that could have/should have been kept regardless. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

1. We prefer WP:SECONDARY sources, not WP:PRIMARY sources.
2. I suggest you find some reliable sources supporting your facially outrageous view that those fact checkers are biased.
3. Per WP:BIASED, a biased but otherwise reliable source is perfectly acceptable. So even if those fact checkers are biased they should still not be deleted wholesale.
4. I'm not aware that anything by Cohn, Chait, or Krugman was cited without attribution. If I'm mistaken could you please point to the offending language?
5. Which article declares the GOP "insane" in the title?
6. Stop reverting.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

1. I have secondary sources that directly contradict every single claim by Factcheck.org, Politifact, Cohn, Chait, and Krugman that I deleted. If you really want to go down that route, then I will load this article up with citations from hotair.com, cato.org, Daniel J. Mitchell, and Reason Magazine. Either we allow opinionated secondary sources to be cited as fact, or we don't.
2. If you had actually gone through my edits carefully instead of just wholesale reverting them, you would have found among the sources I removed an article titled, "The GOP's Insane Obamacare Boycott" by Jonathan Chait cited several times, providing the basis for much of the POV problems in several subsections. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts, and you certainly don't get to cite those opinions without attribution in a wikipedia article.
3. As I recall, only three of the citations that I removed were cited with attribution, and I removed two of them because they reflected a back-and-forth argument in the text which was factually resolved over the last several weeks. The third was a snopes article debunking an e-mail spam chain, because e-mail spam chains are not notable commentary.
4. You stop reverting every edit I make. This is disruptive and not in good faith.

--TBSchemer (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

TBSchemer, you need to establish consensus for your edits on the talk page before continuing to make them. See WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. You have been reverted by multiple editors now, and if you continue to restore your edits before achieving consensus, you'll likely be held responsible for edit warring. On the substance of your argument, can you please explain why PolitiFact and FactCheck.org are not neutral, reliable sources? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with the basics. An article titled "The GOP's Insane Obamacare Boycott" cannot possibly be considered a reliable source for a factual description of the events leading up to the government shutdown. There are far better sources out there to describe the timeline of the shutdown, and some of them are already cited in the same locations. If consensus is possible, I think the complete removal of this citation should be the easiest part of it. TBSchemer (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Chait piece isn't any less reliable because of the word "insane" in the title. For one thing, titles are often written by the editors rather than journalists, often with the goal of gathering attention, especially in a glossy magazine. They don't detract from the reliability of the article content. Second, if you're suggesting that the article is too biased for inclusion, please review WP:BIASED. Jonathan Chait is a notable writer writing a notable (though certainly controversial) viewpoint in a notable and established outlet. That is enough for inclusion. That said, this is clearly an opinion piece and it therefore requires attribution. The solution is to add attribution, not to delete the source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

They are extremely biased, but unfortunately they are viewed as reliable here. Politifact is particularly biased. They are far more likely to call someone on the right a liar than someone on the left. Far past the point of statistical likelihood....unless you truely believe that conservatives are really twice as likely to lie as liberals. Also, they go out of their way to find qulifiers for lies on the left to make them less of a lie, while going out of their way to take a mostly true statement on the right to find some little aspect which might not be true in order to call it a lie. If Obama were Bush, Politifact would be non-stop trashing his statements as lies. This much is quite obvious. Arzel (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

For the third time: please read WP:BIASED. Now, having said that, I did do a bit of research on this subject and I can find no reliable evidence that FactCheck.org is biased. The statistical argument you make has been rebutted numerous times. Yes, it is possible that members of one party tend to lie more than members of another party. Or, it is possible that one party has had more wide-open primaries the last two election seasons. Or, it is possible that a couple of politicians have skewed the statistics to the detriment of their party. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, even if PolitiFact is intentionally biased, which I'm completely unconvinced of, bias does not, by itself, destroy reliability. Per WP:BIAS, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". I agree that neutral sources are preferred, but no source will ever be completely neutral. I've used Fox News as a source in this article to back up some facts because even though that source leans conservative, it (at least its "news" wing) has "editorial control and a reputation for fact checking" per WP:BIAS. Even if PolitFact leans liberal, which again I doubt, that source certainly does have "editorial control and a reputation for fact checking" too. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I never said that Politifact was not a reliable source, they are certainly reilable for their opinion. However, that they are biased is unquestionable. I am not sure how anyone, after seeing how they have been treating the many lies regarding the ACA, can hold a straight face and call them un-biased. Arzel (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I can and do. That Peter Roff article is an opinion piece whose premise is that because a study showed that the fact checkers found more Republicans than Democrats to be dishonest, the fact checkers must be biased. As I already noted, there are multiple plausible explanations for this finding. Yet in Arzel's mind this somehow makes the fact checkers' bias "unquestionable." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I deal with statistical probabilities and science. The probability of their results are simply not based in reality. They would not happen, could not happen in a true random (non-partisan) selection of statements to "Factcheck". There are two plausible explanation. Either people on the right are two to three times as likely to lie...or...PolitiFact is extremely biased. Now, I know you can't believe the first because no scientific research has ever come to that conclusion. And I know that people on the left claim to be more closely tied to science. And such a great disparity between the "Factchecking" of Politifact and the known lying rate between the left and the right makes it quite clear that such a disparity is simply not possible with a non-partisan approach. Frankly I am suprised that the left continue to hang their hats on such clearly biased "Factchecking". You may not agree with me, but if you believe science than you cannot come to any other rational conslusion. Arzel (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Attribution of what? No quotes are used from the Chait article. All of the information that this citation is listed next to is covered by other citations. This article is simply there to gain readership for Chait's editorials, which is unacceptable. It's spam. Citation pollution. If we cannot reach consensus on this most obvious issue, then consensus is impossible, and must be disregarded. TBSchemer (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

1. The sentence in question is: "Some Congressional Republicans argue against improvements to the law on the grounds they would weaken the arguments for repeal." As this is supported by two Chait opinion pieces, proper attribution would be something like: "Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine has opined that some Congressional Republicans have argued against improvements to the law solely on the grounds that the improvements would weaken arguments for eventual repeal."
2. You have no basis for your accusation that the inclusion of Chait's pieces is promotion/spam. Why don't you go back through the edit history and figure out who added these citations and why before you blast these kinds of inflammatory accusations against your fellow editors?
3. If consensus can't be reached then per WP:NOCONSENSUS we go back to the pre-edit version, which included the Chait pieces.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV states that "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with [in-text] attribution." So, if Chait's statements are opinion, then they can be included, but should be attributed to him. However, "Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual." Thus, if Chait's statements are supported as fact by other neutral sources that are cited here, then in-text attribution isn't required. Either way, the source and its substance shouldn't be deleted on grounds of bias. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOCONSENSUS states, "In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them." I'm removing the citations to "The GOP's Insane Obamacare Boycott" from the article. TBSchemer (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

TBSchemer, The term "external links" does not refer to links contained within citations to sources; the term refers to direct links to other websites. Please see WP:EXT: "This guideline does not apply to citations to sources supporting article content." If you do remove this reference again, you will have violated WP:3RR. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems you went ahead and removed the source anyway. Seeing as you made a good-faith misinterpretation of WP:NOCONSENSUS, can you please restore the source, pending consensus to remove it? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I will not restore the link. There is no consensus to have that link in the article, along with many others that I previously removed. There has been no good-faith effort out of the disputing editors to resolve the extensive NPOV violations here. If this edit is reverted again, I will contact the arbitration committee. TBSchemer (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the link. You are free to contact whoever you like, but don't expect them to take kindly to you attempting to avoid achieving consensus here. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this debate has devolved into clearly partisan editorializing. One can almost guess without much risk of being contradicted, which of the editors most represented here support the ACA and which don't. I am sympathetic to the claims of TBSchemer because allowing and encouraging blatantly biased sources like Chait, Cohn and especially Krugman, because they work for respectable left-wing publications, to predominate largely without interference, while placing hurdles on those from a different POV and allowing weaselly terms like "myths", "mythology", "undermine", and the use of "Tea Party" as a catchall for Republicans and/or conservatives, doesn't seem kosher. We are not all equally skilled at debate and at following Wikipedia's ever-changing rules and regulations (i.e. "recentism") so validly sourced editing should not be repeatedly subjected to what seem like (for some, anyway) ever increasing obstacles. This is has a stench of condescension that could be coming straight from our sleazy Liar in Chief himself. Quis separabit? 21:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

QS, I have been observing the same process as you over the past month or so, and am amazed at how well oiled, sighted and skilfully manned the triple A guns are when it comes to shooting down almost every edit suggestion not favorable to the ACA or its supporters. I'm sure it's just me being ignorant of the legerdemain of the WP policy and nobody else detects the slightest hint of any bias in the article or the rigid talk page defense of its contents, but alas I still have not seen a justification as to why the Republican bashing shutdown section was fast-tracked into the article almost in real-time when at the time "You can keep your plan" and "Pass it to see it" was and remain (respectively) nowhere to be found. I would have thought the rigid, principled editors here would have shot that down due to "recentism" since it will clearly fail the "ten year test"... a decade from now nobody will remember the shutdown, whereas "If you like your plan..." and "Pass it to see what is in it" will be immortalised right up there with "I did not have sex..." and "I am not a crook". The shutdown, just as the 40+ votes in the house to repeal had zero affect upon the ACA, whereas "Pass it to see what is in it" and "You can keep your plan" were important strategies leveraged to get the bill passed, defend it thereafter and secure the re-election of The President two and a half years later... though doubtless there is no qualified source other than a majority of the American people to substantiate such irresponsible suggestions. Go figure. InterpreDemon (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• We're lumping together a disparate set of sources here. Politifact and FactCheck.org are both reputable independent, non-partisan fact-checking organizations and meet our sourcing criteria, period. The opinion pieces by Chait and Krugman are, well, opinion pieces, albeit ones that appear in reputable venues, and as such may be appropriate with proper attribution (per WP:RSOPINION). We seem to be going down the road of claiming that every source that's failed to denounce the PPACA is somehow "leftist" or biased, which isn't a realistic or encyclopedic way to approach sources. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Recently, many of us have learned to more closely examine any declarative statement appended with the word "Period". InterpreDemon (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not at all the criteria we're using for declaring the source a NPOV violation. The main Chait article in dispute is titled with an ad-hominem. Yet, it's completely unnecessary to include, because all the information in this wiki article which is attributed to that source is already present in other sources which were already cited in the same location. Furthermore, any source that is still declaring that the PPACA will lower everyone's insurance premiums (this means Politifact and FactCheck.org) is obviously in a huge conflict with the facts. Would it resolve this dispute if I were to turn all of the Politifact and FactCheck claims into attributed quotes, and then cite sources providing data which directly contradicts their claims? TBSchemer (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that if the Chait opinion piece is redundant (and the info is already well-sourced to non-opinion pieces) then we should remove the opinion piece. And if info is sourced only to an opinion piece, then we should reconsider whether that info belongs in the article and, at the very least, use in-text attribution. On the other hand, I would strongly urge you not to attempt to juxtapose sources to editorially "debunk" Politifact/FactCheck.org. That's inappropriate synthesis. I'm also doubtful that you're accurately representing their positions - for example, as early as 2011 FactCheck.org was writing that the PPACA led to an increase in premiums (albeit a small one which was offset by better coverage); see [1]. Can you provide links to sources when you make these sorts of blanket statements condemning their accuracy? MastCell ^Talk 23:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Children. Time to step back away from your keyboard and take a deep breath. Can we please at least make an effort to refrain from mudslinging and resolve our differences like adults? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are two Politifact pieces and a FactCheck.org piece arbitrarily declaring false the claim that Obamacare is leading to a massive conversion of full-time jobs into part-time jobs; and here's a reliable article and another that flatly contradict Politifact's declaration, with data to back it up. Neither of those Politifact pieces nor the FactCheck.org piece should remain in the encyclopedia entry. They are outdated and have been proven to be factually incorrect with more recent data. TBSchemer (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Those Politifact/FactCheck pieces don't say what you're claiming they say. They're tackling the "job-killing" meme that the Republicans used to attack the PPACA, and describing that label as misleading. Moreover, you're presenting an opinion piece by the Chamber of Commerce - a highly partisan organization - as a "reliable source" which debunks Politifact, which is a highly questionable approach to sourcing. Where reliable sources disagree, we describe that disagreement. But this isn't really a case where reliable sources disagree - it looks like a case where independent fact-checkers say X and a partisan opinion piece disagrees. MastCell ^Talk 04:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Politifact/FactCheck piece is just as much opinion since they don't know. They simply are taking their own spin and the government line. They lost their impartiality some time ago. Arzel (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition to MastCell's points, the WSJ source doesn't contradict the fack checker sources. Saying that "several" businesses have started converting full-time jobs to part-time jobs as a result of the ACA is a far cry from saying the ACA is creating a "part-time economy" or the ACA is a "job-killing" law. Note that all three checkers predicted the ACA would have an effect on jobs, but the effect would be small. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

So, I guess it just depends upon what the definition of "small" is, and whether stubbornly high unemployment and 4.3 part-time hires per full-time fits that definition. Doubtless not. The gallant TBS and his Swordfish bomber splash harmlessly to sea as the Bismarck sails on. InterpreDemon (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it depends upon the definition of what "is" is. Quis separabit? 17:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, is WP:RECENTISM subject to absolutism, or do we have to wait a decade to find out? Quis separabit? 17:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No, we'll be finding out how big "small" is within ten months, whether this article covers it or not. InterpreDemon (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's quite safe to say that "small" includes "several businesses," given how many businesses there are in the U.S. Put another way, the fact checkers were discussing the subject on a macro level, while the WSJ source was a story about anecdotes. There is no inconsistency. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

So here's a list of 363 business ( http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/110513-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm ), but it doesn't matter. Remainder of post redacted per WP:NOTAFORUM. InterpreDemon (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that 363 is a tiny number compared to the total number of businesses in this country, that source is highly unreliable. Aside from its obvious anti-PPACA bias, I found the actual list here and dug into three random employers on the list. One was was based on a reliable source. The second was based on IBD's original reporting, which doesn't seem quite kosher. Most troubling, the third was based on a reliable source in which the employer said the hourly cuts had nothing to do with the ACA. An employee and a hospitality professor disputed that account. The dispute is well reported in the source, yet IBD calls this "strong proof" that the ACA is "behind" the cuts. Highly dubious. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, and in the first case (based on a reliable source), the cuts involved people were already part-time, working 30-32 hours/week. They were "cut" down (by 15 minutes/week, in many cases) to 29.75 hours/week to avoid having to provide them benefits under the PPACA. Certainly inconvenient, but it's pretty cynical and dishonest to present this as evidence of the PPACA pushing full-time jobs into part-time jobs. MastCell ^Talk 00:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. I'm struck by the disinformation (not misinformation) that permeates the ACA debate. This just goes to show how every source deserves a little extra scrutiny. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, here's an article from IBD about a recent ADP survey of businesses suggesting planned cutbacks. Since ADP is often used by the media and government to augment official employment and economic forecasts I don't think one can claim bias on their part. http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/110113-677562-obamacare-concerns-curb-hiring-business-survey-findsg.htm "One in five firms said they would suspend adding employees due to ObamaCare and 14% said they would downsize". InterpreDemon (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, based on my experience above I don't trust IBD's reporting on Obamacare one whit. If you find the ADP survey, and perhaps a reliable source describing it, then we'll talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Inc Magazine has a more balanced description of the survey here: Inc Mag and the survey can be downloaded here: ADP Survey Important to note this is a survey of mid sized businesses of 50-999 employees, doubt if ADP has much of the smaller business customers anymore. Will continue looking for something for small business. InterpreDemon (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Inc. magazine piece doesn't say anything about converting full-time jobs to part-time jobs as a result of Obamacare. Nor does it say that businesses are "planning cutbacks", as you initially asserted. In fact, it cites the ADP survey as saying about hiring:

Many critics of the Obamacare claim that the new regulations will depress hiring. But only 20 percent of respondents in the ADP survey plan to suspend additional hiring. And fully half of respondents said that they "definitely will not" reduce the number of employees in response to the ACA and 35 percent expected to increase headcount in 2013.

You've made a series of false claims about sources already in this thread. Now you are misrepresenting what the ADP survey has to say about Obamacare's impact on hiring - a misrepresentation which I would think should be obvious to anyone reading the very sources you're citing. This is getting tiresome. MastCell ^Talk 04:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't fault InterpreDemon for misrepresenting anything here. But the point is still made, this source doesn't bear on the reliability of the fact checker sources because it doesn't suggest that the ACA is leading to job losses or conversions from full-time to part-time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't think that "20 percent of respondents in the ADP survey plan to suspend additional hiring" is significant? InterpreDemon (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how significant that figure may or may not be because of the use of the term "suspend". Not hiring today because its more cost efficient to let others provide a path that navigates through the new regulations well enough to begin to apply them in new hires in the coming years(s) for themselves is not exactly the same as never hiring again because of new regulations is it? Surely this 20% seems more like they are acting under a cost-saving, job-delaying (i.e. suspend) mentality rather than an out right, forever n' ever, end of time, job-killing approach doesn't it?

That is the nuance frequently lost in this area of discussion in my opinion - some companies rather copy a proven "regulation path" down the road than create one of their own - and thus wait to hire because its cheaper than failing to create their own working "regulation" compliance scheme at the moment.

Regardless, the 20% cited part still has little to do with the proposed reduction of working hours thing as far as I can tell. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Significant, sure, but it doesn't impugn the reliability of the fact checker sources. The fact checker sources were about job losses and hour reductions. The ADP survey is about hiring and hour freezes (not reductions). On top of that, given the current job climate, hiring and hour freezes particularly meaningful as many of these employers wouldn't be hiring or expanding hours anyway. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds exactly like a Politifact argument. "Yes, it may be true, but since it wouldn't happen because of the current economic climate we rate it false". Such partisan parsing of true facts to make them false is the problem so many have with these so called "Fact Checkers" to begin with. Arzel (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

In any event, regardless which way one wants to argue it (for or against ACA impact upon employment), it is my opinion that a survey based upon the current "C-level" boots on the ground statements of plans and intentions is a better source than dated predictions of think tank wonks or folks trying to read tea leaves within overall statistical data clouded with many other factors affecting the sluggish economy and the attitude of business toward taxes and regulation in general. If at various times in the past, for example in 1992 or 2008, one were to conduct the same survey in a universe without ACA it would not be surprising to me if ten to twenty percent or more indicated that they were curtailing hiring. It is only due to the statistic being brought out in the context of the ACA (The overall article, and the beginning of that particular sentence) that it is presumably relevant. Whether 20% itself is or is not significant could be argued endlessly, thus I feel, just as with the edit last week regarding The President's apology being quoted directly rather than characterized by somebody else, the significance of 20% as well as the 35% who still plan to hire should be left to the reader to decide. InterpreDemon (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you. Much of the "impact" section was written before major portions of the law went into effect, and needs to be re-written in light of emerging facts. The PolitiFact source is still relevant and no less reliable, but it ought to be de-emphasized. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to statistics (remember the adage: "there are lies, there are damned lies and then there are statistics"), well these sources regarding government fact checking, albeit on unemployment not the PPACA, should be sobering:

http://nypost.com/2013/11/23/cooked-census-reported-to-obama-and-rahm

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/100413-673964-ibdtipp-data-show-479-million-americans-looking-for-work.htm

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-census-bureau-faked-unemployment-numbers.2705/

If you don't trust the government (and few should trust this one), don't trust its quangos. Quis separabit? 21:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

So just to be clear, you're citing biased editorials and forum posts to support your claim that the government and its quangos are biased? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The term "biased" is, of course, to some degree at least, subjective; your side, however, has already argued that WP:BIAS does not disqualify a source per se. Make up your mind. Quis separabit? 21:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please drop this childish "sides" nonsense. What I have said before is that bias doesn't disqualify a source when giving an in-text attribution to that source. However, bias does disqualify using sources to make unattributed factual assertions. Per WP:RSOPINION, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this are opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." Considering that you've given biased sources to attack the neutrality of other sources, the most they could be used to say is "(Author) thinks the (other source) is biased." Regardless, forum posts are virtually never reliable sources, biased or not (WP:USERG). If you can could present some neutral reliable sources that attack the neutrality of the government, PolitiFact, etc., you would make a much stronger case, because then that view wouldn't be treated as mere opinion under Wikipedia policy. And look, I know you've complained about some editors seeming to have a better grasp of Wikipedia policy than others, but if you could at least familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:NPOV, a lot of this wouldn't need to be repeated, and maybe you wouldn't feel like I'm somehow cherry-picking. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Errr, say what now??

Prototime - you say I should, after eight years, familiarize myself with WP:RS and WP:NPOV? Thanks for the advice. It's true that I have become increasingly confused given the exponential increase in bureaucratic rules and regulations, some of which are scarily Orwellian, at least in name (WP:RECENTISM) and others blatantly contradictory, i.e. (and this is not snark):

"Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we don't include content simply because it is supported by reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)"

"Per WP:BIAS, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". I agree that neutral sources are preferred, but no source will ever be completely neutral ... – User:Prototime 19:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)"

"opinion pieces, albeit ones that appear in reputable venues ... as such may be appropriate with proper attribution (per WP:RSOPINION). MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Mebbe you're right (Long sigh) ... y'all newfangled varmints have made Wikipedia's rules so gosh-darned tough on the noggin for us old-timers to figger out that we should just start fixin' to go to that old glue factory and let you youngsters practice your dissertations, amicus curiae and Huffington Post drafts in peace. Is this the Schumerization of Wikipedia? Quis separabit? 23:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hah, well I will admit that the prospector-speak made me chuckle. I really didn't mean to sound patronizing, I was responding to comments of yours like "We are not all equally skilled at debate and at following Wikipedia's ever-changing rules and regulations (i.e. "recentism") so validly sourced editing should not be repeatedly subjected to what seem like (for some, anyway) ever increasing obstacles" and "Also, is WP:RECENTISM subject to absolutism, or do we have to wait a decade to find out?" I apologize, please disregard my comment if my perception was was wrong.

However, I will say that I don't believe there's anything contradictory about what I just said and my general observation that in the abstract, no source ever will be completely neutral (does anyone actually disagree with that...?). Shooting for a level of 100% neutrality in sources is an impossible goal despite what some people seem to want here. But that's abstraction isn't a big concern on Wikipedia if we use WP:RS as our guide, for it delineates that things like editorial pieces are what we should consider prime examples of biased sources for Wikipedia purposes (requiring them to have in-text attribution). Sorry if that seems contradictory to you. But given WP:RS, I hope you understand why an editorial (never mind a forum post) is not a very convincing source to use to prove that another source is biased, even if it is a reliable source. On another note, I can't speak for Dr. Fleischman and MastCell, but I will say your continued efforts to lump the three of us (and others) together as some sort of liberal caucus is disappointing, and I truly wish you would respect us as individuals. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"Also, is WP:RECENTISM subject to absolutism, or do we have to wait a decade to find out?" refers to another editor's use of that (rather Orwellian-sounding) guideline (that I had not heard of previously) to delete sourced contested text (regarding the issue of cyber security, in that case). The guidelines at RECENTISM clearly indicate that one should consider whether one's editing will be relevant 10 years from now, hence my reference to "a decade from now". Quis separabit? 17:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Are we now arguing for the sake of arguing? Wasn't this discussion thread about something at one point? Can we please re-identify what that thing was and try to move forward? -- Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"Are we now arguing for the sake of arguing?" -- no, we are clarifying for the sake of clarifying, Doctor. Quis separabit? 21:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion re Chait, etc.

Why the below comments were moved here

I ask, without intending to single out GO3, can we please stop adding comments in the middle of a 9-page discussion? It's impossible to follow. Please put your comments at the end of the thread, or start a new thread. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC) As I agree that it is difficult to follow, I have moved these most recent comments to this new section. If someone feels passionately that these comments should be placed back into the middle of the discussion, you are free to revert me. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"Can be included" does not mean "should be included." If other, neutral sources can back up some piece of information used in "The GOP's Insane Obamacare Boycott," then those other, neutral sources should be used INSTEAD of "The GOP's Insane Obamacare Boycott." There is absolutely no justification for keeping "The GOP's Insane Obamacare Boycott" on this page. TBSchemer (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that if neutral, reliable secondary sources can back up assertions, then those sources are preferred to non-neutral sources. While I don't think that citing to neutral sources necessarily forecloses the use of a biased source as additional support, if the assertion is already well-sourced by neutral sources, it wouldn't cause me any heartburn to remove the biased sources. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Prototime - if the assertions in the article are covered / can be covered by other reference(d) sources, then I have no problem with the removal of the referenced source in question too.

At the same time, this does not mean there is any justification to remove sources based primarily on poor editorial choices in wording and the like (in general) - nor should such poor choices unfairly poison the entire body of work produced by that source/author as long as WP policies & practices are being met.

In addition & to be clear, the removal of this single attribution per the previously mentioned stipulations would not translate as to having reached some new consensus aimed at the re-removal of any or all of the other deletions performed prior to the imposed "time-out" either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I also concur with your last two points. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on the above I think we have consensus to delete the reference to Chait's "The GOP’s Insane Obamacare Boycott" in all three locations. Let's give 24 hours for anyone to object before requesting administrator assistance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the above consensus, please remove from this article every citation to the source "The GOP's Insane Obamacare Boycott" by Jonathan Chait. Thank you. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if I missed any of them. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You got them all. Thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Categorization policy for redirects

I was wondering what the WP position is on adding categories to titles serving as re-directs for a target article. I only ask because I came across CATs being added to at least 1 of the redirs pointing to this article and was tempted to remove the obvious offenders.

• Obamacare (redirect page)

Figure I better check before being reverted or something (note the orphaned Talk page there as well). Thanks in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:CAT-R. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Cyber security issues

Seeing as this article is fully protected for a while, I figure it's a good time to hash out as many contested edits as we can—one of which concerns the cyber security issues surrounding the law. I'll note right off the bat that even though this content is currently on the page during protection, the editors who support the inclusion of that content must establish consensus for it to remain; if no consensus can be reached that it should be, then per WP:NOCONSENSUS, the article will be reverted to the last stable version, and the content will be removed. That being said, I do support the inclusion of some material on the cyber security issues surrounding the website. However:

1. The material should be included in the Implementation section, not its own section. Giving the material its own section is giving undue weight to what is, at least at this point, a relatively small issue in the context of the expansive history of this law.
2. It should be brief, nothing more than a sentence or two, given that this is a new issue and we can't speculate how notable of an issue this will be in the future. However, as time goes on, if this issue increases in notability, the material can be expanded as needed.
3. It should have more sources than just the New York Post. There are plenty of reliable neutral sources discussing this issue, for example: Reuters,CS Monitor,
4. Given the disagreement over the existence and seriousness of cyber security issues, the presentation of the material should not give undue weight to any particular view. The current content on the page does not reflect this disagreement. It also gives undue weight to the opinion of a single firm.

I'm happy to hear what others think. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

As such a topic would doubtless benefit from editors with subject matter expertise (admittedly I have some), I frankly think it is a topic sufficient for an article of its own, with only brief mention of the concerns and a link from this article (Another reason my suggestions re restructuring along a time line last week increasingly make sense). It is way, way too early to know whether this is really going to be an issue despite some trying to promote hysteria over it. Yes, as a bank is where a robber goes to get money, this could be the mother of all banks for the identity thief, but how often do robbers attempt the biggest banks of all... the Federal Reserve banks or Fort Knox? There is a difference between having Amazon or Chase hot on your tail verses the full instrumentality of the United States Government. Frankly, I think the problem posed by people reluctant to use the web site due to disclosures under penalty of perjury will far exceed any actual problems due to identity theft. Besides, the solution is simple. Maybe while they are making back room deals with the insurance companies for subsidies they can just subsidize Life Lock and give everybody who registers a free account :-) InterpreDemon (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Your examples actually shows that it is the level of security and NOT the threat of pursuit by the "full instrumentality of the United States Government" that deters criminals. Bank robbery is a Federal Crime and under the FBIs jurisdiction a job they take seriously, yet an average of 14 banks are robbed every day in the US (2011). The reason for this is that banks have a weakness in their security in most cases at the point of human contact (Pistol vs Teller = payoff.) Fort Knox by comparison has terrific security starting with the US Military (pistol vs Apache helicopter gunships = Dead Robber.) Furthermore the threat of "full instrumentality of the United States Government" isn't even a concern for many organized cyber criminals (as an example those in Russia or China) since they are in jurisdictions where laws and/or corrupt officials will make investigation let alone apprehension nearly impossible. I do agree with Prototimes 4 points as well as care must be given not to give undo weight to this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.3.142 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned, I think you missed my point... how often are Federal Reserve banks or Fort Knox hit verses ordinary banks? Zero. As to offshore cyber criminals, they still have to fence the goods here to get any value, they would be selling data stolen from The Administration's flagship program and this guy has no problem with drone strikes, in fact he has said he is rather "good at killing people". The consequences for hacking healthcare.gov are going to be far more severe than Amazon, for sure. InterpreDemon (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree in principle on all 4 points but would like to stress that the particulars eventually put to content for point 4 should avoid any claims made by "firms" if possible. I get the sense that self-promotion of some degree or another is frequently behind such claims more so than the notion of providing unbiased analysis based on expertise or familiarity with the subject matter in response to some "reporter's" question. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, just in case any of you are interested, and some of you have far more expertise than I do in this area (I still have vinyl records and tape cassettes, but don't and can't, respectively, play them), the following sources might provide some reliable fodder: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamacare-website-targeted-16-times-cyber-attacks-official/story?id=20878814, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/obamacare-website-security-issues-99836.html, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/obamacare-website-security-issues-99836.html#ixzz2lUf4Gfpp, http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/political/obamacare-website-problems-update-affordable-care-act-website-had-security-hole, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/02/obamacare-reg-on-digital-patient-records-raises-security-concerns. Quis separabit? 18:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think InterpreDemon put it well: "It is way, way too early to know whether this is really going to be an issue despite some trying to promote hysteria over it." Basically this is textbook WP:RECENTISM and WP:CBALL in a nutshell. If security flaws are uncovered then the news stories will persist and we'll have something real to talk about. Right now this is just speculation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that going into detail about this issue right now presents undue weight and crystal ball concerns, but I don't think a brief, one (perhaps two) sentence mention in the Implementation section that a controversy exists--which has been in the news for at least a month now--presents any such issues. We don't need to wait to see if there are actual cyber security concerns before we briefly mention that there has been ongoing controversy over whether there is or not. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Just link to and patrol this WP Article somewhere in the rollout, or better still the political section, because right now I think it is more political than problematical. Later, it will have impact on the success or failure of exchange enrolment to the degree that there are feared or actual security issues depressing utilization. Even then, how many being polled would choose the much more socially acceptable "fear of security" excuse over the "fear of perjury" or "fear of the IRS" (perhaps for good reason) excuses for non-participation? I suspect most.InterpreDemon (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Slash and burn? WHy did the cyber security section get axed? Now it's going to be reduced further? Plus, only admins can edit the article? Who locked the article and how long until it becomes semi-protected rather than admin-only editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonsdrops (talk • contribs) 11:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It didn't get axed -- it's still there at PPACA#Cybersecurity. This discussion is about whether it should be reduced, expanded, or removed entirely. The article is under full protection until Thursday due to recent edit warring activity. Changes to the article before expiration of the full protection must first have consensus on this talk page. If you have something you wish to contribute on the subject you might consider doing so at Healthcare.gov rather than here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Notwithstanding those who favor deleting this section entirely (e.g. me), is there consensus to cut this section down to a sentence and move it to Implementation? If so, how about the sentence "David Kennedy, CEO of the Web-security firm TrustedSec, testified at a legislative hearing in November 2013 that the health-care website was at risk of being hacked."[cite NY Post] We can tinker with the details after the full prot is lifted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As the creator first editor to include the cybersecurity and add as a new subsection, which would have probably been deleted save for the editing freeze set to be lifted on 28 November, which has garnered some consensus, I believe I should certainly weigh in here. The truncated version as quoted ("David Kennedy, CEO of the Web-security firm TrustedSec, testified at a legislative hearing in November 2013 that the health-care website was at risk of being hacked") with citation as suggested is OK for now. When the future provides more fodder we can expand from there. Quis separabit? 23:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Per consensus, please truncate the "Cybersecurity" section to a single sentence: "David Kennedy, CEO of the Web-security firm TrustedSec, testified at a legislative hearing in November 2013 that the health-care website was at risk of being hacked."[cite NY Post] and move it to the end of the "Implementation" subsection. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

w00t! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate that there has been some movement toward agreement, I am surprised that this can, in any way, be declared the "consensus" edit. This edit does not reflect points #3 and #4 I initially raised, and all four of these points have been agreed upon by most of the editors participating in this discussion. In particular, this sentence continues to give undue weight to a single firm, it continues to be sourced only by the New York Post, and it does not reflect that there is disagreement over the extent of the concerns. I was planning to draft proposed language tomorrow that covered all of these concerns, and then give enough time for all participants in this discussion to respond to that proposal before making an edit request (or making the edit myself if the page protection is lifted by the time consensus is reached.) I will still plan to take this course of action, and I will bring the proposed text here for further discussion then. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, when I saw Quis Separabit's consent I assumed we had everyone on board, but I should have given you an opportunity to respond. Your proposal is welcomed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies if I misread the situation. To clarify, my fulfilling the edit request does not mean that the current version is "final" or "officially approved"; the article can be changed again after further discussion. If other editors also think that my actions here were mistaken then I will revert, but otherwise probably the best course of action here is to continue to discuss the content and update it when a new consensus is reached. Also, it's best to ping me about things like this, as I tend not to put talk pages of edit requests I've answered on my watchlist. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I also was surprised that a consensus was declared as reached immediately after I posted my last opinion here (things are rarely that easy) but I must point out also that 3 out of 4 of Prototime's "points" have been fulfilled, with the exception of other sources besides the New York Post being cited. I am not responsible for other media outlets' coverage failures or biases any more than I am for other editors' not bothering to reference other sources they know are out there (i.e. Reuters,CS Monitor), whether they agree or not with my cybersecurity edit.

Just as important (if not more so) is that TrustedSec was the company which happened to speak to the congressional panel in reference. If any other cybersecurity company/companies spoke to any congressional panel, and came up with opposing conclusions then by all means include that. If cybersecurity experts were remarkably absent as a whole from Congress during this sturm und drang, I would, prima facie, put that down to the ideological agenda of those who don't wish to open that particular kettle of fish at this time. Also, it should be noted that "[d]isagreement over [the] concerns" does not entitle a dissenting editor to simply delete (i.e. "or making the edit myself if the page protection is lifted by the time consensus is reached"), something he/she doesn't happen to like or which negatively impacts his/her preferred editorial narrative, nor does a lack of unanimity have to mean no consensus. Quis separabit? 20:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

To refine my previous on point #4 and to clarify while moving forward - I would have gladly added bits from the other hearing as well the one the NY Post citation is based on sooner rather than later but I opted to refrain from adding "another" FactCheck.org piece containing the "same" info (see towards the end of article) relevant to the subject matter at hand for obvious reasons. Then the page got locked, somewhat discussed and, oddly, edited for change.

So basically I got caught between trying to accommodate the sense of one editor at the cost of denying the readers additional information in a timely manner. And I guess that's fine - it was my choice to hold off in the first place. My caveat to point #4 simply intended to avoid the possible/inevitable depending on which news cycle is in play at any given moment - positive mention or negative mention; in the end it is all good publicity for TrustedSEC with little to no benefit to the reader so why mention them specifically?

When the Congressional Record is all caught up with events (and that won't be anytime soon thanks to a U.S. holiday), I will add the same info I wanted to at first but use the CR for the references instead in the hope that can still foster more "stability" around here somehow. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

George Orwell III, it sounds like you already have something planned to address point #4 after page protection is lifted, and that you are only awaiting publication of relevant CR materials. Do you have any particular language in mind that you might share here with us in the mean time, the CR sources pending? I was thinking something along the lines of the following, but you may have something more detailed in mind, which I'd be interested in hearing about. Here is some proposed wording:

"House committees have conducted hearings to investigate cyber security concerns related to Healthcare.gov. Experts disagree over the extent Healthcare.gov is vulnerable to cyber attacks." (see new proposal below)

This proposal addresses point #4 by avoiding undue weight issues. We can use the various sources listed by myself and QS to support this assertion, so that point #3 is also addressed. We can also use the CR sources GO3 mentioned. Again, I'm happy to hear what others think. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The proposed wording is just about what I was thinking right down to the letter but now that I see it in 'print', I'm not so sure. For starters, and if I recall correctly, there were similar security points raised on the Senate side in their hearings back in October so it might be better to start with Various Committees in both chambers of Congress have conducted hearings to... but I didn't research deep enough to be able to cite that possible Senate inclusion at the moment.

Second, and with the caveat of just my understanding on the matter to date, there are a couple of nuances that may need to be brought further into focus when it comes to the issue of security. Apparently, the ability to "attack" the site on one hand has more to do with degrading performance to the point where visitors become discouraged because the site hangs/crashes while on the other hand there is the question of data &/or identity theft at various stages in the process ending with the typical "customer purchase" (which, again if I understood right, has more to do with the "hand-off" to private/3rd party entities than it does with HealthCare.gov specifically - though participation from all parties is required to insure that data's security regardless). In short, I'm just not sure "cyber attacks" (by itself?) is the right term to cover the range of security questions being raised or even being resolved for that matter.

Beside those two considerations, I too would welcome what others have/think about this. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

GO3:
George: IN RE: "in the end it is all good publicity for TrustedSEC" -- I am not a shill for this company, which I had never previously heard of (we all know I am a Luddite right; good, b/c I can't think of any more cute analogies). I didn't and don't want the company to derive any untoward publicity or positive enhancement, I just wanted to report what I read. I thought the truncated version ("David Kennedy, CEO of the Web-security firm TrustedSec, testified at a legislative hearing in November 2013 that the health-care website was at risk of being hacked") was fairly neutral, but if there is a better way to state it or if there are those, including yourself, who seriously oppose its inclusion, even in truncated form, for valid encyclopaedic reasons and in Wikipedia's interest(s), then maybe we will have to reconsider. Quis separabit? 04:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to come off like I was accusing anyone of anything - let alone being a shill. It's all rather academic at this point anyway - since there were two hearings that day with at least 8 people testifying in all, we're looking to drop specifics like names &/or firms altogether and just go with the summarized proposal instead. The concern was more over the citation that could have been used at first. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

No problems. You were not accusatory towards me; I just felt bad if I contributed to your apparent turmoil. One can never be 100% certain where words and actions take us, so I try (but must try harder) not to post anything to Wikipedia articles that could be misconstrued or misused. Quis separabit? 17:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

GO3, I'm fine with refining the language to say "various committees in both chambers of Congress..." to make sure we cover all bases. Concerning the use of the term "cyber attacks", are you aware of any other terms that sources use to more properly state the vulnerability concerns? Most of the sources I've read use the term "cyber attack" in a general way, and we probably shouldn't use different terminology unless it's reflected in some sources we can cite. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I see your point - let's just leave the "cyber attack" wording then. I'm still a 'go' for changing the start to what I gave yesterday though...

"Various committees in both chambers of Congress have conducted hearings where cyber security concerns related to Healthcare.gov have been brought into focus. Experts disagree over the extent Healthcare.gov is vulnerable to cyber attacks."

... and we don't have to wait for the Congressional Record either; the sources already mentioned (with or without the FactCheck.org one) can support the proposal imho. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I would lowercase "committees", but otherwise this text looks great (Done). For sources, I recommend keeping the current citation to the New York Post, and adding cites to these sources: NetworkWorld, which discusses the Senate hearing at which cyber security concerns arose; CS Monitor, which discusses a hearing before the House's Science, Space, & Technology Committee and generally describes the discourse and debate surrounding the cyber security issues, and Reuters, which discusses the hearing before House's Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. I think they cover all bases (though not 100% positive). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Those sources all look fine to me & lower case change made. Now if others could review this latest revision within the next 18 to 24 hrs or so to sign-off on it (or to amend it further?) I'd OK the change be made to the article itself. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I rather like this language and the sources too. My only beef is that I don't like "brought into focus." This isn't directly supported by the sources. It's an implicit value judgment to assert that any congressional hearing brings anything info focus. It would be just as valid to say that the hearings raised more questions than they answered. I'd say more neutral language would be to say that cyber security concerns were "discussed." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I like "discussed" better as well; not sure if it's more neutral, but it's certainly more concise. Besides this minor wording change, it's been a few days now since this language has been proposed, and it appears to be the consensus version. If GO3 approves of using "discussed", and no one else has any further comments, I say we pull the trigger and add this to the article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with "discussed" -- though if you read the transcript/watched the podcast of the Nov. 19th hearings, the term isn't exactly "dead-on" descriptive of what actually transpired either. Nevertheless, the cited sources are what we are basing the article entry upon so "discussed" is just as good for the task at hand imho. OK... go. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Added. Glad we could work something out! Here's hoping this will put this issue to rest for a while. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Where's the section on implementation of the Act?

Hi. I came to this article to look for an overview or summary of the implementation of the new law, and don't see anything remotely like that in the table of contents.

It seems to me that if the article scope is as indicated by the article title: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then the three large sections of the article might be the

• legislative processes that created the act,
• a descriptive summary of the provisions of the Act, a summary of the Law as passed by Congress and signed by the President, and then
• the rollout or implementation of the act: the process of the Executive branch in implementing a multiyear project of putting the legislative provisions of the law into practice.

I don't find the latter material covered at all in the article. N2e (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the content issues, but there actually is an implementation section. The reason you can't see it in the table of contents is that it uses a level four heading, and level four headings are suppressed from the table of contents by the code {{TOC limit|4}} that appears at the end of the lead section. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the TOC limit should be removed to address N2e's legitimate concern. The Implementation subsection shouldn't be moved to the top level because of the multifaceted nature of the law and its implementation. Many provisions have been implemented for a long time but aren't mentioned in that subsection, as it's only about the exchanges, and I suspect the vast majority of people looking for info about implementation are really only interested in implementation of the exchanges (and possibly only Healthcare.gov). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Mr. Stradivarius, I really didn't see that at all. And I still can't see it in the table of contents. Maybe that's because of something that Dr. Fleischman referes to about TOC limits—I don't really know anything about that.

I'll just leave my strong comment that it seems to me that once an Act of Congress is "passed", and our encyclopedia covers the essential "what" of it—what is in the law, and how it came to be passed—then the Implementation of that law is, in fact, a major section of the article. There is no particular reason to bury it as if it is only a minor subsection of "Impact".

Rather, Implementation is exactly one of the big parts of any good encyclopedia article on the topic: i.e., who gets insured who wasn't (in fact, not in theory), how many, who gets government subsidies, who doesn't, how many; who had private insurance and decide not to take the new exchange insurance, possibly because the disincentive is reduced to not having insurance before a major/significant adverse health event occurs, how many; what happens to the groups that got special exemptions or delays in the implementation of the law, why, which groups or classes, how many; funding benchmarks: what were the costs estimated to be and what were the benefits estimated to be vs. how did that turn out in practice, and at what years into the program; etc. This is not just minor "Impact"! It is a critically important subject that should be a part of any article on the topic which purports to be encyclopedic and cover all the bases. This coverage of the topic of implementation is far more than just whatever some website may or may not be doing in the early weeks of signup; that may be a subtopic of it, but it is by no means the major aspect of what Implementation ought to cover. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree in general, though in this case the law is so large and multifaceted that an omnibus implementation section might end up disjointed and difficult to make sense of. I might not represent the majority of readers but I'd want the implementation and impact of any particular revision to be right next to each other. Regardless, this seems rather academic as we currently only have info about the implementation of one provision (the exchanges). To me we should have info about implementation of other provisions before we debate how these details should be organized. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Fleischman that it makes more sense to include implementation details right next to the impact details. There is no natural break between these two concepts, especially because much of the "Impact" section is based on projections of what the law's impact will be after it is implemented, and many of these projections will need to be updated/contrasted with the reality of the law's impact upon implementation.

I also agree that it would a bit misleading to have a full "Implementation" section in the article when the only material in that section right now concerns the healthcare exchanges and not the myriad of other changes that have gone into affect already or will by January 1, 2014. If someone wants to draft up some content on such implementation, that'd be fantastic. We can always re-discuss whether a full Implementation section should exist then. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, while I personally prefer that the TOC limit stay at 4 to avoid making the ToC more unweildy than it already is, I recognize that more than one editor has posted on the talk page wondering where the implementation information is, so perhaps it should be limited to 5 instead. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is beginning to be real pain as it is & I'm inclined to move the limit to 5 now too. Besides, the Implementation section isn't exactly the only thing coming up on ACA radar.

By tax time next year, many folks will have come to understand their premiums might be lower & the coverage might be better but they will have also realized their out-of-pocket costs are probably going offset much, if not all, of that the first couple of times they need to call upon their "new" plans. In short; if and when solid numbers on that out-of-pocket costs aspect materialize, we're probably going to need to find a way to complement the Effects on insurance premiums section with that new information while remaining apart from any Implementation aspects of it at that same point in time. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW... the only thing that could help keep the TOC "navigable" (that I can think) of, was to turn off the automatic numbering (like 3.1.4.2...) for each section and expand the levels displayed from 4 to 5. The indentation is still there - just not so convoluted with the numbering on the left. If folks want the TOC list-item numbering back, only the DIV container needs to be remove. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggest change of name

I suggest that we change the name of the article to Obamacare as it is the common name of this by far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.253.62 (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before, including just a few weeks ago, and the outcome has always been not to rename the article Obamacare. See here, here, and here. If you'd like to start discussion again, I suggest opening a formal move request. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per Prototime's response above plus the numbers just do not support the assertion made...

Of all the redirects pointing to this main PPACA article, the following four are the only currently valid ones containing the name "Obama"...

• Obamacare (redirect page) ‎ (125,802)
• Obama health care plan (redirect page) ‎ (5,400)
• Obama Care (redirect page) ‎ (19,950)
• ObamaCare (redirect page) ‎ (125,802)

Key: ‎ = number of first click-in views for the last 90 days at the time of this post are linked at the end - (######)

Total: 276,954 (125,802 + 5,400 + 19,950 + 125,802)

... giving the total number of users landing on one of those titles before being redirected to the main PPACA article. The last-90-day total for all four is about 276,954. Subtract that from the total number of first click-in views in the last 90 days of the main article...

• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (root base page) ‎ (1,347,312)

Key: ‎ = number of first click-in views for the last 90 days at the time of this post are linked at the end - (######)

Total: 1,347,312

... to get the real numbers in play for those 4 redirects vs. the base page name title (plus all the other redirects pointing to it).

1,347,312 – 276,954 = 1,070,358

The math pretty much tells us (in the last 90 days of tracking) that folks search-for or click-on the term "Obama-something" only a little more than a quarter of the total time the PPACA article ultimately gets displayed. Another way to phrase this is folks use or click-on terms other than "Obama-something" at a ratio of approx. 3-to-1 to get here.

I hope this helps put another brick in the wall not to change the article title to "Obama-something". -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the use of these sorts of statistics is rather misleading for WP:COMMONNAME disputes. Per that policy, we use the name that's "most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." This means that 90% of all websites and WP redirects could be for Obama-something, yet we'd still use a different name if that's what reliable sources were using. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Concur on the thought that these sorts of statistics can be grossly misleading. It is rather natural for the main article name, as it currently stands, to get most of the hits, as that is the name by which is is mostly/usually linked throughout the encyclopedia. Having said that, I am agnostic on whether ACA or Obama... is a better name for the article. N2e (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I was afraid the nuances at work would get lost in the math. To recap, the page view stats for the main article title (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) include all the unique first click-ins generated from both internal & external sites by visitors landing on the page. Since a redirect from another internal title automatically sends the User to the target page, those redirects need to be subtracted from the total number of pages views otherwise the initial User click-in and the subsequent automatic redirect (technically counted as another User click) would artificially bloat the numbers for the target page stats by skewing the titles' actual distribution/popularity.

And, in spite of ~31 redirects pointing to this page internally, the current title outpaces the next closest titles (Affordable Care Act followed by PPACA, Ppaca...) by more than a thousand links even when added up. The most obvious external jump that would land a User on the most commonly used term [redirecting here] would be ACA -- but that is a rather lengthy disambiguation page and, as result, is not in jeopardy for the same "double counting" nor available for reuse by us in a move. Even then, the numbers for the ACA disambig page just do not approach the current title's tally.

The only semi-valid argument for a "more common" or "better" title to move this article to -- based on wiki-tracking's own statistics & not subjective assertion or assumption -- is Affordable Care Act. That move would come at the price of losing the ACA acronym to the existing Dab page (i.e. still no automatic redirect to the target page).

To be clear, I'm not saying the term Obama-something is not commonly used. I'm saying the link or URL piped-in under that term when you read it in a blog or a news report seems to be more likely to be the current title (or its acronym) than what you've actually read with your own eyes. Regardless, manual searches using established engines like Google or Bing seem to indicate an input of ACA first and then work their way up to longer and longer acronyms &/or phrases - again - too bad ACA has always been a disambiguation page. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Understood. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Age restrictions?

I happened to see this question posted on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Obamacare_age_restriction and was looking for an answer on this article. Anyone? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

footnote misplaced

Footnote (currently 29) pointed at the exchanges probably should be an external link, since the source doesn't actually purport to say anything specifically. I'd move it to the right place, but you know, locked and all. <ref name=HealthCareGov>"Welcome to the Marketplace". HealthCare.Gov, managed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.<br/>"What is the Health Insurance Marketplace?". HealthCare.Gov, managed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.</ref> 174.62.68.53 (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)