Talk:Death panel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Translation requested

I see some material was deleted with an edit summary that I can't decipher.[1] Could you please explain? Angel's flight (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This relates to much discussion above. Besides that, the text violated WP:INTEGRITY by not following the general principle of inline citations; it failed WP:V. This would have been more appropriate:

“ The term "death panels" has been used in conjunction with rationing of care, with some sources specifically referencing the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the American Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) which they argue ration care. ”

But the sentence itself is wishy-washy and vague, and IMHO, says nothing. So really, it should have looked like this:

“ The term "death panels" has been used in conjunction with rationing of care, with some sources specifically referencing the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the American Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) which they argue ration care. ”

But sentences like that don't belong in an encyclopedia, so I removed it. IMO=in my opinion. IMHO=in my humble opinion. 4=for. Jesanj (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

::Reading between the lines, I get the impression here that you don't really approve of a summary appearing at the beginning of a section. Everything in the deleted sentence is more than adequately documented in the paragraphs which follow. If it were a stand-alone sentence, I could see the point in your objections. Angel's flight (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your impression, which is more explicitly put in my edit summary, is correct. I think this type of "summary" is unnecessary. No other section, as far as I can tell, has something like this. And I think we have lots of these for a reason: to encourage encyclopedic writing; so I think you can begin to see my point even thought the sentence is not stand-alone. Furthermore, even if there were consensus for a summary like this, the sentence I removed is not WP:NPOV in my opinion—thus the WP:UNDUE. It advances a vague opinion without providing Orzag/Factcheck counterclaims. Jesanj (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin's use of the word "rationing"

Clearly Palin is using the word rationing in a way that does not meet the normal use of the word.

Rationing happens when a good is distributed at a price level below that which the market would otherwise support. It means for example, to distribute fairly so that everyone gets something that they would desire, but not all. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ration As when food or petrol (gas) is rationed in wartime. Palin seems to think that the government will set a price for the services of a doctor that will cause some doctors to quit Medicare services. That, if it were true might cause doctor shortages in Medicare similar to that experienced in the Medicaid services in some states with some people being able to find a doctor in their area, but some having difficulty. This would be a problem of UNDERFUNDING leading to SHORTAGES. This is an economic phenomena (similar to that which happened with bread in Russia when it was heavily subsidized). But it is not RATIONING unless the government devises a way to distribute the problem fairly in some way. And as I understand it, the IPAB would not have power to do that.

She is misusing the word RATIONING. I do not think that we need to find a reliable source to state this in the article. It is clear from pure logic that it is true.--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it would not be the first time she got her language use muddled. Didn't she once use the "word" refudiate?Hauskalainen (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your original research is noted, but not notable. In any case, your understanding of how Medicare will be affected is incorrect, yet correct at the same time. The government already sets the price for medical services under Medicare. These reimbursement rates are already to the point where a physcian loses money on medicare patients. The solution for physcians has been to offset this loss with private insurers (or fraudulantly bill medicare for services not rendered). Increasing the number of patients on Medicare will have the effect of increasing this loss as a proportion of services rendered. The consequence is that physicians will/have reduce or stop accepting Medicare patients (which they have already done). Thus in effect Medicare services will be rationed by physicians to limit their losses. You can't force physicians to see patients. Arzel (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You may think it is original research, but I know rationing when I see it. The NHS does not really ration care - there is no annual or lifetime limit on care costs, and clearly there are people who receive care worth millions and others who get none at all because they are fit and healthy. The NHS does baulk at paying huge sums for pharmaceuticals unless the benefit is over a certain threshold, and the same rule applies to everyone, so in that very limited sense there is a rationing process. But that certainly cannot apply to IPAB which has to "submit its recommendations to Congress annually on how to best improve quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries, while reducing the rate of growth in Medicare costs." That is quite vague but it clearly means getting more for less, not less for less. Where is the "fair shares" notion in the IPAB's task? And though I have heard the argument that doctors lose money on Medicare I refuse to believe a word of it. Any self serving doctor would give up Medicare completely, but as I understand it, very few do. What's more I suspect that most private insurers pay Medicare rates or less because Medicare is a standard setter for the industry. I doubt that any insurer is bigger than Medicare and has more clout. And that would explain why the US Medical profession loves to complain about Medicare rates. Why else does a fairly standard procedure like a knee replacement cost £15 000 in an English private hospital a´compared to anything from $80 000 up to $150 000 in the US?Hauskalainen (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you do not understand. Doctors in general lose money on every Medicare patient they see. That is a fact. Hospitals charge a rate for a service rendered. This is the amount that private insurers pay if they approve the service (which usually happens unless the service is experimental). Medicare reimburses a rate that they set regardless of what the hospital charges. One of the biggest drivers of cost in the US is malpractice. Extra testing and services are often performed to avoid potential malpractice lawsuits in the event that a physcian will miss some disease or disorder. This is in addition to the increase in costs that malpractice causes rates to increase on their own. Knee replacement in the US is about $40,000 on average, I don't know where you got your figures, much of that increase in cost is due to regulations, malpractice avoidance, and research and development. Arzel (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder that talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject so I made my reply here. Jesanj (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Susan Dentzer, editor of Health Affairs

I've incorporated, again, an opinion attributed to this editor on what fueled the "'death panels' fury of 2009". It has been removed previously with the rationale "Palin did not connect Death Panel to CER (or if she did, lets have a reference for that)". I find this argument irrelevant. Dentzer is an established mainstream expert in health care policy, ahead of Palin in this field, so her opinion is notable. Jesanj (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that Dentzer has herself not cited how she came to think this. Where has anyone ascribed the term "death panel" to comparative effectiveness research? These journal articles usually provide sources for claims like this, but this time none has been forthcoming. This is the complete inverse of the situation we had earlier. Here we have a claim, unsubstantiated about an organization being a death panel for something that looks nothing remotely like a "death panel" in our definition, and you think it passes muster to go into the article: Whereas we have Kelly flatly refusing to accept the "real death panels" (though not called that by any souce I have seen) being insurance company bureaucrats on bonuses to "cut medical losses" (codeword for not paying valid insurance claims) which looks, feels and smells like a death panel to me and I daresay many others. I am sure I have heard Michael Moore refer to these as death panels but am damned if I can locate the quote. I think the powers that be have nobbled Google... I see Kelly has been silent on my point about the socialized medicine giving plenty of references in support of socialized medicine around the world without hardly any mentioning "death panel". Unless I hear a good reason very soon I will add back the insurance company bureaucrats case.Hauskalainen (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No one needs to ascribe the term to CER for it to stand. That's not what it is saying. Perhaps some conservatives didn't like CER, fretted, and Palin collected that worry up with other conservative worries (rational or not) packaged it all together and gave us 'death panel'—a ridiculously vicious statement. Jesanj (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Times journalist reading of Palin's mind . . .a valid source????

There has been a spat over the Times journalist allegedly saying that Palin was talking about NICE. Although Google has this article in its cache, it has disappeared from the Times website. My guess is because it is totally untrue. Palin was not talking about NICE and she has admitted as such (at least she has told what she thinks she was talking about, and that was not NICE). I'm fed up with the to- and fro- ing on this one so I am taking it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. If anyone wants to defend its use, do ot there.Hauskalainen (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

:Please follow this link: WP:V. Angel's flight (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

NICE

The section on NICE includes information that people can top up their NHS provision so as to get cancer treatments they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Which is probably true. However, I think it should be made clearer that the NHS isn't the only healthcare provider in the UK. If you want to take out medical insurance or just pay for your treatment and you have the money, then you can. --FormerIP (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Context/background

Contextual content was removed with this edit, which intended that some of the content be restored. The section was largely derived from Table 1 of the Nyhan publication (page #9). Nyhan writes about how the phrase emerged in the context of a circulating myth. I think restoring this material would strengthen the article by letting readers know about the extent of coverage that contributed to the spread of this concept. Talk radio, for example, is not currently mentioned in the article. Any comments/concerns? Jesanj (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I reinstated this material and then it has been removed, then reinstated (by me) and removed again. How about we at least leave it up until that stuff is incorporated into prose? The tag only says "may be better presented using prose". I don't think lists never belong here. Jesanj (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Having a list of every instance of the term is unnecessary. This way is enough to let the reader go to the reference in question if they want to analyze the evidence provided. I think I would go farther than some in trimming individual occurrences of "This person said it here" and that's fine. But the particular list in question just makes the article messy in my opinion. Dabnag (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nyhan writes that "Table 1 provides a timeline of prominent conservative and Republican elites who endorsed this myth in the press..." So there is no claim that Table 1 is a comprehensive list. Do you think if the material was presented in a table it would be less "messy"? I do not understand how you find this list messy. In general, if lists were inherently messy, we wouldn't feature them. Jesanj (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like to create List of occurrences of the term death panel and get it featured, go ahead. Sorry, I'm kidding of course. I just think having the actual list is superfluous: most readers frankly don't care, and those that do can go to the reference provided. The tag (which wasn't added by me) states, "This section is in a list format that may be better presented using prose." That seems like it wouldn't be much better though. Dabnag (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources care. This was recently in the NYT (p2):

Sarah Palin ... and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, led the criticism in the summer of 2009. Ms. Palin said “Obama’s death panel” would decide who was worthy of health care. Mr. Boehner, who is in line to become speaker, said, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.” Forced onto the defensive, Mr. Obama said that nothing in the bill would “pull the plug on grandma.”

Besides Boehner, Grassley said "We should not have a government program that determines if you‘re going to pull the plug on grandma." I think the section is in need of expansion, with at least a doubling of prose under Origins. And while I don't think all of the list items need expanding upon, I think it is fairly obvious the list includes points that need expanding upon. Jesanj (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

synthesis? and Nazis

A paragraph was removed with the edit summary "rm synthesis unrelated to 'death panels' term". I am unsure as to why it is a synthesis, or unrelated, however. Here is part of the Orlando Sentinel source that was removed:

“ The ... rumor [of] "death panels" ... seemed to arise from nowhere ... Advanced even this week by ... Sarah Palin and Charles Grassley ... the nature of the assertion nonetheless seemed reminiscent of the modern-day viral Internet campaigns ... But the rumor ... was not born of anonymous e-mailers, partisan bloggers or stealthy, cyberconspiracy theorists. Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were key to defeating President Bill Clinton's health-care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, The American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey ... [I]n the past few months, early fears from anti-abortion conservatives that Obama would pursue a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda -- combined with twisted accounts of actual legislative proposals that would provide financing for optional consultations with doctors about hospice care and other "end of life" services -- fed the rumor. The specter of government-sponsored, forced euthanasia was raised as early as Nov. 23, just weeks after the election and long before any legislation had been drafted, by an outlet decidedly opposed to Obama, The Washington Times. In an editorial, the paper reminded its readers of Nazi Germany's Aktion T4 program ... Noting the 'administrative predilections' of the new team at the White House, it urged 'anyone who sees the current climate as a budding T4 program to win the hearts and minds of deniers.' ”

Perhaps there are better ways to word the paragraph. But I don't see why the edit summary justifies removing the entire paragraph. Jesanj (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I only have a few minutes right now, but promise to be be back later - I did want to make a quick response here. The whole "Background" section was, and is, problematic - it contains a lot of opinion journalism cited as fact in regards to what Palin's motivations or sources were for coming up with the term. (There's a problematic sentence further down from an Institute that speculates she got the term from some Christian group's talking points.) However, Palin herself has said what led her to coin the term. In her original posting, she cited Thomas Sowell's comments on rationing, mentioned Michele Bachmann, and linked a video of Bachmann reading comments from a piece about Ezekiel Emanuel. A week later, she significantly expanded her explanation, mentioning Section 1233 specifically, citing sources to explain the origin of her position, and once again mentioning Emanuel's positions on health care delivery. As we actually have an explanation of the term's origin published by the person who coined the term, it doesn't seem encyclopedic to include speculation by opinion journalists about Nazis, etc. when common sense that they would really have no way to know for themselves how the phrase originated.

A little off-topic, but here a snippet from a recent TIME article about Palin/death panels that might be worthy of inclusion here:

“ Her first Facebook post, in August 2009, accused the Obama White House of creating "death panels" as part of health care reform.

That offhand remark, as inaccurate as it was incendiary, helped incite weeks of embarrassing town-hall meetings for Democrats, which in turn nearly brought down the Administration's top priority. Palin, working at the time in San Diego on her first book, was surprised by her post's galvanizing power. With just a few keystrokes, she discovered, she could ruin White House press secretary Robert Gibbs' day, or as she puts it, "I find it a great way to communicate with people directly without the media filter."

”

I hadn't realized that the "death panel" post was her first on Facebook. Also shows that she didn't expect the reaction the term got. Kelly ^hi! 19:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. My database says the Orlando Sentinel article "E-mails debunk 'death panels'" credits "From News Agencies" as the author. Taking that into account, I doubt your description of "speculation by opinion journalists" applies to this article. Also, I find your statement that common sense suggests journalists (or just opinion journalists?) "would really have no way to know for themselves how [death panels] originated" potentially problematic. To me it sounds like you might want to defer to self-published WP:PRIMARY sources instead of encyclopedically reflecting what reliably published WP:SECONDARY sources say. Jesanj (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think there is material left to include. It appears the Orlando Sentinel was using a NYT story (already cited in the article) that says

"The specter of government-sponsored, forced euthanasia was raised as early as Nov. 23, just weeks after the election and long before any legislation had been drafted, by an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama, The Washington Times.

In an editorial, the newspaper reminded its readers of the Aktion T4 program of Nazi Germany in which 'children and adults with disabilities, and anyone anywhere in the Third Reich was subject to execution who was blind, deaf, senile, retarded, or had any significant neurological condition.'" Jesanj (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Private insurance and HMOs

It seems reasonable to me that private insurance companies and HMOs should also be discussed in terms of death panels. After all, the Obama plan simply takes their practices and adopts the same methodology on a national scale. However, I have found no sources that explicitly make the connection. I'll keep looking. Angel's flight (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed they are discussed by nurses trade unions no less. Maybe you missed this one. But as the edit I added (and which Kelly unjustifiably deleted) shows, so called Obamacare leaves the the death panels of the insurance companies in place!

Now perhaps Kelly can explain why she thinks that just because the section I added about Health Insurance companies denying care by bureaucratic decision, she thinks that this is not a death panel. It meeds the definition of death panel much more closely than any decision of NICE. And IPAB can only determine doctors remuneration under Medicare and no doctor is obliged to sign a Medicare contract. Its entirely voluntary. Furthermore it does not come even close to meeting that definition that we had for "death panel". The insurance company decisions are much more death panel like. And I would remind her that there is a long precedent for references meeting the definition of a topic without actually using the same words. The socialized medicine article is about "publicly funded and/or publicly provided health care". Hardly any of the articles referenced actually use the term "socialized medicine" because, like death panel it is meant to scare people by tapping into un´warranted fears. That does not stop us using references which meet the definition though. As Kelly has issued an unwarranted (IMHO) warning about me at AN/I perhaps she will be kind enough to undo her reversion of that edit or explain in detail why she thinks that Death panel warrants a new rule.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

::Kelly deleted it because the source does not mention death panels, and your justification looks like OR. Your Daily Kos source mentions death panels, but it is a problematic source. Please read this. Angel's flight (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this could be incorporated somehow. It mentions insurance stuff and how Olberman has been using the term repeatedly. Jesanj (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin's use of the word "rationing"

Clearly Palin is using the word rationing in a way that does not meet the normal use of the word.

Rationing happens when a good is distributed at a price level below that which the market would otherwise support. It means for example, to distribute fairly so that everyone gets some of what that they would desire, but not all of it. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ration As when food or petrol (gas) is rationed in wartime. It is usually done to stop people from profiteering from the high prices that market shortages would create. Palin seems to think that the government will set a price for the services of a doctor that will cause some doctors to quit Medicare services. That, if it were true might cause doctor shortages in Medicare similar to that experienced in the Medicaid services in some states with some people being able to find a doctor in their area, but some having difficulty. This would be a problem of UNDERFUNDING leading to SHORTAGES. That is an economic phenomena (similar to that which happened with bread in Russia when it was heavily subsidized). But it is not RATIONING unless the government devises a way to distribute the problem fairly in some way. And as I understand it, the IPAB would not have power to do that.

She is misusing the word RATIONING. I do not think that we need to find a reliable source to state this in the article. It is clear from pure logic that it is true.--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it would not be the first time she got her language use muddled. Didn't she once use the "word" refudiate?Hauskalainen (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference to David Gratzer

In the article as it currently stands is this text

"NICE has been described by David Gratzer as being comparable to the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) created in the Affordable Care Act.[51]"

I contend that

1. This reference is irrelevant. It does not connect NICE to Death Panel

2. It is actually inaccurate. The IPAB determines doctors (and I presume hospital) remuneration. NICE simply does not. It is not enough for Gratzer to say this for it to be quotable. What is his source for the claim? It cannot be left unchallenged though challenging it will require a long explanation of the what NICE is and a long explanation of what the IPAB is. That would just be mindbogglingly stupid and for very little benefit except to draw attention to Gratzer's propensity to make exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims. The easiest course is to ignore that Gratzer ever said this and delete this sentence.

3. Gratzer is well known for being opaque when talking about the health care systems in Canada (his native country) and even downright dishonest and unabashed when corrected) when talking about the UK. He is NOT a reliable source. If he uses sources that are reliable I think we should consider them, but simply quoting Gratzer is not enough.

The text should be removed.--Hauskalainen (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The only connection to the subject of this article in the source is the passing remark "some feisty conservatives scored a hit by labeling the commission a “death panel,”"..etc. I agree, it should go. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

..and I removed it. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jesanj (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin's use of the word "rationing"

Clearly Palin is using the word rationing in a way that does not meet the normal use of the word.

Rationing happens when a good is distributed at a price level below that which the market would otherwise support. It means for example, to distribute fairly so that everyone gets some of what that they would desire, but not all of it. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ration As when food or petrol (gas) is rationed in wartime. It is usually done to stop people from profiteering from the high prices that market shortages would create. Palin seems to think that the government will set a price for the services of a doctor that will cause some doctors to quit Medicare services. That, if it were true might cause doctor shortages in Medicare similar to that experienced in the Medicaid services in some states with some people being able to find a doctor in their area, but some having difficulty. This would be a problem of UNDERFUNDING leading to SHORTAGES. That is an economic phenomena (similar to that which happened with bread in Russia when it was heavily subsidized). But it is not RATIONING unless the government devises a way to distribute the problem fairly in some way. And as I understand it, the IPAB would not have power to do that.

She is misusing the word RATIONING. I do not think that we need to find a reliable source to state this in the article. It is clear from pure logic that it is true.--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it would not be the first time she got her language use muddled. Didn't she once use the "word" refudiate?Hauskalainen (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

a WSJ opinion vs WSJ reporting

in the talk archive, there is a mention of a WSJ opinion piece that said the biggest myth about death panels was that it had anything to do with end-of-life counseling, or something like that. if anyone thinks that opinion is worthy of an encyclopedia, they should probably be aware that a WSJ article from December says

“ New Medicare guidelines allow doctors to get reimbursed for holding voluntary end-of-life consultations with patients during annual medical checkups. The inclusion of more extensive end-of-life consultations in early drafts of the Democrats' health-care legislation last year sparked controversy—former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin characterized them as "death panels—and the Democrats withdrew them. ”

Jay Solomon (December 27, 2010). White House Links New End-of-Life Talks to Bush Policy The Wall Street Journal. (And if anyone is reading that quote as if it was news the guidelines were overturned in January.) Jesanj (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream media's reaction

Howard Kurtz, then with the The Washington Post, characterized the reaction of mainstream U.S. media this way:

“ Less than seven hours after Palin posted her charge Aug. 7, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann called it an "absurd idea." That might have been dismissed as a liberal slam, but the next day, ABC's Bill Weir said on "Good Morning America": "There is nothing like that anywhere in the pending legislation."

On Aug. 9, Post reporter Ceci Connolly said flatly in an A-section story: "There are no such 'death panels' mentioned in any of the House bills." That same day, on NBC's "Meet the Press," conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks called Palin's assertion "crazy." CNN's Jessica Yellin said on "State of the Union," "That's not an accurate assessment of what this panel is." And on ABC's "This Week," George Stephanopoulos said: "Those phrases appear nowhere in the bill."

Still, some conservatives argued otherwise. On the Stephanopoulos roundtable, former House speaker Newt Gingrich said the legislation "has all sorts of panels. You're asking us to trust turning power over to the government when there clearly are people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards."

And on Fox the next night, Bill O'Reilly played a clip of former Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean saying Palin "just made that up ... There's nothing like euthanasia in the bill." O'Reilly countered that as far as he could tell, "Sarah Palin never mentioned euthanasia. Dean made it up to demean Palin."

Ultimately, the media consensus was that Palin had attempted "to leap across a logical canyon," as the conservative bible National Review put it, adding that "we should be against hysteria."Howard Kurtz (August 24, 2009). "Journalists, Left Out of The Debate; Few Americans Seem to Hear Health Care Facts". The Washington Post. p. C.1.

”

I was thinking about quoting this in the article. Though it is a bit long, it provides the best summary I've ever seen. Right now we have Olberman only (WP:UNDUE) thrown in with the experts. I think some section should be created to separate the mainstream media from experts that publish in books/magazines/journal articles. Jesanj (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop the deletions

There has been a thread addressing this at Wikipedia:RSN#Was Sarah Palin's "Death Panel" a reference to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, and one at the administrator noticeboard. You may not remove material from reliable sources because you disagree with it. There were also 2 paragraphs of off-topic material added about NICE, apparently trying to make NICE look nicer. Well, that's why NICE has its own article, and there are links to that article in this one. It looks like the same editor may be responsible for both of these actions. Please cease and desist. Angel's flight (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I also wish you to stop deleting relevant material. If I deleted a reference it was accidental. You deleted material I added to provide balance. Without this, the WP article seems to confirm the misconception that NICE is death panel. My edit shows that the NHS pays for 100% of the cost of cancer drugs that NICE approves for NHS use and something less than 100% in the cases where NICE finds that the drug does not come up to scratch. Last I heard, mot paying 100% of a drug's cost and leaving part for the patient to pay is something that every American health insurer does. If that is rationing, then US medical insurers ration just about every drug they rebate for. Your claim about it being "off-topic" seems totally POV to me. --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, please do stop deleting sourced material. The fact that the same reference has been used elsewhere in the section to say something slightly different is not a valid reason for removal.

This article is not about NICE. It would be appropriate to (briefly) add material in defence of NICE if you think this is important. But I do not think it is appropriate to take out information which will help readers to understand. --FormerIP (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You said in your edit that the Sunday Times article was not present and in fact it was. It was not saying "something slightly different" at all. It was the same reason it was there in the first mention . . the drawing of a parallel between Death Panel and NICE. The fact that Oakley went as far as to say that she could read Palin's mind (in effect) was worthy of a mention. I have added the text which adds balance and cut it down to make the point that the effect of a NICE decision is to cut funding below 100% (and that nearly all American insurers do this though its not then called "rationing"). Hauskalainen (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hausk, the changes you made were highly POV, and you added weasle words. Furthermore this article is not about NICE. Arzel (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, you appear to have made four reverts in the last 24 hours, which is something you are not supposed to do. It would be better, IMO, to discuss what you think the issues are without at the same time making edits to the text. Perhaps then an agreed version can be arrived at without the drama. --FormerIP (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC

(outdent)

@Former IP I agree in principle but what you say applies equally to the persons who are reverting my text which only adds balance.

@ Arzel The article is in part about NICE because of the allegations that are made. Those allegations should be countered to provide a NPOV. I would grant that "death knell" is an unusual turn of words, but then it is being used to counter the allegation that NICE is a "death panel" which is clearly meant to indicate that the decision of the panel means death for the patient. I think this is fair use but I would be willing to amend it,

Here is some of what you deleted. I have numbered the sentences and I invite you to tell us, sentence by sentence, what is "Highly POV" and what constitutes "weasel words" in each.

1. Strictly speaking, a negative NICE decision on a new cancer drug does not deny access to that drug and is not necessarily a death knell for the patient.

2. Patients will have two main choices.

3. They can go outside the NHS for treatment, (paying the full cost themselves or their insurer's co-pays and deductibles if they have private medical insurance).

4. Alternatively they can choose stay in the NHS and co-fund the cost of their treatment, again either out of pocket or through top-up insurance.

5. Private insurance for coverage against having to pay for cancer drugs costs about £50 a year for a 50 year old man (about US$80, or double this for a smoker).

6. The NHS actually funds 100% of the cost of most cancer drugs and the effect of NICE decisions is that this sometimes causes the coverage rate to fall below 100%.

7. Not covering 100% of drug costs is what almost all insurance companies in Palin's America do all the time, although they do not call it rationing.

I look forward to hearing you justify a complete delete which leaves an accusation made with a defense.Hauskalainen (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have not had a reply to my request above from six days ago so I assume that the person actually cannot justify the deletions that were made. They added balance. I have taken this issue to WP:NPOVN some there have expressed surprise that something so simple has been extended to such a long article. I am of the same opinion. If the article is to be stretched out to cover non death panels such as NICE and IPAB then these have to be defended from that charge. This is what I have been doing. The alternative is to go back and take out that over-reaching extensions and thus avoid a long drawn out article which benefits nobody. So in retrospect I have therefore been WP:BOLD and accepted the change which was suggested by user:Hiberniantears. I am sure that is the most sensible solution.Hauskalainen (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

NICE section - Journalists have sometimes...

The statement "Journalists have sometimes drawn parallels with Palin's "death panels" and Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence or NICE. [46] [47] [48]" seems problematic. The journalists in the Sunday Times (ref 46) and the Telegraph (ref 47) are simply reporting what other people have said in the debates in the US. The journalists aren't drawing parallels. Ref 48 is an opinion piece by Mark Steyn in the National Review and his views should probably be attributed directly to him if they are considered notable enough for inclusion. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. For what it is worth, I don't see much value in Steyn's derivation of why NICE is "ultimately, a death panel". Seems like we'd have to find a source from someone who was saying no, NICE isn't really a death panel, just to have balance. (I suppose the NICE statistician we cite does something like that going off the abstract, but I don't have access to the full source yet and don't know if I can get it.) Jesanj (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't word the incorporation of that magazine article([2]) well so it was removed. The absract is pretty vague. Anyone have access? Jesanj (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Could people please comment here? Thanks. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Rationing of care section

Now that Jesanj has finally admitted that the article went to far by mentioning NICE and IPAB we were still left with the problematic editing which has left a section called "Discussion regarding rationing" stuffed with any quote that the editor was able to find that might suggest that there is some denial of care or rationing in the law. Selective quoting like this is OR and POV. I have deleted them (including one element that argued in the other direction. The simple truth is that which was stated at NPOVN - the article has strayed way beyond where it needs to go.Hauskalainen (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Now he added it back with mods. OK let's break it up and look at what is wrong with it.

1. "Palin's death panel statement alleged that the reform included government rationing of health care.". NO SHE DID NOT! She most emphatically said that she did not want to live in an America" "in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."
2. In response, Michael F. Cannon wrote that "[p]aying doctors to help seniors sort out their preferences for end-of-life care is consumer-directed rationing, not bureaucratic rationing". What is wrong with this is not Cannon's accurate statement that but that it is being used to push the reader to an article that does not meet Wikipedia's crtiera for reliable sources. It is FULL OF PARTISAN AND INACCURATE INFORMATION. The linked to article is essentially a puff piece broadly praising Palin and trying to rectify her mistake (of referring to panels before which people will stand to justify their very existence) by singling out the " Independent Medicare Advisory Council" as body that he says WILL ration care. He says the Council "would enhance Medicare's ability to deny care to the elderly and disabled based on government bureaucrats' arbitrary valuations of those patients' lives." He goes on to talk about Comparative Effectiveness Research and how this might affect Medicare coverage. And from there to NICE. (again). As I have said before, working out which medical treatments work and are worth funding and those that do not work and are not worth funding DOES NOT CONSTITUTE RATIONING. It just means getting value for money for the medically insured (be they insured by the government or by a private insurer). If research means that means that Medicare patients can't get Vitamin C to cure their cancer] paid for Medicare, so be it. That is NOT rationing!!!
3. The Christian Science Monitor reported that some Republicans used the term as a "jumping-off point" to discuss government rationing of health care services, while some liberal groups applied the term to private health insurance companies. Newt Gingrich, a Republican, said that while technically, the proposed legislation (H.R. 3200) did not provide for government rationing of health care, he alleged the legislation was "all but certain to lead to rationing".As I have told you, WP:OPINION tells us that we have to have reliable, independent, experts opinions. New Gingrich is not a reliable, independent expert. He just isn't.
4. Brendan Nyhan wrote that although "efforts to reduce growth in health care costs under Obama’s plan might lead to more restrictive rationing than already occurs under the current health care system, that hardly justifies suggestions that reform legislation would create a 'death panel' that would deny care to individual seniors or disabled people". ' This does seem to be a scholarly piece in a published book and valid as a source, but I question your choice of quote which seems only to have been chosen for the words "more restrictive rationing". I see no other reason why you picked that sentence. That is distortion and POV pushing by making it seem as though Nyhan believes there is rationing in the legislation when the main thrust of his argument is that there has been more disinformation about the legislation than anything else and death panels is part of that. It is okay in the article but it will sit odd on its own.
5. Nyhan also sees attempts to label institutions which deny "coverage at a system level for specific treatments or drugs" as attempts to move the goalposts of the debate as Palin's language required that a 'death panel' "would determine whether individual patients receive care based on their 'level of productivity in society'" which "was—and remains—false". This is self published from his blog. Hardly what we at WP regard as a valid source of reliable information. Sure it is probably his opinion and he is a an academic researcher but it would be better to read this in something that is peer reviewed.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for raising these specific concerns.

1. The sentence seems like a fair summary to me. I'd like to see if any others have issues with that sentence.
2. It is attributed to Cannon, and it is not stated as fact, so I think you're wrong with reliable source concerns. You appear to know the true definition of rationing. I do not. My working definition is that rationing is potentially anything that has a chance to reduce health care costs. (Perhaps this means reducing unnecessary treatments that don't work/aren't desired or by reducing potential over-payments.) It appears that is how the industry views it.[3]
3. WP:OPINION would tell us that if it were a policy or maybe a guideline, but because it is only an essay, it only suggests.
4. I agree, it "does seem to be a scholarly piece in a published book and valid as a source" so I think it is fine.
5. WP:BLOGS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I think "Why the 'Death Panel' Myth Wouldn't Die: Misinformation in the Health Care Reform Debate" puts him over the hurdle. Jesanj (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Hauskalainen, I think you have been disruptive with your recent edits. Granted, I think you have added some good things (I do think we need to have an intro regarding rationing), but what you have written appears to be full of editorializing. And Betsy's statement should go in the origins section. But you have removed sourced material (from Nyhan for example) we were discussing here without addressing my comments above. You allege, in your edit summary, that "Nyhan' s point is that claims of rationing are a distortion .deleted ingenious but wrong to misuse of his words against him". In other words, it appears you are accusing me of POV violations. It doesn't matter if you don't like what Nyhan says, or you think it isn't "true", that doesn't mean you get to remove it at will. Jesanj (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This source[4] offers material/ideas for expansion/reworking the section that could be used to improve the article, in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus at AN/I was that this article is already way too long and diverted away from Palin's original allegation that her parents or her disabled son could be made to appear in front of a "death panel" to justify their continued existence based on the panel's view of their worth. The article is a considered piece on the how America pays for health care, and as such it would be a suitable article for Health care reform in the United States and not this article.Hauskalainen (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The title of the article includes "death panelist". I think if it was applied appropriately it would be just fine for the rationing section. Jesanj (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

He was being ironic. I don't think Palin was. Hence its not appropriate.. as is much of what is written in the article space. Which is why so much of it needs to be deleted.Hauskalainen (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You're making up rules by deeming it inappropriate, in my opinion. And I disagree. Jesanj (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Other death panels

Someone has added a section about "similar death panels" and added SOME but not ALL of the examples from the NPR republished Foriegn Policy article. That article was written in the context of the Palin claims and looked at other panels which allegedly do make life and death decisions.

In this we have the usual suspect (NICE) as well as something about Texas law and assisted suicide programs. NONE of these meet Palin's definition of a death panel (a panel of persons making life and death decisions about a person based on their perceived value or worth to society). But the list was missing the NUMBER ONE death panel which Foreign Policy ranked as 100 out of 100 for meeting what a real death panel does, the panels that determine the execution by the state of perfectly healthy individuals, namely panels determining execution of convicted murderers and traitors. So I added this example in and LO AND BEHOLD, and SURPRISE SURPRISE, two editors here have taken it upon themselves to determine that Foreign Policy got it wrong. Those editors being User:Jesanj andUser:Arzel. And I should not forget the IP user 74.162.157.234 who added the FP article and forget to include the top of the list death panels. Here we have a case of a perfectly legitimate source picking up on a properly contextualized way the issue of death panels and rating various other alleged death panels. I want BOTH User:Jesanj and User:Arzel to explain why they have included NICE (15/100) when they exclude EXECUTION death panels (100/100). This seems like POV editing to me.Hauskalainen (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no wisdom in reflecting non-health care related items. That doesn't meet the definition of a death panel given by the American Dialect Society. In my opinion, Action T4 is the 100/100. Some sources have referenced it obliquely I am not sure if it has been mentioned straightforward enough in that context to justify mention in that section. Jesanj (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That is YOUR OPINION. It is MY OPINION that [NICE]] does not fit the American Dialect Society definition either, and Foreign Policy magazine would seem to agree with me. But our OPINIONS as editors do not count. Foreign Policy magazine gave us ITS opinion and that was what I added to the article. What's more, I bet nobody who has actually ever used the term "death panel" has ever even heard of the American Dialect Society, let alone bothered to check its definition of a term before using it. Their definition is no more valid than yours or mine because ultimately language is what we use it to mean, which can be all sorts of things. You asked me in that email of yours that "I calm down". I think YOU are the one that needs to calm down. You may think you WP:OWN this article but I can assure you that you do not. I strongly urge you to put the content back. You had no right to delete it and neither did your pal Arzel.

Executions have no relevance to this topic in the least. This article is politicized enough already, there is no valid reason to insert anti-execution positions in the article in order to attack the US legal system. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As with Jesanj, that is YOUR OPINION. It counts for NOTHING. I agree that article has been politicized which is why I am trying to counter it! NICE for example is as a body led by dedicated medical professionals of the highest medical and ethical standing. Its main aim is to ensure that the people of Britain get the best possible health care at the best possible price. It does not pull the plug on anyone. Yet somehow people here have edited it IN to the article as if it does. Real death panels which really DO pull the plug on people's lives are excluded! Where is the balance in that? It may have escaped your notice, but Palin's use of the term "death panel" was not intended to make people think about the complex area of medical ethics. EXECUTION was exactly what Palin wanted us to think about when she envisioned her parents and her son standing before some mean nasty people who were going to deprive them of the right to live for being old or disabled. You really cannot be allowed to have your own way the whole time. Wikipedia:I just don't like it comes to mind.Hauskalainen (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

? The essential quality of this page regards health care policy. Consider how death panel is defined in the NEJM: it "has come to connote a theoretical body that determines which patients deserve to live when health care is rationed".[5] Consider the American Dialect Society's definition: "A supposed committee of doctors and/or bureaucrats who would decide which patients were allowed to receive treatment, ostensibly leaving the rest to die"[6] If you have any doubt left, please consider Sarah Palin's coining: "The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." This article in its entirety is about health care policy. As editors, we have the discretion to see that if one source applies the term to capital punishment, we don't have to incorporate that information. FP even acknowledges their sloppiness in their article by stating that they are discussing things that are "something akin to death panels". We shouldn't reflect this sloppiness/inconsistency with the term's use to incorporate non-health care programs. Jesanj (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

TNo. The topic of this article is not health care, it is DEATH PANELS. The topic of the FP article as I read it was also about healthcare so it makes a double hit. It was clearly trying to say "hey here is Palin saying nonsense about "death panels" that don't exist and here under out noses (if you are American that is, and I think that is a US journal) the American government IS every year executing people and nobody bashes an eyelid. It was deliberately thought provoking. And as I say, Palin was not initiating a sensible debate about medical ethics but tugging on the emotional impact of envisioning her family standing before the "medical" equivalent of a firing sqad. EXECUTIONS is not far off the mark. So yes, you are wrong and that needs to be put back. You cannot pick and choose what YOU want a death panel to be and ignore all others.Hauskalainen (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say the topic was health care, I said "The essential quality of this page regards health care policy". In other words, the term references health care policy, as does the entire article. You may find FP's use thought provoking, I find it sloppy and disappointing. Unfortunately, no one has written about Action T4 and given it a 100/100. FP admits it is sloppy, IMO, by saying their examples were only "something akin to death panels". In essence, capital punishment has nothing to do with health care policy and it simply doesn't belong here, IMO. Jesanj (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To correct you, Hauskalainen, the American federal government is not executing people "every year"[7]. Certain state governments execute people every year, but there are also quite a few states that have no death penalty. Ironically, Alaska is one of them. There's a big distinction between "American government" and "state governments". Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 01:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"The essential quality (of a death panel) is a panel of professionals who decide who lives or dies; health care is incidental." Given that the term arose in a health care reform debate, the only purpose in mentioning the death penalty is to establish the limit (100%) to the quality of being a death panel. Action T4 is perfectly relevant for that purpose, too. -98.69.189.179 (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This is starting to get disruptive. Just because someone thinks that Executions are a form of Death Panels does not make it true. This is opinion clear and simple, and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Hauskalainen, your position here has made it evidently clear you are editing from as an advocate for your political position. You seem to be more intent in promoting your point of view than creating a neutral article. Arzel (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

@Arzel

The main rules for editing articles at wikipedia are

1. maintain a NPOV (which in effect means representing all POV and presenting them all fairly)
2. content must be veriifiable and published by reliable sources.
3. No original research
4. Be bold

(taken from here)

In my opinion, your edit does not meet NPOV because you have removed a POV. It most definitely did come from a reliable source. And the edit you deleted fairly represented the POV and contained no Original Research as far as I can see. And I have been bold in reverting several attempts to lock this information out.

You have justified your delete with reference to four principles

1. WP:NPOV
2. WP:UNDUE
3. WP:ADVOCACY
4. WP:DISRUPTIVE

but you have failed to explain how these rules apply in the case of the material you deleted. So I ask you now to do so below. When you do so, for each of these please also explain why these override the reasons I have given for THE INCLUSION of the material in the article.

You have explained nothing. Your edits are highly POV in general. You seem to be here as an advocate in favor of NICE and seem to care little what other editors think when they disagree with you. Finally, this article is about the term Death Panel and how it pertains to health care in the US. I can see no reason to include some far-fetched and purely political hyperbole to make a non-existent connection to the US legal system with regards to executions. They have nothing to do with each other and have no place in this article. Just because some person reported some inane comparison does not mean it is automatically granted inclusion here. Now if you could show that many people have also made this comparison there might be some reason to state that some have commented on how executions are annologous to a Death Panel. Even then you would not be able to stray into the purely political aspect of the supposed misdeeds of the US with regards to executions. BTW, NPOV and UNDUE are reason enough, I only point out the other two to illustrate what you appear to be doing here. Arzel (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Arzel maybe you missed my explanations so I have highlighted them in the text above.Hauskalainen (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, I'm hoping you will listen to what I'm about to say; I could have put this at the WQA but I hope it's not necessary. In the roughly three short years I've been here, I have seen many, many editors with a very similar approach to yours when it comes to dealing with others. The vast majority of them are gone. Using ALLCAPS and bold text (or worse, BOTH) is a tactic that is notoriously unsuccessful for getting a point across, as it just makes people not want to listen to you (see WP:SHOUT). Talking to editors as if they are stupid, ignorant and/or "slow" helps not one tiny bit. Accusing them of sockpuppetry without evidence is even worse. We are all here to work on this encyclopedia, and no one is "always right" or "always wrong". I've been watching the WQA, the AN/I... and I'm seeing several editors disagreeing with you, and your response is usually to reiterate your same points and demand that they understand it. It doesn't work that way. If you want people to listen to you: don't talk down to them, and rationally discuss the issues. You must be willing to compromise your own ideas of what is right for the sake of other people's opinions. You may not believe me, but I do know of what I speak. So please resist the urge to "go on the offensive" on every little point/editor that disagrees with your opinion. Does this sound like reasonable advice? I hope you can move forward more "smoothly" in disputes, both with this one and any future ones, and I mean that. Cheers... Doc talk 23:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You claim that I highlighted the text because I want to shout at Arzel. You are simply wrong in making that assumption. I bolded the text because the editor said "You have explained nothing" so I just thought he must have missed that part of my text where I did explain it, so I highlighted it for him. I am sorry that you think as you do but I cannot be held responsible for your wrong interpretation. Consensus is exactly what I am trying to seek and accusations that I am not working to achieve consensus is just wrong. When I know why Arzel is eliminating what seems to be perfectly crafted text in line with Wikipedia policy I can decide whether to agree with him or not. The text meets the core rules. That article (which I did not find) clearly IS about Palin's death panels and it is being genuine when it draws attention away from the non-existent death panels and towards the real ones. Palin was clearly using the emotion created by the very concept of a death panel in which life and death decisions are to be made and using that to direct the emotion towards the president's policy. The text is in a reliable source, is properly contextualized to Palin's death panels and has been properly cited. These are the three important factors which IMHO make it wrong for the editor to delete the text. He must make a case for why he deletes my text otherwise he is not playing by the rules. He seems to now be distancing himself from his claim of POV by pointing to the fact that I added text which explains HOW NICE gets the rationing tag. That is off the topic of his edit and therefore a distraction. As also are claims that I am not working to resolve differences. I´t was Intermittentgardener and now Arzel who are simply claiming "I am right and you are wrong" and deleting without responding fairly to issues raised at TALK. He claims it is "far-fetched and purely political hyperbole to make a non-existent connection to the US legal system with regards to executions" which is one POV I agree. But it is his POV which carries little weight. The article is from a reliable source and they did make the connection to Palin's death panels. The authors are saying there are no death panels in Obama's health care reforms but there are death panels in the US justice system which leaves the US standing pretty much alone in the rest of the world except for countries such as Saudia Arabia, Iran, China, Japan, and Pakistan, which are the other countries which do have real death panels. A death panel here being a body of people to whom you must go to plead for your very life. That definition of death panel is clearly also what Palin meant and it was the very context in which she used it that made her remarks so controversial. A bit like the more recent use of "blood libel" where she lit another firecracker that set people jumping. All I want from Arzel is a rational explanation for eliminating the POV that there are real death panels though not as in health care where Palin had transplanted them. IMHO Arzel cannot really claim UNDUE as the POV occupies a tiny place in the whole article and at the end of the article. I think it is a very relevant issue which is why I think it should be in the article. Hauskalainen (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"I am sorry that you think as you do but I cannot be held responsible for your wrong interpretation." Par for the course, it would seem. Don't say I didn't warn you, as I have seen this time and time again. Good luck, Mr. Hauskalainen (I'll be keeping "tabs" on this one)... Doc talk 06:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in what I said. You really did mis.interpret my intent and I really cannot be held responsible for your mis-interpretation. I did not highlight the text until after the other editor claimed that I had explained nothing when in fact I had. But given that the bolding offends you so greatly I have removed it and inserted a note in hidden text in the hope that Arzel reads this note and the diff in this edit in order to know that I had explained the matter.Hauskalainen (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand NPOV. This does not mean that you must include all POV's. Read up on WP:FRINGE for starters. Arzel (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean fringe views such as the existence of death panels in the president's reform proposals, or that NICE is a death panel? Or that IPAB is death panel? Come on, you cannot have one fringe views in here on only one side of the argument. That is POV certainly. Hauskalainen (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Reshaping the article

Clearly this article has gone out of control. Several times recently this article has gone for comment at NPOVN and AN/I and comments have come back about how the article is too long. I agree. The article is diiverging into areas way out of context. There is article needs to be about a half page long and instead its way over that. There are

In my opinion all the article needs to state is the following

1. what Palin said and when she said it.
2. how it was that two main "reasons" came to be given for the remarks
   1. The Living Wills dispute in the House Bill
   2. The "utilitarian theory" for allocating scarce health care resources
3. what the reactions were to the remarks

The article goes into WAY TOO MUCH depth on the final point. Instead of listing all the arguments I suggest we gather a list of the articles containing the remarks and categorize them as (a) those sympathetic to Palin and McCaughy and the idea of an emerging "death panel", (b) those broadly sympathetic to to the alternative view that there is no death panel threat and (c) those that are broadly neutral. We then provide the reader with click through possibilities to get to the articles without trying to summarize them. Those readers who are interested can follow the links. Those that are not interested will not have to wade through the article trying to work out which is what.

If we do this, the article could easily be half its current size.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the page needs to be half a page long. And it appears you haven't given any justification for excluding the content that doesn't fit within your model. I think it is ironic that above you argue voiciferously to include capital punishment from the FP piece and now you want to go to the chopping block. I don't mind entertaining the idea of organizing reactions into negative/positive/neutral. It might help. But the article is decently organized already, in my opinion, so I'd like to have a good idea of what it may become/look like before a large reorganization takes place. Jesanj (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It is ironic only because other editors are being selective about what is and what is not to be taken from certain articles. The justification for cutting content was justified because we have the opinions of several editors who independently came here and said the article was way too long. As it happens I agree with them. I have only had to add to the article to balance out the POV that was expressed in some sections. For example the POV that NICE is death panel like (it is much less death panel like than the decisions made by insurance companies in the U.S. as to what treatments an insurance policy will fund and which they will not). Or that IPAB is a death panel whilst juries listening to cases where the death penalty is a possibility are not death panels. The article could be a lot smaller if these silly extensions were omitted or left to the reader to explore via the references. Hauskalainen (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I note again the irony that one minute it is the chopping block, and the next you expand without any sources. Jesanj (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My edit here was reverted with an explanation that "there appears to be consensus that at least some of this doesn't belong." I searched the talk page in vain for such a consensus. I believe that there is a POV being pushed by one editor, to the effect that references to "death panels" in published sources are presented as references to some sort of mythological creature like a gryphon or unicorn, and have no real-world reference point. This is clearly incorrect. Reliable sources link the term to NICE and IPAB. You may argue that they are incorrect in making the connection, but the fact remains that they did make it, so it belongs in the article. One editor has also argued that rationing takes place every day in the private sector, so therefore it is non-notable if the government also does it. I disagree. Of course, when dealing with for-profit organizations, one should not be surprised if they try to cheat you for greater shareholder return (which is why I personally think that for-profit organizations should be excluded from health care.) However, the citizens have a right to expect better treatment from government agencies that are supposed to represent their best interests.

The material on IPAB and NICE should be restored. The sources have been extensively discussed and they are reliable. If it is not restored, we have an NPOV dispute. Angel's flight (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No. The section claimed that IPAB and NICE are rationing bodies, but they are not rationing bodies in the sense that most people use the word. I am happy to have the discussion again at NPOV. See also the next section which I have restored. It was archived rather unnecessarily as the argument is clearly not over.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@[User:Angel's flight]]. Firstly, rationing is not happening. However, let me be generous and suppose that what you what you mean by "rationing" is that the government (in the UK) and the private insurance companies (in the case of the US) are faced with potentially unlimited demands for health care service but have only limited resources from which to finance that. So decisions have to be taken about which procedures to fund and which they do not. Both bodies therefore decide what is in and what is out of their insurance plan. As long as the rules are followed properly and applied fairly to everyone, how is that "cheating"? I can fully see your point about the insurance companies having a conflict of interest (what does not get paid out in benefits is profit for the shareholders), but in the case of NICE and the NHS, government does not "profit". All NHS money is focused one way or another on delivering health services. NICE's job is to ensure it delivers the best bang for the buck (to borrow an American phrase) and therefore it is representing the patients' collective best interests People in the UK know the NHS rules (NICE's guidance is published on the internet) and if you want more than that you buy extra private insurance. There is no cheating going on. I have yet to see an American insurance company publishing its medical funding guidance on the internet so Americans are the ones who it seems face a death lottery. So no rationing and no cheating in the UK at least. Hauskalainen (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Death_panel#Reference_to_David_Gratzer. There is also the question of due and undue weight. Just because some people out there (fringe?/minority/those with a narrow ideological background) are trying to extend the death panel attack beyond end-of-life care doesn't mean we have to give every mention exhaustive coverage. It is also a matter of due and WP:UNDUE weight. I'm not against a small section with a few sentences in the post 2009 use section. Jesanj (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

American Dialect Society

IntermittentGardener removed the reference from the lead, say that it was "just barely notable enough for inclusion in the article but way too tangential to be in the lead." He was then reverted by Ritterhude, who said that "What the term means is key to the controversy." The problem with that, however, is that the definition provided by the ADS was hidden in the footnote. So, I made the definition visible, and was promptly reverted by Jesanj, who wrote "I've seen a few definitions given don't know why this one sould be the first sentence." So, we should discuss it. I am inclined to side with IntermittentGardener and say take it out of the lead altogether. On the other hand, it seems obviously desirable to begin the article with some sort of definition, rather than a guilt-by-association reference to Sarah Palin. The term and the debate over the term has become a much larger issue than just an anecdote in Ms. Palin's bio. Do we have a more acceptable definition? Angel's flight (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I put the ADS definition in the lead. I'm not against that. I don't know what you mean by guilt-by-association. Palin coined the term and in the article we devote a paragraph to her coining by quoting her 2 sentences before, the death panel sentence, and the following sentence. In the lead, for the sake of summary/intro it makes sense to quote the sentence it derived from at the beginning, in my opinion, instead of trying to find/synthesize a definition that captures what Palin said. For what it's worth, I've also seen definitions given in letters to JAMA (cited in the article) and the New England Journal of Medicine source (freely accessible). Jesanj (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Three reverts

I've made three reverts to this article today. Can the talk page be used to propose changes perhaps? Jesanj (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is going to argue using talk pages for that purpose, I can assure you. While you didn't violate WP:3RR, there's still a lot of reverting going on on "both sides". Removing tags and referenced material, and "re-arranging" the article in many different ways is something that usually isn't tolerated on most articles. One more AN/I thread concerning this is likely to lead to some sort of sanction on somebody - this would be unfortunate. "Talk it out rather than revert" is the unofficial rule generally cited, and hopefully this can be resolved peacefully. All of you should talk about changes here rather than in lengthy edit summaries. At least edit summaries are being used, of course :> Doc talk 05:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Additionally, opposition against re-organizing things here without discussion has been mentioned before. Jesanj (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Death panel myth/false claim

There are many reliable sources that use the phrase "death panel myth" (or an equivalent description) including NPR, The New York Times (False 'Death Panel' Rumor), The Washington Independent, New York magazine, The Washington Post, The Forum (author Brendan Nyhan), Democracy Now!, Media Matters, PolitiFact (falsehood), Politico, PBS, Associated Press (debunked), FactCheck (falsehood). Wouldn't it be perfectly WP:NPOV to reflect these characterizations without attribution? I'm thinking we might be misapplying WP:INTEXT. Right now at one spot the article reads "According to a study by Brendan Nyhan published in The Forum of Berkeley Electronic Press, during the period of July 16 through August 14, what he called the "'death panel' myth" was spread by XXXXXXXX." But there are many reliable sources making this characterization. Attributing it to Nyhan here seems POV, as if he is only person using the term. I took some liberty with this edit to use the terms "debunked" and "death panel myth". Jesanj (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Colbert Report

I enjoy the Colbert Report, but I have some reservations about using it as a source. It's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. Angel's flight (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  07:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Here's the text: "'the bill's 1000 pages'^[34] and it 'has all sorts of panels. You're asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there clearly are people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards'".^[35][33] And the Colbert Report is source 34, so citing it only amounts to 4/35 of Gingrich's words. Also, the bill's length and complexity has been cited as a reason for opposition, and those words support Gingrich's other 31 words. I used it with care so I think it is OK. But yeah, if we can find another source to cite that would be better so we could eliminate this concern. Jesanj (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I found a Media Matters clip that covers the exchange in full [8] but on second thought, I'm not sure there is any need to eliminate the Colbert Report source. In my opinion the article does Gingrich's justice. Jesanj (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

rationing

it wouldn't be the only time palin misused a word. but we need a source to say "sarah palin misused the word rationing" in order to include it. this "logic" and "common sense" is another's WP:OR and POV/WP:V violation. Jesanj (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite understand you. Are you referring to this?

At first she let everyone think that this was about enabling patients to understand the options they have at the end of their lives (by paying for counseling sessions). How is this "rationing"? What definition of "rationing" could fit this?

Later IPAB was mentioned, but this is only setting the price to be paid for medical services. It will do what Congress does now. If Palin is right, and this is "rationing" then we should have some reliable reference to say that Congress is a rationing body. I don't think there is any. My wife won't buy milk at 90 cents a litre from Store A when she knows she can get it a 70 cents a litre from store B. I don't think she is "rationing milk" in our household cos she is buying at the best possible price. Sher is actually making a positive contribution to our family's welfare. Its a good thing and not a bad thing. So what definition of "rationing" was Palin attributing to IPAB and how does this apply to what IPAB is lawfully allowed to do?

If nobody can justify it, then she must be using a weird definition of rationing. I agree that it would be useful to have a reliable source that has also noticed this, but maybe it is not essential. We don't have to be POV and use the word "weird" but I think it would not be unreasonable to include a definition of the word rationing and point out that Palin by omission has not explained how the term "rationing" can be applied to advanced care directives funding and/or the board that makes medical pricing decisions. That is all that I am saying.Hauskalainen (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

yes, to respond to your first question. and yes, a sentence or two at the beginning of that section would be useful. i'd like for us to use a top notch source for that, like a book/medical source/journal etc. maybe something already exists at healthcare rationing in the US article, i haven't looked. but i'm thinking 1 to 3 sentences max. i think a source is essential as it is a "controversial" subject. (i don't know what your second paragraph dealing with the IPAB means regarding edits you'd like to see at death panel.) thanks. Jesanj (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking you, as another user of the English language, how it can be that a normal person can regard it as "rationing" to pay doctors to help patients to define in advance the health care treatment they want in case they become unable to communicate with the doctors and nurses treating them? Which definition of "rationing" fits the bill? Or is it that Palin is referring to something else, which other people would not call rationing? Like "paying less for something" as in the case of IPAB. If Palin thinks "paying less for something" is "rationing" then this is a "fringe" definition. And if it is not "paying less for something" or "helping people to get good advice" then what is Palin referring to? It is really important that we know what she means. I have read her remarks now many many times and I fail to see where the "rationing" is going to come from. Wikipedia does not use terms like "ethnic cleansing" as a neutral term for "genocide" so we should not use Palin's term "rationing" if she does not mean what everyone else means by rationing. If she is using the word to mean something else then we have to point that out. Not to do so would be misleading the reader.Hauskalainen (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, this source[9] "Republican Targets Use of Costly Medical Devices" is perfect for incorporating material into the section. To give you my opinion, you should spend more type researching and less time opining! Jesanj (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)44

Clearly, you cannot explain it either... I don't see how I can get your opinion by researching further. I have been editing articles on and around this topic for about 4 years. I think if there was a logical connection I would have found it by now. And if you cannot explain it and i cannot explain it, then she is clearly not using the word in its normal sense. As for your article, the GOP plan is a good idea (at least incentivizing people to do expensive treatments when cheaper ones work better and are less dangerous for the patient) but I do not see the connection to Palin's Death Panels. methinks you are just trying to change the subject.Hauskalainen (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, I showed my disinterest in explaining Palin when I started this thread with "it wouldn't be the only time palin misused a word." Whether I think she misused the word or not, I think, is irrelevant, for reasons I've explained above. In short, I don't see how we could change anything in the article even if we both agreed she misused the word. Maybe I'm wrong, but until you can show me an example from a policy or guideline or featured article perhaps, that's my opinion. And on second look, I don't think there is much opportunity for the WSJ source in the rationing section after all. Maybe a political response though. Jesanj (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(Outdent) The use of words and their meaning is critical. If X reports that Y was found guilty of murdering Z, but in fact the jury found Y guilty of involuntary manslaughter of Z, then we have to explain to the reader that X was not using the term "murder" correctly . Words matter. If Palin said that IPAB will ration care when we know that IPAB is forbidden by law from rationing care, then surely we have to point out the fallacy of the argument: Either Palin must be either lying (if she knows that the law forbids rationing) or else she is ignorant (because perhaps she does not know that the law forbids IPAB from rationing) or else the possibility is that she is fantasizing (that IPAB will break the law or that the law will be changed to allow it to do so). Or she uses the word "rationing" incorrectly. We can no more leave Palin's statement unchallenged than we could leave X's statement unchallenged. To do so would be misleading. Personally I don't think she meant "rationing" but "setting a buying price". IPAB will do that. Either way, setting the buying price is not "rationing". Palin either has a very strange understanding of the word "rationing" or she is lying or fantasizing. I don't see what else it could be.Hauskalainen (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We need a source that makes the same argument that you did. Without it we cannot include your reasoning, even if it happens to be correct. Do you understand that? Intermittentgardener (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope Haus does. It appears to be a matter of policy around here: Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Adding_information_to_Wikipedia. Jesanj (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Palin's use of the word "rationing"

Clearly Palin is using the word rationing in a way that does not meet the normal use of the word.

Rationing happens when a good is distributed at a price level below that which the market would otherwise support. It means for example, to distribute fairly so that everyone gets some of what that they would desire, but not all of it. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ration As when food or petrol (gas) is rationed in wartime. It is usually done to stop people from profiteering from the high prices that market shortages would create. Palin seems to think that the government will set a price for the services of a doctor that will cause some doctors to quit Medicare services. That, if it were true might cause doctor shortages in Medicare similar to that experienced in the Medicaid services in some states with some people being able to find a doctor in their area, but some having difficulty. This would be a problem of UNDERFUNDING leading to SHORTAGES. That is an economic phenomena (similar to that which happened with bread in Russia when it was heavily subsidized). But it is not RATIONING unless the government devises a way to distribute the problem fairly in some way. And as I understand it, the IPAB would not have power to do that.

She is misusing the word RATIONING. I do not think that we need to find a reliable source to state this in the article. It is clear from pure logic that it is true.--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it would not be the first time she got her language use muddled. Didn't she once use the "word" refudiate?Hauskalainen (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WebCite

Haus, the conspiratorial concern[10] is unfounded. Please see Wikipedia:Using WebCite. Can you please revert your edit which removed a WebCite archive location and date? Sigh... Jesanj (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

::I took a look at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and found that it is considered reliable in that location as well. See for example this [11]. Angel's flight (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Edits by a sock of a banned user have been struck through.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the education.I've never heard of this before.Hauskalainen (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

concession to the opposition

We quote Nyhan in this sentence, currently in the article:

“ Brendan Nyhan, a health care policy analyst at the University of Michigan, wrote that although "efforts to reduce growth in health care costs under Obama’s plan might lead to more restrictive rationing than already occurs under the current health care system", Palin's statement as a whole was unjustified and false. ”

I find this sentence to be acceptable because it 1) includes his concession that it "might lead to more restrictive rationing" and 2) includes his position that it is still false and 3) we include his reasoning why the 'death panel' myth is false in the following sentence. It has been alleged that the quote is "out of context" and POV pushing.[12][13] However, there is no evidence to support the idea that this quote is "out of context". On the contrary, Nyhan has devoted thought to this position in a previous blog posting. (See David's posting to his blog and Nyhan's response.) Nyhan is clearly comfortable using these words. Jesanj (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Atul Gawande agrees with Tom Ashbrook at 36:20.[14] So some expensive and ineffective treatments may decline. It appears that that is the potential rationing. Haus, you've alleged that

“ You got in a bit of text which seems to say that there IS rationing in so called Obamacare. I have no idea what Nyhan was talking about and I suspect neither have you because it is NOT the topic of Nyhan's article. Taking bits of text like that and building around it a whole section of article called "rationing" or something that includes the word rationing, to make it look like respectable people are arguing that there is rationing in PPAHCA is pure WP:OR. Which is why that had to be deleted. ”

It appears your opinion does not match up with the best reliable sources. Please stop the allegations of POV pushing. Jesanj (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich

To reply to comments made elsewhere, Gingrich has spoken about end-of-life care and Gundersen Lutheran. Gingrich's prescription for health care reform was published by the Washington Post. After Palin coined 'death panel' he appeared on ABC and published in the LA Times. Multiple sources in the article have quoted or referenced Gingrich. I suppose then, he's notable. Jesanj (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

NICE

The article referred to NICE in three places whereas at no point has Palin referred to NICE in the UK. Referencing NICE three times was undue weight. I removed two nonsensical references and have left one reference in place together with the explanatory note which provides BALANCE. Nobody is forced to be insured through the NHS and one can be insured with extra coverage to cover cancer drugs rejected by NICE. This is CHOICE not a DEATH PANEL. Nobody in the UK can ever be made to sit before a NICE panel of experts and have to justify their existence, it is complete bollox. If Jesanj or his alter egos persists in adding this imbalance back and removing the full explanation of choice in the UK I will retaliate formally in whatever way I deem appropriate. Hauskalainen (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that the articles do not mention Sarah Palin is a black and white lie. It's right there in the Times article, you can read it as well as I can.

It is indeed factually false that NICE sits before people and forbids people from receiving care. But that's not at issue here.

What is at issue is that Sarah Palin made a claim, and you do not want that claim mentioned. It makes little difference whether or not said claim is false compared to whether or not it is mentioned. Why can't you understand this distinction?

Since you can't understand this distinction, look at the following example.

The President of Narnia said that former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is a closet member of the furry fandom, according to the Times. Public outcry ensued among the animals.

Clearly silly and false. Yet you would see that in the 'President of Narnia' page. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Haus, my reasoning for trimming the "full explanation" was explained above in Talk:Death_panel#Undue_emphasis.2C_off-topic. Can you discuss that there? And just because Palin coined the phrase, and as far as we know, has never mentioned NICE explicitly, that doesn't mean we are justified in removing the Sunday Times, which said it was a reference to NICE. Giving an article due weight means we give weight to what has been published by reliable sources. This has been discussed previously. Isn't it time to step away from the dead horse? Jesanj (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced?

I put the word "debunked" in the lead based upon an Associated Press piece which starts "Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin refused to retreat from her debunked claim that a proposed health care overhaul would create "death panels..." but the material was removed with an edit summary that appears to say "debunked" was unsourced. I was just checking to make sure it was a mistake to say it was unsourced. Jesanj (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Undue emphasis, off-topic

In the section "Examples with similarities", at the bottom of the article, there is a Foreign Policy article highlighted. But out of the three health care policies, only one has additional information (outside of the Foreign Policy article) included. I think this is undue and off-topic. I propose removing this information. It belongs at its own article, in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jesanj (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute

I've removed a recent addition to the article but I was reverted[15] and asked to explain here. The three sentences that begin with "Palin uses in her language..." look like WP:OR and are unverified. The first sentence (that begins with "Some months...") suggests that Palin wasn't talking about health care rationing in her death panel allegation, which inserts a fringe POV, in my opinion. The Palin quote is unncessary duplication, in my opinion, as it is already covered in Death_panel#Palin.27s_responses. The paragraph that starts with "She then went on to say..." doesn't directly relate to death panel and rationing. Jesanj (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved. Jesanj (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Examples with similarities

I think the examples with similarities section is worthwhile because we use WP:RS, like ProPublica and Foreign Policy, to give us examples. Right now we also include a politician's allegation -- absent of any reasoning as to why there are any similarities to what Palin alleged. I think it is best in the political reactions section, if it is worthwhile at all for this article. Jesanj (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jesanj (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

prior usage

The issue of the name of this article was raised once before at Talk:Death_panel/Archive_1#History_of_the_term_(death_panel), referring to this. It is also used elsewhere with panel being a part of the artwork, often stained glass,e.g. The Dance of Death panel [16]; the panel depicting the Death of the Virgin.[17]

This term is used in [18], [19], [20]

Also, see [21] and [22] for an example of use in the sense of reviewing events surrounding a death or near-death.

I'm surprised that there isnt a more common use of this term. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

POV issues

It's hard to believe this article has made it this far with Media Matters all over the place. It is a biased source and has no place here. But that's only the beginning of bad this article is skuewed. The entire article in my view needs to be combed through, and better sources provide. Media Matters is not one of them. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters is a reliable source;[23] so it would be a misperception to think there is a need to remove all material attributed to them. I see two times they are used in the article. Right now the article contains over 100 references. I don't think you have a point. Jesanj (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV requires more than just references. Consider WP:UNDUE, and that the article requires an impartial tone. Your removal of the tag was premature, because a discussion with multiple editors has not occurred. I suggest you review WP:OWN --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think tags are justified by substantiated claims. Can you back up your claims? How might the article lend undue weight or take a partial tone? Jesanj (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop reverting without a discussion that includes other editors. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 02:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

See the NYT article was cherry picked to say that Boehner said so and so about Section 1233, but most everything in the rest of the article was ignored.

“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Ms. Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”

After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.

“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.” Moreover, the e-mail said: “We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded.” The e-mail continued: “Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.” In the interview, Mr. Blumenauer said, “Lies can go viral if people use them for political purposes.”

Where's the inclusion of the Wickham statement, and the fact of the email by Blumnauer? A discussion about hiding or disguising language in a bill is dishonest to say the least, and stains the intentions of the bill writers.

Then this reference to Palin resigning as governor; what's the relevance? Isn't that fact covered in the Palin article? My point is, this article is controversial and special care should be taken per WP policy to demonstrate as much balance as possible. Maybe the term "death panel" was strong or exaggerated, but at the same time the Democrats changed the bill as a result. So what's the conclusion, certainly the death panel side of the debate had at least some merit otherwise a bill revision would have been unnecessary. So you can't just paint things as death panel believers are complete loons. I see a bias in the article over all, but that doesn't mean the article is no good. I think it just seems to need some going through again to make sure that a much biased content as possible is removed. The article has lots of sources, but I'm not sure those used as "unbiased" are completely unbiased. FactCheck and some of these others aren't perfect, though people tend to use them. When using articles as sources, I think it's better to embody the commplete article in the content here, then cherry picking certain portions because you don't want to accidently mislead the entirety of an article. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up a specific point. Here's two reasons why I think you misperceived cherry-picking regarding the NYT source. 1) That section is the Origins section, so naturally it would exclude everything you've mentioned 2) Blumenauer's email advising supporters to be quiet is covered in Death_panel#Politicians (plus it was a regulation, not a bill). 3) I'm not sure why Wickham should be included. I'd love to see some reasoning on her part, as to why patients would lose control. Even Newt Gingrich said "The Gundersen approach empowers patients and families to control and direct their care." (Gundersen wrote the legislation.) Wickham appears to be a fringe character absent of reasoning.

As for the timing of her statement, I added the temporal context, as did the reliable source. In my mind, it helps explain her Facebook post. It appears it was a new beginning for Palin to focus on national issues. But, that's just my reasoning, you'd have to ask the authors of the article why they included it. Nowhere in the article does it say death panel believers are "complete loons". Reliable sources, however, do state (National Journal, BBC, Brendhan Nyhan's publication, etc.) that people who think death panels exist have false beliefs. The article merely reflects that, as it should. It would be impossible to remove all biased sources, here, or for any article. All sources have biases. We're just supposed to reflect them in a balanced way. WP:NPOV does not require that we only use unbiased sources.

And, forgive me for being blunt, but I find the reasoning that "certainly the death panel side of the debate had at least some merit otherwise a bill revision would have been unnecessary" absurd. It implies politicians will only do things if they recieve pressure from rational actors. Grassley said it could be misinterpreted. That doesn't mean merit was a pre-requisite. Perhaps loons were just carrying Nazi signs around.

You see bias in the article and you say "I think it just seems to need some going through again to make sure that a much biased content as possible is removed". Yet, from my perspective, I'm still waiting to hear one cogent example of a POV issue. Jesanj (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the second time you have removed a POV tag without consensus. You are not following WP policy regarding POV disputes. I'm sorry that you don't wish to cooperate in improving the article. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of this essay but I am unaware of how I breached a policy regarding "POV disputes". The article may contain POV, but I don't know how it might. I know I haven't found your points persuasive. And alleging that I don't want to improve the article doesn't exactly assume good faith, in my opinion. Do you still see POV in the article? If so, where? Jesanj (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You have removed a tag that is intended to facilitate discussion a particular matter. You imply a time limit every time you remove it; where no time limit exists. I have a right to hold a broad discussion on any article I have an issue with. You don't have the right to arbitratily close that discussion or assume there is no issue to be discussed. Furthermore this article falls under BLP rules, another issue in itself. I will ask you again to restore the POV tag and refrain from removing it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I was asking for a link to a policy, instead, you're invoking "rights" I am unfamiliar with. Maybe you could post at WP:NPOVN (or elsewhere, such as third opinion, etc.) if you think there isn't enough discussion here. Posting here generates discussion. There are ~32 watchers, after all. I'm not sure what you're trying to discuss though. Do you still see POV in the article? If so, where? Maybe you think I'm being obstinate, but I don't see why a tag is appropriate. Your posts, especially the first, make me think you have misunderstood NPOV. I don't think a tag would be an improvement to the article (nor have you mentioned a policy) so no, I'm not planning on reinstating it myself. Jesanj (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tags are not intended to improve the article in and of themselve, they are there to draw attention. Is there a reason you don't want any attention here. You speak as though if you aren't convinced of something, then the discussion is closed. If you want to ignore what I wrote initially, then I'll bring other people in here to discuss it. It doesn't matter to me either way. I don't have time right now, but I will go through this article some more. But trying to painting Palin as a quitter is not relevant to this article in the slightest. It should be removed, regardless of your sources. Sources don't force content anyway. You appear to be almost the sole author, so I don't what you mean by 32 watchers. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 02:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you interpret neutral temporal context from reliable sources as a malicious attempt to cast Palin as a quitter. It should be removed regardless of sources?! That sounds more than a bit silly. =) Would more sources making the point help? Or do you want me to take it to the WP:BLP noticeboard perhaps? ("Non-content" reply on talk page). Jesanj (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I made this edit which adds "while working on her first book in San Diego" from a TIME article Kelly mentioned in an archived post. That way more temporal context is added that reduces the potential for readers to think she's being made to look like a quitter. What do you think? Jesanj (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

While I don't see the value to the article, the mention of her resignation, I accept your attempt to reduce appearance of bias. I appreciate the cooperation on this. These types of articles being very controversial, tend to seem biased one way or another because the supporting sources are usually biased one way or another when they come from the general news media. I accept that neutral and thoughful sources on controversial topics are hard to find. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. But, if reliable sources are biased in their coverage of a topic, then the article to that topic should be biased in order to maintain WP:NPOV, in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but creating biased articles by the rules, when we know it's biased (because maybe the other side was lazy or whatever) is not a happy thought in my mind. I guess I don't like it when one is sort of forced to write a biased article for lack of sufficient sources. I think that's the problem with these types of articles. Maybe I'm overusing the term "biased", because I see some there, but it appears it can't be helped. Anyway, I believe we've reached an understanding here, and if I see something else I'll convey it, and I have no doubt you'll be doing the same. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. It seems to be the necessary evil around here though, otherwise it's as if we're elevating ourselves to the level of a newspaper editor. (In my mind that would be the larger evil.) Yes, I believe we've settled things for now. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI an editor found it irrelevant: [24]. Jesanj (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant and out-of-context factoids

Jesanj, I assume your FYI directly above must be referring to my edit removing the factoid that Palin was in California working on her book at the time she posted the FB entry coining the term "death panels". You believe this is relevant to this article? Perhaps you can explain why — I would like to know your pov on this. Do you mean to hint that a coauthor or book editor helped her coin the term? If so, do you have any support for this? And, even if someone else wrote it, it still isn't relevant to this article really b/c politicians have other people doing their writing all the time, and she certain vouched for the FB entry later. In any case, I cannot see how it is at all relevant to a discussion of the death panels term and health care reform, but I would still like to know the basis for your view and whether you are opposing the removal.

I also don't see how it can be relevant to the death panels article that this was Palin's first FB post after resigning her governorship—perhaps at the time, it quickly signaled an intent to remain in politics, but at this point, her intent to continue in the politics is well established. So, perhaps you can explain your beliefs on why this should also be included now. I think that at best, the fact this was her first FB post is outdated.-Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Above the book detail was offered to FoundersIntent to make them feel better about including the temporal context that it was her first online statement after resigning. I don't think it improves the article though. Also above I mentioned "As for the timing of her statement, I added the temporal context, as did the reliable source. In my mind, it helps explain her Facebook post. It appears it was a new beginning for Palin to focus on national issues. But, that's just my reasoning, you'd have to ask the authors of the article why they included it."

The attack generated a lot of coverage. The fact it came after a career change for Palin helps explain the why and how of the attention, in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did read the discussion between you and Founders Intent before making edits to the article, but I did not understand the entirety, and was puzzled, because as so often seems the case on this particular talk page, someone raises a number of strong and well supported objections, then suddenly seems to do a leap of faith or 180 degree turnaround for no decipherable reason and changes their mind completely.

Although I don't fully understand what you mean about the information as being "offered to FoundersIntent to make them feel better about including the temporal context that it was her first online statement after resigning"— I do think what you are saying is that you agree that the fact that Palin was in California working on going Rogue when she wrote the death panel posting is not relevant to this article. Is that correct?

Secondly, I believe you are saying you think that the attention given to the "death panel" controversy was in part due to the fact that Palin coined the term at a time of her "new beginning" - is there a reliable source that makes a convincing argument on that point, or is this just unsourced speculation or what wikipedia calls original research? Otherwise, it seems it irrelevant to this article on "death panels" whether it was her first post or her 500th?-Best Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the book writing detail didn't improve the article. I'm saying that it seems to be a relevant fact that her first online statement/first facebook post after her career change generated so much heat. We have two sources pointing that the timing. And this fact is placed in the Origins section, which matches the section's intent, in my opinion. Further, I do think, partly, that because it was a new form of self-publishing for her that's why it generated so much attention. (It also came after being out of the media's eye.) I find it probably more important that her ridiculous language aligned with conservatives attacking health reform. To claim that it is an irrelevant detail appears unsupported. Sources covered the fact because that's how the term originated. Jesanj (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your argument seems circuitous. Again, I am asking for a reliable source that shows why it is relevant to an article on the death panel term that it was Palin's first posting after resigning as governor. You have said "The fact it came after a career change for Palin helps explain the why and how of the attention, in my opinion", but we need reliable sources on WP, not just WP editor's opinion. Yes there are 2 references that say it was her first FB post - (one is a contemporaneous, meant to simply summarize what she had said or done at the time, the other is an article as I recall, on the uses of FB) - but neither of these support your belief or opinions that the attention given to the death panels term was partly due to FB being a "new form of self-publishing for her" or because that she had been out of the media for 10 days following her resignation. It also seems another editor, Founder's Intent, agrees with me that this it is irrelevant and/or undue emphasis, so I say let's remove this factoid that it was Palin's first post after resigning - it gives no information on the death panel issues, gives Palin, a negative gloss for no real reason, contrary to the spirit of BLP policy, and its significance is supported by no RS that we know of.--KeptSouth (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'll say, you'd have to ask the authors of those reliable sources why they pointed it out. We're simply providing background on how the term originated. Above, the talk page mentions the article falls under WP:BLP. In my opinion, it follows that a bit of biographical detail could very well be appropriate. I think there was an association between her career state and why she said death panel. That is simply my opinion, partially influenced from reading the articles that have mentioned the term in association with her career state. Is your position that we need a reliable source to say it was a definite link in order to include it? Of course we need reliable sources for articles, but that doesn't prohibit us from using our own logical faculties (WP:OR) on talk pages. Yes, FoundersIntent didn't like it. But (sorry FoundersIntent if you read this but) I wasn't confident they started their discussion with a firm grasp on WP:NPOV. You think it gives no detail on death panel issues, I think it does. It explains where this person was in their professional life when they coined the term. Wouldn't it be interesting if she had coined the term while working as the governor of Alaska? Maybe it would have came out in the news she used her official state of Alaska computer. Then some might gripe that she was taking on national issues while being paid by the state. But, of course, after stepping down, she didn't face those criticisms. It freed her to tackle new things. Also, I don't believe it casts Palin in a negative light. Palin might have resigned in Alaska, but now she has a national audience. It's not like she resigned because a sex-affair hit the tabloids. The TIME article that mentions her career state "Palin in Progress: What Does She Want?" (December 10, 2010) is about Palin, and not Facebook; although, the first three paragraphs demonstrate the importance of 'death panel' being part of her first Facebook post. Do you still think that would be an irrelevant detail? Yes, I understand two people have voiced concerns on this, so perhaps a wider community consensus would deem it irrelevant. Right now though, I remain unconvinced. Jesanj (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, judging by the number of words you have typed, it may be of some importance to you to have this article say, out of context, that Palin resigned from her governorship, and that it was her first FB post—though there appears to be no RS that verifies or supports your ever expanding list of theories regarding the relationship of these factoids to the death panel term. However, I don't think your personal feelings on this outweigh BLP or consensus.

The fact is, at least 2 editors, myself and Founders Intent, have said they want the information removed and have given reasons why that relate to WP policies on living persons and widely accepted standards found in several sections of WP:NOT. You "remain unconvinced", but I believe I have the present consensus, so I am removing the material for the clear reasons both FI and I have given. If you would like to seek wider consensus, please do so, as always. KeptSouth (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources mention her career status in relation to the coining of the term, how can it possibly be out of context? By your own standards, you must have a reliable source that states it is out of context; please provide it. Currently, we have reliable sources putting the term in that context. Please address my first and third questions to my previous post. I don't see how there could be a rational concern with including the fact it was her first Facebook post. The TIME article establishes the significance it being her first post. Jesanj (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to your 1st question - it is possible to take anything out of context. In response to your 2nd statement that a reliable source must be found to state that something is out of context, that is standing the concept of relevance on its head, and I have never proposed such a standard, and it is certainly not a standard which is articulated in any Wikipedia policy or guideline.

I will attempt to explain again. It is mainly a question of relevance. When an irrelevant (out of context) detail about a living person is added to an article which otherwise does not discuss the life of the person, and that detail is on the negative side (i.e. that she quit her previous job) then there is a strong argument this is a violation of BLP policy. Contentious material about a living person does not belong in a WP article, per WP policy. There are 2 editors at present who agree the material does not belong and who have given reasons relating to WP policies and guidelines. One has only to watch an MSNBC or CNN show and hear Palin referred to only as a quitter or a half-term governor or as the governor who resigned, followed by a description of a recent statement from her to know what I am talking about here.

After reviewing all your comments on this topic, it appears your reasons for including the information seem to be based on your beliefs and opinions as well as a fundamental misapprehension of several WP policies and guidelines. It never hurts to review WP articles regarding the suitability of the inclusion of certain information such as WP:BLP, WP:NOT, WP:RELEVANCE and WP:Writing better articles. I just did, and I suggest that you do too. I believe I have answered all of your questions and concerns. The articles I have just mentioned should answer any further questions you might have on the matter. --Regards-- KeptSouth (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the programming you say disparingly uses her career choice against her. (And I would say at this point, no, there is not another editor actively agreeing with you. FoundersIntent and I reached a consensus on a stable version until you made your edits, as I indicate above.) Your answer to question one is a non-answer, in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And PolitiFact starts their description with "The former governor of Alaska had been out of the headlines since she announced her resignation on July 3; the Facebook message instantly brought her back to the political stage." There is no way this is an irrelevant detail, in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit

Jesanj, your recent edit has created a huge hidden and cryptic comment in the text that simply invites a random editor to reintroduce the material without discussion and without referring to previous discussion on this talk page. I have refactored your comment, uncluttered the text and referred editors to the talk page. If you would like to revert and include the contentious facts again, please obtain a consensus first, as I suggested in my post yesterday. -Regards-- KeptSouth (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources previously used

Here are some sources that were not being used in the article:

• "Dr. Atul Gawande: Make End Of Life More Humane" (Interview). Fresh Air. NPR. July, 29 2010. Retrieved November 19, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Jesanj (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Doctor On End-Of-Life Care" (Interview). All Things Considered. August 18, 2009. NPR. Jesanj (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Michael Scherer (August 12, 2009). "Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's 'Deadly Doctor,' Strikes Back". TIME. Retrieved April 28, 2011.
• "In brief: Wire reports". The Herald. The McClatchy Company. August 8, 2009. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called President Barack Obama's health plan "downright evil" Friday in her first online comments since leaving office, saying in a Facebook posting that he would create a "death panel" that would deny care to the neediest Americans.
• Ezra Klein (August 10, 2009). "Is the Government Going to Euthanize your Grandmother? An Interview With Sen. Johnny Isakson". The Washington Post. Retrieved 12 November 2010.
• Palin, Sarah (August 12, 2009). "Concerning the "Death Panels"". Facebook. Retrieved 2009-08-25.
• Sarah Palin, September 8, 2009, Facebook, Written Testimony Submitted to the New York State Senate Aging Committee
• Mike Lillis (July 7, 2010). "'Death panel' debate to return over House bill". The Hill. Vol. 17, no. 79. p. 12.
• The Atlantic, Marc Ambinder, August 11, 2009, Zeke Emanuel, The Death Panels, And Illogic In Politics
• Palin, Sarah (December 22, 2009). "Midnight Votes, Backroom Deals, and a Death Panel". Facebook. Retrieved December 14, 2010.
• Ezekiel Emanuel, March 1997, The Atlantic, Who's Right to Die?
• Nick Allen and Andrew Hough (August 16, 2010). "US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'". London: The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved December 17, 2010. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Jesanj (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Kim Underwood and Richard Craver (August 13, 2009). "Advance-directives section fueling concern and, officials say, misunderstanding". Winston-Salem Journal. McClatchy. Retrieved April 27, 2011.
• Tim Dickinson (October 1, 2009). "The Lie Machine". Rolling Stone (1088): 45–9.

These two sources were used for the Virginia Foxx quote but it is contained in full already by one cite. Jesanj (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible source

Daniel Callahan "Rationing: Theory, Politics, and Passions" Hastings Center Report - Volume 41, Number 2, March-April 2011, pp. 23-27 doi:10.1353/hcr.2011.0031. If anyone has access to this source please let me know thanks. Jesanj (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

POV

The article seems to have recently developed serious POV problems, starting with the lead sentence onward... Kelly ^hi! 00:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How so? Someone added "negatively connoted" a while ago. I mean, that could be removed but it's also in the category Pejoratives. I don't think that is contested. FWIW, it recently received a thumbs up from in a peer review, in which I specifically asked for a neutrality check. Jesanj (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:NPOVN#Death_panel. Jesanj (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Focus on Palin

I read the lede carefully and it is my view that a lot of the neutrality concerns would be diminished if you didn't begin right with Palin. I would make the first sentence purely definitional. Then have the second sentence something like "Although the term was originated such and such, it is closely associated with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who ... " Something like that anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the conservative National Review said "It wouldn't be a Palin interview without asking about 'death panels.' How did she come up with the phrase?"[25] It seems pretty clear the term is bound to Palin. Jesanj (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not questioning that. This would be seen as a more detached way of presenting that information.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure an encyclopedic definition for the term exists or that detaching ourselves from what reliable sources do is neutral. We cite the American Dialect Society's definition here. I also don't understand why your premise that this would fix neutrality concerns is plausible. I think that those who have voiced neutrality concerns with the article have an obligation to explain them. Jesanj (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What I would say is this. I think there is political bias in the article. I am an American, and I do have political views. Nevertheless, I have written on both Republicans (Richard Nixon and Murray Chotiner) and Demcrats (Jerry Voorhis and Franklin Knight Lane) If you like, I can ask a non-American to review the article and draw his own conclusions. Don't consider this an attack, remember you asked for my view. For example, if you are to term a charge "false", I would do it as a direct quotation, rather than say so myself. I'd start the article with say: "Death Panel" is a politically-charged term in American politics, generally used by conservatives, for boards which would be established under the (formal name of the Obama health care bill). The term was coined by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R), who popularized it on Facebook ..."

Also, I would avoid referring to the health care bill as a "reform", which you do often. That is a matter of opinion. And yes, I'm sure there are many articles that call it a reform. That's not the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I do appreciate you coming over. I sought you out because you have experience getting articles promoted to featured status. Yet I do think the subject here is a false political myth, similar to the Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories page, which plainly states in the lead: "As with the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, these false claims are promoted by various fringe theorists and political opponents.^[1][2]" I am unsure how your proposed definition is not an unsourced synthesis that gives excessive validity. Also, Palin, five days after she coined the phrase, applied it to the British NHS. Wouldn't we automatically set the article to contradict itself if we adopted that definition? I am an American with political views too, but I don't see how the example you give, to term a charge false as a direct quotation, is a POV improvement. PolitiFact, the NYT, FactCheck, academics, etc., say the charge is false. I don't see a reliable source that disputes this. (Palin is not a reliable source on the fact-worthiness of her death panel charge, it seems patently clear.) I think you might be aiming for an level of objectivity that violates NPOV, as you appear to also do with your opinion the PPACA was not a reform (good luck over here). We're supposed to avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Jesanj (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A few suggestions

I'm not really a fan of the little images (especially those used in the lead). Could someone add a structured template (like Template:Double image)? I'll look over the article soon and see if it needs any other comments. Thanks, Ruby comment! 18:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I added that template for the ones in the lead. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And a couple multiple image templates, thanks. Jesanj (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Move?

As mentioned here by AIRcorn, perhaps the lead/focus could be improved by renaming to death panel myth. I've thought this would be an improvement for a while, I just never bothered to suggest it. Jesanj (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia guideline for moving a page "Pages may be moved to a new title if the previous name is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or ... not the common name of the topic". The common name is death panel. The page has already been moved, as you may recall. [26] In fact the page has been moved numerous other times. But regardless of past multiple moves and the confusion and disruption they cause—even if the lead did not fit an article title, that does not mean the page should be moved. One would think that the easiest solution - editing the lead - should be considered first.

Finally, in view of the fact that numerous objections have also been made to any mentions in the death panel article that the claim has been "debunked" or has been proven false, or something like that, it is clear that renaming the article "Death panel myth" would be completely impracticable.--Regards KeptSouth (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)KeptSouth (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In this case the title of the article would be incomplete. Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is a useful example. That article isn't "Barack Obama's citizenship" or "Citizenship of Barack Obama". This article is about a false political rumor. As was said at NPOVN by Roscelese, "I think there's a more relevant head here: "equal validity". NPOV does not entail pretending that death panels are real". Jesanj (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You have shifted the subject and/or misunderstood my response, so I will again state the issue in the hope of avoiding further misunderstandings or side tracks. You are saying that you now want to rename-move the article giving it the title "Death panel myth". My response is that I do not believe that would not work. The page has already been moved several times. The move would likely be contentious and not supported by other wikipedians who have continually removed and toned down text that indicates the death panels were a false rumor or were debunked. Further, the article is mainly not written in a way that supports the idea that it is a myth-in fact the article is ambiguous on this point. So the text of the article itself does not support the rename which would be a requirement for renaming it. You previously agreed with the rename from Death panels (political term) to plain old Death panel. Little has changed in terms of the literature or news coverage since then--but the article on death panels here on Wikipedia has definitely leaned toward giving the existence of actual death panels more credence over the past year. You can certainly do what you want with proposing another rename, but I believe the likely result will be similar to the one last year which endorsed the title 'Death panel' and which is archived here: [27] --Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think your view on the neutrality issue is misguided. Just because you've made some edits and there was a last-minute protest doesn't change the results from the peer review or the last view at NPOVN. We need more eyes and specific examples IMO. Jesanj (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not a discussion of neutrality. It is my response your recent suggestion that the page should be renamed "Death panel myth".--KeptSouth (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright-type issue -- further information requested

I recently removed two cites and text that derives from a draft of a paper written by Adam J. Berinsky. On the title page it says in all caps: "**EARLY DRAFT VERSION OF WORK IN PROGRESS ***PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION". [[28]] There did not appear to be any indication that he gave permission in the edit summaries or on this talk page.

Jesanji restored the information with the following edit summary "(→Media analysis: i emailed and he raised no objection)" [29]

Then, on my talk page, Jesanji wrote: [30] In his reply, he raised no objection. I interpret that as permission granted. Jesanj (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It is Jesanji's second response in particular that leaves some doubt in my mind. Perhaps Jesanji will explain further, because at this point the author's requirement of permission is obvious and definite, but the indications that he gave permission are not. --KeptSouth (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to email you what I wrote and Berinksy's reply. Would you enable your email? I'd rather not post it on Wikipedia. Jesanj (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let me summarize. You are using material from a paper the first page of which says in all caps don't quote or cite without permission. You say you "interpret" an email you received from the author as giving permission. The next step would be to forward the email from the author to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", not to me. In the meantime, I don't think the material should be in the death panel article. Would you please remove it pending their determination? Thanks. KeptSouth (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I do think you're taking this too seriously. It is reasonable to assume the statement was only directed to scholarly publications in the first place. Jesanj (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes copyright issues seriously; they call it one of their most important policies. Perhaps your assertions are reasonable, but you’ve given very little support for them, saying you’d rather not discuss this publicly. A next step would have been to email the permissions group, not me, as I cannot give permission. You are apparently refusing to do this also, or to remove the material that on its face is cited in violation of the author’s wishes. I think the best thing might be to get other eyes on this by listing at the copyright notice board. Is that all right with you? -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Or should I just email the guy again to ask for explicit permission? Jesanj (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe you should follow WP:CV policy and remove the material unless and until you get permission. How and whether you bother to get his permission is up to you. If you would like to dispute the application of Wikipedia's policy on the use of sources and copyright issues, then leave the material in the Death panel article, and I will start a case on the copyright noticeboard later today--and you can continue to dispute Wikipedia's clear and strong policy over there. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, raise your concerns there. Jesanj (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Death Panels charge truth or falsehood, is it a case of timing?

In the mid-1970s, an influential labor leader Arthur Scargill proposed the end of the UK's brain drain by establishing exit visas to reduce the ability of the talented to leave the country. This validated a 1946 charge by Sir Winston Churchill that some sort of gulag or restricted exit system was inevitable given the post WW II Labour party program. The problem of judging the falsity or truthfulness of death panels is similar. Socialized medicine is running out of money pretty much everywhere. In more end stage cases very explicit death panels do get set up. For instance, my wife's grandmother was denied hospital transport based on her age and condition by the govt. ambulance service in Bucharest, Romania. "Put her to bed and light a candle" was what my mother-in-law was told. Fortunately, this was post-communism so competing private ambulance services were available. Their only question was "can you pay the bill", something that was easily handled.

The first difficulty in the article at present is word 6, "rumor". Death panels are not a rumor. Asserting the problem of their existence is an economic analysis of the trajectory of socialized medical systems that is possibly forward looking and speculative. At some point prior to ultimate collapse, death panels do get instituted in an effort to manage the shortage of other people's money (the perennial problem of socialism everywhere). In soft form, it is arguable that our present medicare system already has them with the manipulation of medical pricing embedded in the medicare fee schedule. If you believe that primary care physicians are undercompensated because we can't afford to finance enough of them and thus we have a shortage that impacts patient care, ultimately increasing mortality, we've got death panels already. Increasing the socialized portion of medicine increases the financial pressure and makes these things more obvious sooner.

Instead of rumor, a more NPOV term that recognizes the controversy would be "speculative analysis" or as an alternative "economic analysis".

Another thing to consider is that it is possible that Gov. Palin had recently gone through something of an unofficial death panel with pressure being placed on her to abort, something that George Will has called eugenics by abortion. The idea that she was able to escape with her child alive because she was being treated in a system with wide choices in combination with a general perception that HR 3200 would lead to a lessening of those choices would be an alternate explanation for her belief. In neither of these cases is a simple textual reading of the bill sufficient to capture the phenomenon and its continued vigor on the US right. 173.161.30.37 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that we reflect reliable sources in order to be neutral, instead of using our own subjective ideas, definitions and original research. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article and are not a forum. Jesanj (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jesanj that NOPV must be preserved and we must use reliable sources. But relevance is also an issue. What should the article discuss?

Clearly Sarah Palin's death panel term, which criticized a particular legislation to revamp health care in the U.S., has to be evaluated with reference to that legislation. WP:Relevance provides guidance: "On Wikipedia, relevance is simply whether a fact (in an article) is useful to the reader and is in the right article. If a fact is not relevant to the topic of the article, it should not be mentioned in that article. This does not mean it can not be mentioned in some other article." The issue of relevance applies to the suggestion by IP 173.161.30.37 (origin Washington DC) that an economic analysis of the health care legislation be undertaken in this death panel article. As it is, the death panel article is already being evaluated as too long and lacking in focus. KeptSouth (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, the U.S. has never had a policy of forced abortion, so the IP's statement about Palin being "able to escape with her child alive" is, with all due respect, completely mistaken and alarmist.KeptSouth (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NPOV must be preserved, but don't see how that can justify agreeing with Jesanj who was trying to use NPOV to keep the word "rumor" above and advocates below for moving the article to the still more pejorative Death panel myth.

The article clearly uses POV-heavy images to convey an agenda about Palin (twisted, red, publicity event), Blumenauer (straight-faced, eye contact, charming), and the protesters (incendiary off-topic Obama shot, resting lazily, small group). It is about an American political kerfluffle but is only sourced to Democrat academics (fine if unbalanced) and Democrat attack units like Media Matters (which isn't), along with fluff links to The Daily Show (ditto). Discussion of the media involves unqualified mentions of "The Economist", "The New York Times", "Newsweek", "The Christian Science Monitor", "The American Prospect" in support of the owners' view versus "the right-leaning" The Daily Telegraph and "The Sunday Times, a British paper owned by Rupert Murdoch," against. Defense is solely linked to patently-biased Republic pundits and political figures (not presumably neutral academics or journalists) and shunted into a minor section titled "Apologists".

The only link to Fox is to a liberal pundit disagreeing with their other coverage; the Cato-reprinted article titled "Palin is (partly) right" is sourced only to contradict her; extensive reporting by the WSJ is alluded to only via citation to Media Matters; the WSJ's James Taranto's repeated debunkings of "fact checker" groups like Politifact are ignored to use a WSJ article as window dressing in a cluster of cites that Politifact did indeed call Palin's statement its "lie of the year". Also ignored is the news item's point that the honor was chosen by that most hallowed and rigorous of methods(؟) – the brief internet poll – this despite the award's prominent placement in the article.

More seriously, WP:REL is being used to bludgeon the article into only discussing HR 3200 when Palin herself repeatedly invoked Canadian and British health care and the public discussion was centered on future effects of bureaucratic control of health care. Former OMB boss Peter Orszag's famous line about bending the cost curve – unmentioned in this article (& even more oddly his own) – created legitimate fears of NICE-style rationing, which government-run care unavoidably does require. Even though some might prefer such rationing target the obese rather than the elderly, discrimination against the elderly for funds is a rational aspect of such systems. Inter alia, Macmillan Cancer Support has recently estimated as many as 14,000 elderly Britons die each year from lack of care due to rationing. The existence and operation of such panels or policies in other countries with socialized health care is precisely topical to Palin's point and this article, albeit contradictory to many of the linked Media Matters arguments.

I've got no interest in fighting an edit war, but anon was right that this article is hardly NPOV. In fact, it has such obvious bias – however "sourced" with published Democrat accounts – that it does no favors even towards their own viewpoint. — LlywelynII 00:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you say (such as de-labeling those British papers and incorporating Taranto) but I am aware of 0 reliable sources that say Taranto debunked PolitiFact's debunking. I think Gail Wilensky would be a more reliable source on these matters than a columnist. Reliability depends on context. And last time I checked RSN Media Matters was reliable. Jesanj (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death panel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 12:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Pretty good overall, [Edit: Some POV and syntesis problem removed] but the first lines in the lead are redundant with the word "rumor". Is there another way to write that for clarity? Done Final review note: The prose seemd fine but needed a general copy edit for a good deal of narrative prose where the use of some terms pulled from references may be somewhat contentious and was edited for general neutrality. || Pass
(b) (MoS)	You seem to have a pretty good structure per MOS Final Review note: Some header seemed to puff the article and a couple seemed too critical. || Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Well referernced	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	appear to be RS	Pass
(c) (original research)	does not appear to be OR [Edit:although in a general edit some synthesis of material was removed	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	it has all major aspects	Pass
(b) (focused)	seems well focused but could use some clarity in lead {Edit: Noticed some small focus issues and fixed]  Done	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
It could use a little more encyclopedic tone in the lead a but that is part of above concerns. Done Suggest another use for second use of "Rumors" with "or" to give detail of the somewhat contentious word and a general sweep for neutral wording. Done Galleries are oddly used. Perhaps individual images Done	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Seems to have no current edit wars. Could use a few days hold on this to just see how it goes while work is done	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	this will take some time to check through as images are not linked to image page to varify tags	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Need to reduce the one image of the protesters. Done Remove the cropped version in the lead double image as undue weight for that pic. Done Images in multiple portraits should link to image page and text to Wikilink Remove galleries per consensus  Done Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	some work needed.{done}}

Discussion

Not a whole lot a couple of days casual work when you get a chance can't fix. Very glued to the removal of the redundant imagery of the protester sign for this article and more neutral wording. Wikipedia is not a place for rumor, but this article is well referenced. Distinction should be made that this refers to the established known falsehoods and not rely to heavily on the use of the phrase "rumor". Done--Amadscientist (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the protester sign from the lead. (I thought I could double up as text in the lead does but I guess not.) Jesanj (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have some comments about the article: The very first sentence makes no sense. The rest of the article is not neutral in tone, that is, too much promotion for HR 3200. The word "reform" is used to beat the reader over the head, even though it refers to a proposed bill. There are three dead URLs. The article is too repetitious about the concept of death panels being false. Once established, the point does not have to be continually repeated. I don't like the two horizontal galleries of influential parties. If they are not major actors such as Palin and Gingrich then their presence is undue weight. Why is there a wikilink to job-killing? Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Mostly, I think I have added literature from high-quality sources, such as medical journals, which just so happen to share the bias that advance planning consultations are good for people (as that's what the data shows). But there is a spot in the Legislation section that I think can be toned down. I'll remove the job-killing wikilink, I thought it might satisfy WP:NEO but after searching it's doubtful. I think the challenge is that the sources cite a variety of problematic statements as being background to "death panels". My opinion on neutrality is that I had to find how reliable sources judged each of those background statements. It just so happens that, in this case, a false political rumor was built upon a lots of different pieces of silly political talk. If reliable sources tell us one "stretched the truth" while another was "unsubstantiated" and yet another was "way out there", I think they need to be characterized so we're neutral, IMO. With pictures, I think Foxx is a good example. Her statement was mentioned by PolitiFact in their year-end summary, Nyhan in his publication, and we have a McClatchy citation. I think a picture of her is deserved. Likewise, I removed another on that same basis. Jesanj (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I also have concerns about the neutrality of this article. Agree with Bink about the galleries and the caption under the first one is too strong. The first four sentences all use false. It only needs to be mentioned the first time and maybe in the quote, the rest is overkill. Also what is meant by "death panels", I would expect a description of its meaning before anything else. This should be written in a disinterested tone, but I do not get that impression when reading it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I will tone down that beginning portion a bit and I will re-attempt to offer a better definition. (Last time I tried it was incomprehensible.) =) Jesanj (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree completely (as I was reading the article, I couldn't have said it better myself actually). Also, sentences like "However, there was "no panel in any version of the health care bills" that judged "a person's 'level of productivity in society' to determine whether they are 'worthy' of health care"[4]—making Palin's charge false.[5]" needs an attribution to it (according to...), and seems like overkill for the lead (you've already said the claim is a false rumor). Ruby 2010/2013 04:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, maybe Palin's quote and the other quote should be removed from the lead. But if we attribute in the body, I thought we would present Sarah Palin's idea as on par with PolitiFact and the New York Times in regards to reliability. Don't we only attribute when reliable sources disagree? Jesanj (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That quote and Palin's were removed from the lead. Jesanj (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. One thing though, I don't think the subject is a matter to speak in general to the neutrality of the article but to whether it should be nominated for deletion. As I said the article needs works and if there is promotional material that needs removing, I didn't use that as judgement for one reason...that what this article is pretty much about about. The known falsehoods of the healthcare care reform law myth "Death Panels". I very much agree with the statements here in comments about the gallery. It seems an attempt to elevate all others next to Palin in the article who is the originating source according to article. Sort of pushing the view that they may have said was as notable notable as Palin's etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of the galleries as a way to show the "team effort" behind getting a big rumor going, similar to the Table 1 in Nyhan's publication: page 9. But yes, I removed Paul Broun from the gallery, because I didn't find any other sources (other than Nyhan) than he played a role. Jesanj (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have comments on specific issues at this time, but after reading the article I was left with a bitter taste in my mouth. In my opinion the article in its current form falls short of the spirit of NPOV (e.g. a reader shouldn't be able to guess where the author stands on issues) and thus does not live up to the standards expected of a good article. One thing that exemplifies the feeling I have is the use of galleries of prominent conservative parrots at the beginning of some sections; it's a perfect example of how this article feels like its written to shame conservatives and to tell the world that the death panels was the greatest orchestrated lie of all times. Or something like that. I make no judgment on intentions, perhaps the author(s) is(are) not aware of their bias(es) Well actually reading the user page of the author focusing solely on the death panels... it's obvious they have an agenda here- CharlieEchoTango (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC). Best regards - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much how I felt, too. Not NPOV in tone. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality is an issue, especially the lead. I have made a bold general edit for clarity, content, neutrality, encyclopedic tone and value and to remove some contentious puffery. The article is about something real. And I don't think it will take a complete overhaul. Just a general copy edit as stated and I do agree the galleries need to be removed. It's elevating all to levels I don't think are due weight. Perhaps the major referenced subjects with an eye for accuracy etc. But I think there is a good article here.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice work Amadscientist. I'll make a perhaps more specific comment. Why is the article full of active statements such as "falsely", "unsubstantiated", etc? These are characterizations and are not neutral in tone. Compare:

• Bachmann (as had McCaughey) falsely charged Emanuel was a " 'deadly doctor' who believes health care should be 'reserved for the nondisabled' ". (this is the current text, located at the end of 'background').
• Bachmann contended Emanuel was a " 'deadly doctor' who believes health care should be 'reserved for the nondisabled' ".

The latter is far more neutral Done and lets the reader make up his own mind whether the charge was false or not; especially since the sources seem to be selectively chosen for their characterization of the issue. Here's a bunch of other issues I see :

• The piece distorted the meanings of Emanuel's publications on medical ethics. (this is the conclusion of who? - cite the source directly using passive tone)Removed as undue weight to opinion. Done
• Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), the then Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, repeated unsubstantiated claims that Section 1233 would encourage euthanasia. (why is the mention necessary in the first place; if necessary, who said it was unsubstantiated - use a passive tone) Done
• On July 28, on the House floor, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) charged, without a legislative basis, that a Republican alternative to the Democratic reform proposals was "pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government." (again a sentence designed to tell the world that the claim was unsubstantiated. Really not necessary, readers can make up their mind) Done
• Gundersen officials were dismayed after Gingrich was critical of Section 1233, which Gundersen helped craft, as Gingrich was satisfied with the end-of-life care his father-in-law received there. (I think this is an example of cherry-picking negative coverage which has only a bare mention in the cited article) Done
• President Barack Obama supported the bill, HR 3200, that had been a target of opponents. (How is this relevant in the paragraph?) Done
• The charge was debunked as false by the St Petersburg Times which stated "no panel in any version of the health care bills" that judged "a person's 'level of productivity in society' to determine whether they are 'worthy' of health care"[3]—making Palin's charge false.[5] (Yeah, no need to say it twice in such a prominent way under a quote clearly designed as a POV device. The sentence at least needs rewriting in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia, this is not a liberal blog) Done
• arguably ending any chance of bipartisanship on the issue, (not sure on the factual accuracy of this statement made by one individual and re-used as fact here) Done
• I'll go through more later... all of the above is from only one of the six content sections.

So long as these issues of tone are not corrected I object to the NPOV pass by Amadscientist, who has otherwise done commendable work here to sanitize this article. Best regards. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I think this is reasonable. I will make all of these changes and tighter general edit.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional Notes

GA standards are not as tough as FA, but all articles must adhere to certain levels of scrutiny. The article as originally offered for GA listing had a number of issues. There were enough that the subject was somewhat blurred and the focus smothered a bit by what I perceived as a bit of unintentional puffery. More eyes may be needed to address what I may have missed. I decided to be bold and make a number of edits and feel the version we have now is a passable listing level. I will give it a sit for a short while to watch what level of changes begin if any but think it is GA at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I did some recommended work and a little more for weight and neutrality. This is after cleanup.[31]--Amadscientist (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Went through the other sections, don't like the tone but couldn't point to specifics and didn't want to go through all the sources for verification. As the article was POV by design, it would be nearly impossible to completely fix without a significant rewrite (not to my liking anyway). I'm appalled at the version that was accepted at DYK, but a GA won't land it on the main page, so I guess I'm not too concerned. That said, thanks for all your work, and the current version is indeed far better than the one originally nominated! Maybe others have more to say, but that's it for me. Cheers CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Second and third sentences

After my edits, the second and third sentences read:

The term was first used in August 2009 by former Republican Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin when she charged that the proposed legislation would create a "death panel" of bureaucrats who would decide whether Americans—such as her elderly parents or child with Down syndrome—were worthy of medical care. Palin's claim, however, was debunked; nothing in any proposed legislation would have allowed individuals to be judged to see if they were "worthy" of health care.

If someone thinks PolitiFact is not reliable for the third sentence, perhaps they should take this to the WP:RSN. Jesanj (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

New York Times OpEd: "WE need death panels."

the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0

A quick caveat: This is an OpEd. But I believe that it shows that Ms Palin actually had a point.

The OpEd then more correctly calls it "rationing," however the facts remain that it could be argued that Ms Palin was right.

Another quick caveat: In reading some of the language used to describe Ms Palin and others; I need to state again on and for the record that personal opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.

I have very strong political views, but they and my opinion do not belong here. And neither do yours. --Dr. Entropy (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That a New York Times op-ed contributor argues that we need rationing does not make Ms Palin's assertion that Obamacare includes 'death panels' right. In fact, the op-ed itself states, "President Obama’s estimable Affordable Care Act regrettably includes severe restrictions on any reduction in Medicare services or increase in fees to beneficiaries." (emphasis mine). FurrySings (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

In point of fact, the article in question goes a long way towards demonstrating the validity of Mrs. (or Governor if you prefer...but not the disrespectful and erroneous use of "Ms") Palin's stated concerns re: Obamacare and it's outcomes. Indeed, the OpEd concludes "We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable." Furthermore, this Wiki page contains many errors. For ex: in the first paragraph, third sentence, quote: "nothing in any proposed legislation would have allowed individuals to be judged to see if they were "worthy" of health care" (the VERY thing that begat the term "Death Panel"). And yet in the very next paragraph, just 4 sentences later, quote: "Due to public concern, the provision was removed from the Senate bill and was not included in the law that was enacted..." This entire Wiki page is slanted with (erroneous) opinionated viewpoints, as shown by example. Wikipedia is for facts, not political propaganda or "spin". Atxav8r (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The provision that was removed (identified by Palin as the provision that creates 'death panels') was a provision to provide free voluntary counseling to patients facing end-of-life decisions (such as advice about living wills and advance directives). Please read the article and sources more carefully before offering a critique of the article. FurrySings (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a space for liberals to spew their propaganda. In point of fact I reasonably demonstrated how the article supports Gov. Palin's contention as well as provided a direct example of how the Wiki entry regarding this topic is in error. You, FurrySings, did nothing to address this save for posting a very weak and ineffectual claim regarding the topic along with a contention that you somehow know more about it than others. Again, the article in question even begins, quote "We need Death Panels." end quote, a DIRECT reference to this topic (ie. "Death Panels") and therefore fitting for inclusion in the Wikipedia entry regarding it. Atxav8r (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The article does not say that the Affordable Care Act created "Death Panels", as Ms Palin claimed. Saying "it could be argued" is saying "we could do a little synthesis to argue". That is not what Wikipedia is for. (Heck, it could be argued that the ACA's barring of lifetime care caps ended existing "Death Panels" in insurance companies.) No reliable source says the provisions removed from the ACA would have created "Death Panels". Ms Palin said that.

As for "Ms" being "disrespectful and erroneous", it is neither. It is "

a title of respect prefixed to a woman's name or position: unlike Miss or Mrs., it does not depend upon or indicate her marital status."

If your argument is that we should include that, long after Ms Palin's claim, an editorial writer felt that we should craft legislation to create "Death Panels", you have an uphill battle. One ed-op piece and a token will get you on the subway. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not just any editorial writer, SummerPhD, but a top Obama advisor, who added in his editorial that "death panels" were "inevitable" as a result of the new Healthcare law. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean you get to delete them at your whim supported by specious argument. Atxav8r (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No, he did not say that "death panels" were "inevitable", nor did he say "We need Death Panels." He said exactly the opposite. Well, maybe not exactly the opposite, but not that. He said, "WE need death panels. Well, maybe not death panels, exactly...". As for him being "a top Obama advisor[sic]", he was the Counselor to the United States Secretary of the Treasury, not a "top adviser" to the president, and not in a position that had anything to do with the ACA.

As your bold edits were reverted, you should be discussing the edits (see WP:BRD), not restoring them without comment.[32] I'll start a point-by-point on this below. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You are just mincing words. Actually and in point of fact, Mr. Rattner began his OpEd with "We need Death Panels", which is very clearly a DIRECT reference to the term this wiki page claims Sarah Palin coined, and he ended it, "We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable." So yes, he did say they were inevitable, a synonym of "inescapable", as I have quoted , sourced, and demonstrated. Your opinion on this matter does not constitute fact, and you need to cite sources that debunk Mr. Rattner's claim in order to prove otherwise. Additionally, Mr. Rattner was appointed by President Obama to one of the many advisor posts he created (demonstrating the validity of Mr. Ratter's opinion) and this individual has his own wiki page (ie. anyone interested in exactly who Mr. Rattner is can refer to that page). Therefore, his opinion on this topic IS relevant, it is sourced, and is a fair inclusion to this wiki topic. In fact, many other NYTs opinion pieces have been used as cited references in the development of this wiki page on "Death Panels" (see: sourced materials at bottom, for ex: Paul Krugman, to note just one of many), so Mr. Rattner's OpEd is clearly relevant and has been sourced properly (which you removed without proper justification). As can be seen in these talk pages, many others have noted the bias slant which this wiki page has been written, and your restoration to the original version is based upon nothing but your own personal opinion. You even deleted a cited reference to a major national publication (ie. the New York Times) in order to maintain the bias apparent in this wiki page. Lastly, many other sentences in the version which you restored are not link/referenced to sourced material (Ex: "The term was first used in August 2009 by Sarah Palin") and in fact there is a lot to clean up in this wiki page. Cited source link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=1&Atxav8r (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

These are the death panels: The IPAB, USPSTF, and the HBAC. Those are the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), the United States Preventive Services Task Force and the Health Benefits Advisory Committee. All 3 of these boards are tasked to cut costs of healthcare spending, a boon to the insurance industry, and make decisions as to what services are to be covered by private insurance, medicare and medicaid. 1 of the boards is in the process of nixing preventive care, already nixed mammograms for women over 40 which is no longer covered by insurance, already nixed prostate cancer screening. The other boards are poised to decide what services are covered by medicare and what services are covered by private insurance. As a result of these boards deciding to nix certain treatment protocols, limiting doctors options, thus limiting patients choices, people will SURELY DIE (murder) by these healthcare constriction choices, thus "DEATH PANELS". More accurately they should have been dubbed Murder Bureaucracy.
Articles describing the Death Panels:
IPAB http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/06/ipab-the-part-of-obamacare-that-cant-be-repealed/
USPSTF http://covertrationingblog.com/open-wide-and-say-moo-the-good-citizens-guide-to-right-thinking-and-right-actions/chapter-11-preventing-preventive-medicine
HBAC http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2009/08/03/health-reform-demands-that-lawmakers-read-the-bills Danielvincentkelley (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)