Talk:Betsy McCaughey

Sources

This is a consistent problem on wikipedia, please people, follow the links to sources. The main quote on the opening section claims that she stepped down out of humiliation? That is int he article! Does that not raise any red flags? The link is from an obscure website called Thaindian news which itself includes this highly professional statment: "Host Jon Stewart was quite aggressive on his stance thereby proving McCaughey a complete mis-informer," and the site has google ads.

In any event, has this been confirmed by a reputable news sources? Of course not, because obviously she wouldn't announce she was stepping down out of humiliation, and if we are to post that speculation on A ENCYCLOPEDIA article, it should at least come from a serious authority, not just some random opinion. 173.34.42.113 (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No Exit

I rewrote the No Exit paragraph and dropped this:

Ross herself was heavily criticized for her analysis of the Clinton plan and called a Cassandra for her warnings.

I know the misuse of the "Cassandra" metaphor is rampant that I am never going to make a difference here, but nonetheless: In classical literature, Cassandra had the gift of prophecy and the curse of not being believed by anyone. Thus, when she forecast something awful (such as the murder of Agamemnon), her warnings would be disregarded and the catastrophe would happen. The McCaughey article was, if anything, the inverse of a Cassandra warning: she predicted that the Clinton health plan, if enacted, would be a disaster (denied by the plan supporters) but her warning was a key factor in the plan's defeat. Ellsworth 21:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Controversial" in lede

DickClarkMises and I have been going back and forth on whether to highlight just how controversial this individual is. Pulitzer prize winning reporters and several academics have impugned the validity of her claims; it is very important that readers do not confuse her point of view as being as equally valid as those with reputations as experts health policy. I have adjusted my edits to account for DickClarkMises' complaints but he has been summarily undoing my edits without trying to retain the essential points. Can we get someone to adjudicate? Healthcaretruthteller (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not the job of an encyclopedia to tell the reader to discount a person's work. That would be a violation of the Neutral Point of View policy. That policy states that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Also relevant here, the policy on Biographies of Living Persons states that "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.... Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." The purpose of an encyclopedia is to survey the information available in reliable sources and present it in a broad way that allows the reader to have a basic understanding of what/who a subject is. The many cited sources allow interested readers to delve further into the subject matter and better draw their own conclusions. If someone notable criticizes or praises McCaughey, it may be useful to include mention of it. However, we cannot as encyclopedia editors take sides in a controversy. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That is helpful - I appreciate the explanation. I added the words "sometimes controversial" to the lede, a phrase which I think is consistent with the Wikipedia policies. Saying so does not imply bias - it is an objective fact that many views "published by reliable sources" disagreed with her. The book I cited called her "mendacious" and it was written by two prominent journalists (Haynes Johnson and David Broder). This article would be misleading to not highlight the stir she caused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthcaretruthteller (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to compliment the editors of this article for thoroughly white washing it, while keeping Ezekiel Emanuel's rather extensive Controversy section that mostly contains Betsy McCaughey's false accusations against him. Bravo! This article is a testament to Wikipedia itself!--Waxsin (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Bio becoming unmanagable

Not sure if this bio was listed at the BLP board or how I ended up here, but this bio seems to be getting pretty bloated with questionably noteworthy material/criticism and "qualifers" sprinkler throughout. I trimmed a little but this could use a serious review it seems. Maybe its just me as usuall :). Cheers! --Tom (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Folks can click on the links if they need more info. Its called well poisoning and is not neccessary nor approriate to "label" individuals and institutions this way unless there is some agenda to promote. --Tom (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As a random passer-by, this seems like a problem to me. If this woman has earned a reputation for extremist views from her peers, readers deserve to hear it; I certainly want to know which "experts" represent their profession and which ones are outliers. To take a far removed analogy, is it "well poisoning" to qualify the Bolsheviks as a "minority" group within the Russian Revolution? Or is it just the truth? Eliminating one well-earned qualifier like "controversial" seems like censorship. Just a third opinion. If I cared more I would have put the word "controversial" back into the article; I certainly would have liked to know immediately that when I started reading this article. -- Joe Simpson

"Well poisoning" doesn't say anything about the article without specific examples. The article should make McCaughey neither more positive nor more negative than the facts.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP problems

Fellow contributors, notable criticisms specifically directed at McCaughey may be useful in constructing this article. However, please note that the manner of their presentation is important. We should not take sides in a dispute, declaring that one side was "right" and the other "wrong," even if one side is a majority view. Please note that the Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living Persons states that Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. ...Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone lies or is incredibly wrong about something, according to the mainstream sources, then it is not NPOV to mention that. OTOH, it is POV to whitewash the article to hide that. Remember UNDUE. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

KC, I have never objected to mentioning notable criticisms--they are unquestionably important, especially when they aren't from a tabloid source. However, here we have people making claims in the encyclopedic voice that a living person was promulgating "false and misleading" statistics. I don't care what your sources are, it isn't the place of the encyclopedia to say someone was acting intentionally deceptive unless they cop to it. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify, so I am certain I understand you correctly: you are saying we should not state that a persons' highly covered, universally declared false, statement should not be covered in an article unless they 'fess up? Is that what you are saying? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You are overstating your case. The position you are advocating so actively here is not one that is universally held. This is an active debate between people who are notable discussants in the field of healthcare policy. It is not our place to take sides. It is just ludicrous to insert pejoratives and lurid language into articles in an encyclopedia. And don't reinsert unsourced claims into a BLP article, as you did in your reversion. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not overstating my case at all. I'm asking if that's what you're saying. You said "it isn't the place of the encyclopedia to say someone was acting intentionally deceptive unless they cop to it." and I'm asking, are you serious? "they cop to it" sounds like you think they have to confess before we can put it in Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be needlessy obtuse about this. You claimed that Gratzer's statistics had been "universally declared false." This is (1) impossible to prove or verify, and (2) easily proved false by the existence of multiple independent reliable sources that argue otherwise. And to respond to your question, I am talking about what can be said in the encyclopedic voice as uncontroversial fact. Controversial assertions, especially in BLP articles, should always be carefully attributed to their source. I really don't think that I am saying anything that you don't know here. This article appropriately notes that McCaughey is a controversial figure who has been the subject of many critical articles. We shouldn't go beyond this to call her a liar or anything else in the encyclopedic voice. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I assure you, I am not being "needlessly obtuse" I am attempting to ensure I comprehend your meaning. Do you, or do you not, think that the subject should confess to making false statements before we place any content wherein a reliable source states the subject did make false statements? Its a yes or no question. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In an article about a living person, where the subject of the article is accused of intentionally deceiving her readers, I would say that this accusation, if relatively notable in the context of the article subject's life, would often be useful to cover if it could be covered in a neutral, encyclopedic manner using reliable sources. I don't think the encyclopedia should ever take sides in an ongoing dispute between living persons. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've requested comment at the BLP Noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Betsy McCaughey. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed content

I did not write this; I restored after removal by DCM with complaints of BLP violations, which these are clearly not. Page blanking, in whole or in part, is vandalism. We shall presume he did not intend such. As he now has amended his complaint to "unsupported by cites" (although inaccurately calling the content "my" content) I have placed the removed bit here for examination, vetting, and hopefully improvement.

In October 2007, Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani's health care advisor, Canadian psychiatrist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow David Gratzer—identified as the source of false and misleading cancer "survival rates" repeated by Giuliani for three months and then in a radio ad attacking Democratic health care reform proposals as "socialized medicine"—cited the NCPA's Goodman and McCaughey's NCPA Brief Analysis as other "experts" using his method of calculating "survival rates" from cancer mortality and incidence statistics.

The Washington Post and FactCheck.org consulted cancer experts and statisticians who found no merit in Gratzer's claims and called calculations such as those by Goodman, Gratzer, O'Neill, and McCaughey "complete nonsense" and "a very dangerous thing to do" for which "you would get an F in epidemiology."

---

Following a September 2007 McCaughey Wall Street Journal op-ed column attacking the American Cancer Society's Access to Care initiative, libertarian economist John Goodman, co-founder and president of the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), asked McCaughey to expand her op-ed into a NCPA Brief Analysis giving her calculations of cancer "survival rates" from a NBER Working Paper by Republican free-market economist June O'Neill and McCaughey's analysis of a Lancet Oncology article comparing estimated five-year relative survival rates for sixteen types of cancer in parts of Europe and the United States.

In October 2007, Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani's health care advisor, Canadian psychiatrist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow David Gratzer—identified as the source of false and misleading cancer "survival rates" repeated by Giuliani for three months and then in a radio ad attacking Democratic health care reform proposals as "socialized medicine"—cited the NCPA's Goodman and McCaughey's NCPA Brief Analysis as other "experts" using his method of calculating "survival rates" from cancer mortality and incidence statistics. The Washington Post and FactCheck.org consulted cancer experts and statisticians who found no merit in Gratzer's claims and called calculations such as those by Goodman, Gratzer, O'Neill, and McCaughey "complete nonsense" and "a very dangerous thing to do" for which "you would get an F in epidemiology."

---

Discussion here, please. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, it looks like the content mentions "McCaughey's October 2007 NCPA Brief Analysis" but doesn't give the refs for that, which are (taken from the Gratzer article). KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added the new refs. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ver2 is another version I pulled from history, which is fully sourced. I have removed editorial like commentary from one of the refs. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph above about Gratzer's statistics cites two sources (from Washington Post and FactCheck.org) which mention neither McCaughey nor her organizations. I have removed it as criticism of a living person that does not cite reliable sources for the claims about this article's subject. Saying that the criticism in these sources applies to McCaughey's independent research is clearly original research that is unsupported by the sources cited. According to WP:BLP, editors are to [r]emove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects; or which is a conjectural interpretation of a source... I am not sure what you might call this info as applied to McCaughey except for "conjectural interpretation of" a couple of sources. And KC, when you reinsert content, it is perfectly accurate to call the version that you instated "your version" regardless of whether you originally created the content at issue. DickClarkMises (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You keep citing BLP no matter what the edit. I have no issue with you removing that content as UNDUE, but its not a BLP violation, and you calling it such does not make it so. Its tendentious of you to try to claim BLP for each and every one of your edits. Just because the article you are editing is a BLP does not mean every edit you make is magically protected under BLP policy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

KC, I just quoted what I believe to be a relevant portion of the BLP policy. Please explain why you believe that my interpretation of this portion of the policy is irrelevant or inapplicable here. Your meta-analysis of my editing/conversational style is irrelevant to our discussion here, which is about the Wikipedia article about Betsy McCaughey. Arguments should be posed against positions, not people. I would very much like to engage you in a respectful discussion about your repeated insertions of what I believe to be inappropriate, biased language in the article. On this issue specifically, I am not sure why you think WP:UNDUE would be more applicable here. The sources do not even mention McCaughey. Thus, extending the criticisms contained in those sources to apply to McCaughey would not merely be a matter of giving undue weight to a particular source or point of view, but would be either conjecture on our part as to the intent of the respective authors of the two cited sources, or would be a synthesis of those criticisms and other sources (namely, the Gratzer defense) that compare Gratzer's data with McCaughey's. That seems to me to be the major problem with citing them for criticism of McCaughey. DickClarkMises (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• DickClarkMises asked me to give an opinion, which is to his credit as I usually disagree with him. Before getting into this particular dispute, I'll first say that I read over the artile and I think it's far too detailed in some areas. Whether the subject bought or rented an apartment hardly seems important - who cares? Given the subject's notability, I'd cut a quarter of this article at least.
• Getting to this immediate dispute, the subject is now a pundit, which is a group of professional opinion makers. They earn thir livings by having strident or interesting opinions. It's their job to have an opinion on every topic, and to keep it fresh every day. The opinions of pundits are notable only when noted in reliable sources. ("If a tree falls....") This particular material doens't appear biographical, but rather concerns the veracity or falsity of the subject's columns. We're not here to determine that. I suggest trimming the whole thing substantially.   Will Beback  talk  09:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

  I quite agree. However, just because there is a lot of fluff and UNDUE in this article does not make it "BLP" edits, as I noted above. FYI, I have not bothered to read DCM's very long post above. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed some of the biographical material, about housing and such, that I agree seems uninteresting. I think much more should be trimmed, per Will's comment above. I would suggest that we cover McCaughey's pieces where they have been the subject of debate or commentary in third-party sources, citing McCaughey's own work for context as necessary. However, as Will says, we aren't in the business of determining who is right and who is wrong. On a different note, I am confused by the selection of the articles in the "Opinion columnist" section. The article text seems to claim that McCaughey's writing in those years was limited to the articles listed. I don't think this is correct, and in fact I am not sure why those particular articles were selected. What do other folks think about trimming that section substantially? As for the statistics claims, I still don't see a reliable source in there that mentions McCaughey having used the same statistical methods as Gratzer. We can't simultaneously claim that a) Gratzer is bad at statistics, and b) Gratzer is qualified to say who else uses statistical methodologies that are like his. DickClarkMises (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

McCaughey's notoriety fifteen years ago—and today—is due to conservative media, conservative think tanks and Republican politicians not treating her as a pundit, but instead treating her as a health care expert and scholar, and treating her opinions as facts.

The updated "selection" of McCaughey's writings cited in "Opinion columnist" section are all of McCaughey's published work from 1989 through August 1994.
McCaughey's entire (relatively limited) published work prior to her 1994 TNR article "No Exit" is cited to:

• provide background on her health care expertise
• provide background on The Village Voice investigation of McCaughey's scholarly career

The 2007 use of false and misleading cancer "survival rates" by Rudy Giuliani and David Gratzer during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign was the most widely-covered extended episode of scaremongering about "socialized medicine" since McCaughey's 1994 "No Exit" scaremongering about "socialized medicine"—until McCaughey's 2009 scaremongering about "socialized medicine."

• It is notable, and was noted, that when David Gratzer was found to have calculated false and misleading cancer survival rates, Gratzer's response was to link to McCaughey's NCPA opinion article about cancer survival rates.
• It is not inappropriate to note that the McCaughey NCPA opinion article linked to by Gratzer in defense of his calculating "survival rates" from cancer mortality and incidence statistics, also calculated "survival rates" from cancer mortality and incidence statistics, and it is not inappropriate to note that cancer experts and statisticians consulted by The Washington Post and FactCheck.org called calculations of "survival rates" from cancer mortality and incidence statistics "complete nonsense" and "a very dangerous thing to do."
• McCaughey continues to repeat claims from her NCPA opinion article about cancer survival rates:
  • e.g. last week on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:
    • August 20, 2009: Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 2 (00:49–01:19 / 08:08).
  • e.g. today (August 27, 2009) on page A15 of The Wall Street Journal:
    • Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief: White House health-care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the 'overuse' of medical care.
      • the latest of McCaughey's never-ending series of misleading op-eds viciously smearing the reputation of medical oncologist Ezekiel Emanuel:

        Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."
        
        This is untrue, though sadly it's parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it's an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else.

        apparently referencing NBER Working Paper 15213 Low life expectancy in the United States: Is the health care system at fault?[26] by University of Pennsylvania Professor of Demography and Sociology Samuel H. Preston and University of Pennsylvania undergraduate student Jessica Y. Ho, the title page of which says:

        This research was supported by the U.S. Social Security Administration through grant #10-M-98363-1-01 to the National Bureau of Economic Research as part of the SSA Retirement Research Consortium. The findings and conclusions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the views of SSA, any agency of the Federal Government, or the NBER.

Apatens (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Apatens, this assertion in the article of Gratzer's statistics being relevant in McCaughey's biography seems like original research. Do we have any reliable sources that make this connection, or are we relying on Gratzer's expert opinion? If you say that Gratzer is not a reliable source on healthcare statistics, how can he be a reliable source on what sort of methodology Betsy McCaughey used in her analysis? DickClarkMises (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So she uses primary sources

I'd like Apatens to explain here why it's important to point out that her experience as an 18th century historian was critical in her obtaining primary source documents, such as a draft of a health care reform plan. Any one in politics who isn't an idiot knows the importance of using primary sources, or in other words, reading the actual bill. I'll keep striking the following portion in bold till Apatens provides an adequate reason to keep it.

"McCaughey, skeptical of what had been reported about the Clinton health plan and accustomed as an 18th century historian to using primary sources,[24] asked for and received a copy of the draft health care reform plan from the office of U.S. Sen. Harris Wofford (D-PA) the following week.[25]"

--Waxsin (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If McCaughey was born in the 1700s, I'd say her article needs to be re-written from an entirely different perspective, namely her status as a medical oddity. Arjuna (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It was McCaughey's status as a "scholar" (a specialist in 18th century U.S. constitutional history with no health care policy expertise) who as a "scholar" had read and reread a primary source—the Clinton health care reform plan—and cited page numbers from it, that was cited as qualifying her to analyze health care reform legislation. Apatens (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

She has a PhD, which is stated in the article already, and so therefore it should just be inferred that she is intellectually capable of reading and citing primary source documents. Adding the material proposed by Apatens is gratuitous, and seems to be there only to add spurious gravity to her perspective. Arjuna (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Random wiki reader here; I came to this article on a google search trying to remember what the article was Ms McCaughey had written. I have to say - the "accustomed... to using primary sources" part stuck out like a sore thumb to me. I felt like it not only broke the flow of the paragraph, but almost seemed to imply that no one but her, as an 18th century scholar, would think to look at the actual bill. I'm sure that wasn't the intent, but I thought I'd just toss in my impression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.235.143 (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth

The article currently does not cite any source for her DOB. The NYT article [27] gives a different DOB than that currently mentioned in the article. Accordingly I am deleting the DOB from the article until a source can be cited. In any event it might be better just to leave the day and month out of the article entirely, for reasons of privacy. Moreover, the article quotes Tom Wolfe saying that in 1994, McCaughey was "a 35-year-old Cinderella". I guess Wolfe underestimated her age by a decade, but it's confusing to leave that quote in the article without some kind of note mentioning the error. --Citefixer1965 (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Wolfe's quote is more literary, really, so I am not as concerned about that. I do agree with your having removed the DOB since there seem to be conflicting sources. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A preponderance of sources, including the earliest and the six most recent, list October 20, 1948 as McCaughey's date of birth:

October 20, 1948:

1. . (December 1, 1994). "Statewide officers/Government State office". Newsday, p. 237.
2. Tiger, Harriet (ed.) (1995). Who's Who in America, 1996 (50th ed.) New Providence: Marquis Who's Who. ISBN 0837901677, p. 2747.
3. Tiger, Harriet L. (ed.) (1996). Who's Who in America, 1997 (51st ed.) New Providence: Marquis Who's Who. ISBN 0837901758, p. 2808.
4. Tiger, Harriet (ed.) (1997). Who's Who in America, 1998 (52nd ed.) New Providence: Marquis Who's Who. ISBN 0837901839, pp. 2838–9.
5. Tully, Tracey (March 20, 1998). "McCaughey Ross formally launches gubernatorial run." Times Union (Albany), p. B2.
6. . (September 1, 1998). "Facts about Betsy McCaughey Ross." The Associated Press.
7. Perez-Pena, Richard (September 13, 1998). "The Democratic candidates for Governor at a glance." The New York Times, p. 57.
8. Chassie, Karen (ed.) (1998). Who's Who in America, 1999 (53rd ed.) New Providence: Marquis Who's Who. ISBN 083790191X, p. 2927.
9. . October 21, 1998). "Facts about Betsy McCaughey Ross." The Associated Press.
10. Chassie, Karen (ed.) (2004). Who's Who in America, 2005 (59th ed.) New Providence: Marquis Who's Who. ISBN 0837969824, p. 3056.
11. Chassie, Karen (ed.) (2005). Who's Who in America, 2006 (60th ed.) New Providence: Marquis Who's Who. ISBN 0837969905, p. 3080.
12. Chassie, Karen (ed.) (2006). Who's Who in America, 2007 (61st ed.) New Providence: Marquis Who's Who. ISBN 0837970067, p. 2961.

October 10, 1948:

1. Fisher, Ian (January 19, 1995). Taking on a challenge. The New York Times, p. B6.
2. Dao, James (March 3, 1996). An adjutant with attitude: Betsy McCaughey Ross pursues her own agenda. The New York Times, p. 33.
3. Cox, Matthew (September 2, 1998). Countdown to the primary Sept. 15: Pataki feud defines McCaughey Ross race, but Democratic hopeful turns talk to issues. Newsday, p. A06.

Apatens (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Health Care Reform Language

With this debate being a hot topic with americans, I think caution should be taken in any language in this section. I can already see POV language creeping in such as "the Pulitzer prize winning fact check site" which is attempting to lend authority through language to Politifact. "fact-check site" would have sufficed here. Max.inglis (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude, if they won a Pulitzer, they have authority, garnered by that accomplishment. There is no "attempt" nor is it "POV" to note it. If you feel it is too much detail, or unnecessary information, then by all means say so, but don't "assume bad faith" and accuse people of POV pushing on such flimsy grounds. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 06:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not POV to mention it on the page for Politifact (which I find no mention of there, maybe someone needs to add it), but to put it in here is. Adding extra, flowery and descriptive words to the description of something is an attempt to modify its meaning to the reader, pure and simple. Anyone who hadn't heard of Politifact will be swayed by the language, instead of forming their own opinion. I guess my issue with language of this type is it doesn't lend itself to people forming their own opinion about something through proper research or reading. Yes its too much detail, and it makes the sentence longer and slightly cumbersome. I'm just pointing out weight of language in this situation. It may not have been a conscious action at all sure, but its unneeded. You react like you put that sentence in (I have no idea, haven't checked the edit log). I don't like Mccaughey at all, but we need to keep the language concise. I'm not saying remove it, I'm saying caution should be taken here with such a contentious issue.Max.inglis (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe I did put it in, and I certainly support that content, and for completely different reasons than your foul accusations. You are rather repetitive about "form their own opinion" as though the language violated WP:PEACOCK. Information is not the same as flattering phrasing. The site did receive a Pulitzer; that is not a small thing. As the site uses somewhat vulgar terminology for their ratings of truth - lies, with her statement being "pants on fire" it reads, if one is ignorant of the extremely high reputation of Politifact, as though the site might be an amateur opinion site rather than one of the most highly regarded fact checking organizations extant. I stand by the verbiage of inclusion of "Pulitzer prize winning" as giving clarity as to the weight and veracity of the source. I fail to see how lessening the reader's understanding of the content would in any way improve the article. In short, I disgree. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Phillip Morris

• [28] - I do not have the bandwidth to incorporate any of this into the article right now, so I post the link in case others are interested in taking a look. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 06:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)