Talk:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Many...

The first sentence in the following content is being edit warred over:

• added the first time here by Sahrin on Aug 10: "Add explanation of why people oppose the amendment"
• removed here by an IP Aug 26: "unreferenced, and has problems with WP:OR and WP:NPOV"
• restored here by Sahrin Aug 27: "revert possible vandalism"
• removed here by me Aug 27: "that is indeed unsourced editorializing that someone added to the article, and should be removed"
• restored here by Sahrin Aug 30: "The source is given in the line. Gun zealots are taking over this page. Guys, what is it you hope to accomplish here?"
• removed here by me Aug 30: "see discussion on talk and see your Talk page"

Many oppose the amendment, because it specifically bans the CDC from reporting results that suggest gun control would reduce violence, effectively censoring scientists from telling the truth. The U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee rejected an amendment, which would have provided $10 million in funding ear-marked for gun violence research.

References

I do not find the first sentence is supported by the sources. The "many" is especially unfortunate here. I invite those who do who find this supported, to explain how. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I would support something like "Advocates for gun control oppose the amendment. Also, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, sent a letter to the leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee in 2013 asking them "to support at least $10 million within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in FY 2014 along with sufficient new funding at the National Institutes of Health to support research into the causes and prevention of gun violence. Furthermore, we urge Members to oppose any efforts to reduce, eliminate, or condition CDC funding related to gun violence prevention research."" That would be fully supported by the sources. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• restored again here by Sahrin with edit note: "Since the section is disputed, I am reverting to the original version of the article before the article was brigaded by revisionist gun types"
• reverted again here by Del nk with edit note: "this is the consensus version".

User:Sahrin you need to come here and discuss. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The edit warring to repeatedly introduce the phrase "censoring scientists from telling the truth" is inappropriate as it is clearly non-WP:NPOV. I have no objection to adding in the notable opinion of the AMA, APA, and AAP. Deli nk (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• added again here by Sahrin with edit note: "Attempting to intimidate another editor is extremely inappropriate" Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not participating in this content dispute, except to point out that the warred over addition is not even factually correct, let alone NPOV. The Dickey Amendment has been quoted in its entirety in the stable version of the article - it is precisely as short and vague as it sounds. To claim that this amendment "specifically bans the CDC from reporting results that suggest gun control would reduce violence" is false nearly to the point of vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I won't go to vandalism but it is definitely unverified. Do you have any thoughts on the compromise proposal above User:Someguy1221? Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Since I blocked Sahrin for edit warring, I'd rather not get too involved, even after the fact. Except to say that the proposal does appear NPOV, and that stating a subjective impact of the law in Wikipedia's voice is obviously not. I classified that statement as nearly vandalism instead of unverified since the text of the Dickey Amendment is not a matter for debate - anyone can look it up online and read what it says, though I suspect the author of that statement was simply uninformed or being figurative, rather than deliberately lying. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh! I didn't know that; sorry I would not have asked. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• note, i implemented the proposed language above here. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

So Jytdog's and Someguy1221's harassment and witch hunt ended in a 24-hour ban. I'm back now, though, and am here to recommend we delete the section in question entirely. According to the text of the section as written, the "controversy" is a dispute over a $10M line item in the budget of an agency with a $7B budget. You guys continuously insist that there is no evidence for my contention (that the Dickey Amendment requires that researchers not report results that show gun control would reduce gun violence) - despite the fact that two separate news articles already included in the references for the current version of the text discuss this specific concern (that it will have a chilling effect on research). OK, so there is no chilling effect (or at least we can't write about it in the article). Then where's the controversy? As written, the article suggests that a dispute between different entities over a line item in the budget is a controversy. Are we really going to write a controversy stub for every single line item in the CDC budget? It's not noteworthy. I'm going to blank the section after a reasonable period of time without further comment. Sahrin (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to add, it really seems like this is an effort to 'whitewash' the issue. If there was no controvery about the Dickey Amendment restricting research, then it wouldn't be in the article in the first place. For whatever reason, Jytdog has brigaded this article with like-minded friend and appears to be trying to 'whitewash' the issue. An Admin *very* inappropriately weighed in on a content issue after responding to a disciplinary investigation (relevant because this lends authority to the idea that there is no controversy regarding the amendment that isn't evident from the facts). You guys can't have it both ways - you can't simply state the most beneficial form of the POV you are trying to advance and say that because you didn't consult the news articles you referenced before writing the section, there is no evidence to support a contoversy. You want it both ways. It's a logical non sequitur - either there is a controversy over censorship and it should be addressed in the section, or there is no controversy and the section shouldn't exist. We don't make sections that say "everything is OK." Sahrin (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I was going to reply but with your second remark I am just going to AE. You will get a notice soon.Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. Continued harassment doesn't change the integrity of the process, nor does it change the facts of this issue. I'm not sure why you think threatening me is going to help settle an editorial dispute. I'm not sure why intimidation is your solution to an editorial dispute. It'd be great if instead of continually attempting to brigade the article in question and get people "on your side" you'd stick to following the editorial process. Not a single comment on the content...just more threats and intimidation. *sigh* Sahrin (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I wrote a reply to your first note asking how your description of the Dickey Amendment fits with what the Dickey Amendment actually says and what value your summary has in our article; the amendment is presented in its entirety -- it is one sentence - in our article just above where you were adding content. I was also asking you to show how the sources support the content you wanted. However when I hit save, that edit conflicted with your second note. If you want to discuss the content and sourcing I am happy to do that; nothing you wrote above shows any interest in discussion. Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The content you were trying to add: (dif): "The amendment specifically bans the CDC from reporting results that suggest gun control would reduce violence."

What the amendment says in its entirety, “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (ref, p 244.

? Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

lol, the second note is simply an elaboration of the first. There is no conflict between the two.

First of all, it's not "my description" of the Dickey Amendment, it's a description (rendered in different language) that appeared in both of the citations that were already included in the section; testimony from experts interviewed for their respective articles (the PRI testimony was particularly compelling). To summarize: the "controversy" is that the Dickey Amendment specifically bans researchers from reporting results that show that gun control would curtail violence. This is not "loaded language" - the phrase "promotes or advocates for gun control" equals a ban on reporting certain results. Even if that were not the case, we have the testimony from the PRI article from a researcher that this is how the amendment is perceived by researchers. To suggest that somehow the entirety of the controversy is "AMA wants $10M in the budget for gun violence research, Congress rejects it" is, as I said in my original edit however many days ago *spurious.* But your brigade/sock poppets/etc continue to insist that it isn't spurious. OK, fine, I am willing to concede that point. But if we're really saying that your version of events is true...then why the heck would we have it in the article in the first place? There's an article for Dickey Amendment already, it doesn't need to appear in the CDC article under controversies because while arguably the $10M is indeed a controversy, it is so far below the scope of the article that it needn't be included in this fashion. The "whitewashing" bit is exactly this - IMO you're trying to whitewash the actual controversy (the force and effect of the Dickey Amendment) by saying that because the exact words 'censorship' can't be proven until a case is decided by a judge we can't use the word or anything like it in the article. I even proposed compromise language that dropped the aggressive parts you guys had the most problem with, but this too was completely and immediately rejected by you (and in fact was the edit that immediately proceeded your harassment action). OK. So I'm saying, let's compromise here to make a consensus - there is no controversy. I grant, the Dickey Amendment doesn't censor. A funding dispute isn't a controversy, though. Sahrin (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)