Talk:Death panel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lead trim and focus

Basically, in response to comments on the reassessment page noting lack of focus and definition of the term in the lead— I trimmed the lead down to a summary of facts essential to understanding the term death panel. Previously the lead listed the names of politicians endorsing the term and/or opposing the legislation and attempted to describe another politician's role in paving the route to the death panel charge. The attempt fell short, and details of who said what cluttered the lead. These details are still discussed in the body of the article-and portraits of the politicians making statements on the death panel claim still dot the article. The opinions of numerous individuals are quoted and discussed in the reaction section, so I did not see why just two - Wilensky and Gawande were picked out for special attention in the lead - and felt it was an example of UNDUE or CHERRY PICKING to leave their opinions in the lead but not include others.-- KeptSouth (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link which shows the earlier, untrimmed version of the lead, [1] and here is a link which shows the current, more concise version.[2]--KeptSouth (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It needed a trim. But now it needs more summary of the article (reaction, impact, analysis). Jesanj (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, with negationism

[3] Jesanj (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional coverage Jesanj (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This article needs revised

I came here to read about Death Panels, not a long winded attack on an Alaskin. This page really needs to be fixed as it is nothing more than biased political tripe.

NPR even aknolaged, through an interview of the author of a book, that death panels are a nessesity. That was NPR, not some skewed personification of someone you hate.

Fix this article and turn it into a page about DEATH PANELS, not another piece of charactor assassination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.120.9 (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is based on what reliable sources have to say about Ms Palin's alleged "Death Panel". If you have sources that we can use to add to the article, please share. If you feel there is unsourced material, material that misrepresents what the cited sources say or that some of the sources are not reliable, please explain. A blanket claim that the article is a "long winded attack" or "biased political tripe" is not particularly helpful as it tells us nothing more than that someone north of Minneapolis doesn't like the article.

Your impression of what NPR was saying about a need for otherwise fictitious "death panels" in an interview of some author of some book is not useful without a link to the item in question. Material in Wikipedia must be verifiable.

If you came here to read about what someone at NPR seemed to be saying we should create, you've come to the wrong place. This article is about a term from 2009 that Ms Palin used to refer to a non-existent entity in the Affordable Care Act. As PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year", one of FactCheck's "whoppers", the most outrageous term by the American Dialect Society and the subject of considerable coverage in reliable sources, the 2009 claim is notable. A topic in a 2012 interview with ... someone ... discussing something with the same name -- but not part of the ACA -- doesn't seem to be notable, unless you have some sources for us. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Your's is not a fact based argument, SummerPhD, but an entirely superficial one. A key Obama advisor, SOURCED and referenced correctly, has used the very phrase you want to credit former Gov. Palin as creating in an argument published in a major national news source in favor of the very thing Palin rightfully pointed out as a legitimate concern regarding President Obama's healthcare legislation. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you get the final say. Atxav8r (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, the Counselor to the United States Secretary of the Treasury is not a "top adviser" to the president. Please note that we did not merely cite Ms Palin saying the ACA included "Death Panels", we cited reliable sources discussing her claim. This is an issue of WP:WEIGHT. We do not pick and choose individual things said by various individuals in larger sections of text. If we did, it would be a trivial matter to select quotes to turn the pope into an atheist and George Washington into a socialist or either one into a veritable god, to fit the whim of individual editors. The text you added (the last paragraph in this large edit) goes out of its way to make "the lead auto advisor (informally the "car czar") in the United States Treasury Department" and one-time Democratic fund raiser into a "top Democrat strategist". Then, you selectively quote Rattner's opinion piece: “We need death panels.”, and concluding his piece by saying "We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable." Actually, he clearly said "not death panels exactly", discussed his desire to include new limits in Medicare (not the ACA). Your edit claims (without sourcing) that this is "a direct admission that Gov. Palin's concerns were and are well justified." It is nothing of the sort. He says, "Most notably, President Obama’s estimable Affordable Care Act regrettably includes severe restrictions on any reduction in Medicare services or increase in fees to beneficiaries. In 2009, Sarah Palin’s rant about death panels even forced elimination from the bill of a provision to offer end-of-life consultations."

Break that down: He says the ACA severely restricted the limits he now wants to add to Medicare and goes on to explain that the section removed from the ACA in response to Ms Palin's "rant about death panels" is something far different.

Without explanation, you've removed the section that read "Palin's claim, however, was debunked, and it has been referred to as the "'''death panel'''" '''myth''';<ref name="Nyhan"/> nothing in any proposed legislation would have allowed individuals to be judged to see if they were "worthy" of health care.<ref name="Not so"/>" Please explain.

Without explanation or sourcing, you changed "Other prominent Republicans and conservative talk radio hosts backed Palin's statement." to "Other prominent Republicans, mainstream news media, academics, physicians, conservative talk radio hosts, and some Democrats supported Gov. Palin's statement." Please explain.

Without explanation or sourcing, you changed "Due to public concern, the provision was removed..." to "Due to public concern and in direct refutation of the criticism directed at then Gov. Palin, the provision was removed..." Please explain.

In your opinion "In spite of this, in 2009 the term "death panel" was named as PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year", one of FactCheck's "whoppers", and deemed the most outrageous term by the American Dialect Society" Please explain who, other than you, says all of this happened "in spite of" anything.

Without explanation or sourcing, you added "More recently, the American Society of Clinical Oncology bemoaned the politicization of the issue and said in a 2011 statement that the proposal should be revisited." Please cite and explain.

Much of the material you have added (without explanation or sourcing) regarding Rattner is off-topic and does not belong in this article, unless you have independent reliable sources discussing these claims and details "in direct relation to the topic". In other words, to include in this article the board Rattner currently serves on, who funds it and what it does, you will need reliable sources discussing all of this as it directly relates to "Death Panels". Otherwise, it is synthesis. That you believe it is relevant to the topic is irrelevant.

I'll let this sit for a little bit. Anything you don't explain, I will remove, with policies and guidelines to explain why. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "This article is based on what reliable sources have to say about Ms Palin's alleged "Death Panel". If you have sources that we can use to add to the article, please share." That has been done, you just don't like it. Steven Rattner was appointed by President Obama as one of his advisor's (he has his own wiki page), and a major national publication, the New York Times, published his OpEd (demonstrating that the NYTs considers his opinion valid). You have not shown (and cannot show) how Mr. Rattner's use of the term "Death Panel" and his opinion that "they are inescapable" is irrelevant to this wiki page. Again, the New York Times felt his opinion worthy of publication. There is no need to cite any other source. Atxav8r (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has removed your additions. If you wish to restore any of your edits, I would encourage you to take them one at a time and discuss the individual claims you are making, rather than making blanket accusations about Wikipedia and/or individual editors being biased. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not made any accusations that Wikipedia is biased. I have pointed out that this wiki is clearly written in a biased manner, as others have pointed out. As for the rest of my argument, they stand upon their own merit. Unlike others, I am not an experienced wiki editor or I would continue this further (such as your use of TW). I will leave it for others to take up what has already begun. Steven Rattner's comments re: Death Panels is revealing, the New York Times felt his opinion worth publishing, and it's certain that many people would rather not have his opinion shared as it shows quite clearly that socialized medicine most definitely leads to "Death Panels", or as Mr. Rattner said it is "inescapable". Here, once again, is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=1& Atxav8r (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction: While discussing "not death panels, exactly" he said that "stomach-wrenching choices" are inescapable. And, incidentally, you clearly are not as "inexperienced" as you claim. I guess we're done here. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Reaction

The word "myth" in the opening sentence under "Reaction" interferes with the article's neutrality, even as a reference back to the article's introduction which is itself a reference to the title of a reference. (I don't know if there are any standards regarding cyclical referral.) A more neutral term in this position might be "claim" or "controversy." Tryanmax (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Going through the reliable sources cited, I find numerous instances that confirm "Palin's claim, however, was debunked, and it has been referred to as the "death panel myth"." Other word choices available include "false claim", "disinformation" and such. I do not find anyone calling it a claim (other than calling it "Palin's claim") or a "controversy". - SummerPhD (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a synthesis

This edit was not a synthesis; it came straight from the Cato source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_panel&diff=567945964&oldid=567583861

Additionally, the lead should include strong evidence from both sides. The Berwick quote has been cited frequently by those who believe the "Death Panels" had a basis in reality.[4] [5][6][7]William Jockusch (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The source cited clearly states that Obamacare "does not directly tatin care or allow the government to dictate how doctors practice medicine." It does not state that "Supporters of Palin's assertion pointed to Dr. Donald Berwick...". The closest the source comes is to predict that "the calls for controlling casts through rationsing will grow louder".

I haven't looked at the new sources yet, but that CATO claim does not support the content that was added. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

In any case, as an opinion piece on a partisan website, it's clearly not a reliable source for facts about the US healthcare system. FurrySings (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm using CATO as an example of a supporter of Palin's assertion. The new sources are also examples of supporters. I'm using them to support exactly what I wrote, namely "Supporters of Palin's assertion pointed to Dr. Donald Berwick, former Obama appointee to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who said in an interview that "The question is not whether we are going to ration; the question is whether we are going to ration with our eyes open." We are up to like four or five different supporters doing exactly that -- Cato, the WSJ, the Columbia Journalism Review, and Investors, plus the Daily Caller, which was the original source for the Cato piece, here.[8].William Jockusch (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

On top of that this is controversial and less-notable material unsuitable for the lead, per WP:LEAD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree that as written, it's not suitable for WP:LEAD. I'll try rewriting. William Jockusch (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, how about this: "Supporters of Palin's assertion pointed to pro-rationing statements by Dr. Donald Berwick, former Obama appointee to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.", with references to the above sources, with the WSJ source establishing a high level of notability.William Jockusch (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

One article doth not satisfy WP:LEAD's notability requirement. You'd have to show that the Berwick quote is central to the debate over death panels, which I highly doubt. The way I understand it it is really only supporting evidence raised by a few opponents of Obamacare and hasn't been extensively reported on by reliable sources (at least not in connection with death panels). Why don't you focus on incorporating it into the body of the article, which has a lower notability threshold? The WP:OR/WP:RS/WP:SYNTH issues raised by SummerPhD and FurrySings will have to be addressed regardless of where you want to put it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I already have it in the body, a little. I do have five articles, not one. Are you arguing that the WSJ, investors, and so forth are collectively less notable than The Forum, published by the Berkeley Electronic Press? That's the source for the "Death Panel Myth" thing that is bolded in the intro.William Jockusch (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:GNG, notability is generally (though not always) established by looking at reliable sources. Four of the articles are unreliable opinion pieces (the exception being the Biotechnology Healthcare article). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

And the Biotechnology Healthcare article doesn't say anything about death panels, so its relevance is quite limited. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

But opinion pieces are citable for factual information. Here, the factual information is that "Supporters of Palin's assertion pointed to pro-rationing statements by Dr. Donald Berwick . . . ." That's a factual statement, not a statement of opinion. The article already does this kind of thing multiple times. For example, we have this sentence. "An editorial by USA Today said, "to the extent that death panels of a sort do exist, they're composed of state officials who must decide whether each state's version of Medicaid will cover certain expensive, potentially life-saving treatments." That's pretty much the same thing as what I'm doing, isn't it? It's a factual statement that the editorial said what it said. Just as, in my case, it's a factual statement that supporters of Palin's assertion said what they said. And I have four or five different sources doing it, as opposed to just the one USA today reference.William Jockusch (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

See also this, an editorial by none other than Sarah Palin bringing up Berwick in relation to Death Panels, and using exactly the same pro-rationing quote.[9]William Jockusch (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about whether these opinion pieces are citable. We're talking about whether they're a reliable indicator of notability. Just because someone famous like Palin talks about something doesn't make it notable. We're looking for news sources, journal articles, etc. Also note that, again per WP:GNG, statements by Palin aren't a good indicator of notability since Palin is closely affiliated with the "death panels" meme. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my head is spinning here, either I'm very dumb or a very disingenuous line is being taken here, and I'm not sure which. How can it be true that (say) the USA Today editorial above is notable enough for the article, yet editorials saying more or less the same thing in the WSJ, Fox News, Cato, the Daily Caller, and Investors, combined, are not notable enough for the lead. Are these not two examples of essentially the same thing, except that in my case I have much more support due to the large number of highly visible sources?William Jockusch (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You're neither dumb nor am I being disingenuous. There's a subtle but important distinction here. The issue is that while, as you note, some high profile outlets have published pieces about Berwick's take on rationing, none of those pieces are reliable sources per WP:RS, as they're all op-eds. And per WP:GNG, to determine something's notability we usually (though not always) look at how extensively the thing has been covered by reliable sources. The fact that Berwick's opinion has only been reported on by one reliable secondary source, and a pretty obscure one at that, one that doesn't even connect it with the subject of this article, is strong evidence that it doesn't belong in the lead section of this article.

As for your comparison to the USA Today editorial you cited, that source is terribly mis-cited, but that's a separate issue. Relevant to this discussion is that the USA Today editorial isn't in the lead, it's in the body. Huge difference, as WP:LEAD requires a much higher level of notability. I do agree with you, though, that the lead misleadingly implies that Palin is the only person who has put forward the death panels meme, when in fact lots of other people have perpetuated it since Palin's first utterance of the term. Indeed, it's been a full-blown meme for years now, and Palin's connection is really a historical one at this point. But this is really an aside to the subject of this discussion, which is about Berwick. Berwick's opinion appears to have fueled some of the perpetuators' arguments, but until this receives substantially more attention in the reliable sources it doesn't belong in the lead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus vs. Edit Warring

YOLO:

You are the one who is edit warring, not me. I made changes, based in part on the comments contained in the talk section. Several other people pointed out that the article was excessively oriented on Gov. Palin, where as the topic is "Death Panel" which actually means something in modern usage.

I made a large number of changes. You didn't go through and critique them in any meaningful way - you used UNDO to reverse all of them. Isn't this how Wikipedia is supposed to get better? You didn't make one criticism of my article here on the talk page. You didn't bother to go through and rewrite something that was weak, you just liked the old version, despite the many problems with it as evidenced by the comments here on the talk page.

I did work, you just are enforcing some sort of politically correct orthodoxy that insists that the most important thing about the topic "Death Panel" is that Sarah Palin LIED when she said it, and that FactCheck.org proves it.

If you don't understand how one-dimensional this article is I can't help you.

Please act like an adult and put SOME EFFORT into responding to my explanation. I've spent several hours on this today - you've reverted my changes without even posting an adequate explanation, without bothering to even go through the edits. You are using blunt force and EDIT WARRING, I'm being a sincere Wiki editor.

Your behavior is a reason the UNDO function is in dsirepute on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 03:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL and make your best effort to work collaboratively toward WP:CONSENSUS. Two wrongs do not make a right. Your sentence "If you don't understand how one-dimensional this article is I can't help you" is particularly unhelpful. If you refuse to consider the viewpoints of your fellow editors then your time working on controversial subjects such as this one will likely be short. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

My Claims vs. My Critics

My claim, or at least one of them, is that "death panels" actually means something, and pretty much everyone, even the New York Times knows what it means. I did not misquote the NY Times. The entire article is here on this talk page. The AUTHOR of the article, Mr. Ratner, began with a standalone paragraph that says: "We need Death Panels".

My changes explain that this is a term now in commmon usage. You deny this? How, based on what counter-evidence.

ALSO: Why are you (guys) unable to do anything but lazy undos. No talk, despite previous editor suggesting that was what should be done. OK: I DID IT !!

When I read the comments page the critics have carried the discussion, but the liberal guardians of the temple are carrying the day with BRUTE FORCE UNDO bombs.

So much for thoughtful discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 03:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:V, if we're going to say that "death panels" is common usage then we need to back that up with reliable sources. The New York Times op-ed you're referring to doesn't say that "death panels" is common usage. And even if it did, it's only the view of one person and it isn't reliable. The author is a financier and economist, not a journalist, linguist, or political scientist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Example of the use of "Death Panels" by the UK National Health System

"130,000 elderly patients killed every year by ‘death pathway’, claims leading UK doctor." by Thaddeus Baklinski Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:02 EST Tags: euthanasia, patrick pullicino, uk. LONDON, June 21, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An eminent British doctor told a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine in London that every year 130,000 elderly patients that die while under the care of the National Health Service (NHS) have been effectively euthanized by being put on the controversial Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), a protocol for care of the terminally ill that he described as a “death pathway.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.211.80 (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• a. London is not in the US. b. "death pathway" is not the same as "death panel" (do I really have to explain this?). c. even if it were, it's just one person, and what is necessary to establish that something is a happening term is an in-depth discussion of that term, not the words of one user of the term. d. LifeSiteNews.com is about as partisan as it gets. If you had looked around outside the standard pro-life anti-Obama Judeo-Christian blogosphere (these terms from their own website) you would have found that they actually ripped it from somewhere else (without acknowledgement): it was a story in the Daily Mail. Which is a tabloid that we don't cite in an encyclopedia because, well, duh. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Getting personal and vindictive isn't a WIKIPEDIA best practice

Off-topic discussion about editorial conduct. Please move to User_talk:Drmies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you Drmies, operating in good faith? You have now gone out and started reverting other articles I have written on completely different topics! Not commenting on them in the talk section and gaining consensus, not changing them to improve them, just using your UNDO button to remove whole parts of things I've added to Wikipedia. Really? That's way out of line! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 17:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Violates NPV Rule Flagrently =

As numerous other commentators have pointed out the article is more a one-sidded polemic criticizing Sarah Palin than it is a reasonable discussion of what "Death Panels" mean in modern American parlance.

My attempts to fix this were REVERTED, obnoxiously, when I was still working on them. The reverter asserted that NONE of the changes made were worthwhile and reverted them all, rather than editing them. My "low quality sources" inlcude the Weekly Standard, arguably the leading magazine of American conservatism, roughly similar to the place that a magazine like The New York Times Magazine holds.

As the comments also demonstrate (and as my edits pointed out) the term continues under widespread use by both the left (NPR, New York Times, etc.) and the right.

The revision is uncalled for. Please edit my changes and don't just erase them, I'm sincerely trying to make this article better. My source citations TRIPPLED the number in the orgiginal article. That hardly constitutes vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• The editor who proposes that the NYT piece supports their POV doesn't understand what the article is saying. It doesn't say death panes exist, it doesn't say we "need" death panels, it doesn't prove the point that the "original" Palinvention is taken seriously. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the cited NYT piece was an op-ed that, even if reliable, requires attribution per WP:RSOPINION and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is yet another article demonstrating my point that the term "Death Panel" is in wide use, this one from a left-leaning publication, Slate. "Canada Has Death Panels, And that’s a good thing."

Here's another op-ed from a major daily newspaper, by Charles Hurt, in our nation's capital, the Washington Times that uses the term in the title "Sarah Palin knew a death panel when she saw one". This was published Nov 5, 2013, not when we were arguing about Palin's comment. It's an accepted term now, used in every-day discourse, though that obviously grates on some people.

Or, how about the slightly left-of-center "The Hill", they used the term in a headline in August of this year in the article: "ObamaCare ‘death panel’ faces growing opposition from Democrats".

Investors.com, the online publication of Investors Business Daily ran this editorial: "Death Panels Alive And Well In Canada And Coming Here"

Uber left wing monthly (paper) magazine Mother Jones: "Democrats Jump on the 'Death Panel' Bandwagon" from August 8 of this year, again long after the controversy over Palin's remarks has faded normal people use the term, usually as an abreviation for the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) when they are discussing it in the context of Obamacare. But I have seen the term used to discuss similar boards operating in the states, specifically Oregon, which has had such a board for many years due to special medicaid rules it applied for and received permission to use about a decade ago.

So, here is ample evidence from sources that I think almost any reasonable person would admit cover a very broad spectrum of political leanings from far-left to far-right, all of which are using the term "Death Panel" in the same way.

Yet the article repeatedly refers to the "myth" of Death Panels. What myth? All the publications and articles use the term, often as a shorthand for the IFAB. That seems to imply to me that an article about "Death Panels" should probably describe the CONSENSUS use of the term by journalists and editorialists, and activists - and not continue to flog some editors pet interpretation and rants about Sarah Palin in the article that readers might be turning to to gain an understanding of what the term means. It's not that the origin isn't important, but at this point it's not the main thing. ZeroXero (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me for coming to the party a bit late, but what's the statement you want included in the article? That "death panels" is in common usage? Or that the IFAB is a death panel? Or something else? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

DrFleischman, you're putting the finger on the sore spot: it's slippage. If the term is in common usage, it must be a real thing--I think that's the summary of it. That is, if it's in common usage we can cite the people who use it (the argument works the other way around as well--more slippage), and if lots of people use it and we cite them all in the article at least some of them must be right (the evidence is overwhelming!), therefore death panels exist. See the section below. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say if a term is in common usage it has a common meaning, which presumably a person might want to discover by looking it up in Wikipedia. So in the case of Death Panels, well what's a death panel. The article, which many commentators here on the talk page have been noting has major problems for many months, asserts that it is a "myth". I maintain it is a shorthand for those government bodies whose role is to limit treeatment of government insured patients to keep costs down. This is how the term is used in the references I have provided from numerous highly legitimate publications from across the poltiical spectrum. In reponse you just keep asserting that they don't exist, and that it's a "myth" - NOW IN BOLD!

The opening line of this article describes "Death Panels" as a political term. Well what does it describe ? Your answer is "nothing", or a "myth". But that's not the way people are using it. Yes the IFAB is one example of board that would be commonly referred to as a death panel, so is the board in Oregon that determines the procedures that will be covered by the Oregon Healh Plan. So would other bodies of this type in other government entities.

Even you, Dr. Fleishman, say this: " I do agree with you, though, that the lead misleadingly implies that Palin is the only person who has put forward the death panels meme, when in fact lots of other people have perpetuated it since Palin's first utterance of the term. Indeed, it's been a full-blown meme for years now, and Palin's connection is really a historical one at this point.

I'm suggesting that we redo the article so the "full blown meme" is explained in the way it is commonly used - not just in editorials, and not just in "anti-Obama right wing blogs", and not just in the body of articles, but all over the place in news stories from outlets like The New York Times, The Weekly Standard, Salon, Investors Business Daily, Mother Jones, and the Washington Times, which are certainly reliable sources, particularly for determining usage of a "Political Term", which is what the article currently frames "Death Panels" as. ZeroXero (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That all sounds somewhat reasonable, except that it's too vague to be actionable. We need to know what specific assertions you want to put in the article. If it's that "death panels" is common usage, then we need reliable sourcing that says that (more than a handful of articles that simply use the term "death panels"). If it's that IFAB is a "death panel," then we need reliable sourcing that says that. If it's that the Oregon board is a death panel, then we need reliable sourcing that says that. You can't lump all of these things together in a pile, point to a handful of sources that make various statements (some reliable, some not, some requiring attribution, some not), and then say it should all be included. On a related point, you keep referring to the Rattner piece as a news article, when it's clearly not. (Notice how at the top of the page it says "The Opinion Pages" and "OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR.") --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You've agreed it's a "full blown meme". I've stated the assertions I would like to put in the article above. I don't agree that "Death Panel" has to mean IFAB or the Oregon Healh Plan board, it is clearly a more generic term. I can say "red wine" and that includes Merlots, Pinots and others. You seem to feel I must force it to be a one to one relationship, but the terms is frequently seen as a plural, many users of the term understand that it's referring to several instances of the type.

Because there are so many sources I'm more than willing to drop any that don't meet the accepted standards. As it's defined by the editors as a "political term" I would think that leading political journals like the Weekly Standard, Mother Jones, Slate as well as the editorial boards of leading daily newspapers like the New York Times, Washington Times and Investors Business Daily would all be acceptable. Where the use of term is in an editorial (should any of those citiations be needed) then attribution is not a problem. I did include authors in the citation, in every case.

A google search of the term "Death Panels" reveals over 1 million hits. How many do you think I should cite to gain your concurrence with my desire to explain this "full blown meme"?? Just curious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:E80:7ED:E08A:CC4F:7E4C:9B22 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You only need one -- but that one must be a reliable source that says that "death panels" is common usage (or a close paraphrase). Anything else is original research. Find that one source and you're golden. And please stop insulting me off-wiki; it's not productive and could lead to administrative action here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus trolling?

Just heads up, all, regarding the following FreeRepublic.com thread started day before yesterday (11/13) by a Freeper/Wiki editor, requesting assistance at generating "consensus" against what he calls this article's "smug, self-satisfied leftist editorial guard-dogs":

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3091580/posts

What's a "Death Panel"? (Freep Wikipedia's Anti-Palin rant) "I have been involved in editing the article on Death Panels on Wikipedia. For those who are interested in Obamacare the original claim by Sarah Palin that Obamacare would include panels that would limit treatment to achieve cost savings and might be expected to result in people not getting treatment they need, particularly older or disabled people, seems like yet another obvious fact that the left cannot accept. No where is this more clear than in the Wikipedia article on Death Panels which, in violation of Wikipedia rules is essentially a long diatribe against Gov. Palin. I am requesting a good old fashioned Freep of Wikipedia for the purpose of building "consensus" among the smug, self-satisfied leftist editoral guard-dogs. As you may know anyone can edit either Wikipedia or the talk pages. As I am not a destructive vandal I am not asking people to edit the article (at this time) but rather to read the article, and comment on it on the Talk page. The editors believe in consensus as the tool to set article direction. Fine, I believe there is a consensus that a Death Panel is a Death Panel is a Death Panel, regardless of who coined the term. Here is the article: Death Panel. Here is the Death Panel TALK page where, after reading the comments, I wold appreciate it if you would please append your own at the bottom. Keep it civil. If you have a WIKI login use it, but you can add comments without one (but they will attach your current IP address). Thanks. I've been inspired by Matt Bracken's use of FR and Facebook to drive comments up the list, this is the same sort of on-line activism, and it is explicitly in support of Gov. Palin and common sense. This is a sort of experiment to see if it's possible to make progress on Wikipedia using numbers, as it is claimed it should be."

68.98.132.96 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

---

So let me get this straight. If a conservative asks other conservatives to contribute to the discussion and if they happen to hold the same opinion...i.e. that this article is nothing but a thinly disguised attack on Sarah Palin.....then should I take this "heads up" to mean that somehow this consensus isn't valid? Because that's how I'm reading this. Hey guys...just a warning here...disregard the consensus IF the consensus has a conservative viewpoint..... 71.89.171.120 (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the object here should be checking ALL our politics at the door and letting the reliable sources do the reporting. What would you think of Democratic Underground conducting a similar round-up campaign? Because that's the precedent the solicitation sets. It's exactly the kind of bad faith that polemecizes, not reconciles, and promotes an internecine battle for plurality - the antithesis of consensus. Sure, it's not technically against Wiki policy, but it sure violates the project's spirit. Sort of like a bad sportsmanship. Especially if folks feel so passionately about a Wiki topic that they'd appeal to a partisan political forum to develop a POV for which reliable sources are lacking, I'd strongly encourage them to take up activism, not editing. ESPECIALLY not editing. --AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it would seem to me this behavior is against policy, see WP:MEAT: "While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited." Yobol (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It all seemed measured enough until the penultimate sentence, which reveals an agenda that belongs on editorial & LOE pages, not these: "this is the same sort of on-line activism, and it is explicitly in support of Gov. Palin..." Regarding the post's final point, that "This is a sort of experiment to see if it's possible to make progress on Wikipedia using numbers, as it is claimed it should be," the following guidelines seem applicable:

1. "Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors."
2. "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. Their comments may be tagged with a note pointing out that they have made few or no other edits outside of the discussion."

So despite 71.89.171.120's support for the strategy, it looks like, nope, though the wheels on the bus go round & round, it's still one stop short of the school. --AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Surely we should be checking our politics at the door which is WHY the whole premise of this article is so offensive to conservatives. The political stink on this article is palatable. What's worse is the "editors" seem to see absolutely nothing wrong with parading their bias. As for HOW readers and editors find out about this article...WHO CARES??? Why is there a litmus test on HOW someone discovers an article? Oh I know....it's because a CONSERVATIVE website told people about it. And wait...there's TENURE here on wikipedia? Amazing. So if there's an article on tree frogs of Bolivia and an expert on tree frogs in Boliva contributes for the first and only time then his or her opinion apparently has less weight than the opinions of a self appointed arbitrator of truth. 01:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.171.120 (talk)

Who cares? Lots of people care. Because some people feel that other people should not be allowed to game the system. Especially those with a particular POV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Death Panels

Death Panel refers simply to the IPAB. See Independent Payment Advisory Board. The rant against Palin is gratuitous, false, and politically biased, in violation of Wikipedia standards, and should be rewritten. CharlieFFoxtrot (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What Wikipedia standards are violated, and how? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Death Panels - more examples of common usage.

Aside from the 130 references for the article itself, many of which inlcude the term in the title, new examples are seen daily. Here's one from The American Thinker (a on-line magazine ala Slate). Obamacares Three Step Cancellation Program.

ACA's Independent Payment Advisory Board -- IPAB, Sarah Palin's "Death Panel," recently renamed HTAC, Health Technology Assessment Commission -- is meeting right now in secret (if they are following the law). In 2014, they will declare some medical treatments Cost Effective and others Not Cost Effective. The latter, obviously the expensive ones, will not be authorized for payment and therefore not available to 99% of the American populace.

24.22.76.12 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This anti-PPACA opinion piece is simply quoting Sarah Palin. I don't understand how this supports your view that "death panels" is common usage. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd further question American Thinker's reliability as anything more than a glorified blog that at best aspires to Slate-league profile & circulation. Seems to publish nothing but sensational polemical screeds under such prurient headlines as, 'Black Mob Violence: New Denials & New Violence,' by World Net Daily's resident race-baiter, Colin Flaherty. Wiki can do better. 166.147.121.150 (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and it's because characterizing the HTAC's mission (to evaluate treatment effectiveness evidence) as 'death paneling' represents the worst, most paranoid partisan perversion, you'll never reliably source such an interpretation outside opinion pages. That said, I think Paranoid Partisan Perverts could make an excellent band name, but its utility stops there. 166.147.121.157 (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's another from today's news: Here Mark Halperin discusses the reality of death panels, and argues that these are needed to trim costs. Again, whether you agree or disagree with his views the point I am making is that the term is now in common usage and well understood by people both supporting and opposing Obamacare.

24.22.76.12 (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

How many times do I need to repeat this: If we're going to say that "death panels" is a term of common usage, then we must have a reliable source that says that. Extrapolating from isolated instances where people have used the term is WP:SYNTH, no matter how many instances you find. (As an aside, I'm deeply troubled that RCP would use that headline -- "Mark Halperin: Obamacare Contains 'Death Panels'" -- when Halperin never uttered the words "death panels.") --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

First, Halperin never uttered the word 'death panel,' rendering your 'usage' point specious. Second, every reliable source I've located within the last couple hours that DOES allude to 'Death Panels" treats the term not as a valid construct, but as the political dog whistle this article accurately describes. In that sense, so what if the expression's generated a lot of ink? The assumption that citation frequency=validity isn't just original synthesis, it's bad original synthesis, as well an an outright logical fallacy. 166.147.121.177 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No citation for claim

Need a reference for this claim:

Palin specified that she was referring to Section 1233 of bill HR 3200 which would have paid physicians for providing voluntary counseling to Medicare patients about living wills, advance directives, and end-of-life care options.

There is no citation, and strangely the citation just before it says that Palin's "Death Panel" comment is like another rumor going around, the voluntary counseling. Did Palin actually call that out? The FactCheck quote from the time of the controversy seems to indicate she did not. Has someone conflated to the things? What is the source for this assertion? Without a citation this should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.185.66 (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It does not summarize the article as stated. I will reword it. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Media Matters as a source

See citation 80, are we really sure Media Matters is an appropriate unbiased source? -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Potential source

Paywalled by default http://journals.lww.com/lww-medicalcare/abstract/2013/02000/the_hazards_of_correcting_myths_about_health_care.2.aspx Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

POV tag

(I came onto this issue today, with no particular previous knowledge of death panel controversy, and I am asserting my view that I am more-or-less neutral. I don't feel like I have an especially strong opinion on it.)

I believe that the article, as it stands today, is not neutral:

• It mischaracterizes the bill at the center of the issue, in a way that is material to the issue.
• It trivializes the 'against' argument in the debate by using the term "discredited"; as far as I can tell, the argument is legitimate, and continues to be unresolved.

I agree that there has been much hyperbole on the issue, but it doesn't seem to me too far out of line with what is considered acceptable political rhetoric. It is common to boil complicated issues down to simple phrases and slogans. To support the foregoing:

The article appears to say that the article merely authorizes payment to doctors for consultation about end-of-life. While this is true, it is biased because it omits the part of this section of the bill that is actual material to the dispute. As I read Section Section 1233 of HR 3200, it appears to amend Section 1861 of the Social Security Act to make requirements about the content of such consultation. Specifically, it requires the physician to advocate for a POLST, if the state has a POLST law. It makes no requirement to advocate for an AMD. This is the essence of the debate, yet nowhere in this article does this term appear.

A POLST is similar to an Advance Medical Directive, but it is not the same. A POLST is used specifically to direct doctors to not exercise the life-extending care they normally would; that is the only reason to execute a POLST. For every other concern about end-of-life, you use a regular AMD. A POLST can be completed by a doctor, without any signature from a patient, or any witnesses; an AMD is a much more formal agreement that requires some amount of ceremony, including witnesses. I think many people might think POLSTs are a good thing, and I won't dispute that, but it is fair to say that they are not yet generally-accepted. And I think it is very easy to see why some people might think a POLST is bad, especially Christian conservatives, particularly due to the fact they don't require proof of patent consent or witnesses.

Bringing it to a point, the essence of the issue is conflict-of-interest, and patients being coerced to accept reduced care. AMDs have specific protections in them to avoid coercion, namely proof-of-consent, and also a delay period. (POLSTs have no cooling off period and are effective immediately.) Based on the totality of the situation, regardless of my own feeling, I believe it is absolutely clear-cut that there is a legitimate debate here about whether it is ethical to advocate for executing a POLST, as would be mandated by the bill.

By entirely failing to present this this side of the issue, which seems to be the essence of the topic, I believe the article is unacceptably biased. Therefore, I am adding a POV tag.

I'm not sure if I have enough background to fix it, or I would. I have these ideas:

• The linked HR 3200 page has some substantive discussion of this issue, and although I'm not totally happy about it, it does do a better job of explaining the issue, without just dismissing it or misrepresenting it. Perhaps some of that information can be copied here, or even merged somehow.
• Some variation of this talk page discussion could appear in the article; even if it just said, 'the following is what crazy people think,' it would be an enormous improvement. I haven't done this though because it's currently pretty close to original research, and I don't have sources on-hand.

Aaron Will (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that neutrality is determined by what individual editors think; in fact, neutrality per WP:NPOV is determined by what reliable sources say, and it is clear the independent reliable sources state this is a discredited idea (lie of the year, indeed!). That you say you don't have any sources, and have not presented any sources, only strengthens the argument that this POV tag is unjustified. Please also note that this is a talk page for discussion of how to use reliable sources to improve the article, and not a forum for individual editors to digress into ethical discussion of end-of-life issues. I support removal of the NPOV tag as unjustified. Yobol (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality is achieved by representing the sources. Your original research needs to be reflected in reliable sources before you can claim non-neutrality. Please provide the sources. I've researched the subject, and I have never ran across these interpretations. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 04:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Were I to go through this article and edit it to include phrases like "Palin's claim were erroneously discredited, even called the 'death panel myth' by her detractors," I imagine your perspective of how "neutral" this article is would change dramatically. Yet that is precisely what I am reading, from the first sentence, taking a point not of objectively relaying information, but of taking a tangible stance on the matter, telling only one side of the story. Whatever the subject matter, objectivity must be the primary, paramount concern. This article is anything but objective, and I support the NPOV tag as fully and absolutely justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okamitora (talk • contribs) 04:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you misunderstand the NPOV policy. There is no such thing as objectivity. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 04:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Death Panels - still more examples of common usage.

American Thinker contains an article titled "Death Panels - Alive and Well" today. Reinforcing that Death Panels is in common usage as a term describing utilization boards. Here is the first paragraph from the article:

"Both here and across the pond in the UK, government agencies ration healthcare. In the UK, the rationing board is ironically called NICE, or National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Under ObamaCare, the comparable agency is IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Rationing boards evaluate “cost effectiveness” of treatments and medications, deciding which ones to pay for, or not."

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/death_panels__alive_and_well.html#ixzz3P0jABoav 

Joondeph, Brian C. Joondeph. "Death Panels -- Alive and Well". AmericanThinker.com. American Thinker. Retrieved 16 January 2015.

The article continues to be a diatribe against Sarah Palin and not a description of how the term "Death Panels" is now commonly used. What is a "death panel". Per this article: "a myth". What does the author above and the dozens of other authors cited in the discussion here previously (and now gratuitously archived by someone) mean: "a panel that determines appropriate treatments for persons covered in a public insurance plan."

I have modified so it will eventually go to the archive. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 06:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=death+panels&oq=death+panels&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i60j0l3.3303j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Shows many uses of the term death panel by main stream publications, including the LA Times, NY Times, US News and World Report - all since 2015.

The term has moved into the common lexicon, but a small group of hard-left ideologues continue to pervert this article into a anti-Palin gathering place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

NPOVing intro

Just a heads up... I'm going to be NPOVing the intro. Per the NPOV policy the article shouldn't be endorsing the POV that Obamacare included a death panel provision. At the same time it should not be endorsing the opposite POV. JoeM (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

All independent sources have stated there was no such "death panels" anywhere in the legislation, therefore we state that. We don't avoid stating facts because some people find it politically inconvenient. Yobol (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"Independent" sources still represent a POV. Let the article avoid picking one side or another; and let readers decide themselves based on the facts. JoeM (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Per the NPOV intro, we stick to independent sources, and don't create artificial balance between objective observation and paranoid lies. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yobol and Ian are correct. Clear case of WP:GEVAL. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, etc. are mainstream conservative political figures. The liberal think tanks and media that oppose them are established as well. Wikipedia should not be picking sides in the liberal versus conservative debate. To say your POV is valid, but the conservative one is not, is BLANTANT BIAS. JoeM (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the evil liberal media conspiracy! I don't think you're going to get anywhere, here or on other pages with your hamfisted changes to leads. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Users such as User:Yobol and User:NeilN may be interested to know about this ANI thread I started. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If the death panel allegation is so ridiculous, how come the whole issue is up right now before the Supreme Court? [10] JoeM (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You cannot read a source? "Supreme Court declines to hear ObamaCare 'death panel' challenge", "which critics of ObamaCare have labeled a “death panel.”" I'm wondering if you'd lend the same credence to critics of Bush and Cheney, labeling them war criminals. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and reword/clarify then. The fact that the Supreme Court even responded represents something. They do not respond to all requests for hearings. The point is that the characterization of the Obamacare body as a death panel is a subject of debate-- not an off the wall conspiracy theory that does not deserve an "artificial balance". JoeM (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note the WP:3RR warning left on your talk page. We still have that after ten years but it may have changed a bit so you might want to read the policy again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The ""Death panel" is a discredited political term..." lead in has some POV issues as the term has been picked up by Democrats and their supporters as seen in "Death Panels Come To Life as Thousands Will Die In Obamacare Obstructing Red States" (2014), "‘Republican Death Panel’: Protesters Confront GOP For Opposing Obamacare’s Medicaid Expansion" (2014) and several others. "Politicians Lie Because It Works: Death Panels Edition" by Huffington Post (2016) shows that the term is not "discredited" but that "A disturbing number of Americans still believe 2009’s “Lie of the Year.”"--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)