User talk:Crackenstein

Bachmann edits

TIME is a mainstrean, reliable source of information that is an example of the kind of references that Wikipedia generally encourages, and it was very relevant to the material you deleted. Why did you delete this?Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, TIME was correct, and you keep deleting all the reasons why the quote in question was selective and misleading. Why?Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also delete any quote form the Lancet article you mentioned that explains why the McCaughey quote was misleading. How could this be an honest mistake?Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the appropriate page to engage in an argument over Emanuel, but if we must, it would be more honest to rely on the figures' own words rather than outside analysis, such as TIME. It is your opinion that TIME is correct - it is not established, irrefutable fact.Crackenstein (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that Bachmann made it sound as if Emanuel was trying to ration all of health care, and the fact that this applied only to scarce medical interventions like organs and vaccines, is a very key point that has to be mentioned. There was a large misrepresentation of the facts. Don't weasal word that part of it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you deleted the Lancet quote specifying that the article was only about allocation of very scarce medical interventions. Emanuel did co-write that, as you are aware since you deleted it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned before, see WP:BLP, which applies to mention of a living person on any Wikipedia article (emphasis by Wikipedia), WP:NPOV and so on. Especially when discussing living persons it is especially important to go by sources that Wikipedia thinks are reliable (including TIME, and not including any individual editor), and so forth. Please don't delete required sources, including TIME. Sorry if you think you know better, but Wikipedia requires that we go by such sources rather than WP:OR.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I try to assume good faith, its difficult to see a good reason for you to delete the quote, and then pretend it doesn't exist.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to "rely on the figures' own words", don't delete them. Why did you do that?Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted interpretation from Time magazine. Why do you insist on providing third-party interpretation of what Bachmann and McCaughey have said? Why not let the reader decide for him/herself based on what the primary sources say? While I try to assume good faith, it's difficult to see a good reason for you to continue inserting third-party interpretation of the primary sources, particularly when those third parties display only one viewpointCrackenstein (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

As mentioned before, see WP:BLP, which applies to mention of a living person on any Wikipedia article (emphasis by Wikipedia), WP:NPOV and so on. Especially when discussing living persons it is especially important to go by sources that Wikipedia thinks are reliable (including TIME, and not including any individual editor), and so forth. Please don't delete required sources, including TIME. Sorry if you think you know better, but Wikipedia requires that we go by such sources rather than WP:OR.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be disagreeable, I just think you might perhaps be new to Wikipedia. If so, welcome to Wikipedia.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I primarily think that this line of discussion would be more appropriate on Emanuel or McCaughey's page. Time's interpretation of McCaughey's articles is nice, but Time is not the arbiter of truth. I'm struggling to see how this line from Time, which clearly is an opinion statement, is "required".

One additional advantage to the original version is that it is more concise, and still accurately points out that the Bachmann speech used selective quoting to make it sound like Emanuel wanted to ration all of health care, as opposed to the "allocation of very scarce medical interventions" that Emanuel mentioned. TIME was correct on that point, and the previous version was more concise, and Wikipedia does require sources such as TIME as references. I'm not trying to fool you on this point.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Bachmann used selective quoting to "make it sound like" Emanuel wanted to ration "all" of health care, please provide the quote and reference. Clearly Emanuel's writings indicate he advocates rationing of some health care resources under some circumstances based on age. That should be emphasized rather than simply trying to frame this as Bachmann completely mischaracterizing his position.Crackenstein (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically things like scarce vaccines (vaccines can be scarce during pandemics) and organs (there are waiting lists for organ transplants). The previous concise version still has a link to all the details in the current, greatly enlarged version. Another article has the details, this article should summarize, which is what was done before.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a great deal of research on these issues. I'm really not trying to fool you. The Bachmann speech had incomplete information.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, but provide the quotes from Bachmann that indicate "incomplete information". I'm fine with the entry the way it stands now, with the quotes from her and Emanuel.Crackenstein (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you provide quotes that are missing from what Bachmann said? They're not in her speech, which was misleading. Again, she didn't mention that the scope applied only to very scarce medical interventions. However, Bachmann was right about the age thing within that very limited scope. The aim was to save more years of life, according to the three co-authors of the Lancet article.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's your opinion that it was misleading. Let's just stick with what the primary sources have said. The aim may have been to save more years of life, but that clearly involved rationing some care for older and younger people, as the authors wrote.Crackenstein (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how are people going to know that Bachmann made it sound (incorrectly) as if Emanuel was trying to ration all of health care? That point should be mentioned, in that it explains what the controversy was about.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide her quote where she said he advocates rationing "all of health care." That's how they'll know.Crackenstein (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michele Bachmann. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Loonymonkey (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The clear attempt to discredit Bachmann without telling the full story on Emanuel does not go unnoticed and erodes Wikipedia credibility.Crackenstein (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This comment in particular is way out of line. Editors that can't maintain at least the appearance of cordiality and politeness tend to have much shorter wikipedia careers than those that do. Loonymonkey (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors that can't maintain at least the appearance of cordiality and politeness tend to have much shorter wikipedia careers than those that do." You and jimmuldrow being obvious exceptions.--Crackenstein (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]