Talk:Brian Day

Balance

I'm quite concerned that this page lacks balance. This individual is leading a contentious court case with proponents on either side of the debate. Right now, this sounds like a one-sided brag piece for the individual and those interested in privatizing the Canadian health system. That's a valid opinion, but it is not what we do here on Wikipedia -- opinion.

When I spotted this, I tried to edit the article to create balance. I made sure to provide citations to all the things I said and laid out both sides of the debate so it was not one-sided -- and someone has undone all my edits.

I'd like some independent editors to assess this article and those editing it.

Kathleen5454 14:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)kathleen5454

Conflict of Interesst

OK, someone with a vested interest seems to be tampering with this page and inserting false and/or one-sided information. I need a senior editor to weigh in.

My edits (all carefully weighted to represent 'both sides') have been tampered with a second time and removed. They have been replaced with statements like this:

"The British Columbia Medical Services Commission accepted an invitation by Day to conduct an audit of Cambie Surgeries Corporation, where Day is one of 50 shareholders."

According to all media and legal documents, there was no such 'invitation' but Day fought in the courts to prevent such an audit.

Other statements like:

"They confirmed that the clinic, along with another clinic, had allowed patients to pay facility fees for services that were not being provided in a timely manner by the government system."

What the legal and news accounts actually say is that the clinic broke the law in charging such fees, and demanded the clinics stop charging the fees. Day is now challenging this law in court.

You can see how contentious the case is for both sides fighting. But the facts are clear and need to be reestablished for this article.

The opinion (whether someone thinks Day is a hero or a villain for challenging the law) is not the issue -- but the person making the edits is clearly on the 'hero' side and keeps slanting the article in that fashion -- even overriding clear facts. My edits tried to show was 'proponents' and 'critics' each say and state the facts clearly as outlined in the legal documents and media.

I can make edits again, but this is getting laborious -- and this is clearly biased and not factually correct.

Can I ask for senior editors' help in either reverting to my previous edits? Or if I make edits again to make it factual, can we protect my edits in some way? This is starting to feel like whack-a-mole.

Thanks for any help you can provide!

Kathleen5454 15:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kathleen5454: If you're talking about this, I could not find the claim in the sources either. And can you please fix your signature? How are you signing? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The new lead looks way too promotional to me. I would suggest that we go back to the old one. The IP user who alleged vandalism was wrong, of course, but what he/she should have said was "it's too promotional and obviously not NPOV". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the old lead but kept the IP's other edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Everton61 was the one who made the initial changes and rewrote the lead to be about how Day is an "internationally renowned pioneer". He also changed a few details to reframe the debate, such as "a prohibition against physician extra billing" to "patients being prohibited from choice". I don't know enough about this debate to say whether this is clear POV-pushing or not, but none of the changes seem very neutral to me. The IP was the one who reverted these changes and called them "vandalism". I then saw the debate after Kathleen5454 posted to WT:BIOG. I'm still going through the various sources cited in the article, but they don't seem to frame it in terms of "patients' rights". Maybe there are more conservative-leaning papers that do – I don't know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Mailchimp.com ref

It seems to me that the ref of "gallery.mailchimp.com" is not a Reliable Source. It looks like a mere personal "dropbox" style public data storage account, and as such entirely unusable. If it were a reliable source it would still be WP:OR original research from a WP:PRIMARY primary source, and as such not usable. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the government website version of that audit. It is reliable for the existence of the audit. Any additional information about the dispute should be ref'd to reliable source (mainstream news) sources. Direct use of a government statement flies in the face of guidelines at WP:PRIMARY. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like you're right. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the help provided. I'll try to keep an eye on the page. It reads very nice and balanced now. Appreciate your assistance since I'm still new-ish -- at least to a controversial page with contested edits.

Kathleen5454 17:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleen5454 (talk • contribs)

$66,000 in overlapping claims

A statement about overlapping claims was removed in this edit. I found a source that says that there were $66K in overlapping claims, but I'm not sure if it's an opinion article or not: National Post. I really don't know anything about this controversy. Maybe someone who knows about it can comment? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello NinjaRobotPirate, I don't claim to be an expert on these matters either, and I'm very new on wikipedia as well, but an article which claims that "a win for Dr. Day would be a loss for all Canadians" doesn't seem very objective. The authors of that article have a great incentive to misrepresent Dr. Day as Dr. Monika Dutt is chair of Canadian Doctors for Medicare and Rick Turner is co-chair of the B.C. Health Coalition. It's also in the "Full Comment" section which I think is the opinion section? Not sure. Lifebringer6211 (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like it might be an editorial or opinion column. Per WP:BIAS, biased sources are allowed, but I don't want to source a contentious statement in a biography to an editorial. Maybe someone else can find a better source. I'm trying to figure out which statements in this article are biased, which are true, and which are false. It's not easy when you're so unfamiliar with the controversy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The word "claim"

Added 5 July 2015 by Canuckle: "Day claims his advocacy as president of CMA was for a hybrid public-private system not a full replacement by private hospitals." The wording seems off to me. How can you "claim" your own position? The use of the word claim seems to imply that his advocacy was not for a hybrid public-private system, despite Day clarifying this point again and again in interviews. 208.31.49.57 (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Simple fix, just change one word from 'claim' to 'describe'. INTENT WAS ALWAYS NEUTRAL . Canuckle (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Cambie Lawsuit

Contributors need to be cautious about providing content about an ongoing court case in a BIO article whose subject is not even a plaintiff. Court case is high-profile and he does comment, may be involved in it. So should be mentioned in his bio. But when concluded and if notable, the court case should have its own separate article. And I wrote this bio years before the lawsuit because he had notability for years before. So we need to ensure that a current controversy is not over-promoted on a bio. THANKS EVERYONE FOR BEING NEUTRAL. Canuckle (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm getting very tired of dealing with this article. Every so often, all controversy completely disappears from this article, and Brian Day is recast as a hero who is fighting government oppression. This is not how the press has reported on him. I have never pretended to completely understand the controversies involved, but I can recognize when reliable sources have criticized a public person. The blanking of all criticism can not be allowed to stand, and I have reverted the most recent changes to this article. I will bring this to WP:BLPN and WP:WikiProject Medicine if I have to, because this stuff is over my head, and I'm tired of reverting what look to me like POV edits. I think we need experts who understand the controversy to edit this article – I am not that person, and all I can really do is use my best judgment to determine whether there are POV issues with how Wikipedia presents a controversial individual. I don't care about Day, his advocacy, the controversy, or anything else related to this article. But I keep seeing sourced controversy disappear from this article, and it's frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Fine, you want to play it this way, we'll go to BLPN... again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Given the return of the lawsuit to court and media, there is risk of increased attempt by supporters and opponents, so having assistance from experienced and neutral editors is good. I have had to correct several pros and cons submitted in the past. Today's total undo by NinjaRobotPirate was unjustified by removing reliable sources, etc. etc. I am open to discussion about improving facts and perception of the style. I created the Controversies section originally so perception of my removing public criticism is incorrect. Canuckle (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

UBC Faculty

• Is there sources about his status or removal from UBC Faculty of Orthopaedics? The source webpage is no longer live so was removed from External Links section.Canuckle (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029060552/http://communities.canada.com:80/nationalpost/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/10/22/brian-day-s-diagnosis-the-president-of-the-canadian-medical-association-explains-how-to-fix-our-health-care-system.aspx to http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/10/22/brian-day-s-diagnosis-the-president-of-the-canadian-medical-association-explains-how-to-fix-our-health-care-system.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140809190521/http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=2d908e82-9b7c-485b-95b8-e83eeeea88f4&__federated=1 to http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=2d908e82-9b7c-485b-95b8-e83eeeea88f4&__federated=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)