Talk:Galen Institute

GalenLogoExplained.png

I have reached out to the Galen Institute to secure permission to use the image, and have received confirmation from them that I can use the image. To whom should I submit this confirmation/permission?

Andrewpsroyal (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See my reply on your talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Request for deletion from user "SarekOfVulcan"

The Galen Institute has been featured in a number of top-tier publications, including multiple article submissions to and mentions in publicatiosn and outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, National Public Radio, FOX Business Network, National Journal, and National Review. The Galen Institute has also been featured in the New York Times in other instances in addition to the aforementioned letters to the editor; I can document those appropriately on the page if needed. Furthermore, the Galen Institute counts among its notable scholars, trustees and fellows former high ranking officials at the United States Department of Health and Human Services, former heads of the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget, and several prominent think tank founders and scholars with background in free-market health reform.

As an addendum, there is a second New York Times source under the page's reference section to an article describing Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner's role on the 2005 Presidential Medicare Commission. This is not a letter to the editor (as SarekOfVulcan was concerned about), but rather a substantive article that clearly discusses the Galen Institute. Additionally I have added a third New York Times source - an article written by Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner for the New York Times to the reference section, so as to clear up any and all question as to: a) the appropriateness of citing the New York Times as a publication in which the Galen Institute has appeared; and b) the noteworthiness of the Galen Institute.

I can source additional information if necessary, but under these grounds, I ask that you reconsider deletion of this page.

Andrewpsroyal (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy concerning "Media coverage" section

The section is inaccurate and misleading, as editorials, letters to the editor and other user-generated content are grouped with legitimate, independent, third-party, objective news reporting. The section needs to be renamed, regrouped or otherwise reorganized so news can be separated from opinion. Flowanda | Talk 05:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Flowanda - thanks for your input. I've renamed this section "Media coverage, op-eds and commentary" to better reflect the content. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It really is desperately scraping the barrel to include letters to the editor in the media coverage section!!! They should be taken out completely. Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Teapotgeorge - Fair point, and thank you for your input as well. I will remove the sole letter to the editor reference (the only instance where I list a letter to the editor as a source is for The New York Times; the Times is still sourced thrice without the letter to the editor). I've also removed any mention of letters to the editor from the media section (see response to Flowanda above). Andrewpsroyal (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

These links belong in the story if, instead of an indiscriminate list, you extracted the meaningful arguments that people from the Galen Instute made in them. They would certainly belong if you also gave opposing views. Most of the article violates WP:MISSION, and says nothing except platitudes about the free market and consumer choice. I'd like to see how they answer the problems that come up with the free market and consumer choice, such as Nobel laureate economist Kenneth Arrow's argument that a free market is impossible in health care, because purchasers don't have enough information to make decisions.

And if you read WP:RS and WP:NPOV, you'll see that letters to the editor and opinion pieces are allowed and encouraged in WP, to give different viewpoints. --Nbauman (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed external links

I removed this list of publications and op-eds because there was no indication of how they were significant; WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In case anyone cares to use them to expand upon some point, they can be found here. I may also do so later. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Galen Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090426121511/http://www.galen.org:80/content/whowasgalen.html to http://www.galen.org/content/whowasgalen.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Objectivity questioned.

This article reads like an investment brochure. Is there nothing found about the political alignment and effectiveness of this "Institute"? Really --- "advancing free-market ideas in health policy, promoting a more informed public debate over ideas that support innovation, individual freedom, consumer choice, and competition in the health sector".[1]" when "The Institute's funding has primarily come from the pharmaceutical industry.[2]"? Does Galen solicit donations from the public and/or well-heeled political donors or would that dilute their pharmaceutical perspective?

This article from The NonProfit Times states that this is a 501(c)(3) organization. (They joined a amicus brief, along with 57 other groups, mainly quite conservative:

"A friend of the court brief has been filed with the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of 58 nonprofit and for-profit fundraisers fighting to keep major donor information confidential from the State of California."

http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-articles/u-s-supreme-court-petitioned-on-donor-privacy/ Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)