Talk:Single-payer healthcare/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Fixing the issues still in play

We have at least four people who note that there is no consensus for the current version. How are we going to fix it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of polls / table

As advised at the npov noticeboard dialog, the best way forward is to delete the entire poll/table section and use secondary sources instead. An editor-built construction from primary sources is problematic at best, plus it appears cherry-picked. None of those are where the cost related decisions are included in the questions. North8000 (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the prose section that existed prior to the table better or worse? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you give me a date/version that you have in mind? North8000 (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

For example, this version, which I'm not married to but is at least more in line and isn't making value judgments on the polls themselves. I'm also not against removing a public opinion section completely (especially in the National Health Care Act article, which doesn't really discuss polling specifically about that act), but I don't see how we can escape using polls when discussing public opinion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ideally it would be summary of polls by secondary objective sources. But if that isn't possible, and polls are to directly be used, it should be where the editors agree that there is a good representative inclusion. The ones in these seem to be tilted. That said, the current table doesn't have as severe problems as it did the last time I looked in but I think that the prose is better. The down side of the prose is that it involves a greater degree of summarization, and in Wikpedia the line between summarization and synthesis seems to be drawn by whether or not anybody objects. So if the summaries can be agreed on...... On the plus side, this lets the text speak for itself instead of getting labelled by headings / intros. Also flows better. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree, especially since so few of the polls actually deal directly with single payer health care (a key dispute here). I agree with you on the table issues on a whole, along with adding the undue weight issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well we seem to be in a dispute because me and Sc think the table should stay, the only way I see solving this is through DRN which Thargor has repeatedly resisted. That aside, North8000's inclusion is borderline canvassing because he was not involved in this discussion but was involved on a side against it during the NPOV board. If you wanted a neutral source it would be someone that was completely univolved prior. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually resisted DRN because the discussion was already at the NPOV noticeboard. If you have an issue with an administrator asking someone who had been involved for input as to how to solve a problem, then take it up with that administrator. Don't accuse me of canvassing when I did nothing of the sort. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Responding to CartoonDiablo. You are conflating several different things there. I gave my opinion then in an attempt to help and then haven't even watched the articles much less participated. Unless you are looking for someone to orchestrate a mediation process, I have no idea what you mean by "neutral" ...... somebody with no thoughts on the matter? Somebody who has never had any communicated thoughts on the matter? Also, apparently the gist of my last post was not very clear. I consider the formatting of the information (table vs. prose) to be a secondary topic, and a question one which I'm ambivalent on. North8000 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes you gave your opinion in NPOV noticeboard in favor of Thargor's version and then Thargor asked for your opinion here which would "tip" the consensus in his favor, that is the definition of WP:CANVASS. Someone that is neutral is someone who hasn't participated in the dispute yet.

As of now if Thargor has a problem he can take it up to DRN, the canvass of North would not be a valid justification for changing the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing me with EdJohnson[1] I don't intend to go to DRN until we've figured out if we can fix it here. That would require you to engage with us and come to an actual consensus. Are you willing to do so? If not, then it stops being a content dispute and starts becoming something else. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This edit is done you, you asked for Thargor's opinion. And the point of DRN is to fix something we can't fix here. The consensus right now is they are polls of single-payer, if you edit without a new consensus by DRN, you are edit warring. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you'll see that I addressed it to Ed. There is no consensus that the polls show single payer, or that they should be in table form, as confirmed by two admins: [2] [3]. With this information, will you work with us here, at the article, to come to a conclusion? Otherwise, DRN would no longer be appropriate, as it would become an issue of your conduct at this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The consensus can be shown here "There is no dispute. There is only the refusal of a single editor to abide by consensus" as well as SJ's other comments on the content of the polls. You're more than welcome to challenge it in DRN but as of now that is what it is. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

One person asserting consensus does not make it so. Two administrators agree with me on this one. Why are they wrong? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Me and Scjessey are not one person and the editors did not think Scjessey was part of the consensus, his edit was done afterwards. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine, two people do not make a consensus when four disagree. My point remains - why are they wrong? Will you help us here? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Responding to CartoonDiablo, Thargor Orlando did NOT approach me and never asked me to comment. Your continuing (even if it is just based on refusal to go back and reread what you misread) with the clearly false "canvassing" accusation crap is starting to border on something more serious. North8000 (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the table should be removed. For starters it implies that the table contains all polls regarding this question, which is highly unlikely to be true. Two, as others have stated, some of the polls are not explicitly relating to the Single-Payor question. As a side note, I wonder how many respondents to these polls even know what Single-Payor actuall means. As has been noted in discussions above, Medicare is not a Single-Payor system. I wonder if anyone actually knows what a Single-Payor system is, or what it would look like if someone tried to implement it anywhere. It would probably look like Cuba. Arzel (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

After reading some more I see that the table is basically a reproduction of the pnhp Kip Sullivan paper, and somewhat cherry picked at that. For example, the 2009 Kaiser Family poll has a 58% - 38% response, yet CD leaves out the second question "Having a national health plan - or single-payer plan - in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan." Only 50 percent favored this proposal while 44 percent opposed. Interestingly, the second question is a single-payor question. Who knows what other polls are not included in order to present a specific point of view. Not to mention that the Kip Sullivan paper is extraordinarly biased to begin with. Arzel (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus of the sources is that they are single-payer polls, this includes the Washington Post saying most Americans favor it and explicitly by sources like NPR (leaving out the advocacy groups). The fact is by not calling them single-payer polls you are inserting a POV and a fringe one at that.

I just checked again, even the Huffington Post and New York Times call them polls of single-payer. Last time I checked NPR, NYT, WaPo, and HuffPost are not advocacy groups. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, but they are incorrect. Neither of the links you added describe single payer polls, so I am removing them. Also, you should really keep the public opinion section in the united states in the United States section. It's called good formatting and coherent article structure. Don't simply revert things because I'm making the change, you're lucky you didn't get blocked for violating 3RR. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey here's an exercise, go to the links I posted and do a cntrl + f search for single payer. Like for instance in the Huffington Post "In poll after poll, a majority of Americans have expressed support for single-payer health care." Care to explain?

The section is where it is because public opinion precedes public policy, it's like that in virtually every article. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, then look at the polls: the polls in question do not talk about single payer, as has been explained to you countless times and you refuse to acknowledge or even discuss. Follow the links: the 538 link is about a collection of polls about the public option, the NYT poll about "government-administered health insurance like Medicare," neither being about single-payer. This is why Politifact rates that claim false. As for "virtually every other article," can you point out some examples? Even if it should precede policy, it should do so within the United States subheader, not ahead of the US subheader. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That people like Sarah Van Gelder confuse the issue does not suddenly make it true. It is like calling the hood on my jacket a cap. Yeah they are kind of the same, but they are different. If you ask me if I like wearing a hood (which I prefer) and I say yes, it does not mean I like wearing a cap (which I don't) or vice versa. That the HuffPo article misrepresent the polls (big suprise there) does not mean that the misrepresentation should follow here. Orwell would be proud of the attempt though. Arzel (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but that is Thargor/North/Arzel's opinions and you are not reliable sources. Might I ask why the New York Times citation was removed? The fact is, this has gone on for too long and will be going to DRN again soon. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The NYT piece was removed because it wasn't about single payer, much like most of the rest of the polls should be removed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm so even though the NYT defined single payer as the thing being polled it's not about single-payer? This is why we are in DRN, this going to get solved. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, we're at DRN because your forum shopping has yet to give your desired result. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

DRN discussion

See here for DRN discussion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you rush to DRN. Unbelievable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing to "hash out" either they are single-payer polls or they aren't. One way or another the matter will be settled. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It was settled ages ago, but your stark refusal to actually read the polls has been noted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Small obvious issue shows a big problem

I made one minor wording change to fix a severe wp:npov and wp:ver problem. Namely, the assertion of an opinion of one side was worded as they "pointed to" which structurally is an assertion of fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Two milk-toast attempts to fixed it were reverted. (changing "point to" to "assert that" and then later "believe that") And one reversion was blended with a reference change and only the reference change was noted on the edit summary. With such a mild fix for such a blatant problem getting warred out, it's no wonder this hasn't made any progress. And then tat was followed by (in clear violation of policy) warring to remove the subsequently placed verification tag. The references support that they make that assertion, not that their view is fact. North8000 (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunate, yes. I don't know if an RFC/U would be of any value here, either. Really not sure where to go with this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And this is without getting to a bigger problem with that sentence which is that it is placed to appear to be a header for the table. I think that a good place to start would be a discussion on that one small item. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As seen in the discussion above as well as here (note the abandoning of the discussion yet again), the key issue is the belief that these are single payer polls because advocacy groups define them as such. Truly, few of those polls belong there - they don't ask about single payer, so they don't belong in a single payer article (and since none of them talk about HR676, none of those polls belong there). CD insists that they are because some group says so. I'm fine with attributing that belief to them in prose, but the table and the polls that are there? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest a narrower, simpler start. Like maybe that one sentence (or you pick it....let us know) This will serve a couple of purposes. A narrow example is a good way to start sorting things out. Secondly, this article needs more involved editors, and the way that this issue was served up (huge and vague) is a barrier to entry. I don't want to become an editor here. I just got temporarily involved because there is some really-beyond-the-pale stuff happening here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The biggest problem currently is the polling table, however. The section really has three pieces: the counter, which no one seems to have a dispute with, the table, and the intro. The table should be the simplest issue to solve because the table versus prose shouldn't be controversial. After all, the entire article is in prose, and a table isn't appropriate. The intro is a problem because of the voice issue, the undue weight, the poor sources, and the improper labeling of the polls. It all needs to be addressed somehow. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me be your mineshaft canary. You last post touched on about 8 issues, and the most clearly understandable of them (table vs. text) at first blush looks like a debate over style. We'll never get more eyes that way. :-) North8000 (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A place to start - sentence in table section

I moved that one sentence which was placed so as to appear to be a header / conclusion from of of the tablular info, and tweaked wording to solve the wp:npov problem where it was stating that the opinions of one side of the debate were fact, (e.g. making them the object of a object of "pointed to" statement) and doing so in the voice of Wikipedia. These are edits to bring it in compliance with policy. Now we have something narrowed down to have a real discussion here if there are any objections or differing viewpoints. Are there? North8000 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that the descriptions are still poor, the sources bad, and the polls nondescriptive of what's being discussed. At best, we have three, possibly four, polls that describe the contents of the article. We should limit the polling section to those, add them in prose, and be done with it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right, and don't let my little effort impair progress in that area. But this is something narrower. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As this whole article is a mess, our definitions of narrow are different. :) With that said, I think having it as one line might make sense here in the short term, something like: "Advocates of single payer believe their position has wide support in polls (source/source/source), but Politifact has rated a claim that a majority wants single payer as false, as responses vary based on wording. For example, people respond more favorably when they are asked if they want a system "like Medicare."(source) Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. North8000 (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

CD? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that you two are POV-pushing ignoring legitimate sources and should participate in DRN because if we don't decide whether or not they are single-payer polls this is going to ArbCom. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the volunteer who looked at your DRN request is going to shut it down due to the conflict being based more on your behavior than a content dispute. I have commented there and will continue to do so if necessary, but answer this: What sources do you believe we're ignoring? If you want us to use a source, please explain exactly why you believe the source directly addresses single payer - a news outlet incorrectly reporting something is not verifiable on its own. Please refer to this section about reliable sources, where it states that using sources to "advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source...[is] original research." The secondary sources, the polling, does not explicitly or directly support the claim you're making (with exceptions that we should use, such as the AP/Yahoo poll). So please share your concerns, and share them within policy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The content is in the discussion, either we solve it there it will go to ArbCom. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to dictate how discussions go. Are you able to answer the question? Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, this isn't even the subject of the DRN, fatally-flawed as the DRN subject-definition is.North8000 (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

CD, my response is similar. Setting the other issues (e.g. construction from primary sources) aside for the moment, we need to go by what is in the sources. If you think that Thargor Orlando argument ignores what is in a source, please be specific. North8000 (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, either way may I suggest inching this along through the next stage as follows? In this area, the reasoning that you've been giving is core policy-guided. May I suggest starting smaller edits (and no huge amount at once) with thorough edit summaries to that effect, as the next stage? North8000 (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that no edits are made until the issue is solved. And it's not my decision, if this issue can't be solved there it will have to go to ArbCom to prevent a continuous edit war. Once the topic is open, I'll re-post the discussion we were having and we can continue from there. CartoonDiablo (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no discussions from you, just diversions. HERE (in the article and its talk page) is the place. Even if your attempted diversion to DRN were legit, your faulty wording on the DRN question doomed it from the start. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

CD, you understand that the only one threatening edit war here is you, right? We're discussing the issue on the talk page, trying to come to a consensus, and you respond by threats and without addressing the concerns in play. Do you want this resolved, or is your goal to have those who disagree with you sanctioned? Why won't you answer the question posed above as opposed to engaging in threats? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was had for months and last time I checked we still don't agree as to whether they are single-payer polls or not. In the event we hit a deadlock that the talk page can't fix we use DRN. And since you think your and Thargor's views of the polls are right I see no problem with going to other people since they'll be convinced as well.

To Thargor, the person that began edit-waring after months of inactivity was you. But that is beside the point, the point is since your all convinced they are not single-payer polls it shouldn't be an issue convincing others in DRN. CartoonDiablo (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We've hit the deadlock because you refuse to explain yourself and then abandon the conversation. If you want to accuse me of edit-warring, the fact that I posted numerous times on the talk page first as well as the NPOV noticeboard while you merely blind reverted is ultimately not a problem for me, as I've tried to talk it out, as opposed to your violation of 3RR to keep any hint of a dispute from scrutiny. If you cannot back up your claims using policy, then you'll have to explain why you're going against the basic policies of Wikipedia. So please, answer the questions. It's only going to help in the long run. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Responding to CD, I haven't expressed any opinion or participated in any debate on whether or not they are single payer polls. So your description of the situation (as was the case in your previous ones) is clearly and fundamentally flawed from the start. And I've also expressed ambivalence on the other core dispute topic (table vs. text). What I HAVE noted and detailed is your overall poor and improper behavior here, and tried to find a genuine (vs. diversionary tactic) way to inch forward. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

To Thargor, I've explained my position ad nausum and in the two DRN discussions, this was taken as the consensus until you reverted it (which you can't do because of a lack of talk activity).

To North, I was reverting Thargor's edits against the consensus and evidently 3RR didn't think I violated it either. The fact of the matter is this is the situation and it will be solved by some other means than this talk page. You can complain about it all you want, but it's going to get solved. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You have five people now (myself, North, Azrel, and the two admins at the edit warring complaint you filed) noting a lack of consensus. It was never taken as consensus, never understood as consensus, and you never argued it was consensus until the past week. Even if we grant that Scjessey believes that a consensus was reached as well, you're outnumbered and policy doesn't support it. Your DRN request may be shut down because of the complaints regarding your behavior, and you saying that "it will be solved by some other means than this talk page" is a sharp indicator to independent observers that you are not interested in reaching a consensus. I don't think you want that, so it would be nice for you to actually answer the questions using policy as your guide. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No I have 2 people against, 1 who was brought in via canvassing, and 2 admins who didn't think Scjessey agreed with the consensus. Now in case you apparently missed it, Scjessey is also complaining about your behavior.

And if the discussion gets shut down it will go to ArbCom notwithstanding any other outside ways to resolve it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A way for you to help resolve it is to answer questions at the talk page right here and help build a consensus. If you're refusing to do so after administrators (read: not us) are shutting down your DRN attempts for various reasons, and refusing to do so because you abandoned other dispute resolution discussions (like the one at the NPOV noticeboard), and then you take it to ArbCom? You know ArbCom doesn't generally do content disputes, right? They'll look at behavior, and they'll see a user coming to talk and attempting to solve a problem against someone who edit wars, claims consensus where none exists, asserts incorrect positions about timelines and sources and other editors, and someone who refuses to discuss on the talk page. You realize how close an ArbCom case came in the Psychotherapies thing for you a few months back, right? That was not going in your favor at all, nor will a behavior discussion for this. I would prefer to work this out with you here as opposed to seeing anyone here receive sanctions for behavior. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well then apparently you missed the past few months because I answered the questions ad nausum, the sources call polls that describe a single-payer system as single-payer polls, therefore a poll of a proposed single-payer system (even if it doesn't use the words "single-payer") is a single-payer poll.

Ok so you shouldn't have a problem with ArbCom then. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You've not answered the questions using policy. You've asserted that, since a source calls it something, it doesn't matter what it is. If the New York Times calls a table a goat, do we then assume all tables are goats? Of course not. Verifiability requires us to examine the sources, as I linked above for you. Your answers, up to this point, have not been policy based, so it's in your interest to do that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If the the NYT called a table a goat then there would be an RS verifying the NYT is wrong, not your opinion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In this case, we have the secondary sources (the polls) as well as Politifact verifying that the claims being made by Krugman et al are incorrect. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No what Politifact said was it wasn't the most popular in 2009 (compared to 2007). It was rating Moore's comment in the time he made it. And it even called a poll of a "government-run, government-financed health insurance program that would cover all Americans. This program would be administered like the current Medicare for citizens 65 and over." a single-payer poll.

Politifact was not examining the accuracy of the NYT or HuffingtonPost or NPR. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, but Politifact had access to the polling in question. As they said, "[p]olls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans want some form of universal health care coverage — they want uninsured people to have insurance. But there's wide disagreement about the means to achieve that." This is the same claim I've been trying to put in this article from the start. Should we go over them poll by poll to figure this out? That might not be a bad idea. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to their conclusion that most Americans wanted single-payer in 2007 but did not in 2009. By their own standards, polls that describe a single-payer system but do not use the words "single-payer" are still single-payer polls.

And notice that is the argument, whether they are single-payer polls or not. Not every poll in the table shows majority support (just like Politifact said there was no majority support in 2009) the question is of the polls and it shows that they are single-payer polls.

Likewise, the burden of proof that they aren't single-payers polls is on you. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, per policy, the burden of proof is on the person who wants to include the information. If you want to argue that they are single payer polls, you need to be able to show how they either describe a single-payer system or actually talk about single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Individual polls

I think we have two issues here: 1) Determining the timetable we want to use and 2) Determining whether the polls actually describe single payer. Hopefully discussion on these can be fruitful.

All of the polls describe a single-payer system and the timetable should be every poll that asks such a question. That means even if a poll is from 1945 it should be included because we're talking about public opinion of a system. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If this is the case, and we limit it to single-payer polls, we would then need to note that the support for single payer has declined over time. You would be okay with that? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say we would need an RS to say that affirmatively. The question was regarding single-payer polls, if people look at the recent Rasmussen polls and conclude it declined that would be their take away. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We have a RS that does that - Politifact. Also, can you please review the polls below and explain why you believe some of them are single payer polls? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Politifact is only relevant for 2007-2009 and all the polls describe a national/government health insurance which is exactly what single-payer is (and what the RSs say it is). The fact that you disagree does not warrant a review for removal.

That aside, I also found a study showing public opinion has supported single-payer since 1945. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Politifact is relevant for more than that, as they pointedly did not use the polls that do not describe single payer. As for this study, where's the link? Can you please take some time and review the polls below and tell me why you disagree in each section so we can build consensus? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

1988 Harvard University Poll

The question asked is not available, only the Harvard University claim on it: "The majority of Americans (61 percent) state they would prefer the Canadian system of national health insurance where 'the government pays most of the cost of health care for everyone out of taxes and the government sets all fees charged by hospitals and doctors….'" Without the full text, we're relying on the spin of a biased advocacy group. Do we have an example of the actual Harvard poll? Also, is a poll from 1988 worthwhile? While it does not directly state single payer, as it does describe single payer accurately I think we could include this if we could find the direct poll and note clearly that the poll is 25 years old at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

1990 LA Times Poll

The question asked is only available through the advocacy group again: "In the Canadian system of national health insurance, the government pays most of the cost of health care out of taxes and the government sets all fees charged by doctors and hospitals. Under the Canadian system - which costs the taxpayers less than the American system - people can choose their own doctors and hospitals. On balance, would you prefer the Canadian system or the system we have here in the United States?" It's not up to us to quibble on the questioning (although one could argue that the wording is suspect), but, again assuming we can find the direct poll and note clearly that the poll is nearly 23 years old, this is also something that mostly describes single payer and could also be used. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

1991 WSJ poll

The question asked is, again, only available through the advocacy group: "Do you favor or oppose the US having a universal government-paid health care system like they have in Canada?" I find this wording lacking, but it also does describe it well enough but is over 20 years old. Same as above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2003 Washington Post/WSJ

This is our first problem, even beyond the discussion of not having the actual poll: "Which would you prefer - (the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance); or (a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers?)." Calling it "national health insurance" "like Medicare" draws comparisons not to single payer, but to a limited program people already like and do not understand as single payer, as noted by Politifact. As this question does not describe single payer or mention single payer, and that the poll is nearly 10 years old, it doesn't belong here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2004 Civil Society

We don't know who this group is, nor do we have the actual poll. The question is this: "Other major nations, such as Canada and England, guarantee their citizens health insurance on the job, through government programs, or via a nonprofit source. Would it be a good or bad idea for the United States to adopt the same approach to providing health care to everyone?" The question implies that health insurance is a guarantee, not health care, and that it is not done via a "single payer," but rather through different avenues. In fact, this question very much bears similarity to the current situation in the United States. It very clearly does not discuss single payer, and does not belong here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2007 New York Times/CBS News

Again referencing an advocacy group instead of the direct poll, the question is: "Do you think the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, or isn’t this the responsibility of the federal government?" "Guarantee health insurance" is not single payer, this does not belong here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2007 CNN poll

Again referencing an advocacy group instead of the direct poll, the question is: "Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?" "Provide national health insurance" is not single payer, as the recent public option debate showed. This is not about single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2007 AP/Yahoo

We have the actual link to the poll on one of the talk pages, and the question is: "Do you consider yourself a supporter of a single-payer health care system, that is a national health plan financed by taxpayers in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan, or not?" This is clearly a single payer poll and there's no dispute over it that I'm aware of. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2009 New York Times/CBS News

The reference in the article points to an NPR report and should point to the actual poll, which asked: "Should the government in Washington provide national health insurance, or is this something that should be left only to private enterprise? IF GOVERNMENT, ASK: Should the government insurance be for all medical problems, or only for medical emergencies?" This question, not the summary, should be in the article if we stick with a table format, but it should not be in the article at all as it is not about single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2008 Quinnipiac University (in FL, OH and PA)

I question the appropriateness of a state poll in what is a national set of polls, but even so, the question asked: "Do you think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health-care, or don't you think so?" That's not single-payer in any way shape or form, and should be removed from this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2008 Time Magazine

This probably requires some discussion, but the question as asked: "Would you favor or oppose a program that creates a national single-payer plan similar to Medicare for all, in which the government would provide healthcare insurance to all Americans?" It mentions single payer (a plus) but it also compares it to Medicare (a minus). I have no real issue including it, but it should be discussed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2009 Kaiser Family Foundation

This is explicitly discussed by the Politifact people, and asks: "[Do you favor or oppose h]aving a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for all?" As noted by Politifact, it talks about Medicare (which is not understood universally as single payer), and does not mention or describe single payer systems. If this is to be included at all, it should be done so in conjuntion with the Politifact piece. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2011 Rasmussen

This is a poll that has been inaccurately called a "push poll" due to some questions about Occupy, but the question: "Do you favor or oppose a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone?" Clearly about single payer, belongs here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 Rasmussen

Same question as above without the Occupy links. Clearly about single payer, belongs here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Further general discussion

While I'd hope some individual discussion happens about these, it appears that at least half of these polls do not discuss single payer at all. At the very least, we should remove those that aren't single payer from this article. At best, we should discuss the remaining ones being put back into a prose section that better deals with the topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

One idea to sidestep the "are they single payer" question might be to just put a new header over it to the effect of "Polls on single payer and related topics" and then move the data out of the last two columns (which implies an answer to the same question) and integrate the results into the text describing the poll. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

But then we're moving way outside the realm of this specific article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess that that brings into question the scope of this article. Is this just a subset of Universal Health care? (It's hard to imagine a system where the government funds all health care in a country but then excludes some of its citizens.) And then the questions become, is "universal health care" an additional second common (imprecise) meaning of "single payer"? Is this a term, a topic that fundamentally exists, or a putative topic as seen by the term? North8000 (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

One idea is to discuss it in DRN, lest we go to ArbCom. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you just quit those diversions? Your vague / malformed question, and in the context of refusing to participate is any specific discussions has zero chance of being handleable in DRN and zero chance of getting taken up by Arbcom. Meanwhile, you are blowing-off the obvious route which a specific discussion. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Single-payer health care" seems to be a synonym of Socialized medicine and thus the article a duplicate of that article. I'll let someone else handle the "merge" question, but it raises the question of whether this article is about the term of its title or about an underlying topic. If one argues that this article should exist separately, they must be arguing that the term is different or distinct from Socialized medicine in which case I think that that would answer the more specific question at hand.....if polls are used, they should be about "Single payer" by that name to be included. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Which also makes me wonder about the Universal health care article, which is also viewed by many as synonymous but encompasses a number of different ideas. Really, it's a POV problem with all three of these articles, as all single payer health care is universal and socialized, but not all universal health care is socialized or single payer, and not all socialized health care is what we'd consider single payer nor is it necessarily universal. It would be a massive project to bring them under one umbrella (perhaps as "government involvement in health care") if there was interest. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the outright article-existense problem would be that if two were synonymous. I can see where Universal Health care is a superset, so I think that the real question is wheterh Single-payer and socialized medicine are synonymous. The point of yours relevant to this would be "not all socialized health care is what we'd consider single payer" .....could you give an example of that? North8000 (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It has a lot to do with socialism not necessarily needing to be state-driven the way singe-payer generally does, I'd say. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

OK , I guess that means that none of the three are synonyms, and but all three either heavily overlap or are subsets/supersets of each other. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Arguably, we could have an umbrella article of something like "Health care delivery systems" where we can then cover the different versions with subarticles where necessary. I'm just not sure how to control it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that I just launched a thought without really going anywhere with it. I guess that as an overview there are the three articles (with the relation I described) which are named by the common terminology. While some merger of this into a section of "Universal health care" (which it is a subset of) might be a good idea, there is nothing clear-cut which points to that to the point of making it the next step. So then my gut feeling is that this article should be focused on the "single payer" term and the things that it clearly covers. In that context, I think that the current "opinion in the US" section is problematic. At the moment, it is just a synthesis or listing of selected primary sources, and the majority of which are not specifically "single payer". Unless some secondary source coverage can be found, my first thought is to completely eliminate that section. If that is not done, I think that the section (in whatever format it is in.....prose or table) should identify its contents to something covering cases/polls specifically identified as "single payer", stated as such, and polls that meet that criteria. When I say "stated as such" I was thinking that such context would be provided to clarify the focus on that term vs. implying results on broader terms or concepts as covered in the other articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

My instinct is that it should be removed at this point given the moving target, but I think a limit to what is specifically cited as such would be a proper compromise. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to move forward in an unhurried-yet-still-moving forward fashion. Maybe start with one poll. If anyone wants to participate in this discussion, please do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I wouldn't even consider moving on these until CD chimes in on the above polls or disengages completely. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

CartoonDiablo, you just did 4 reverts on this article in about 2 hours....this is a bright line edit warring violation. Please stop. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Are the polls on the page measuring a single-payer system?

Are the polls in the public opinion section measuring a single-payer system? CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

For those coming to take a look, please review the discussions above, as well as here, here, here, and here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Correction of mal-formed question

The first attempt was a mal-formed question. It should be in the context of article content, which is what this talk page is for. Also polls measure opinion, not a system. Finally it presupposes that the section should exist.

Should be:

1. Shall the article have a public opinion section comprised of poll results?
2. If the section is kept, should it be in table or prose form?
3. If so, shall the article identify some, any or all of the polls listed in the public opinion section as being about opinion on a single-payer system?

(mostly copying Thargor's post) For those coming to take a look, please review the discussions above, as well as here, here, here,here and discussion in talk page above.

North8000 (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Response by North8000 An important context question is: what is the scope /topic of the article? There are already articles on closely related topics which are either supersets of "Single payer" or heavily overlap with it. For example, Universal health care, Socialized medicine etc. In order for this article to not be just largely a duplication of those, it probably should concentrate / focus on "single payer" specifically.

On question #1, so far there is a complete lack of secondary WP:RS's on the public opinion topic. All of the content is editor-selected polls. And it appears that the majority of the poll listings are disputed. On side of the core argument in the dispute is CartoonDiablo feeling that these:

A. Should be considered to be single payer polls even where such is not specified and that therefore:

B. They should be listed in the article as being single-payer polls.

In Wikipedia, "A" (which is just opinion on a topic) is very different than "B" (which involves meeting Wikipedia requirements for inclusion). "B" is the more stringent criteria and does not automatically follow from "A". A secondary dispute is that in some cases not even the poll info itself is available, and that the included content is just what an advocacy organization said what the poll said. My recommendation is due to the sum of all of the above problems and issues that the section should just be left out. If wp:RS secondary sources talking about "single payer" specifically become available, then it could be brought back written around those.

On question #2. I tend to like tables but In this case I think that a table can be problematic. Basically, a table is a statement that the item or material:

A. Has the attributes for inclusion into the table. E.g. that inclusion means that it is single-payer.

B. Has the attributes of the heading of the column. For example, interpreting the results of the poll into "for and against" single-payer columns.

These inherent "statements" need sourcing. Alternatively, prose form does not contain those structure-based statements and so would be safer to put in....each statement can "speak for itself".

On question #3, IF, the section is kept and as a table, I think that the standard should be that the polled on term be "single payer" specifically. If a wp:rs secondary source says so, that's best. Alternatively, if the primary source data is available and says "single payer" in the question, I'd say that's OK too. Not so if the only available data / characterization is from an advocacy organization that did not make the poll. I think that interested parties should go through each source and decide based on this criteria. It may very well be that some poll that didn't discuss single-payer is essentially about single-payer, but when such is contested, Wikipedia sourcing rules particularly apply and inclusion of such requires sourcing, not just editor judgement call to say that they are single payer. If interested parties agree that Thargor's listing is impartial, then that listing could be used as a worksheet. Otherwise some other listing (such as a copy of the table itself) can be used as a worksheet. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

We're well past three days now with no input on this. CD, again, would you please look at the details above and perhaps share why you think I'm right or wrong? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If this fails, ie if there isn't any input within a few days, it's going to ArbCom. We've gone through talk, NPOV noticeboard and DRN something like 3 times now, it's conflict is going to be solved soon. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If you think ArbCom is going to settle a content dispute, it probably won't happen. They typically don't get involved. If you're continuing to stonewall and not work with us on this, what do you think is going to happen? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

For this non-case there is an absolutely 0% chance that Arbcom would even take it up. As usual, nothing but obfuscation-type-diversions from CD while they avoid actual participation in a substantive discussion. The one thing that we can hope for from the RFC is to get a few more folks who want to participate in the editing related discussion and do real constructive editing. Schennesy and I (albeit on slightly opposite "sides") kind of dropped in just to help guide bit and don't want to stay or edit. CD seems to just want to do "set the curtains on fire" diversions/obfuscations while avoiding substantive conversation on the topic at hand. Which leaves just one person willing and ready to do real discussion and real editing....Thargor Orlando....this article could use a few more folks ready to really discuss/edit. North8000 (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like I'm a little late to the game and that there has been a lot more discussion since anyone addressed this last. Because I'm not really sure about what type of comment is desired now - and what I should be answering - I'll just touch on some of the questions above. The article should have a public opinion section if there are reliable sources covering this. The sources need to from very high-quality and well-circulated publishers -- I would suggest NYT, WSJ, WashPo, etc. I think that it should be in prose form but it would be better to define what to include after the reliable sources are identified, otherwise it's building from the top down.. If I didn't touch on the right issues then feel free to ask me about other specifics -- it's a lot easier for me if it's not open-ended or with a very wide scope. Dreambeaver(talk) 22:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Better late than never, thanks for chiming in. The key parts that we're struggling with is what the sources are actually saying. There doesn't seem to be disagreement that there should be quality sources, just how to describe them (since there are some sources (both neutral/reliable, and less so) that describe them some ways, and some of those descriptions aren't accurate) and how to present them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll see if I can help out after looking through some of the sources that have been brought up in earlier threads. Dreambeaver(talk) 00:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Dreambeaver, what this article needs is a few reasonable people (regardless of the viewpoints) to get involved, have real discussions, and then move forward. Right now the article only has one of those (and it's not me.....I'm just here temporarily trying to get a process in place and want to leave). SO PLEASE don't be bashful, please jump in and please stay! North8000 (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Time to move forward

For 11 days the only real discussion and work on this has been by Thargor Orlando, plus a general thoughts by myself. I'm willing to help from a process standpoint, but don't want to get deeper in on content or doing further analysis or formulation of opinions on content. Thaygor, I suggest proposing a small edit as the next step. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, with one person pretty much refusing to do the work because they'd prefer to go to ArbCom, I'm not sure where to go from here. There are plenty of discussion points to dive in on if CD is interested in consensus building. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just do it. There is little point in waiting any longer. Arzel (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

CD, tossing this to you: since we can't come to a consensus here, shall we simply agree to leave the text as it was pre-bold edit of your table, make sure the polls are up to date, and move on? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, there's only one substantially involved editor here which is you. I'm just in the peanut gallery, and CD is just lobbing diversions and not participating in the discussion. Consensus is amongst truly involved people. My advice is to pick a small first-step change and make it. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Very well. For now, I'm keeping the table and text as is, and removing the polls that are not explicitly single payer. My hope will be that if I've removed something that CD believes is actually about single payer, he will engage in the areas above as to why. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm figuring that my scope here is just supporting a process that can move forward. Phase 1 is a consensus of 1. Phase 2....if a substantive discussion establishes itself and it is contested, I would support undoing while the discussion is in progress; I will support keeping the change in unless/until that occurs. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I just did the above as promised. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Copy of statement posted at Arbcom request by named but not involved North8000: This is just the refusal by CartoonDiablo to participate in discussion at the article talk page on this content issue, and forum shopping at many places (and rightly striking out at all of them) ) instead. Further, there is no current dispute because there because it looks like there were only 2 editors involved, and one of them (CartoonDiablo) has been forum shopping instead of participating. So now it is basically a one person "discussion", who has been very reasonable in trying to get a discussion going The others there have just dropped in trying to help. My presence was due to an uninvolved admin asking me for ideas. I dropped in for a short time to try to help and don't want to do anything beyond that....I want to leave this article soon. I have not expressed any opinion and do not have any opinion on the question posed in this ArbCom request. Also, IMO the question is mal-formed. It should be phrased in terms of article content. I believe that the mal-formed, "finding of RW fact" question, divorced from article content questions was chosen so as to be able to imply an article content finding which overrides Wikipedia content policies. Further, CartoonDiablo has been using each form in the long string of forum shopping as an excuse to avoid discussion at the article talk page while still editing the article.

The talk page of the article makes all of the above abundantly clearNorth8000 (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring while not discussing

CartoonDiablo, you have been edit warring while refusing to participate in any discussion on the content. Please stop. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

CD, if you're not going to explain your edits here, they're not going to stay put. You know this, right? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I was in the process of getting an administrator's opinion on the matter while restoring the non-POV edits. My apologizes if the edit summary didn't suffice for an explanation. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What would "suffice for an explanation" would be continuing to detail here on talk as to why I'm incorrect here. Your attempts at ArbCom were dismissed. Again. Please, take a hint. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the section as discussed here. If you think your version is better, this is the place to explain why. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a matter of an insufficient edit summary, it is edit warring while not discussing. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I've explained over and over that the version your using is WP:POV because every single source calls polls that don't use the words single-payer as polls of single payer including PolitiFact. If you do not restore it, it will be considered POV pushing and edit warring. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean. Are you saying that there is a source that says that the particular polls involved in this edit are single payer? Or are you saying that there is a RS that has made a blanket statement that all medical care related polls are single payer? North8000 (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, we have multiple polls that all say different things. If you could please point out, preferably with citations, how each of those polls you continue to put back into the article refer to single payer, that would be much more productive than the route you've been taking over the last six months. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward - conversion to prose?

Now that we've got the polls sorted out, I'd like to look at converting the remaining polls into prose. My suggestion is the following:

Advocates for single payer point to support in polls [WaPo link], although the polling is mixed depending on how the question is asked. Polls from Harvard University in 1988[ref], the Los Angeles Times in 1990, and the Wall Street Journal in 1991[ref] all showed strong support for a health care system compared to the system in Canada. More recently, however, polling support has declined. A 2007 Yahoo/AP poll showed a majority of respondents considered themselves supporters of "single-payer health care,"[ref], and a plurality of respondents in a 2009 poll for Time Magazine showed support for " a national single-payer plan similar to Medicare for all." Polls by Rasmussen Reports in 2011 and 2012 showed pluralities opposed to single payer health care.[ref][ref]

A 2001 article in the healthcare journal Health Affairs studied fifty years of American public opinion of various health care plans and concluded that, while there appears to be general support of a "national health care plan," poll respondents "remain satisfied with their current medical arrangements, do not trust the federal government to do what is right, and do not favor a single-payer type of national health plan."[ref] Politifact rated a statement by Michael Moore "false" when he stated that "[t]he majority actually want single-payer health care."[ref] According to Politifact, responses on these polls largely depend on the wording. For example, people respond more favorably when they are asked if they want a system "like Medicare."[ref]

I think this accurately handles the polls in play, meets basic sourcing standards, and flows much easier than the current table while being more accurate about its points. Thoughts? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm avoiding in-depth involvement on the content and formatting. But, long story short, I'm thinking that the "More recently, however, polling support has declined" might best left out unless it comes from an objective reliable source. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Politifact very specifically notes that the polling that is used to support the position that the public wants single payer is older. Could just as well use that ref for that sentence as well. This article also talks about declines in support of a variety of government-involved health care options, which could be used as well as a counter, even though the trends described are 10 years old. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm avoiding the in-depth involvement that would be needed to make a specific recommendation. My main point is that any "characterizations" of overall public opinion and trending of overall public opinion should come from good sources not from Wikipedia editors. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No disagreement. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As there has not been any actual protest to this language, I'm considering moving forward with it. CartoonDiablo, since your attempts at mediation and topic bans have been declined, I'm hoping you can take the opportunity to share any issues you have at this point here at talk before I move forward. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts are the same as my previous post a few lines up. Be cautious there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Naturally. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that there's been no substantative movement on this, I think we've been patient enough and I'm moving forward with this prose. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems to work. It looks like everything is attributed to the proper source so any further disputes can be focused on those. A thorough lookthrough of all the sources is pretty exhausting and I haven't really done that, so I'm just taking them at face value for now. Dreambeaver(talk) 18:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay out of the content discussions, but am supporting having a process that guides content based on real talk here (and real discussion on the details when there is a difference of opinion). CD has not engaged in such. So I do support moving forward. If a substantive discussion on the content arises, I would support waiting while that is actively occurring. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

POV issue

Unless Thargor and North find a source saying only polls using the phrase "single-payer" is a single-payer poll (something not even Politifact does) then any attempts to assert otherwise will be treated as a violation of POV. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That is wrong on several levels. First, including me in the sentence implies that I have an opinion on inclusion/exclusion of items I DON'T. My involvement here is merely to get a proper process going, the main challenges to to that the being your disruption, and a lack of people involved in true discussions.

Second, your second sentence states the exact opposite of policy. You are basically saying that you want to put in an unsourced assertion and that unless someone finds a source that specifically addresses and refutes your unsourced assertion, that removal of your unsourced assertion is a violation of NPOV. That's utterly ridiculous. Please stop your disruption. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

CD, you've been invited to explain why the polls that aren't single payer are single payer numerous times now. Your refusal to do so at this point is baffling. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been asked to join this discussion. I'd like to make three things clear:

1. While I generally support CartoonDiablo's position with respect to editing on articles related to single-payer, I do not support CD's approach in this section. Asking editors for sources that say something is not something is ridiculous, quite frankly.
2. I am so disgusted with the behavior of editors in this topic (Thargor's in particular), I have absolutely zero desire to participate any further. Please don't ask me back.
3. I recommend in the strongest possible terms that both CartoonDiablo and Thargor Orlando abandon this topic and let other editors less entrenched deal with it. Just walk away, please.

-- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess I should explain further; the point with asking for RSs is that there are none, Thargor and North are pushing a POV where unless the polls explicitly call themselves single-payer they should not be included etc. which every single RS rejects (so I was asking for even one that doesn't).

My question is why would that be ridiculous? If someone claimed that the earth is flat as a POV and someone else asked for an RS I don't see how that is unreasonable. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You have that scrambled. It is essentially this: You are claiming that "A" is "B", and are saying that your claim should be put in there unless a source specifically addresses and refutes your claim. Wikipedia says the opposite, that you need a source in order to put "A" is "B" in there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words, CD, you need to explain why/how they're single payer polls. The chain is up there, feel free to chime in any time with the specific reasons why you disagree with me. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Time to move forward

My advice would be for CartoonDiablo to start genuinely participating in substantive discussions on the questions at hand. I am guessing that they have abandoned this approach because on the one particular question that looms large in their mind of identifying the particular polls-in-question as being single-payer because their position has a zero chance of prevailing wp:snow under Wikipedia policies. Perhaps it is time to cede that one narrow question and move on to questions that are more arguable.

I have been watching the happenings here (only) for a few weeks. During that time I think that Thargor's behavior has been exemplary and very careful & cautious. IMHO CD's behavior has been disruptive and threatening, but the "threatening" part has been a part of the disruption rather than being viscerally nasty towards Thargor. So IMHO there is hope that this can be defused or go onto a more friendly basis. (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible topic bans for POV violations

Sorry but Thargor and North have gone on and inserted their POV for too long. Scjessy has already suggested a topic ban for Thargor, and I am willing to extend that to both if they do not cooperate. There is no content dispute, there is a dispute between abiding by the sources and abiding by the POV of ThargorOrlando and North8000. This will be the last chance. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This baseless post (which shows zero connection to reality - a certain boomerang) is a continuation of your behavior exhibited throughout this entire process, as evidenced on the talk page above. STOP! And also please please stop your attempts to war in inserts which are in direct violation of wp:verifiability. If they are not identified as single payer you can't state such in the article. There I go, getting sucked in a 1/2 step deeper into this. North8000 (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus of the sources on the polls

I've said this before a million times and because we've exhausted all other mediation options I'll just post it here. All the sources define them as single payer polls (including Politifact). That means that contrary to the opinions of Thargor and North, that is the objective NPOV version of it.

But more importantly the consensus for this was already established meaning the only editors violating it and edit-warring are North and Thargor. To put it simply, unless we discover a reliable source that disproves Politifact, the New York Times, Huffington Post etc. and others create then this is the version that stays. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That so-called consensus that you speak of was not seen by anyone other than you. If you want your edits to hold, you need to demonstrate in the section above why they're single payer polls. You claim all the sources say they're single payer polls, but the evidence above says otherwise. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The consensus was by Scjessey, not me (here's the diff again) but that aside you have to prove that Politifact is wrong when it said:

• "We also note that the Bloomberg poll doesn't use the word "single-payer" (even though it amounts to the same thing)"

So far you have not shown why Politifact is wrong (and by extension everyone else) or why we should use your consensus for it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As noted at the 3RR page you attempted to get me blocked at, two administrators did not see a consensus. There is no consensus. I have done the legwork above to show the evidence that the polls you want to add are not single payer. You need to address those to add them back in at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo, well, at least mixed in with the continuation of false statements and personal attacks against people there are some shreds of a real conversation in there, so that is a tiny step forward. Quit that other crap; I'll report you if you don't stop; that one would stick. Those diffs you gave really didn't go anywhere useful. The first was just to the addition of a section tag, the second is to about 10 websites. But the issue is even more fundamental, because your line of argument is in direct violation of Wikipedia core policies, specifically/especially WP:Verifiability and wp:nor. It's basically this:

1. Poll "XYZ" says (about itself) that it is about "A".
2. You say that you have different sourcing that says the "B" is the same as "A"
3. And so you want the article to say that Poll "XYZ" is about "B".

Even if #2 were true, #3 would be in direct violation of WP:Verifiability (there is no source that directly supports the statement as written) and wp:nor (especially wp:synth) as #3 is expressly prohibited as synthesis. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

CD, read WP:V carefully: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You want to re-add the material, you need to show, for each poll, a reliable, neutral source that supports your claim that the poll is single payer. I have listed each poll we've had in the article above, please consider using that to discuss individual polls that you'd like to see reflected here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all the material was added by Scjessy, ("There is no dispute. There is only the refusal of a single editor to abide by consensus.") it is your burden to show why it should be removed.

To North, The sources say the polls are A. In this case A being single-payer polls. To quote one of the sources of which Thargor trusts (Politifact) for the millionth time:

• "We also note that the Bloomberg poll doesn't use the word "single-payer" (even though it amounts to the same thing)"

This is not Conservapedia: if you want to abide by WP:Verifiability you need a reliable source to disprove Politifact, The New York Times etc. not just your personal opinion. As it stands the consensus is for the NPOV version, if you don't think it is you are more than welcome to challenge it in DRN or Mediation etc. but you are the ones edit-warring in this case. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Quit the insult crap. People are trying to reason with you and you just keep flinging baseless insults, misrepresentations/lies about what they just said. Are you going to engage is a civil conversation or not? My note on your talk page is applicable.

Now I'm going to do the largest imaginable AGF and ask you a real question about what you just wrote. Could you clarify what you mean by "The sources say the polls are A. In this case A being single-payer polls." Did you mean:

1. The poll itself said that it is single-payer?
2. A source other than the poll mentioned that specific poll and said that it is single-payer?
3. A source other than the poll made a general statement (not about that specific poll) which you feel justifies calling the poll "single-payer" in the article?

North8000 (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm failing to see insults I was responding to assertions based on opinion. Let me answer this for the thousandth time:

No one, neither you nor me nor any editor here knows what "the poll itself said" we are not poll experts nor single-payer experts. What I said was every source called them single-payer polls. Unless you can find one that disproves every single RS and proves that unless a poll has the words "single-payer" then it is a single-payer poll then you would be correct and every other source (Politifact, New York Times, Huffington Post etc.) would be wrong. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So please review the polls above and show us which neutral, reliable sources call them single payer, please. Less asserting, more evidence. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes CD, and you again avoided the central question. Which of the above three are you saying is the case?

I've been doing that for months, to reply to the poorly framed question it would be both 2. and 3. except its not "a" source but every source. The fact is, if this doesn't convince you two (which I don't expect it will) it will go back to DRN because the justification is overwhelmingly. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Humor us, CD. Please go up to the individual polls that you think should be included and show us exactly what these reliable, neutral sources are saying so we can hash them out individually. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

CD, could you give us an example of #2? North8000 (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo, do you have any intention of actually working with us here? Otherwise, we'll keep moving forward without you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I was pre-occupied for a few days but to answer the question they should all be included and I've said why for a while (they all describe a single-payer system per the sources). The burden is on you to prove why they shouldn't be included. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you please detail them source by source above so we can discuss and examine them? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

CD, that is completely backwards and directly against a core policy, wp:ver including wp:burden. You continue to avoid any substantive conversation on the issues at hand. North8000 (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Here it is the for the last time. Unless you can disprove Politifact etc. then this is going to be the edit.

• "We also note that the Bloomberg poll doesn't use the word "single-payer" (even though it amounts to the same thing)" - Politifact
• "A system in which the government provides universal health insurance is often referred to as "single payer,"" - New York Times
• "In poll after poll, a majority of Americans have expressed support for single-payer health" - Huffington Post
• "Kucinich points to public opinion polls from...CBS News showing support for single-payer health care" - NPR

CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You are going in circles. Again, you are in essence saying "A source other than the poll made a general statement (not about that specific poll) which you feel justifies calling the poll "single-payer" in the article" That is in direct violation of core policies. Notably, wp:ver says that the source must directly support the statement. And wp:nor / wp:synth expressly forbids that process as synthesis. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you not see that Politifact said "We also note that the Bloomberg poll doesn't use the word "single-payer" (even though it amounts to the same thing)"? That is the source explicitly saying it is a single-payer poll. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please start actually discussing. Bloomberg is not even in in what you are warring. You are just throwing hand grenades, not discussing. North8000 (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

CD, as far as I'm concerned, you've had ample time to make policy-based arguments in favor of your version. You have not done so, you cannot support the individual polls using sources, so we're moving on. I am happy to have the individual discussions with you. I'd love to have that discussion to figure it out. Ball is in your court. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The only people not discussing the issue are yourselves. You've had plenty of time to justify removing RSs on NPOV grounds but instead you've only edit warred against the consensus which stops now. And yes the poll has been added, thanks for picking that up. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

There are thousands of words of discussion. We've justified it above, and you've outright refused to engage us in a meaningful way. I'm not sure what else to tell you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

External links discussion

I've been doing a lot of work on the article today, and the only part left that's leaving me a little flummoxed is the external links section. Which of them is appropriate, if any? How are we telling the difference in this case between spam and legitimate advocacy? Which of those groups are noteworthy enough to be highlighted? I don't know the answer to this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Need help on background section

I think the one thing this article still lacks is a good background piece. I'm finding it really difficult at this point to find any neutral histories on single-payer, nor any high quality pro/con type things. So much of what's online is muddled in partisanship and advocacy. Anyone have any way to help on this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's difficult. The first piece I looked at was by JJ Summerell, who appears to be politically involved in North Carolina, and included a lot of commentary. He had a background on how some United States Presidents have been involved, but there's no need to limit us to that. Not sure if I can unearth any good background pieces, but I can at least look around for other sources while you are doing the same. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Single-payer health care poll section

What happened to the single-payer health care poll section? Almost 2/3 of the population supports this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.112.142 (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

S/he obviously means the chart and the polls you and North removed for POV. Sorry but this isn't happening again, the NPOV version is getting restored. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

CD, please stop your personal attacks and also missing AGF by about 3 levels. Namely you are inventing bad faith (and fictional "history") which is is direct conflict with immense evidence to the contrary. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

consensus for poll table

After looking at the discussion the only consensus I see is for poll table or no consensus.

See Talk:Single-payer health care#Moving forward - conversion to prose?. I will change it back again but please add your thoughts here instead of reverting again. Dreambeaver(talk) 20:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have been supporting having a good process here rather than any particular outcome. One thing that I would note is to clarify / make sure that you are dealing with exactly you are talking about (format) and not some larger bundle that includes more than that. North8000 (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about both table and the surveys that were removed. And I see other sections were other editors want both back in, whose 'consensus' is this based on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.113.108.2 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

An answer please? 74.113.108.2 (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue was twofold: the polls were not all about single payer, so they were pared down to ones that discussed single payer. Then they were turned into prose to match the rest of the article. There was disagreement from two editors: one who doesn't want anything to do with this anymore, one who cannot justify why he believes certain polls should be in there using policy. Consensus can change, so if you have some data that hasn't been shared above, we'd love to hear it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I see most editors saying to keep the table and that they were single-payer? 74.113.108.2 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Not that consensus is a headcount, but you see three (you, CD, Scjessey) against four (me, North, Dreambeaver, Azrel). The issue is more of policy, which requires some positive reliable sourcing to add polls that, from the looks of things, aren't single payer. Read the exchange above, you'll get a better idea. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I see 4 (me the other ip, CD, Scjessey) and its obvious they are single payer, the sources say so. 74.113.108.2 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

One structural note, since we're talking about article content, the real question is whether they can and should be put into the article and have the article identify them as "single payer". I.E. not "are they single payer?" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

IP person, can you give an example of a poll that we've excluded that is explicitly about single payer? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

iirc the huff post and NYT said single-payer (and both were removed). 74.113.108.2 (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Specific examples with links? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

ok: here, here, here, here and there were probably others, pretty much everything that was removed. 74.113.108.2 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The NYT thing is an opinion piece and says "72 percent of Americans favored government-guaranteed health insurance for all." Not single payer. The Huffington Piece erroneously called a bunch of public option polls single payer, the 538 piece she links clearly states that the discussion is around the public option that was once part of the PPACA. The LA Times asks about a "proposal [that] would create a government-run, government financed health insurance program that would cover all Americans." As it isn't asking directly about single payer, we can't be sure the respondents are making a statement about "single payer" but rather something "like medicare." That poll should be in the health care reform article, and I will add it momentarily. The Kaiser poll asks about "National health insurance" in a Medicare context, not single payer. Hope that helps. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

NYT used "single payer" and who said the huff post was wrong? But I got the others like the LA times from politifact, they don't need it to be called "single payer" which I think editors pointed out. 74.113.108.2 (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If the NYT gets it wrong, it does not mean we need to get it wrong as well. As for HuffPo, follow the link and you'll see it's to a 538 piece on the public option. Regarding the LA Times piece, like politifact says, wording matters. Mention single payer lately, support drops. It's why we need to be careful about how we're positioning it and base it on how the polls are worded, not how partisans choose to spin it. This is the same discussion as above, it's not really new. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you give a link to a source showing huff post and nyt to be wrong? I don't think they're wrong but then again they are major sources for wikipedia. And all politifact says is support decreased, they don't say only polls that use "single-payer" can be used. It even says that in the article now. 74.113.108.2 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The HuffPo link goes to the 538 page which pretty much proves itself. It's a compilation of polls about the public option, not single payer. The NYT/Krugman piece never refers to any polls as single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Its links to different surveys but the problem is its an editors word against a source, the only way to prove it wrong and exclude it from an article is to show by a different source. Politifact said they don't need to be called that be surveys of single-payer like the LA times and other polls. 74.113.108.2 (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The source of the poll pretty clearly states what it's asking. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the table should go in per WP:COMPREHENSIVE at the least. Neo Poz (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason the table would be better than prose in this instance? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

theres no ambiguitiy in what the survey says and it looks better than a block of text.

There's also no ambiguity in the prose, and you can't table the other two paragraphs the same way, creating an awkward table that gives a weird appearance of the data. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Prose also helps to avoid undue weight being given to a popular opinion section. A table will be very large at the end and this content can be properly covered with prose, meaning that a table may not be appropriate in this situation. Dreambeaver(talk) 20:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

While I tend to like tables, one would be problematic here. By its structure a table is an assertion that each item is what its heading says. In this case those assertions were in contention and unsourced. In text form the sentence for each can say exactly what it is, thus avoiding all of those problems. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well It seems kind of obvious what the consensus is (and always was) for including the polls and table. Unless editors want to actually engage in dispute resolution (which, by the way, I think helps their position even though they don't seem to) this will be a matter of restoring it.

And by the way this doesn't mean we can't discuss changes etc. but the overwhelming consensus of the sources and of the consensus of editors is that:

• (a) if it describes a single-payer system (one in which the government pays for healthcare) its a single-payer poll even if it doesn't use the phrase because "it amounts to the same thing"
• (b) prose can be used but some kind of table is needed to include all the polls. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

CD, why don't you actually participate in the discussion instead of repeating the same old stuff and tricks? North8000 (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As an FYI for those involved, Neo Poz was banned last evening for abusive sockpuppetry. The abusiveness does not appear to have bled over into this article or any related ones, but just as an FYI. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are people STILL edit waring this article!? 74.113.108.2 (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll have to ask the two people who haven't been discussing their change back to a table against the consensus here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

Now that the page is protected, this would be a great opportunity for those who think the table is appropriate and that there should be more polls to step in, with sources, and make their case. If you think the consensus is incorrect, this is the place to discuss it, not via edit warring. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's define "discussion" as something that includes the particulars of proposed changes and content. Agree? North8000 (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

YOU two are in the minority of people who think the consensus is incorrect. 74.113.108.4 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're the same IP user from above. I've patiently answered your questions as they've come about: what else do you disagree with at this stage? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not considering anything that does not include particulars of proposed changes and content to be "discussion". North8000 (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There isn't anything to answer the consensus is for table and the polls you and a few others keep removing. The proposal is for you two to follow the consensus why can't you two accept that? 74.113.108.3 (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not considering anything that does not include particulars of proposed changes and content to be "discussion".North8000 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me what do you think the section above this one was? We had a the discussion and the consensus or proposed particulars as you call it, is for the table with the polls. 74.113.108.3 (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no concensus for that, nor is there a concensus to include non-single payor polls within the mix (the real root of the issue). Arzel (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Really!? So me, the other ip, Scjessey, CD, Neo boz, and the dragon guy don't count, just you three? Face it there is no excuse you are just editing because it doesn't fit your world view. 74.113.108.3 (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

What other IP. I am only seeing you at 74.113.108.x (2,3, and 4). Arzel (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

173.13.112.142, who posted about 3 weeks ago and hasn't been seen since. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

CD and Scj count. "The dragon guy" can count if he decides to engage on the talk page. The IPs count, but somewhat less since we can't easily tell you apart. Neo Boz is indefinitely blocked, so no. Meanwhile, on the other side, we have myself, Arzel, North, Dreambeaver. So it's split down the middle on a firm head count, but head counts aren't how you do consensus, but rather through discussion. As it stands, the justifications for incorporating more polls doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and the switch to a table might make sense, but those in favor of a table have not explained why the table would be good with two paragraphs of prose beyond it in an article completely in prose. So we need consensus to make the change out of what was in place to start, which was a prose section of text. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 74's/CD/Dragon guy, I'd call what you said AGF raised to the millionth power. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

@ 74..I am not considering anything that does not include particulars of proposed changes and content to be "discussion". You've done nothing like that here.North8000 (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that we need to stop claiming that there is consensus. If there was, it would be over and the consensus would be easy to point to. Thargor Orlando and North8000 (and others) have been very calmly and politely asking for specifics in order to discuss the appropriateness of a table in this situation. Please no more over-generalizations and lets start talking about some things if we want to move forward. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)