Talk:Health insurance cooperative

OR insertions removed
However, when an elected official's business dealings or campaign funding can reasonably be expected to influence his public positions, it should be reported.


 * This opinion belongs to Mbii. He cannot put his own opinion into an article. That violates WP:OR.

''Senator Grassley, is considered to be the ranking Republican on taking funds from lobbyists for anti-health reform according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Sen. Grassley took in more than $2 million from health-related companies since 2003.''


 * This information is not linked to the fact that Grassley supports co-opts by the source. Mbii is putting his own words into someone else's mouth, which violates WP:SYN. The Squicks (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As well, Dean and the Democrats have taken plenty of special interest money. This fact should not be in this article given that no sources that I have seen connect that to their position on co-opts. The same is true for this side.


 * I would greatly prefer that Mbii edit constructively (for once) and discuss the issue here rather than start an edit war. The Squicks (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Concede the point. It is a generalization, to politicians, of what has become a WP practice w.r.t. the reporting of political polls. When a poll is paid for, largely or entirely, by some interest group, the funding source is often mentioned, esp. when the poll reflects the POV of the interest group. Politicians' positions reflecting the POV of very major donors should carry similar caviats. From the ref cited, both Baucus's and Grassley's positions should have one. -MBHiii (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Politicians' positions reflecting the POV of very major donors should carry similar caviats. This is your opinion. Once again, your opinion is not fact. You cannot claim that a source links the two issues- the funding and the pro-cooperative stance- when it does not do that. See WP:OR and WP:SYN. The Squicks (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The way it seems to be handled, for polls, is by the editors deciding, collectively, whether there is possible evidence of bias. If so, funding's reported, and sometimes it's just reported anyway, to be on the safe side. Applying that to politicians, as is often done in WP anyway, helps people understand issues better. "Money is the mother's milk of politics." - Jesse Unruh (1966) -MBHiii (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * by the editors deciding, collectively, whether there is possible evidence of bias No, its not. It is not acceptable for you or for any other editor to insert your own or their own personal opinion into an article. Whether or not this helps people understand issues better is, once again, your own personal opinion. I'm getting rather sick and tired of having to stop you from putting your personal opinions into articles and for you to pretend that your personal opinion is fact, as if you think that you are God. Even if I'm banned, blocked, or whatever, there will always be another editor who will stop you.


 * Read WP:V. And then read WP:RS. And then just try to understand that Wikipedia only has material cited to sources. You can't keep doing what you are doing. The Squicks (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't deserve an edit war. However I am puzzled by the argument that Jack Cafferty does not link Grassley's opinions to his funding. Cafferty seems to be quite explicit in his statement that funding influences members of Congress. We should tweak the wording of the paragraph that is being warred, but the sources are reliable, and no-one is trying to say anything that isn't said by the sources. If the criticism section is gutted the way some have proposed, the article becomes quite biased. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

''However, Grassley's neutrality in the issue has been called into question. According to Wendell Potter "this senator has the insurance industry’s best interests at heart, not the American public and not his constituents."''

If the information must be included, than we have to accept a core ground rules. The opinion of Wendell Potter is HIS OPINION. It is not objective fact. Do not treat it as objective fact. It's a opinion by a person. To claim that his opinion therefore implies that Grassley is lying as a matter of objective fact is pure OR that absolutely will not fly here. The Squicks (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Editor User:Mbhiii appears to again be using sockpuppets to avoid 3RR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.122.89.163 (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)