Talk:Remote Area Medical

Comment
This pages deserves to be expanded; I will work on it as a part of Wikiproject Nursing. Ks64q2 (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

RAM Clinic link
Removing well-sourced link to article that demonstrates the scope of the project, is well researched, and is approved by Stan Brock, the founder of RAM clinic. Not sure why this keeps being deleted- I'm WP:AGF here, but I'd like some reasoning. It seems to fit WP:RS in that vein. Ks64q2 (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Anonymous blog posts (and one i increasingly believe represents a conflict of interest for you, Kage) are not reliable sources on Wikipedia, nor is your original research. If you want to insert material like this, you will have to find sources other than anonymous blog postings.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That link is not sourced at all. It may very well be accurate and well-researched, but there's no way to tell without researching somewhere else. And what says it's approved?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The section was first linked from the Motley Moose, a blog currently under discussion but where the consensus seems to be that it isn't notable. The section wsa then sourced to another blog, DailyKos, which is itself a notable blogsite with a number of high profile contributors. However, this particular post is a reprint of the Motley Moose post by an anonymous contributor, and fails WP:RS completely. You claim that it is sourced to reliable sources: i suppose you mean this source? IF so, why would you use a blog source for it, and not the original source? A self published source for such a claim (being the largest in the world) is not really good, but is still better than an anonymous blog repeating said claim. However, it is very unclear what the status of the www-sullivan-county.com page is, with a homepage that proclaims "just say no to islamo-fascism" and so on. This is not the neutral page of the county or of the RAM VC, but a page of very dubious reliability and ownership. This does not mean that the claim on the wewbsite, repeated in the blog(s) and ultimately here, is incorrect, but we need a much better source for it. Looking at the RAM site, they don't make such a claim at all . However, if you could find a good, reliable newspaper or magazine article making the claim, it can be included of course. Fram (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, lucky me, I thought the links I submitted might come under systematic scrutiny- WP:AGF of course- so not only did I spend the time to actually email the founder of RAM to make sure it represented his organizations- which I'd be happy to forward to your email account- but Fram, err, did you read the whole article? Here's the pertinent information:

"Jobs information courtesy of the Department of Labor March 2009 jobs report; Health insurance coverage information per the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation; information on ER Triage cases available via request from the National Center for Health Statistics; all other information supplied by the University of Virginia School of Nursing."

I, of course, didn't add in the hyperlinks- feel free to look it over! And smile everybody, it's a wonderful day! :) Ks64q2 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did a wikipedia wide search for motleymoose, and came across a number of links, which I removed for being unreliable anonymous posts from a non notable blog site. This has in this case been changed to unreliable anonymous posts from a notable blog site, which doesn't change anything fundamentally. The blog claims to get its info from a number of sources, but does not indicate which parts come from where (only in very general terms). The obvious source for the "largest in teh world" claim would be the University of Virginia School of Nursing, I suppose. But that is highly irrelevant: the site does not contain that information. It is also irrelevant that someone has confirmed to you that the info is correct, it is all still unacceptable as lacking a good, reliable and verifiable source. These blog posts are simply unacceptable. Fram (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sir, the quote doesn't specify the "largest in the world"- and it does link all the valid information. I just followed the links and had it created in PDF form- again, I'd be happy to email it to you to verify the fact. And as I said, the founder of the RAM clinic also verified the source. I'm sorry, but these "blog posts" are just as subject to community review as Wikipedia is, and, in fact, the moderators of that site did just that- and thus, would seem to follow our guidelines on WP:RS. The anonymity claim confuses me, too. I don't have any information that you are able to contribute information to Wikipedia articles via your credentials, I simply would check the resources you provided to assure me that your editing was sound, if I had any reason to suspect it not being so. But I don't; our personal acrimony aside, I believe you simply are working in the best traditions of the project here, and I ain't trying to score any points over you. This, especially, is not the forum for that. This organization deserves better for that- but if you insist on not including that source, no problem. Apparently, as I have contacted both the author of the piece, and the founder of the RAM, they're planning on hosting it on the RAM homepage- so I'll wait until it gets there, *then* link it. Sound okay? Ks64q2 (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, it doesn't. That would make it a self-published source, which is only acceptable under limited circumstances.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Apparently, as I have contacted both the author of the piece, and the founder of the RAM, they're planning on hosting it on the RAM homepage- so I'll wait until it gets there, *then* link it. Sound okay?" No. You can't do an end around on reliable sources in that fashion. It would still fail on a number of points. If you read RS you'll see why. Stop with the weak illogical lawyering to avoid abiding by consensus and to try to get your way. If you truly feel that the other editors' (3 at least on this talk page) evaluation of "moo means hello" and his blog post are inaccurate, i suppose you could take it up at the reliable sources noticeboard. Believe me, you won't get much change there either.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources
Too much material in this article has been taken from self-published sources, which are not reliable enough to be used here. Blogs, wikis, and the subject's own website(s) are not appropriate. Verifiability is one of our core tenets, and cannot be waived. If the subject is notable, then the information should be verifiable from neutral, third-party sources such as newspapers, books and government documents. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, we all know how newspapers are completely neutral and credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.183.124 (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, like this one that i've just removed. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is in fact the personal website of one Lewis Lofflin per . Apparently he's "a 51-year-old veteran of the US Army and have been married for 23 years. I'm a small property owner, taxpayer, gun owner, and I even have a dog and several cats. I support America and our system of democracy, religious and personal freedom, science, secular government. I'm also political independent and my hobbies are electronics, history, and religion. I'm a classical Deist/Unitarian." That's all very nice. But his personal website is not a reliable source for anything.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

More sources
With reference to the reftag, what more do we need to add for it to go away? Ks64q2 (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to achieve consensus here that it's no longer needed. At the moment, in my (and judging by the drift of things, 4 other opinions) exclusively self-published sources are insufficient. Do not remove the tag again until editors disputing the change have agreed.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, there's still a citation needed tag in the article, which kind of makes removing the "improve citations" banner... ummm... suboptimal? :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Well, there's a bunch more now, than the version Bali had up. Shouldn't take me long to rustle up. Ks64q2 (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question, though- we're trying to avoid using the organization's own web page, right? I see other articles where that's done apparently without problem, but one of the cites- where they changed their mission statement to focus in the US rather than abroad- wouldn't that be something acceptable to cite via their webpage? Ks64q2 (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to modify the sentence to say "According to RAM..." and then throw in the link to the page where it says that; hopefully, that will solve the problem. Ks64q2 (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Managed to hunt down sources anyway! Alright, now everything is linked up- but I'll wait until tomorrow to change the tag to see if anyone disagrees. Guys, this is awesome, thanks for the help, this article is 10x better than it was before. Ks64q2 (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Bali, let me know what you disagree with in particular, and I'll be happy to fix it! :) Ks64q2 (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You changed the tag just now -- 2 minutes before you made this talk page edit... i dispute the change (and you shouldn't remove any tag like that without PRIOR talk page discussion). The article reads more, not less, like an advert now and has more, not less, sourcing from self published sources. Stop with the deceptive behavior. It's annoying to the rest of us and damaging to wikipedia and to your own reputation. Given you're propensity to edit war, i'll leave the field to you for tonight. But leave the tags alone until other editors on this page have had a chance to weigh in (in whatever direction).Bali ultimate (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, mate, I wouldn't have deleted it if I'd have known you had a problem with it. Another user threw up that tag over the work you did, so I thought you would have thrown it up if you had agreed. There's no deceptive behavior, sir, please WP:AGF here. CBS News, both UVa and VCU, and IMBD aren't exactly self-published. I didn't know that a consensus was required to remove that tag, only the ref tag, which I left up. If you have specific problems with the prose, please let me know and I'll be happy to change it, but again, since it was the version you created... I figured you were a-okay with it. Thanks again, Bali, have a great night, man! Look forward to working with you on this again tomorrow! I'll be here! :) Ks64q2 (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not your mate. You should assume that every other editor doesn't agree with your edits at this point until they tell you that they do. In particular with tags like that you MUST seek consensus from the involved editors before removing them (you're suppositions about my -- or anyone elses -- unstated opinions are worthless). Your fake cheerful tone and false "agf, agf" mantra are probably more harmful to your standing here in the long run than just being direct and straightforward. That's advice you can take or not. But heed this advice: Assume i'm in opposition to any controversial move you might make until you explicitly and specifically hear otherwise from me (i say this because i'm tired of hearing "oh, cock robin! I just assumed you would be ok with this because you didn't preemptively say otherwise).Bali ultimate (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * grin Well, Bali, I'm sorry, man. I mean, you haven't set the example you're asking me to in making edits without prior editor consensus. And this tone isn't a falsely cheerful one at all, I'm pretty happy with the way everything has been going. If you want to be in "opposition" to every edit I make? No problem. Means I've got a second set of eyes making sure I'm perfect. Nothing controversial at all, I'm following the applicable Wikipedia guidelines, so I'm not worried, man- just making a better page. In that light, I added sources from The Roanoke Times and The Washington Post. Ks64q2 (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think we've got sources covered. There are more- Google News "Remote Area Medical"- but I figure anymore than what we've got now is overkill. Also, I did some editing to make the page flow better and give it a more encyclopediac tone. Let me know what more needs to be done. Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Socks
I just posted the following at Kage's User:Ks64q2 talk page. He deletes most stuff, and other editors might want to know.
 * Well full points for honesty. Yes, (different last digit) brought some issues of concern up to you over at the RS noticeboard (you mentioned here a little earlier -- you may have deleted it by now -- that you were over there. I was curious, so checked).

That user says they are you. It's, i guess, the least problematic kind of socking -- the kind that admits itself. But there are already questions as to whether are you (i asked you if it was, you didn't respond) and now you (apparently) confirm that you're operating another sock (for no particularly good reason that I could see). Whatever happens over this recent edit warring flareup, for you or for me, the ongoing use of socks is not a good idea. Bali ultimate (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ks64q3 has confirmed that Snarktastic, who has edited this article, is indeed one of his socks.--Sloane (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Solicitation letter
This: "The Campaign for a Better Tomorrow began a project in 2008 to provide free transport for New Englanders who can't afford medical care to RAM's medical facilities in Tennessee" is cited to a solicitation (please become a gold star member and send us money, etc...). I'm not very comfortable with it as a source (since it's not only self-published, but directly connected to the appeal for cash). This is the link Bali ultimate (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, i certainly tihnk that a solicitation for money letter is not a reliable source and have waited long enough for comment. Taking it out.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)