Misplaced Pages

Talk:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:11, 2 September 2016 editSahrin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,329 edits →Many...← Previous edit Revision as of 03:23, 2 September 2016 edit undoSahrin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,329 edits →Many...Next edit →
Line 58: Line 58:


So ] and ] harassment and witch hunt ended in a 24-hour ban. I'm back now, though, and am here to recommend we delete the section in question entirely. According to the text of the section as written, the "controversy" is a dispute over a $10M line item in the budget of an agency with a $7B budget. You guys continuously insist that there is no evidence for my contention (that the Dickey Amendment requires that researchers not report results that show gun control would reduce gun violence) - despite the fact that two separate news articles already included in the references for the current version of the text discuss this specific concern (that it will have a chilling effect on research). OK, so there is no chilling effect (or at least we can't write about it in the article). Then where's the controversy? As written, the article suggests that a dispute between different entities over a line item in the budget is a controversy. Are we really going to write a controversy stub for every single line item in the CDC budget? It's not noteworthy. I'm going to blank the section after a reasonable period of time without further comment. ] (]) 03:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC) So ] and ] harassment and witch hunt ended in a 24-hour ban. I'm back now, though, and am here to recommend we delete the section in question entirely. According to the text of the section as written, the "controversy" is a dispute over a $10M line item in the budget of an agency with a $7B budget. You guys continuously insist that there is no evidence for my contention (that the Dickey Amendment requires that researchers not report results that show gun control would reduce gun violence) - despite the fact that two separate news articles already included in the references for the current version of the text discuss this specific concern (that it will have a chilling effect on research). OK, so there is no chilling effect (or at least we can't write about it in the article). Then where's the controversy? As written, the article suggests that a dispute between different entities over a line item in the budget is a controversy. Are we really going to write a controversy stub for every single line item in the CDC budget? It's not noteworthy. I'm going to blank the section after a reasonable period of time without further comment. ] (]) 03:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to add, it really seems like this is an effort to 'whitewash' the issue. If there was no controvery about the Dickey Amendment restricting research, then it wouldn't be in the article in the first place. For whatever reason, ] has brigaded this article with like-minded friend and appears to be trying to 'whitewash' the issue. An Admin *very* inappropriately weighed in on a content issue after responding to a disciplinary investigation (relevant because this lends authority to the idea that there is no controversy regarding the amendment that isn't evident from the facts). You guys can't have it both ways - you can't simply state the most beneficial form of the POV you are trying to advance and say that because you didn't consult the news articles you referenced before writing the section, there is no evidence to support a contoversy. You want it both ways. It's a logical non sequitur - either there is a controversy over censorship and it should be addressed in the section, or there is no controversy and the section shouldn't exist. We don't make sections that say "everything is OK." ] (]) 03:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:23, 2 September 2016


Archives

1


This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMedicine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHealth and fitness High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGeorgia (U.S. state): Atlanta Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state)
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Atlanta task force (assessed as High-importance).
Atlanta task force To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Government Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDisaster management
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Many...

The first sentence in the following content is being edit warred over:

  • added the first time here by Sahrin on Aug 10: "Add explanation of why people oppose the amendment"
  • removed here by an IP Aug 26: "unreferenced, and has problems with WP:OR and WP:NPOV"
  • restored here by Sahrin Aug 27: "revert possible vandalism"
  • removed here by me Aug 27: "that is indeed unsourced editorializing that someone added to the article, and should be removed"
  • restored here by Sahrin Aug 30: "The source is given in the line. Gun zealots are taking over this page. Guys, what is it you hope to accomplish here?"
  • removed here by me Aug 30: "see discussion on talk and see your Talk page"

Many oppose the amendment, because it specifically bans the CDC from reporting results that suggest gun control would reduce violence, effectively censoring scientists from telling the truth. The U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee rejected an amendment, which would have provided $10 million in funding ear-marked for gun violence research.

References

  1. "Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence". Pri.org. Retrieved 2015-11-29.
  2. "Democrats push to restart CDC funding for gun violence research". Philly.com. Retrieved 2015-11-29.

I do not find the first sentence is supported by the sources. The "many" is especially unfortunate here. I invite those who do who find this supported, to explain how. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I would support something like "Advocates for gun control oppose the amendment. Also, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, sent a letter to the leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee in 2013 asking them "to support at least $10 million within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in FY 2014 along with sufficient new funding at the National Institutes of Health to support research into the causes and prevention of gun violence. Furthermore, we urge Members to oppose any efforts to reduce, eliminate, or condition CDC funding related to gun violence prevention research."" That would be fully supported by the sources. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • restored again here by Sahrin with edit note: "Since the section is disputed, I am reverting to the original version of the article before the article was brigaded by revisionist gun types"
  • reverted again here by Del nk with edit note: "this is the consensus version".
User:Sahrin you need to come here and discuss. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The edit warring to repeatedly introduce the phrase "censoring scientists from telling the truth" is inappropriate as it is clearly non-WP:NPOV. I have no objection to adding in the notable opinion of the AMA, APA, and AAP. Deli nk (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not participating in this content dispute, except to point out that the warred over addition is not even factually correct, let alone NPOV. The Dickey Amendment has been quoted in its entirety in the stable version of the article - it is precisely as short and vague as it sounds. To claim that this amendment "specifically bans the CDC from reporting results that suggest gun control would reduce violence" is false nearly to the point of vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I won't go to vandalism but it is definitely unverified. Do you have any thoughts on the compromise proposal above User:Someguy1221? Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Since I blocked Sahrin for edit warring, I'd rather not get too involved, even after the fact. Except to say that the proposal does appear NPOV, and that stating a subjective impact of the law in Misplaced Pages's voice is obviously not. I classified that statement as nearly vandalism instead of unverified since the text of the Dickey Amendment is not a matter for debate - anyone can look it up online and read what it says, though I suspect the author of that statement was simply uninformed or being figurative, rather than deliberately lying. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh! I didn't know that; sorry I would not have asked. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

So Jytdog's and Someguy1221's harassment and witch hunt ended in a 24-hour ban. I'm back now, though, and am here to recommend we delete the section in question entirely. According to the text of the section as written, the "controversy" is a dispute over a $10M line item in the budget of an agency with a $7B budget. You guys continuously insist that there is no evidence for my contention (that the Dickey Amendment requires that researchers not report results that show gun control would reduce gun violence) - despite the fact that two separate news articles already included in the references for the current version of the text discuss this specific concern (that it will have a chilling effect on research). OK, so there is no chilling effect (or at least we can't write about it in the article). Then where's the controversy? As written, the article suggests that a dispute between different entities over a line item in the budget is a controversy. Are we really going to write a controversy stub for every single line item in the CDC budget? It's not noteworthy. I'm going to blank the section after a reasonable period of time without further comment. Sahrin (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to add, it really seems like this is an effort to 'whitewash' the issue. If there was no controvery about the Dickey Amendment restricting research, then it wouldn't be in the article in the first place. For whatever reason, Jytdog has brigaded this article with like-minded friend and appears to be trying to 'whitewash' the issue. An Admin *very* inappropriately weighed in on a content issue after responding to a disciplinary investigation (relevant because this lends authority to the idea that there is no controversy regarding the amendment that isn't evident from the facts). You guys can't have it both ways - you can't simply state the most beneficial form of the POV you are trying to advance and say that because you didn't consult the news articles you referenced before writing the section, there is no evidence to support a contoversy. You want it both ways. It's a logical non sequitur - either there is a controversy over censorship and it should be addressed in the section, or there is no controversy and the section shouldn't exist. We don't make sections that say "everything is OK." Sahrin (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Categories: