385:) several notable opinions regarding Universal Health Care and Human Rights, some asserting and some denying that it is a Human Right, and specifically focused on political commentary on the United States; that is to say, on both sides of the debate. If Raggz, or other involved editors, would like to contribute more voices to the debate, then those can and should certainly be incorporated. More research can clearly be done, but that will move the section in the direction of expansion, rather than removal.
31:
358:
around stating opinions in
Knowledge (XXG)'s voice. There is no way to write an article on the subject of human rights at all if we are not allowed to cite the opinions of others. For instance, "According to the Supreme Court..." "Amnesty International claims..." (etc.) I note that Raggz's side of this argument has yet to identify a single line of text that does not pass his latest test of
426:.) If actual policy violations were taking place here, then other editors should be coming out of the woodwork to prevent them. Reports should have been filed (and listened to) at the Administrators' noticeboard. Users should have been blocked. None of this has happened, so I can only conclude that no policy is being violated. This is all posturing and bullying on the part of Raggz.
400:
To this point: There is no reliable source that universal health care is a human right within the US. This absence makes the entire
Universal Health Care section a SYN policy violation, and consensus is not required for removal. An effort for consensus was made, and considerable efforts expended, but
429:
Therefore, I think that an important next step in this process is to ask Raggz what views he/she feels are underrepresented. If indeed my interpretation of your notes at the MedCab case is correct, then the primary issue seems to be that both sides of the debate have not been given a fair airing.
235:
Furthermore, the demands that need to be met have changed since the last time around. What started out as
Original Research is now going to be deleted because (according to Raggz) it fails to represent all sides of the issue. However, rather than attempt to engage in editing in a constructive way
231:
If you want my biased assessment, on the other hand, I can give it to you. It seems to me that Raggz has already made up his/her mind that the disputed section should be removed, regardless of its contents. (Or, at the very least, until the contents represent entirely Raggz's POV.) Thus, despite
285:
No offense was intended in offering you a hand. I looked over the case page and you do express some mild confusion and frustration in a few places. Mostly, what I would provide is some suggestions and advice based on my experience and observations. Again, no offense was intended on my part. Please
152:
I don't know if there are any hard and fast rules on how to handle mediation cases. I would suggest soliciting some concrete proposals from both sides in the discussion section of the
Mediation page. Ultimately, the goal (I think) is to break the deadlock of a "permanent lack of consensus" that
349:
I am somewhat distressed by the line at the mediation case that we are "stuck in the second step because editors claim that their opinions are facts, so they do not need to cover both sides." Do you have any examples of this? I strongly dispute this characterization, for my own part, and would
357:
I realize that I may have said something along the lines of "I state facts and not opinions." I also made quite clear from the context that I was referring to was giving proper attribution to opinions (e.g., of courts, rights organizations, governing bodies, notable figures, etc.) We can't go
388:
However, the fact that Raggz has not engaged in any good-faith effort to add to the section (beyond advocating unwaveringly for its removal) clearly adds weight to my suspicion that Raggz's motive is, and has always been, to gut the section irrespective of its contents. For instance (quoting
225:. I admit that it is not perfect now, and Raggz certainly has new objections (as well as some positive remarks) concerning the current shape of things. So I am going to hold off to see how things develop before attempting to give an unbiased assessment here.
172:
The short version of this referendum is to address the following question: Whether or not the section on
Universal Health Care should remain in the article. If so, what bits of it should stay. Raggz feels (primarily) that the section does not comply with
267:
85:
Hey mate, sorry for the late res, I've been at the coast, it was great. How are you doing? What's the problem with your sig? Is it that the Time stamp finds it's own line? I think that's cause there's a space, try this: ]]] Cheers,
113:
306:
Hey Dude! Sorry for the late resp, congrads on getting a case on MebCab, it'll take patience but I'm sure you'll have it sorted. For the "how it was made section" you could use "development" or "production". Cheers,
423:
186:
has recently archived much of the page (unfortunately including some still-live threads). This is good for the purpose of keeping discussion focused, but bad if you are trying to research a mediation case.
182:
There is a bunch of stuff on the talk page, and not all of it is relevant to this particular issue (though it would be nice if it also reached a wider editorial audience). To make matters worse,
330:
I will take a look over it and provide some feedback a bit later. I need to wander away from the 'net for a bit to take care of a few things. At worst, I'll get back to you within a day. Cheers!
247:, and really frustrating to deal with. I'm not suggesting that you do anything about it, but it may be one reason why you have trouble finding a coherent position amid all of the noise.
239:
This kind of behavior, citing
Knowledge (XXG) policy to advance a particular agenda, and then constantly moving the goal posts, is (I believe) in violation of the behavioral guideline
410:
This predilection for unilaterally citing policy in the name of making controversial deletions, and of constantly shifting the policy being cited, is a characteristic of
270:? Is there anything I could help with? You expressed a little confusion/frustration in the case page and I just want to lend a hand however I can. Cheers!
120:
would be okay with you. It's much shorter and the "Today's
Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable" is a subtitle, which could be mentioned in the article.
221:
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I have taken some of Raggz's objections into consideration, and made some edits in the disputed section of
202:
I have replied to you on my own talk page, and I will opt to keep further discussions there, unless you have a strong preference otherwise. Cheers,
232:
attempting to address some of his/her concerns over balance and NPOV, Raggz continues to threaten deletion unless certain demands are met.
419:
222:
154:
117:
403:
396:
47:
17:
430:
So, let's hear it. Who are these unsung debaters of
Universal Health Care and Human rights in the United States?
38:
236:
by providing references as to the other point of view, Raggz has opted yet again to threaten unilateral deletion.
439:
339:
320:
295:
279:
256:
211:
196:
166:
138:
126:
99:
77:
435:
252:
207:
192:
162:
133:
121:
335:
314:
291:
275:
93:
71:
431:
248:
203:
188:
158:
415:
411:
375:
244:
240:
371:
367:
359:
382:
363:
174:
183:
331:
309:
287:
271:
88:
66:
422:
is not the only article where Raggz has been causing problems for others. See also
268:
Knowledge (XXG):Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-21 Human rights and the United States
132:
No problem, I'll fix the title. I still have to recover from my vacation too. :P
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
112:
Hello, again :) I was wondering if you thought changing the article name from
114:
What Is Your
Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable
401:
in the end policy violations require deletion even without consensus.
424:
Talk:Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States
393:
25:
286:
accept my apologies if it was construed in that fashion.
390:
64:Hey, what's happening? All the best for 2008!
8:
381:I have established (as a fact attributed to
350:happily see a more extensive treatment of
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
217:Universal health care dispute redux
420:Human rights and the United States
223:Human rights and the United States
155:Human rights and the United States
24:
362:. (Previous tests have included
29:
1:
440:04:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
340:02:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
321:00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
296:17:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
280:17:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
257:20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
212:03:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
197:02:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
167:02:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
139:05:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
127:02:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
118:What Is Your Dangerous Idea?
100:04:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
18:User talk:Slartibartfast1992
243:. At the very least it is
153:seems to have developed at
78:23:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
455:
266:How are things going with
354:sides of the debate.
108:Changing article name
42:of past discussions.
345:Opinions or facts?
416:gaming the system
408:
407:
262:MedCab assistance
54:
53:
48:current talk page
446:
414:editing, and of
394:
383:reliable sources
317:
312:
136:
124:
96:
91:
74:
69:
33:
32:
26:
454:
453:
449:
448:
447:
445:
444:
443:
347:
328:
315:
310:
304:
264:
219:
147:
134:
122:
110:
94:
89:
72:
67:
62:
60:Happy New year!
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
452:
450:
406:
405:
402:
398:
346:
343:
327:
324:
303:
300:
299:
298:
263:
260:
218:
215:
200:
199:
184:User:Viriditas
179:
178:
157:. Good luck,
146:
143:
142:
141:
109:
106:
105:
104:
103:
102:
61:
58:
56:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
451:
442:
441:
437:
433:
427:
425:
421:
417:
413:
399:
395:
392:
391:
386:
384:
379:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
355:
353:
344:
342:
341:
337:
333:
325:
323:
322:
319:
318:
313:
301:
297:
293:
289:
284:
283:
282:
281:
277:
273:
269:
261:
259:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
237:
233:
230:
226:
224:
216:
214:
213:
209:
205:
198:
194:
190:
185:
181:
180:
176:
171:
170:
169:
168:
164:
160:
156:
150:
144:
140:
137:
131:
130:
129:
128:
125:
119:
115:
107:
101:
98:
97:
92:
84:
83:
82:
81:
80:
79:
76:
75:
70:
59:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
432:Silly rabbit
428:
409:
387:
380:
356:
351:
348:
329:
308:
305:
265:
249:Silly rabbit
238:
234:
228:
227:
220:
204:Silly rabbit
201:
189:Silly rabbit
159:Silly rabbit
151:
148:
111:
87:
65:
63:
55:
43:
37:
412:tendentious
245:tendentious
229:Disclaimer.
149:Greetings,
145:MedCab case
36:This is an
326:No problem
135:Midorihana
123:Midorihana
332:Vassyana
288:Vassyana
272:Vassyana
389:Raggz):
376:WP:NPOV
241:WP:GAME
39:archive
374:, and
372:WP:CON
368:WP:SYN
360:WP:ASF
364:WP:OR
311:Dfrg_
175:WP:OR
90:Dfrg_
68:Dfrg_
16:<
436:talk
418:. (
352:both
336:talk
302:Resp
292:talk
276:talk
253:talk
208:talk
193:talk
163:talk
378:).
316:msc
116:to
95:msc
73:msc
438:)
404:”
397:“
370:,
366:,
338:)
294:)
278:)
255:)
210:)
195:)
165:)
434:(
334:(
290:(
274:(
251:(
206:(
191:(
177:.
161:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.