Talk:Health care/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Chiropractic in lede and as a health care topic
Among many alternative medicine and quackery practices, chiropractic does have a following of users in the public, but is it justified to be highlighted in the lede and on the list of Wikiprojects? No substantive sources are used in the article to justify including chiropractic in the article. Reviews in high-quality journals dispute the value of chiropractic, so it is not lack of NPOV, but rather chiropractic sources are typically weak and generally fail WP:MEDRS. At best, chiropractic is WP:FRINGE, displaying undue weight to be mentioned in the lede and as a Wikiproject when other forms of quackery are justifiably excluded. --Zefr (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- You're making a lot of claims that have no bearing on chiropractic's role in this article. The simple answer to your question is to ask if chiropractic is a part of health care. If it is then it deserves to be in the lede (along with the other dozen health care professions that are listed there). To save you some time, yes, chiropractic is a part of health care (that's all it does), and simply put, that means it's role in this article is warranted. The inclusion of chiropractic in the article then answers why a WikiProject revolving around it should be on the list of WikiProjects on the page. If you don't understand the role of a WikiProject, it's the expand and better explain its subject matter in all relevant pages. By marking this page as part of the project it allows those working on the project to be drawn to it - helping to fix all those problems you have previously mentioned. Want better citations? Now that it's in the list of pages to work on with that project, you'll get those references, etc. That's how the WikiProject idea works. In any case, your own impartial views of chiropractic aside, it's intrinsically tied to the topic, it's clearly a part of health care in general, and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. That goes against the point of the encyclopedia if everything you disagree with is omitted. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Chiropractic is controversial thing to lump under health care; it may equally be termed quackery or pseudomedicine. By the argument above we'd include faith healing, reiki, homeopathy and the use of rife machines as "health care". Semmendinger would be well advised not to deploy ad hominem arguments for a topic subject to discretionary sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Apologies if that was construed as ad hominem. We had a discussion about this already on my talk page where I first asked why he removed the banner. The only explanation he stated was that chiropractic is quackery - which I took to mean he removed the banner due to lack of NPOV. That's why I said his view on this was impartial, but I suppose I should have explained that better. In any case my comment isn't directed against Zefr (yes I did use the word "you" but it's in general). I think he's right to post here asking the rest of everyone what they think about this, I have nothing against him. I'm just trying to explain why a wikiproject should be allowed to help out on a page, that's the only reason I'm here.
- To address the rest of your points, the difference would be that chiropractic is licensed and regulated on a government level, is included in ICP-10 coding procedures, is listed as a viable profession for reimbursement by insurance companies, consists of an accredited and closely monitored education body, and is in general a lot more developed and maintained than any of those other things you mentioned. It's clearly a point of interest in health care as a significant percent of the population has been to a chiropractor, and therefore to the layperson reading Wikipedia it makes sense for the profession to be listed on the topic of health care. All of this is moot to the original question which asks if a WikiProject should be allowed to monitor this page. I see it was removed again for "quackery" as if that's a valid reason for its removal. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- That's a lot of entirely different arguments to the one above. The scope of the article is set out in its opening sentence: "the maintenance or improvement of health via the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairments in human beings". In those terms chiropratic is highly controversial. If the terms were "recognized in the American healthcare market" it might be a different matter (and in that case other quackey, like naturopathy, would be in play too). Alexbrn (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's not a lot of different arguments - you likened chiropractic to reiki, homeopathy, etc, so I listed reasons that set it apart. As to the scope, the opening sentence fully fits for chiropractic too. Despite your belief it is quackery, chiropractic absolutely diagnosis and treats disease (usually low-back pain) and assists in its prevention. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- According to our chiropractic article the evidence is mixed/weak, with any benefit from chiropratic seemingly to be incidental, resulting from manipulations (and not from the magicks which make chiropratic distinct). So the assertion that it "absolutely" is effective is wrong. You are also drifting into ad hominem again - this is getting disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's not a lot of different arguments - you likened chiropractic to reiki, homeopathy, etc, so I listed reasons that set it apart. As to the scope, the opening sentence fully fits for chiropractic too. Despite your belief it is quackery, chiropractic absolutely diagnosis and treats disease (usually low-back pain) and assists in its prevention. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- That's a lot of entirely different arguments to the one above. The scope of the article is set out in its opening sentence: "the maintenance or improvement of health via the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairments in human beings". In those terms chiropratic is highly controversial. If the terms were "recognized in the American healthcare market" it might be a different matter (and in that case other quackey, like naturopathy, would be in play too). Alexbrn (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
"just because you don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. That goes against the point of the encyclopedia if everything you disagree with is omitted."
I don't think that this is about what we like or not, but if the article should focus on current mainstream medicine... I noticed that the article also currently mentions Ayurvedic, although not in the lead. Because of the very general scope of the article title, maybe that a mention of traditional or alternative medicine is legitimate in due weight and at the right place. Then if it is considered that this should also be summarized in the lead, a separate paragraph about it is probably better than mixing them all with other medicine fields, avoiding WP:FALSEBALANCE. —PaleoNeonate – 19:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)- Adding: some of them are mentioned in the current Health care industry section. —PaleoNeonate – 19:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- To explain, I said what's quoted because his edit reason for reverting my edit is simply "quackery". If someone reverts an edit for no better reason than they don't agree with it, I'm going to try to defend myself. That being said, I agree that chiropractic should not be included in discussions about medicine, as it is not medicine. But this page isn't explained that way. It's just called Health care and describes different types of health care - that's why chiropractic fits. I completely agree with your suggestion though. Out of the many professions listed, some stem from different ideologies, some are primary care, some aren't, etc. It's a very general topic (which is why I thought the Project Chiro fit..) and doing some work in the lede to help separate things somewhat would help. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- That laundry-list of professions is a poor piece of writing. Looking back through the revision history, it started small and then grew as every conceivable medicine-related topic was added, presumably by a fan. Chiropractic was added to the lead in December 2015, although it was already present as part of a even longer list in the Related sectors section, alongside acupuncture, yoga and homeopathy. I find chiropractic's claim to providing health care rather weak, as is the evidence for any efficaciousness, so although I see no problem with mentioning it in the article, as part of the decription of the alternative medicine professions, I don't accept that there is a case for including it in the lead. That list in the lead needs trimming or re-casting, as it will always be a magnet for the latest fad to be added. --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input and look into this, I think that's fair. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- We do not incude chiropractic, naturopathy, traditional medicine, or other quackery practices in the article on allied health professions. --Zefr (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- That laundry-list of professions is a poor piece of writing. Looking back through the revision history, it started small and then grew as every conceivable medicine-related topic was added, presumably by a fan. Chiropractic was added to the lead in December 2015, although it was already present as part of a even longer list in the Related sectors section, alongside acupuncture, yoga and homeopathy. I find chiropractic's claim to providing health care rather weak, as is the evidence for any efficaciousness, so although I see no problem with mentioning it in the article, as part of the decription of the alternative medicine professions, I don't accept that there is a case for including it in the lead. That list in the lead needs trimming or re-casting, as it will always be a magnet for the latest fad to be added. --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- To explain, I said what's quoted because his edit reason for reverting my edit is simply "quackery". If someone reverts an edit for no better reason than they don't agree with it, I'm going to try to defend myself. That being said, I agree that chiropractic should not be included in discussions about medicine, as it is not medicine. But this page isn't explained that way. It's just called Health care and describes different types of health care - that's why chiropractic fits. I completely agree with your suggestion though. Out of the many professions listed, some stem from different ideologies, some are primary care, some aren't, etc. It's a very general topic (which is why I thought the Project Chiro fit..) and doing some work in the lede to help separate things somewhat would help. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Chiropractic is controversial thing to lump under health care; it may equally be termed quackery or pseudomedicine. By the argument above we'd include faith healing, reiki, homeopathy and the use of rife machines as "health care". Semmendinger would be well advised not to deploy ad hominem arguments for a topic subject to discretionary sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Catholic Church and health care which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 2 December 2018
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move or not to move. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 00:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Health care → Healthcare – The terms Health Care and Healthcare are used interchangeably with no obvious logical or regional pattern. Consistency would be helpful, especially in the categorisation system. We could then get rid of foolishness like this:
- All pages beginning with health care
- All pages beginning with healthcare
- Article titles containing "health care" or "healthcare"
Rathfelder (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC) please see discussion on proposal to rename category Hugo999 (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support +1. Googling for "healthcare" pulls up 1.46 billion results, "health care" 644 million - so "healthcare" seems more common. II | (t - c) 17:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think you did this search wrong. Google gives me 1.5B Ghits only if I don't put healthcare in quotation marks. I get 0.74B ghits when it's in quotation marks (still about 20% more than the two-word form). Skipping the quotation marks will give you results that include slight variants in spelling – including the two-word form, health care). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – The two-word form seems to be 10X more common. This would take more convincing. Please the multiple-RM template if you try again. Dicklyon (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- On Which source is the ratio 1:10 based? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The graphs indicate that "healthcare" is quickly gaining popularity at the cost of "health care". It would be more relevant to have data for the period 2005-2018. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Dicklyon (talk · contribs), how does the lack of quotes affect that search? It probably doesn't capture the words next to each other. As I noted above in my support, a general Google search for healthcare shows double the results of the "health care". For Google Scholar, healthcare has more than "health care" as well - 3.61 million versus 3.3 million. II | (t - c) 09:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment When spoken the term is commonly spoken as one word e.g. Healthcare in Australia i.e. with“healthcare” spoken without a pause between health and care. And in the category Category:Healthcare by country 15 of the 20 use the one word form e.g. Category:Healthcare in Australia and only five use two words eg Category:Health care in New Zealand Hugo999 (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I suspect Googling health care as two words picks up stuff which is not relevant to the usage we are interested in. Reading articles about the subject, both in Wikipedia and elsewhere both are used without any difference in meaning, sometimes in the same paragraph. Rathfelder (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- I've posted a reminder at the talk page of WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Health and Fitness, hopefully that will increase the participation to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- support per ImperfectlyInformed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- The initial comment that there is no regional difference appears to be wrong. This is a simple WP:ENGVAR matter. American and Canadian English usually use two words; British English characteristically uses one.[2] The stylebooks for most major American publications, including AP Style, NEJM, and more, all prefer two words.[3][4] The title (and contents) should be two words if this article is written in American English (which it probably is, since most articles are, although I haven't checked this one specifically), and one if it's not. That said, people who are interested in words as words might enjoy knowing that there's been a proposal that "health care" be used for describing care given for people's health, and "healthcare" be used to describe the industry. Under that system, it would be perfectly correct to write that "The healthcare industry is trying to improve health care". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Nice research. With that said, I'd prefer to avoid that - seems like a tedious consistency of inconsistency - a glance at Google news (which shows 135 million results for "healthcare" (quoted)) shows lots of US orgs using "healthcare", and there are important organizations which use "healthcare" in their name, notably Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality as well National Association for Healthcare Quality. II | (t - c) 19:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Title vs lede
Should it be health care, or healthcare? The title and lede are at odds. --2603:7000:2143:8500:B81F:E11B:7C4E:47DC (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashleigh4532.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Health care or healthcare
Is there a Wikipedia discussion somewhere regarding the use of health care or healthcare, where the former seems to be the preferred choice for Wikipedia articles? I am not challenging the choice. It would be helpful to know the rationale. Thank youOceanflynn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)