Talk:Corizon

Requested move 19 August 2015

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. The consensus is that the current title is the common name. Jenks24 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Corizon → Corizon Health – Incorrect Company Name – LindseyNSTL (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm. No. "CMS became Corizon, Inc., in 2011 ...". Please also see WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:CONCISE. What, exactly, is "incorrect" about the name? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Jenks24 (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Ummm... Yes, BarrelProof. LOL

First of all, the portion of the Wikipedia page to which you are referring doesn't even have a source to cite - So please don't use that to back up your claim. secondly, look at their website >> http://www.corizonhealth.com/ >> Everything is "Corizon Health" NOT "Corizon". So, yes, "Corizon" is wrong. Every one of their logos on anything I've found online uses "Corizon Health" not "Corizon" — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindseyNSTL (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Opposed: Wikipedia prefers using the WP:COMMONNAME of a topic, which is not necessarily the self-published "official" name. I reviewed all of the independent WP:Reliable sources that are cited in the article. I see that the articles by Philadelphia Daily News, The Nation (two articles), The Huffington Post, The New York Times, Al Jazeera America, American Friends Service Committee, and the Maine State Legislature all refer to them (either exclusively or primarily) as "Corizon". None of the independent reliable sources appear to refer to the company primarily or exclusively as "Corizon Health". "Corizon" also has the benefit of being more WP:CONCISE while remaining sufficiently WP:PRECISE. The company logo on their web site also shows "CORIZON" in a very large font size, with "HEALTH" below it in a very small font size. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2015 (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.

talkpage request per WP:COI
This is a Corizon Health representative. Our official name is Corizon Health. What other information would you like from us in order to have our name changed from Corizon (incorrect) to Corizon Health (correct). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.64.157.42 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Through luck I have run into your question, 192.64, but in the future if you don't get a response within a couple days, please ask your question (whatever it might be) at WP:TEAHOUSE or one of the other WP:QUESTIONS locations. Article-talkpages are a good place to start, but are not always vigilantly monitored.  Of course, see also WP:OTHERPARENT, if you don't get the answer you wanted, endless complaining is not helpful... unless new information comes up (such as the software company named Corizon which I discuss below), or it has been six months since you last checked WP:CONSENSUS with your fellow wikipedians.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

re-opening the WP:requested move discussion
I am in agreement with 192.64 and with LindseyNSTL that a rename is needed. My objection is that there is already a company called "Corizon" which sells software, and had a wikipedia page sometime in the 2007-2009 timeframe *at* Corizon, before it was deleted due to COI-and-weak-overall-sourcing. Here is one of those sources: "...Eric Guilloteau, founder and CEO of Corizon..."   I came here looking for why the software firm was again bluelinked, and was quite confused by the body-prose about the 2011+ prison healthcare firm! Therefore I propose:


 * Corizon → Corizon Health, confusing naming-conflict with existing software company named ''Corizon (completely different topic)

And leave a redirect behind (from Corizon to Corizon Health) which might turn into a disambiguation page someday, should the article Draft:Corizon (software company) ever become a mainspaced bluelink. BarrelProof and Jenks24, can this be re-discussed? Or is a WP:Move review mandatory, per WP:BURO?

I have not done the hard legwork that BarrleProof went through in 2015, but in looking up a couple of the sources, they are using 'Corizon' as a shorthand abbreviation for 'Corizon Health' to save ink or electrons, and not as the name of the firm. For instance, Al Jazeera calls it 'Corizon Health' first, and then afterwards calls it 'Corizon' for short. Similarly, in the case of the Santa Fe New Mexican local news piece, the headline says 'Corizon' for space reasons, but then the first three words of the body-prose call it 'Corizon Correctional Healthcare' before using the shorthand name thereafter. So this is a bit of a borderline case, where some of the uses are one-word, but in general the sources seem to use the full name *first* that I have seen. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. Looking back at what I wrote last time, I remain skeptical. I don't think we need to worry about the software company since it is not discussed on Wikipedia. The prison healthcare company's own website continues to show a logo consisting of "CORIZON" in a huge font with a little tiny "health" below it, and often shortens its self-references to "Corizon". Lots of companies have short and long forms of their names, and I think Wikipedia usually uses the short one unless there is some good reason not to. To answer your question, a WP:Move review is not mandatory. Enough time has gone by that a normal WP:Requested move would be the proper way to reopen the discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Very late reply, but seeing as this has come up occasionally over the years, I endorse BarrelProof's last sentence. Started a new requested move discussion if you want. Feel free to ping myself or BarrelProof if you need a hand with that process. Jenks24 (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement
The Controversies section starts out with Corizon Health, like its predecessors CMS and PHS, and its competitors, along with self-operated correctional health programs, has faced criticism from government officials, public-health advocates and experts for being more concerned with maintaining lucrative government contracts than effectively treating sick inmates. Self-operated programs are probably indeed criticized for poor service quality, but the very nature of self-operation means that "lucrative government contracts" are a non-issue, unless we're talking about self-operated health services in privately owned prisons and jails or the employees' union contracts. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 03:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)