Talk:Health/Archive 1

FATAL irrelevant articles
Dear all, please refer to insominia article: There is no such thing as insomnia. Who came up with this word? If you do not know. then there is no such word. See.. people are being so complicated and starting to write nonsense to make people confused. In olden days, there is no such thing as insomnia and people are muc much more simplier. Don't think about anything and sleep la. There is simply no truth in this article because God gives HIs beloved sleep. And there is no such thing as disturbed sleep, just continue to sleep as it is when you wake up. So simple, isn't it? And also there is no such thing as stress, fear .. etc can caused people have symptoms of insomnia. People with high stress still can sleep like a pig and people who lost their loved ones also still can sleep well. We need to take care of our body first before we can moved on in life. And what fear can cause symptoms of insomnia. God cast out fear and there is no more there. what a irrelevant article! Please remove.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.146 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What should be on a "Health" page?
health is something you can stay fit and healthy and eat probyly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.6.254 (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We should discuss the organziation of this page. I'm still new to Wikipedia's organization, so open to other views. In general, I'd recommend that the "Health" page has two purposes. The first is to describe the different definitions or concepts of health. The second is to provide context (mostly links) to other aspects of health such as: health care, prevention and promotion of health, health risks, determinants of health, etc.

An example of how organziation could be improved is the section on Public Health on this page. Much of this infomation is '''duplicated on a seperate Public Health page. And on that other Public Health page, there are definitions and discusions about health that are on this page. I suggest that the Public Health section be entirely removed from this page, except for a link, and the definition of health be removed from the other Public Health page.

In terms of definitions of health, this Health page should include different concepts of health like the four "D" death, disability, disease and demogrphaphics - with links to other pages for these sections. There are other concepts of domains of health that should be added as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgmanuel (talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

=
=================

I just recently added an external link to a site that I maintain that advertises a health television program entitled Boost. It was removed and the suggestion was that I read the external links page guidelines. I added it knowing full well that the ad on my site is commercial, but it is also a positive program about health in general. I feel that it is in the best interest of anyone looking for alternative sources about health and not exclusively about website promotion. After all, any external link partially promotes whatever it links. Rather than add the link back, I took the advice of the gentleman who removed it and I am adding a comment here. If I hear no objections I would like to put it back. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbiejackson (talk • contribs) 17:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also read Conflict of interest where it states persons should not add links to sites they have financial or self-promotional interests in. So, no you should not add it. You can describe it and the location on the talk page. Someone not involved with you may evaluate and add it per Five pillars and other guides. Not that I think there will be a problem, but often newcomers do not understand policies and guidelines, and editing counter to them is discouraged by many means.Ward20 (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While I see your point about conflict of interest, I'm not really adding anything other than information about a show regarding health. The reader is left to make up their own mind about whether or not it's of any value as per the item marked neutrality.  I can see, however, where allowing people to add links willy nilly on wiki may set an ugly precedent.  I am one of those who believe in common sense as the five pillars defers to as the last word.  It is my opinion that citing other entertaining reference material, available to the general Canadian public is not in any way negative.  I will not add the link, however, in the spirit of the grand wiki.  Thank you for helping me to be more aware of the conflict of interest guidelines.  I will take your suggestion and encourage others, who are not directly involved in the ichannel to add material, only where it is appropriate.Robbiejackson (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your cooperation. I indented your remarks so you can see how the formatting makes the conversation easier to understand. I agree entertaining reference material, available to the general Canadian public is not in any way negative and is encouraged if it pertains directly to the article. As I understand it, it's not a WP:COI for you to describe on the talk page the relevance and location of the link and request comments from neutral editors. Maybe editors will agree and include it in the article. Material such as this can be added by WP:consensus even after being removed multiple times. If material continues being added and rejected in an antagonistic manner then it becomes contentious and is called WP:edit warring. Ward20 (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

somatic re-diverts from this page to "body" without any explanation of what somatic means or how it relates to body. Am not up to defining somatic (I thought it had something to do with Soma in Brave new world). However if no one puts anything on somatic on the body page by next time I come through I'll take out the link :o) --(talk to)BozMo 13:38, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Literally, the word 'somatic' means 'of or relating to the body' (see Merriam-Webster). However, biologists use it in several specialized concepts (i.e. somatic chromosome).  Someone ought to do a search for all articles that include this word in their titles and make it a disambiguation page.  I would do it, but I'm in the middle of a huge merge at the moment. --Smack 23:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The word somatic is derived from the Greek word soma, which translated in English means body. There is no distinction between human soma (body) or a celestial soma (body). Somatic should indeed be something relating to the body, even though the Greek somatiko means something of the body, so somatikos ponos is bodily pain.

Dubious information
I've cut the following bits out of the article, because IMHO they digress and are only tangentially related to the issue at hand. The bit about wealth is IMO wrong. You can be perfectly well while living in a tiny apartment or God-forsaken cabin with no more to your name than a few changes of clothes, a few dishes and a table. --Smack 23:51, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That is, not only must everything be all right at the moment, but there should be subjective understanding that the "healthful" balance will continue. This understanding comes from somatic perception, including pain and discomfort, as well as cognitive perception. In order to feel health, people need to feel that they look well, are functioning as well as they always have, and that no external or internal risk imminently endangers their healthful state.

Wellness, in this sense, is subjective, the perception of being healthy, rather than any investigatable "reality" of being healthy. The behaviors in the pursuit of wellness sometimes include proven methodologies, but may also include practices with no scientifically proven capacity to increase health.

Wellness is thought by most to be closely related to wealth, either because one must control resources to avoid stress, or because wealth itself cannot be enjoyed unless one is well, and therefore one can be potentially both in command of resources and suffering a sort of sensual or stressful poverty at one and the same time. It is sometimes observed that even rich people who take on too many commitments often have just as little free time as the poor - and may very easily outrun their resources.

Wellness has developed into a buzzword used by the Network Marketing and Multi-Level Marketing "communities" to sell unproven health supplements and quack cures.

Wellness isn't just about health supplements and quack cures. Wellness is the overall state of being. In order to achieve absolute wellness a person must have complete health (emotional, social and physical). People in any financial situation (not just wealthy) can enjoy wellness if they wish (in other words they eat correctly, sleep correctly, exercise, enjoy their friends and only focus on the positive in their lives). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewerdai (talk • contribs) 01:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wellness
I'm unsure what the "wellness" content is doing here. Since we have Wellness (alternative medicine), and since we're not pushing any size limits, its eems like we should either move all the wellness to here or move it all to that article. The double listing seems silly and POV, particularly since health is a much more mainstreamed concept than wellness, and yet is not represented in the wellness article. Snowspinner 20:57, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly do. That is why Wikipedia has disambiguation pages. There are several other articles with ... (alternative medicine) which have survived both merge and vfd notices. Wellness is primarily what science people would claim to be a quack term.  From the point of view of the new article, there is a significant difference between both the approach, philosophy and content to this topic; just like there is a different in the topic of meditation between a religious and an alternative medicine approach. Any encyclopedia that has tons of articles on essentially trash topics like tampons can at least get the topic of wellness correct.  Furthermore, the main talk page of the project on AM clearly documents my intent to write this article was on the record many months ago. -- John Gohde 16:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing against the content. It's just that, if this article is already going to document wellness with more or less the exact same content, there's no point in having the satellite article. Either wellness should be removed from this article and this article should link to the AM article, or the articles should be merged. Snowspinner 18:31, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you insist. -- John Gohde 10:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"wellness" is clearly within even conservative or historical definitions of health. Equally, it is clearly not solely within the domain of alternative medicine. I've added the 1986 WHO definition of health from the Ottawa Charter of Health Promotion and deleted the existing reference to "wellness" that now seems redundant. The 1986 definition is taught along side the 1948 definition in most entry-level health courses. Those same courses offer quite a few different perspectives and definitions of health, so I hope that these will be added in the not-too-distant future. There can't be many more important words or concepts than "health" in Wikipedia - let's all work together to make it reflect "health's" importance.Dgmanuel (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Wellness" is sometimes used in mainstream contexts in New Zealand. I would be interested to know how its meaning differs from that of "health", and where the word came from. I've always thought it a damned silly coinage. It has a politically correct feel about it, with actually having any politically correct point. Koro Neil (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed misleading content
''A deeper inquiry into the definition of "health" reveals that what makes a cell healthy is unique from what makes an organism healthy. Similarly, what makes an organism healthy is unique from what makes a population healthy. To illustrate this point, consider that Japan has the greatest life expectancy of any nation (2004 UN Human Development Report), despite having one of the highest smoking rates, especially among men (2004 UN Human Development Report).''
 * Aside from the gobbledygook regarding cell vs. organism and organism vs. population (which appears to be uncited) I removed this content as it was very misleading. There are a number of cranks who promote the idea that tobacco increases longevity and often cite Japan as an example.  In fact, the people in question--the Okinawans--rarely smoke, and live longer than mainlanders due to lifestyle. Tobacco use in this context is irrelevant. --Viriditas  | Talk 09:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed external links
I removed a link to the website http://www.thehealthnews.org/ because it appears to consist solely of copyvio material reproduced, sometimes without attribution, from other sources. --Muchness 08:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * An anon editor keeps adding this link without explanation or addressing the concern raised above. If another editor feels it's appropriate for this article, feel free to add it back. --Muchness 14:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion. Inappropriated Links:
 * Health and Wellness
 * 'Defying Death' On-line video on disease (Provided by the Vega Science Trust)
 * Health and Medical Information from UCB Libraries GovPubs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.162.114 (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative medicine
I've removed the following: "However, with the lack of scientific proof through double blind testing, the placebo effect should be assumed to provide the health improvement in the case of successful alternative treatments until such testing can provide proof of any effects besides placebo. This is because as someone who feels well from their (possibly subconscious) belief in the therapies may lower their stress levels, resulting in beneficial effects on numerous factors, including blood pressure, gastrointestinal functioning, and immune response. The field of psychoneuroimmunology explores these links." It's POV to assert what should be assumed. -Medtopic 06:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Pursuit of health
Where in Wikipedia does information on the human tendency to pursue health go? Might it fit here, in a new section of this article? Or elsewhere?

In reading some Aristotle today, I found an interesting quotation in Politics Book 1, Part IX, to wit: " ... in the art of medicine, there is no limit to the pursuit of health ..."

This seems to me to be profoundly relevant to one common characteristic of the developed world in the early 21st century. N2e 21:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

DoctorsPurest Curcumin Turmeric Extract (Turmeric Extract is from the roots of the turmeric plant. Its effects on Alzheimer's, Arthritis, Cancer, including Breast Cancer and Diabetes are being)

AgelessCures offers only the most powerful and trusted products available today with proven results That includes everything from Curcumin to Forsleans

benefits and most recommended for Anti tumor | Alzheimers | Anti inflammatory | Anti aging | Weight Management | Anti Cancer | Life Extension

Products [ULTRA-Pack Curcumin C3 500mg] AC3 Curcumin C3 DERMA CREAM CURCUMIN C3 Complex® 500mg SUPER CURCUMIN C3 1000mg SUPER Curcumin C3 1000mg Eco PK MEGA CURCUMIN C3 1100mg

Other Products BOSWELLIN + Curcumin C3 1000mg GREEN TEA + Curcumin C3 1000mg FORSLEAN Extreme GUGULIPID + Lactospore Bioperine

for More Details Visit http://www.agelesscures.com

something
I erased all the "external links" in the main body that had absolutely no business being there. They were all references to current books, with no indication as to why they were there. I admit that the meta-information that "health" is practically a copyrighted concept, only useable under a doctor's prescription, is slightly informative, but there was no labelling that such was the intended communication. Health is such a profound concept throughout our lives and history that if anyone wants to read about it, we could recommend either the millions of books available at the nearest medical college, or the pop-hits at any nearby place that sells books. That's it, I'm done, thank you :-) (Please have your insurance info ready when you finish reading this paragraph, thank you.) -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.198.21.118 (talk • contribs) 30 April 2005‎

Adding an external link
I think if WedMD is going to be allowed to stay as an external link, there should also be some more holistically focused websites. I typed in "wellness" into Google and Wellness.com came up first. Seems to be a valid resource for holistic health. I know there's another article for alternative medicine, but I think this site is relevant for the regular article on health too. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.153.248 (talk • contribs) 26 February 2007

eHealth taken to talk page because of attribution problems
This section was added recently to the article but proper attribution of the material was not. The material appears to be sourced from here.

eHealth is an overarching term used today to describe the application of information and communications technologies in the health sector. It encompasses a whole range of purposes from purely administrative through to health care delivery. For example:

within the hospital care setting, eHealth refers to electronic patient administration systems; laboratory and radiology information systems; electronic messaging systems; and, telemedicine -- teleconsults, telepathology, and teledermatology, to name a few within the home care setting, examples include teleconsults and remote vital signs monitoring systems used for diabetes medicine, asthma monitoring and home dialysis systems within the primary care setting, eHealth can refer to the use of computer systems by general practitioners and pharmacists for patient management, medical records and electronic prescribing. A fundamental building block of all these applications is the Electronic Health Record, which allows the sharing of necessary information between care providers across medical disciplines and institutions. Other important uses of eHealth are found in the areas of continuous medical education and public health awareness and education.

Attribution: Non-commercial Reproduction Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from Health Canada.

We ask only that: Ward20 (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
 * Health Canada be identified as the source; and,
 * The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of Health Canada.


 * As one of the editors who reverted the removal of the eHealth text, I don't have a problem with it's removal as long as there is a proper reason given for doing so (as above). The problem I had was that it was being removed without an edit summary so there was no way of noing the editor's reasons for removing the text. --JD554 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have tried adding the attribution myself except permission is only given for non-commercial use and it is my understanding permission should be given for all use. I added the issue to Copyright_problems, maybe they will have more understanding of the issue. I only checked the material because an editor added the material and the same editor deleted the material several times, as you said all without explanation. I don't know why, but I am not sure it matters either. Ward20 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Review copyright
This article was posted at Copyright problems/2008 February 28, a quick overview Canadian_copyright_law and Copyright/Permission to Reproduce at source. Copy and paste from the source to Wikipedia would be a copyvio, thanks for removing it. Jeepday (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments
(By Alejandro Jadad, Toronto) On June 24, it will be 60 years since the ratification of the World Health Organization (WHO) and its groundbreaking definition of health. Contrary to what appeared on this article, according to WHO itself, such definition has NOT been modified. It would be great if Wikipedia could become a catalyst for a collective effort to determine whether the original version should remain unchanged or if it should be modified. What better way to strive for this goal than through the power of social networks?

End of Comment by A. Jadad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajadad (talk • contribs)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social network. We are here to sumamrize and report the world's knowledge. We are not here to push an agenda or be a "catalyst for collective effort". Please stop vandalizing this article. Thanks, Gwernol 01:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Health and healthcare

 * Most articles about healthcare in a given country are misnamed "health in country". See details at Talk:Healthcare in Europe. PS. I suggested a RM at Requested_moves. Please continue this discussion at Talk:Healthcare in Europe. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rename health and politics
The lede of this article is not about health. Its about health and politics. Come on, "public accountability?" talk about POV. How about keep the lede definition and then offer some consensus thoughts on what physical and mental health are? Instead the paragraph talks about legal consensus. I am inclined to edit the lede paragraph or ask the article be renamed "Health and Politics" 99.184.218.78 (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture
Can this image be used as the main image for this article and for the entire health category and related articles? (a template needs to be made for the latter) 81.241.110.18 (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

verdure
verdure should not redirect here. pls correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.112.79 (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong picture
Why is the top picture a Caduceus? It's not the symbol for medicine.Yel D&#39;ohan (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Title Change
Saw a recent page move brought up at wp:ani. I disagree with that particular move for a number of reasons (and it seems to have been moved back), but not because it's necessarily a bad idea. I wonder if a search for Health shouldn't be automatically directed to Human health, and a note/link at the top of the page could direct interested parties to an article on Health in a broad, philosophic sense. After all, a tree can be healthy, or a residential development or business can be "healthy." Anyway, I find this interesting, so here's the place to discuss it if anyone is interested. Quinn &#9617; RAIN 08:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, OK...ha...yeah, so that's pretty much how it already is. Been a long night. Sorry. Quinn &#9617; RAIN  08:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My Thoughts
What is a whole section on "Public Health" doing in this article? Surely it should just be a link the the "See Also" section at the footer.

Here are some major elements of health that are missing:


 * Diet & nutrition
 * Exercise / training
 * Genetics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.185.128 (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Disease should also be included.MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

Edit request on 5 June 2012
Please let me edit the article. I am not intending to write something bad or inappropriate.

110.54.202.101 (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Register an account, and after 4 days and 10 edits you'll be able to edit semiprotected articles. Materialscientist (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Spiritual Health
For several years now, the research has shown a connection between health and spirituality.religion/faith.

I propose that the time is right to add this component to Health.

How might we go about doing that?

Thanks!

Dale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale Fletcher (talk • contribs) 22:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation
Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. Notes and remarks written by the external expert are available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. We'd like to thank Paul F.M. Krabbe for his work and for his helpful notes. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! -- Anthere (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)



To facilitate the editing process, I copied Paul notes below.

Quality of the Summary
''Is the summary of the article a complete, thorough, and concise introduction to the topic? How do you think the summary could be improved? Which meaningful data are missing? Is there something that you find too much detailed for a general overview of the topic?''

Good.

Structure and style of the article
''Is the article properly presenting the topic for a general public? Does the article provide a complete and easy-to-navigate structure? Which paragraph would you add, unify or split into different parts? Please provide a list of suggestions. Is the article well written and understandable at a high school level?''

I have some concerns about the structure. After a nice and informative introduction one of the subsequent heading is “Mental health”. Why is that part of health so exclusively discussed? Why not physical health? Also, the content about “Maintaining health” seems a bit out of order. This is certainly an important element, but if this is discussed in such detail I would also expect discussions, apart from Determinants, about more general elements in relationship to health.

A heading such as “Potential issues” is too vague.

Content
''Is the article comprehensive of major facts related to the topic? Is the article adequately placing the subject in context? What does it miss? Please provide a list of topics you think should be included in the article (suggestions must be related to bibliography). Do you find that some arguments are not meaningful or representative of the topic for a general public. What should be deleted? Please explain why.''

What I missed is a general concept or model about health that is discussed in the Introduction. For example, the health model of Wilson and Cleary (Wilson, I.B., Cleary, P.D., 1995. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life: a conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA; 273(1): 59-65) may be used as such a tool to direct the discussion.

You may also present some material about “the importance of health”. For example Maslow need hierarchy and other theorist and evidence from empirical studies.

I also missed a presentation about different health concepts and different health outcomes (physical functioning, health status, health-related quality of life, quality of life, capabilities, etc.).

Under determinants it is stated that “Gender” may influence whether people are healthy or unhealthy. I question whether this background characteristic is really in itself affecting health. Probably, ‘gender’ is observed in some studies as a factor, but probably this is not due to the gender itself, but due to cultural factors.

International and local dimension
''Is the article neutral (it presents general and acknowledged views fairly and without bias)? Is the article representative of the international dimension and consolidated research about the topic? If applicable, does the article feature examples from all over the world (no localisms)? Please draft a list of what is missing with related references.''

No comments

References (essential to allow the articles to be improved)
''Is the list of publications comprehensive and updated? Does it list the fundamental monographs and papers? Please provide primary/generic and secondary/original resources which need to be included and suggest the list of publications which should be removed.''

Ref. 7 seems incorrect. It is “ … A new approach to health (not pain”.

"Wellness"
Can someone please add an explanation of the use of the word "wellness", and why it is sometimes used in contexts where the well-established "health" would fit just as well? Koro Neil (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Under "Diet"
Would it be a good idea to provide some explicit examples of the suitable physical exercises for the diet? I think each person's interpretation of physical fitness could be different. Thank you. Andrewkcli (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Religion
No religion in health? With homo sapiens highly intelligent brain what are they to do with their thoughts-feelings? List of Greek mythological figures, Ancient Greek religion, Religion in ancient Rome, and today's religion of chemicals.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.publichealthreviews.eu/upload/pdf_files/13/00_Fielding.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028163043/http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/pdf/perspect-eng.pdf to http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/pdf/perspect-eng.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/health/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://lac.niu.edu.tw/files/archive/73_37d1d9ea.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.projecthealthdesign.org/media/file/E-primer_3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160615184241/https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/tools-and-resources/Federal-Prevention-Initiatives to https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/tools-and-resources/Federal-Prevention-Initiatives
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227194359/http://www.livelifewell.nsw.gov.au/healthyeating/ to http://www.livelifewell.nsw.gov.au/healthyeating/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Added a Citation
The statement, "For example, obesity is a very large problem in the United States that contributes to bad mental health and causes stress in a lot of people's lives." clearly came from a source. Therefore I added the citation and reference for DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-42070-7 and erased the "citation needed" link.Aleman1993 (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Moved from article
I have moved the following paragraph here for discussion:

An alternative approach focuses on avoiding definitions, which demand precise descriptions of the term. Instead, following a three-year global conversation, convened by Alex Jadad, "health" has been conceptualized as the ability to adapt and self manage when individuals  communities face physical, mental or social challenges.

The introductory section should summarize the content of the article. However, this paragraph from the intro appears to be independent of the main text. Also, it seems to give undue weight to one individual's actions, with all the references being non-independent of this individual. As a red link, is Alex Jadad notable enough to have his contributions highlighted in a top level article such as this? I note that a Wikipedia page for this person, located at Alejandro R. Jadad Bechara, has recently been speedy deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", so this adds to my concern that perhaps there has been some inappropriate self-promotion going on here. Deli nk (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Health and energy efficiency
Hello, I think that the definition of health as energy efficiency is widely inaccurate. Contrast with the definitions listed at Well-being. --2800:A4:E38:A00:CD18:D8A1:B161:9023 (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2018
Original: Health is the ability of a biological system to acquire, convert, allocate, distribute, and utilize energy sustainably.

Proposed change: Health is the ability of a biological system to acquire, convert, allocate, distribute, and utilize energy sustainably. Gpossel (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This sentence has been removed from the article since the request was placed. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 02:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2018
Can you please change this:

Exercise
to this:

Exercise
The article title is Exercise, not Physical exercise. 192.107.120.90 (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2018
womenohub Womenohub (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Corrected a mis-quote
I have just updated the figure for people with mental illness. The source said around 19% and was presented as one fourth. I have changed this to one fifth. Egmason (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Health for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Health is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Health until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 12:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2019
Section: Mental Health, Paragraph : 4

Mental health can be treated and be attentive to teens' behavior.

CHANGE TO: Mental health disorders are treatable and being attentive to teens' behavior can help solve the problem. Uralunlucayakli (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the paragraph in question, as it wasn't a very good summary. – Thjarkur (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020
The first sentence is erroneous "Health is a state of physical, mental and social well-being in which disease and infirmity are absent.[1][2]" THe citations are from the WHO and even these citations, specifically the [2] citation clearly states "Health is a state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity." This needs to be changed 71.85.112.15 (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Not merely" seems to imply that the absence of disease is a prerequisite for being healthy. Do you have a suggestion for how to word this better? – Thjarkur (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Spiritual health
I always sort of was under the impression that there were three pillars of health, those being physical mental and spiritual. I may be in the minority in believing this but I am pretty sure I learned this in middle school, and I didn't see a section mentioning anything about spiritual health. Is it possible to add it? Or what are everybody's thoughts on this matter?PrecociousPeach (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Spiritual health it has to do with being healthy spiritually being having the biblical knowledge  Ghiyani (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020
Change "Health is a state of physical, mental and social well-being in which disease and infirmity are absent."

To the actual definition provided in the WHO reference which is: "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." TasmanianTristan (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Nah, we shouldn't copy the definition exactly (WP:COPYVIO), and in any case, this seems like a valid paraphrase. Also, using only one document to back this definition seems insufficient as it's possible to be healthy in some aspects and not in others, yet the definition by the WHO would seem to imply that it's "all or nothing", which is a gross oversimplification of what health actually is... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  20:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The key of the WHO-Definition is that health can not be defined by absence of sickness only, but is more than that. The crucial and important words are "not merely the absence". Citing WHO and paraphrasing it like this in my opinion does not do the original definition justice. --Gektor (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Health, Physical Health, and Mental Health
Shouldn't Health just be combined with Mental health? If not, should health have 2 subsections for physical and mental health? Mr Robot 2020 (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Opposed. Health is a much wider topic, and has historically usually referred to physical conditions. Mental health is a subset of that, and is treated appropriately here by being given a small summary with a link to the mental health topic. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Opposed. Health is a very broad topic, and this article would be way too long if we tried to merge every subarticle into this. Also, in general parlance people consider mental health different from physical health, even if they are connected to each other. Clover moss  (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Physical and mental health are different specialities. Narky Blert (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ngkhanh, Almajacinto. Peer reviewers: Ngkhanh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Renadsaad.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): N00rmoha. Peer reviewers: Sophieschindler, XueZhao Ma, Miriandchavez, Sifengdu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Word salad
Summarizing texts on applied ethics can be hard... but since the definition of health could be argued to have been a major tool in repressive regimes and it is discussed in a lot of academic literature I think it's worth getting right. This is the section I am trying to summarize: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Public_Health_Ethics/wPNKMPPTN_UC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA103&printsec=frontcover

It basically talks about politicians and doctors making "health" mean whatever they want in order to get people to do it. Which is easy because health doesn't necessarily mean anything. If you define a "healthy diet" as being vegetarian, lo and behold, everyone should be vegetarian. There are texts that talk about this playing out in the 90s in the UK, and it definitely was a component of the Nazi definition of "good german". Talpedia (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Definition WP:SOAP
Is a textbook entitled "Public Health Ethics", with the stated aim of justifying public health and with sections on consequentialism, non-consequentialism, liberal political philosophy, epidemiology, health promotion, harm reduction and immunization actually WP:SOAP or are we just assuming this because we don't like what the source says without actually looking at the source or considering its merits? Talpedia (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've removed a source that might have looked a little contentious etc (this was more interesting to me from a historic perspective than an ethical one). I've added another philosophical text on the topic, which includes some contrasting viewpoints. This philosophical text contains quite a few more references and covers things from more angles, so may be a better source anyway. It was useful that I was pushed to find it, if slightly irritating at the time. It also discusses the author of the book on ethics (Holland). Talpedia (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The section and sources you provided are more for a minor textbook section on health philosophy (if at all), not for an encyclopedia article. The concepts and sources are not mainstream, WP:UNDUE, and are not synthetic as an encyclopedia article should be, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #6-8 - we write here for the common user who shouldn't have to dig through a source to understand, not for specialists who may be interested in alternative health philosophies. Also, your writing is convoluted: after trying 3 times, I couldn't see through the salad of words what the purpose or message this content offered. Reminder about edit warring, WP:WAR. Zefr (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication
— Assignment last updated by Benisaibisevic (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Minority view, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:DUE: Breadth of the definition of health
Under the potential issues, I feel like obesity is another issue that should or can be discussed. I had added information to this, but it had been removed by someone. However, it is another potential issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benisaibisevic (talk • contribs) 21:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you refer me to the specific issue with edit warring, if you can't I'll assume that I havce done nothing wrong. Each of the edits have addressed the issue quoted on the content and you have not until now replied to anything.

There is lots to be said about the various policies you have quoted, and your complete lack of attempt to make *any* suggestion, or edit, or query to improve anything. You may have to forgive me if I dismiss them for the moment, as likely to confuse the issue.

Let's focus on one WP:UNDUE.

Do you not think that it's noteworthy that basically all philosophers and ethicists who have considered the issue are concerned about "health" being interpreted very broadly and have issues with the WHO definition?
 * No, I do not think this issue or your draft below is in the mainstream analysis of "health" (not the same as the system of healthcare) nor is it noteworthy of sufficient weight for this article. You could wait to allow other editors to enter this discussion. Zefr (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would view it as the mainstream view of health within the philosophy and ethics of publiuc health and so WP:DUE. I agree that this analysis does not necessarily come up within healthcare (though I'm not sure if the definition is consistent across healthcare). WP:CONSENSUS here seems difficult without the input of other editors. Your view is that views from ethics and philosophy are not valid for the article, I think that they are, and no amount of sourcing or copyediting will fix this (apart from perhaps showing the influence of ethics in medical sources, but this might stretch into WP:OR territory.) I understand that in lack of consensus the article remains asit stands, so I'll make no further edits on the issue. I'll consider whether it's worth making a case for considering the views of Ethics and Philosophy and seeing if we can reach a consensus with other editors. Talpedia (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Talpedia (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Most philosophers and ethicists who work in publich health are concerned that "health" can be defined very broadly. This would make the medical profession responsible for all sorts of aspects of people's lives. Valles thinks that this won't be an issue in practice." That's the issue but plainly. Can you understand it or is that word salad? Talpedia (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: SSC199 TY2
— Assignment last updated by Analiyah315 (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)