Talk:Medic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Emergency medicine and EMS (Rated Disambig-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Disambiguation page Disambig  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 

Changed definition of Medic[edit]

To be more in-line with the Oxford Dictionary definition. Removed Nurse from the definition as a nurse is not a medic. No disrespect to nurse, I work with them all the time, but they would agree that they are not medics and I have been unable to find a single valid reference for them being defined as such.

Fr33kMan 01:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


I have changed the definition of paramedic from "medical professional" to "paramedical professional" as "medical professional" sounds too much like "medical practitioner" or infers "doctor". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbchb (talkcontribs) 08:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[[User: mbchb 09:22, 14 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbchb (talkcontribs)

Redirection to medicine...[edit]

The redirection of medic to medicine does not make sense. If you check the "what links here" button of medic, and check the contents, you will see that 'none of the links are satisfied by a redirection to medicine. I am going to remove that redirection. -- Geo Swan 19:59, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Why aren't people explaining their revisions?[edit]

This article has been subject to some wholesale revisions. But no one is explaining themselves here in the discussion page. Half the contributors didn't bother to fill out the edit summary field. This is non-collegial. It contributes to emotions getting heated. If an edit is trivial, or seems obvious, the explanation isn't of critical importance.

As had already been indicated by the merge message at the top, the information here was merged with combat medic, the more appropriate article for this information. The term medic is not just a military one. All mentions of the Geneva Conventions have been moved there. -- Necrothesp 01:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I think that decision is a questionable one. If you check the what links here buttons for medic and combat medic, you will see that about two dozen articles referenced medic, and the context of almost all of those links is a combat context. This is how two dozen wikipedia authors have used the term medic.
What moving the text from medic to combat medic will mean, in effect, is that the readers of those two dozen articles, who click on the link medid, will end up at an article that does not pertain to the context that they were reading. Does this increase or decrease the utility of the wikipedia? I think it is clear it results in a decrease to the value of the wikipedia.
Why couldn't combat medic, which was practically brand new, and had practically no links to it, and, really, had little information to add, have been merged with medic, and then been redirected to medic?
I think wikipedia discussion pages have value. "Talk:Medic" had been instantiated. "Talk:Combat Medic" has not been instantiated. I think the wikipedia history has value. This kind of change degrades the utility of the wikipedia because it obfuscates the earlier history of the evolution of the article's text.
Going to two dozen articles, and changing "medic" to "combat medic|medic" is manageable. But, in principle, shouldn't we avoid making changes that require other articles to be changed, to the greatest extent possible? -- Geo Swan 16:10, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
As has been stated already, the use of medic to refer to combat medic is incorrect, since one is a general term and the other a more specific term. Is Wikipedia supposed to contain incorrect information for the sake of utility? I don't believe this is the purpose of an encyclopaedia. Since there is a link from this article to combat medic I do not see that there is a problem here. -- Necrothesp 01:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
"As has been stated?" That someone has stated an opinion is never enough to make it correct so far as I am concerned. Languages evolve. Some people try to compel language to follow their idea of how it should evolve -- generally without success. You realize that the professionals who compile dictionaries try to follow the common usage, not lead it? I provided links to various online dictionaries, which I think shows that the use of "medic", where you would use "combat medic" is not "incorrect". And, the actual usage here overwhelming demonstrates that people do prefer to use "medic" where you would like them to "combat medic".
You see no problem with putting additional barriers between the encyclopedia's users and the information they are clearing searching for? Have you ever considered learned something about Human factors? Human nature -- a lot of people won't have the patience to extend the trust that following further links will bring them the information they need.
You have not addressed the loss of the information in the previous article's edit history caused by your edit decisions. Well, it is an important issue, whether you will acknowledge it or not. -- Geo Swan 03:08, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
Well, change it again if you feel so strongly. Personally, I don't. But it is important to note that "medic" is not strictly a military term, which is what the article previously said and was the reason that I changed it in the first place. And I do find it rather odd that you appear to be saying that once an article has been created and linked to it cannot be moved. But each to his own. -- Necrothesp 17:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Medics and the obligations and protections of the Geneva Conventions[edit]

I thought these obligations and protections on a medic who wears a Red Cross were important. Frankly, I am annoyed that the re-write eliminates any mention of the Geneva Convention.

Fifteen year old Omar Khadr, a Guantanamo detainee, is routinely described as having killed a "medic". The description of him killing a medic implies, to many, that he deceitfully pretended to surrender, in order to lure an American noncombatant close enough to kill him.

Sergeant Christopher J. Speer, the GI in question, was carrying a gun when he received his mortal wound, not a medical kit. He may have been trained as a medic. He may have been behaving honorably, and following legal orders. His death is certainly a tragedy for his loved ones. But I think calling him a medic that day is deceptive.

Wikipedia contributor Blinks said that all medics carry sidearms nowadays. I wonder whether he may have meant all American medics?

Yes all american medics do carry at least a sidearm. The Geneva Conventions states that medical personal have the right to defend themselves and their patients. So the statement above implying that SGT. Speer was not a medic at the moment that he carried a weapon is due to your lack of knowledge.

The Meg Ryan film, "Courage under fire", has her piloting a medevac helicopter, marked with red crosses, but armed with a machine gun, which, I believe, would have been a gross violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Where are doctors called medics?[edit]

In the UK apparently...

Disambiguation[edit]

As suggested above, "medic" doesn't seem to refer to a specific person or occupation. That makes this former article an appropriate disambiguation page. It's currently very similar to one, but in need of cleanup. G. C. Hood (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)