Talk:Social determinants of health/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Refereed scholarly articles are not unreliable sources. Wikipedia on the other hand is.

This article is starting to smell like it is the summary of your research papers. That is not what Wikipedia is for. or or may be a more appropriate target of your efforts. Deet (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia and I'm not sure how to include this, but a great introduction to the Social Determinants of Health is the WHO Europe pdf the Solidfacts. It's very accessible and outlines what is know so far academically with reference to key articles and policy implications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TakverRemedios (talkcontribs) 21:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


There are several issues with the references:

  • Self-cited references
  • No inline citations
  • So many citations that nobody can possibly match with the content (and who can tell if they are all used or whether there is linkspam?)

As a starting point, and in order to protect your additions, I strongly suggest that you employ Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations or someone will eventually cull this article as has happened previously. Deet (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Welfare state more satisfying?

The article claims that the welfare state is more "satisfying" for its citizens. This appears biased; it certainly would not be true for those satisfied by economic competition (as seen on Wall Street). Allens (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

EVIDENCE SHOWS THIS. DO NOT LIKE IT? TOUGH LUCK! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisraphael (talkcontribs) 20:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest: first, not "shouting"; second, bringing forward your evidence (from reliable sources) that a welfare state is more satisfying for everyone; third, signing your posts. Allens (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this article is advocating the viewpoint that all (economic) inequality is a bad thing - inequality for any reason, even if equality of opportunity is present. This is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. Allens (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I am, as it happens, a member of said academic community. Second, even if it were bad for everyone's health, it is still not appropriate for a Wikipedia article to claim that it's a bad thing; this is a value judgement and fails NPOV. Third, while I have no disagreement with the claim that those in lower classes have worse health in economically unequal areas, I dispute it for high-income classes, and have yet to see evidence otherwise. (And, no, I don't consider the average middle-class person to be in a high-income class.) Allens (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


"This unequal distribution of health-damaging experiences is not in any sense a ‘natural’ phenomenon but is the result of a toxic combination of poor social policies and programmes, unfair economic arrangements, and bad politics" is a direct quote from the definitive World Health Organisation which spent years researching and reporting on this issue. There should be no attempt to sugar coat this conclusion hence I have restored the actual conclusion by the WHO. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisraphael (talkcontribs) 13:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I was in no way trying to sugar-coat the conclusion; I was trying to paraphrase it properly, including information from earlier in the paragraph as to exactly what they're considering "unfair", namely any inequality in wealth distribution. I have edited it to what would appear to be a compromise position, unless you want us instead to reproduce the entire quote that I've put into the reference, which would be a rather long quote for the lead. Allens (talk | contribs) 16:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have written or edited three books, 15 book chapters, and over 50 articles on the social determinants of health. The journals that I have published in are all highly respected journals. I have served as a consultant to Health Canada, the Health Council of Canada and numerous public health units across North America. I am sorry that some of you do not like what is in this article, but that's too bad. Best wishes! Dennis Raphael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisraphael (talkcontribs) 14:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not your writing is acceptable under academia is not relevant for it being acceptable under Wikipedia. Academia allows much more POV writing, provided either the editors/reviewers agree with the POV or there is other material in the journal to match it from the other POV; I am well aware of this, being an academic myself. (If it helps you any, think of this as the, or at least the potentially, toughest group of peer reviewers and editors you've ever had, for a review article that is supposed to keep an absolutely neutral viewpoint. I haven't done much editing on the article myself because I'm not sure if I could keep such a viewpoint on this subject; I suggest you consider doing the same.) You also need to keep in mind that you do not own this article; it is not for your viewpoint to be expressed, no matter how much expertise you may have with the subject (this is in fact specified in the first line of that policy). You may wish to also refer to the guideline regarding self-citation; the article currently cites your works too much IMO. Allens (talk | contribs) 12:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Everyone references is referred to in the text. Every references is a referred article or scholarly volume. Dennisraphael (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest examining WP:SCHOLARSHIP, most particularly "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." Do these journals/volumes pass this test, or are they advocating a particular viewpoint, such as Marxism (including as contained in critical theory)? Furthermore, this is an article that falls under the medical references guidelines; note that journals outside the field of medicine, such as sociology, do not qualify. Allens (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Inequalities in Health

A suggestion: The sub-section on "Inequalities among Canadians" may fit better on under "Health Inequalities" along with the material on as suggested in Haejelee (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved the sub-section from to See<Inequalities among Canadians> because it seems more logical to follow health inequalities. I'm not sure how to fix the references. Haejelee (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the references and try to sort them out. Allens (talk | contribs) 01:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "unfair"

I have never see any source so "concerned" with not simply providing the WHO's quote without need to clarify. Your interpretation is just yours, and is inappropriate. Unfair is just that, the rich get richer and the poor suffer bad health. This is not rocket science. I will be changing the quotation back to what it is, a quotation, without YOUR interpretation in an hour or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "unfair" is rather obviously a value judgement; exactly what the commission in question (not the WHO, BTW) meant by this is plain from the entire quote: "[From page 2 of the full report] The poor health of the poor, the social gradient in health within countries, and the marked health inequities between countries are caused by the unequal distribution of power, income, goods, and services, globally and nationally, the consequent unfairness in the immediate, visible circumstances of peoples lives – their access to health care, schools, and education, their conditions of work and leisure, their homes, communities, towns, or cities – and their chances of leading a flourishing life. This unequal distribution of health-damaging experiences is not in any sense a ‘natural’ phenomenon but is the result of a toxic combination of poor social policies and programmes, unfair economic arrangements, and bad politics." In other words, in this case, "unequal distribution" is said to be equivalent to "unfairness". Exactly what is the objection to making this clear to the reader without requiring them to read the entire quote? And whatever someone may allege the "academic community" regards as "unfair" (since the academic community also includes people of more conservative economic viewpoints, I rather doubt this) is irrelevant; what matters is communicating factual information to the reader. Allens (talk | contribs) 01:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Breaking it down

I think this page can be eventually broken down into various pages. I wonder if it should focus on just the basics of the SDOH, and give examples, and remove/reduce the theoretical sections? BoomerAB (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Could include specific condition. Have started a page called Social determinants of obesity aswell as List of preventable causes of death. Would start a public health task force if people are interested.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I would definitely be interested. BoomerAB (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I would also be interested. This page could be an excellent resource but I feel that the lay-out is poor.MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

Start Fresh

There is something really wrong with this article but I can't quite put my finger on it. I'm a medstudent trying to get some quick info and this page just seems really dense but isn't offering that much. It looks like it was mostly written by one person. Also what's with the Canadian only info?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem probably is that you are a medical student. This is a critical social science analysis.

Reflective essay? No. A critical social science analysis that has been published in various forms in numerous peer-reviewed journals that are referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisraphael (talkcontribs) 20:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There are two major problems with this viewpoint:
  • This is a matter of public health, correct? Public health is not just social science - it's also medicine. Indeed, the field is founded on medicine primarily, with social science being a means to an end solely. If by "critical" in the above you mean critical theory, I note from that article that that field either falls apart with the evidence for the authoritarian nature of communism, rejects modernity (which has brought so much public health improvements; that includes a rejection of "rationalization" such as found in public health economics), or goes into postmodernist rejection of reality that is fundamentally opposed to science, including medical science. (If you disagree with this analysis of critical theory, I suggest hashing it out on that article's page. If you aren't talking about critical theory, I suggest you distinguish exactly what you mean.)
  • This is not a publication in a journal; it is a publication in Wikipedia. (And, if it has been published in a journal or journals, then I trust that copyright concerns have been taken care of?) There are several consequences to this. First, it is not the production of one person (or a small group of people who agree with each other); this is Wikipedia policy, not "just" a guideline. Second, it is not the presentation of one viewpoint; again, this is Wikipedia policy, not "just" a guideline. This particularly includes ideological viewpoints.
I trust that you will read over the above and respond civilly (as is likewise Wikipedia policy). Allens (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that one of the first problems with this article is within the first paragraph. Social determinants are not only risk factors found in one's work environment.MrNiceGuy1113 (talk)

Social determinants of health can also be cultural or educational. While I do not disagree with the fact that social determinants of health can be occupational, they are not the only causes.MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

I agree on the need for a re-write. I think this article should focus on what the social determinants of health are. Ashleyleia (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone currently working on editing this article? I'd like to work on it and am wondering if there is anyone out there already collaborating on this. I think it needs some reorganization and tightening to make this interesting and readable to a layperson. Please leave a message on my page if you're interested. Overdispersedpoisson (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions and feedback

Hi! I am a part of Rice University taking a course that is involved with the education program of Wikipedia. I was very interested in the relationship between health and how society affects this. I plan to create a new article that would be titled Social determinants of health in Mexico and would love all your help. I posted a sample outline of the new page in my sandbox on my userpage and I'd appreciate the feedback.

Also, I noticed the previous concerns of this page, so I'd like some advice on some useful sources that go with the topic. Thanks!

Cristell24 (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This page is fine. Right wing trolls: Stay paid.

It is abusive and contemptuous of knowledge, that every single Wikipedia page that suggests that inequality, tyranny, elite barbarism, inhumanity, and fascism have negative effects and are socially, political and/or economically irrational, are trolled by paid right-wing hacks, who wallpaper them all with Wikipedia 'warnings'. The knowledge area on this page, the social determinants of health, is legitimate and a universe outside the paradigm, knowledge, and tolerance of right-wing paid trolls. It shouldn't have to wear their piss-badges right at the top. Wikipedia should have a policy that confines paid and activist conservatives and their liberal allies' graffiti to their subjects of expertise: neoclassical economics, Schmitt, Hayek, Ayn Rand, 50 Shades of Gray, positive psychology, the Chamber of Commerce, teevee shows, slavery, charity, feudalism, sycophants, retainers, golf, fundamentalist Christian movies, the defense industry, apotheosis, etc. Blanche Poubelle (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)