Talk:Healthcare in Cuba/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Healthcare in Cuba. 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

Archive 3

Falsified Data

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Paragraph 3 starts out, "Challenges include relatively low pay of doctors (physicians are paid 15 dollars a month[6]), poor facilities, poor provision of equipment, and absences of essential drugs, partly due to the United States embargo against Cuba.[7]" (Ital mine)

If one goes to reference [7], a British report on the Cuban medical system, the challenges are there as shown but nowhere in it is there a reference to the USA or the embargo, let alone any statement that the challeges are due to the US embargo against Cuba. The terms, 'USA', 'United States' and 'embargo' are not simply used anywhere nor is there any cause given in the original for the callenges.

It is clear that whoever entered this statement has, at the least, included their own beliefs under the authority of the reference. Another way of looking at it is that they simply lied. The objectivity of anything they entered on this or similar subjects must be seriously questioned.

Hilde27 (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You have a good point. Are you going to delete these falsifications? I support you in it. ValenShephard (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I had originally thought to, but paused. Dropping any pretext of politeness, the individual who posted this data falsified it, obviously for political reasons. (I am not for or against the Cuban Health System, but have a great dislike of lying anywhere on the political spectrum.)

I have concerns that he or she may have done the same elsewhere. Being new to this, is there some way of identifying what other contributions they have made so that those can be checked, too?

Hilde27 (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is, click on their name and find their list of contributions. Just try to find their 'contributions'. I am no expert on this, but it is possible. ValenShephard (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have no luck, just start rewriting or removing what you think is unsourced or even falsified, although this is a strong claim. It is good that you came to discuss before you made changes, although crucial, its not so common. ValenShephard (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I will do so. It may be a strong claim, but how else to explain it? Thanks.

Hilde27 (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought about this a bit. I think you shouldn't try to chase down the edits people have made. That will be difficult and very time consuming. Just read what is written in articles, if something seems dubious check its source, if the source is misrepresented then fix it. If you really think the source is misrepresented (better to say than falsified) then go ahead and set it straight, Best wishes ValenShephard (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction:Life expectancy

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Scentence on life expectancy contradicts with the data at List of countries by life expectancy. Which is correct? Joseph Fyfield 09:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

NEJM

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

New England Journal of Medicine has an article this week (free access):

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1215226?query=featured_home

Perspective: A Different Model — Medical Care in Cuba

Edward W. Campion, M.D., and Stephen Morrissey, Ph.D.

N Engl J Med 2013; 368:297-299

January 24, 2013DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1215226

--Nbauman (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated fact used as support

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The first paragraph sentence "AIDS is only one-sixth as common on a per-capita basis as in the United States" is a non-sequeter since AIDS prevalence is tied to risky behavior, not improvements in medical care. The sentence is being used to provide evidence that Cuba's healthcare has improved since 1960 despite having no relation to this fact. Request removal of this sentence. --Memarshall (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Lancet

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2960090-8/fulltext

The Lancet, Volume 383, Issue 9914, Pages 294 - 295, 25 January 2014 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60090-8

Cuba's economic reforms prompt debate about health care

Sharmila Devi

--Nbauman (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"Present" section features factual inconsitancies.

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section labelled "Present" features a table of figures ranking Cuba on various health related criteria. This section is attributed to "factbook" which is a CIA produced document. I call into question the neutrality of an organisation that has spent half a century spreading anti-Cuban propaganda and trying to destroy the Cuban regime. The table itself links to other wikipedia articles on the subject, which provide more up to date figures (2011 instead of 2003-2006) from more relaiable sources (WHO, UNICEF). These figures contradict those from the CIA, where the CIA had Cuba at 125/167 for AIDs prevelance, UNICEF has 52/169.

Even the CIA estimates given in this article are wrong (or out dated), the CIA 2013 estimates have Cuba at 44/225 for lowest infant mortality, where the article has them at 168/226. The UN ranks them 32/188.

This section should be deleted or updated with accurate information. 82.69.49.169 (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Starvation is good for you?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This section makes me wonder:

Malnutrition created epidemics, but it had positive effects too. Manuel Franco describes the Special Period as "the first, and probably the only, natural experiment, born of unfortunate circumstances, where large effects on diabetes, cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality have been related to sustained population-wide weight loss as a result of increased physical activity and reduced caloric intake".[24]

Sounds a little like "Arbeit Macht Frei", doesn't it?

It's not our job in wikipedia to do WP:PROMOTION for anyone, including the government of Cuba. What concerns me is us lending wikipedia's voice to any mitigation of the national catastrophe of Cuba's "special period" by unreservedly saying "Malnutrition created epidemics, but it had positive effects too," then doing an in-line cite to an article in a Cuba-sympathetic periodical praising the effects of nationwide malnutrition on a country. I don't doubt the statement's true, but we ought to weight it properly by saying

"According to Johns Hopkins University's Manuel Franco, malnutrition created epidemics, but it had positive effects too. He describes the Special Period as "the first, and probably the only, natural experiment, born of unfortunate circumstances, where large effects on diabetes, cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality have been related to sustained population-wide weight loss as a result of increased physical activity and reduced caloric intake".

This is a little wordier, but it makes clear Dr. Franco's saying this, not us.

What do you think? loupgarous (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I changed the wording to

"According to Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Manuel Franco, malnutrition created epidemics, but it had positive effects too. Dr. Franco describes the Special Period as "the first, and probably the only, natural experiment, born of unfortunate circumstances, where large effects on diabetes, cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality have been related to sustained population-wide weight loss as a result of increased physical activity and reduced caloric intake"

A little wordier - not much - but the sentence is now WP:NPOV where before, it was in wikipedia's voice, and that's not good for such a potentially contentious statement. loupgarous (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Healthcare in Cuba. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Move poorly attributed text to proper section.

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The following text "Experts have however said that these statistics may reflect heavy-handed treatment of pregnant patients or that the statistics may be falsified.[20] One expert said that pregnant women may be pressured to undergo abortions if fetal abnormalities are detected or forcibly placed under monitoring if complications arise.[20] Doctors also have incentives to falsify statistics, as a spike in infant mortality will cost them their jobs.[20] Cuba does not allow for independent verification of its health data.[20]"

Is poorly attributed, if you read the source it clearly says that the given text are based on the quotes of Katherine Hirschfeld.

Katherine Hirschfeld positions are already well represented in the criticism section. To put it on the History section while also miss atributting it to "Some experts" and "One expert" is in bad faith and does not serve to add relevant information to the page. On the contraire, it makes the page confusing.

The text should be removed or at least moved to the proper section, alongside the other quotes given by Katherine Hirschfeld.

@Snooganssnoogans: Kraftbox (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I fail to understand the rationale for removing the reliably sourced content. It's in the correct section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This poorly attributed text is clearly an attempt to poison the well. There is a reason why Katherine Hirschfeld's controversial views are on the criticism section. We should keep a neutral point of view, this text attempts to bias the viewer and does not belong on the History section. If you fail to see the reasoning I will move to get a third party reviewer on the Neutral point of view board. Kraftbox (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans and Kraftbox: I was notified by Kraftbox of this edit war off-wiki on the WP:DISCORD, and I figured that I'd provide a third opinion. I have no bias or "hand" in this article. I think that the content should stay, since it seems to be well sourced (per [WP:RSP]], Politifact is a reliable source), and I don't really see any reason for removing it, or anything that shows that Politifact has a bias in this situation. Also, I'm not really liking these statements such as clearly an attempt to poison the well or clearly griefing my edit. Please do not cast aspersions. CodingCyclone ^{please ping}/_{my wreckage} 20:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems there has been some miscommunication. Allow me to rephrase, I'm making a case to move poorly attributed text to the proper section in the article page. As you can see by how this talk section is named. This talk is not to remove a bad source, neither am I claiming that the source is biased. I am not disputing if Politifact is a reliable source or not. I am saying that characterization/attribution of that source in the text is incorrect.

What I am disputing is: 1. It says "Many experts" and "One expert" where it should say Katherine Hirschfeld. Given that it is a source on Katherine Hirschfeld and the quotes are hers. 2. We should keep Katherine Hirschfeld sources together. Both for the sake of consistency and clear of reading. But more important due to the fact that her opinions are highly controversial, and disputed in academia (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464859/) and therefore should not be in the History part of the article. So much so that the editors before us had the wisdom properly attribute her other quotes and place them under the appropriate section on "Contrasting views on Cuba's health system". 3. The text is a bit redundant, so I don't see how it adds anything to the page.

Please consider the following on your reply: A. I do not see any reasoning as to why anyone would oppose to point 1., as that is what is in the source. B. In regards to point 2. We shouldn't allow a controversial and disputed source to be on the History section under an pseudonym of 'Many experts' and 'One expert'. The text as it stands is a clear violation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_simple_rules_for_editing_Wikipedia#Rule_9._Write_neutrally_and_with_due_weight. As it reads: "For example, an article on a scientific controversy should describe both the scientific consensus and significant fringe theories, but not in the same depth or in a manner suggesting these viewpoints are equally held." C. If you would like to maintain the source because you deem it to be relevant, then feel free. But it should not be miss attributed as it is (as per point 1.) and it should not be on the History section (as per point 2.). @Snooganssnoogans: @CodingCyclone:

Kraftbox (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It is usually better to attribute opinion to the exact source - Katherine Hirschfeld in this case.
Placing this in the "Contrasting views" section" seems more approriate
If Katherine Hirschfeld's opinion is controversial, why not provide commentary from sources that have different opinions (e.g. the paper cited above)?
Covd isn't mentioned at all on the page, which seems like a significant omission. Covid has tested the world's health systems. How has Cuba fared?

Burrobert (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply.

- I agree. However your edit says that Katherine Hirschfeld is the chair of the anthropology department - she is an associate professor according to the departments website. https://www.ou.edu/cas/anthropology/faculty-staff/tassie-katherine-hirschfeld

- I agree, and as of yet I haven't been provided an argument to the contrary.

- I could provide commentary from Katherine Hirschfeld herself estating that her research on healthcare in Cuba is anecdotal and in contrast to the academic consensus.

- I do not know anything about the COVID impacts in cuban healthcare but you're right to say that it is an interesting point that isn't addressed as of yet, maybe you could make a new talk section on this.

@Burrobert: @Snooganssnoogans: @CodingCyclone: Kraftbox (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Tassie Katherine Hirschfeld's position is described as "chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Oklahoma" in the Politifact source which dates from 2014. Perhaps she has changed jobs since then. Or maybe Politifactfact needs fact check Politifact? Burrobert (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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): Rachelannett.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Notes

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where are they? 2600:100C:B013:9332:C1A:FB55:2E74:856D (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)