This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Hospitals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 20 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kayrox63.
Why is there absolutely not mention of the baby deaths and the controversy surrounding Susan Nelles? The incident was a huge, if distasteful, part of the history of SickKids —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.193.128.193 (
talk)
13:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I've reinserted the 1984 Grange inquiry into the "history" timeline for 1980-81, the time of the various deaths. These are not proven to be murders but the events and subsequent inquiry are nonetheless a significant event in the history of the hospital.
K7L (
talk)
00:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)reply
The SickKids name is not the official hospital name, although the Hospital does use that frequently on its website and that is the name it is frequently referred to in Toronto. I am changing the article usage to Hospital for Sick Children since people from all over could be reading the article.
Flyguy649talkcontribs04:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Dominion of Canada is not the country's name any more, so that's a false argument. SickKids is jargony, and not formal (or enclopedic) in tone. Although the hospital has been promoting itself as that for about 3 years now, the name of the hospital is "The Hospital for Sick Children". A qhick glance at
Princess Margaret Hospital (Toronto),
Toronto General Hospital,
St. Michael's Hospital (Toronto), and
Mount Sinai Hospital (Toronto) shows that only TGH uses the acronym exclusively within the body of the text. I'd like to discuss this more. However, I am going to revert your changes to restore the other edits to the article which have been removed, while keeping the SickKids bit.
Flyguy649talkcontribs05:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually
WP:NC(CN) refers to the naming of articles, not usage within the article. (Should we move the page to SickKids? Of course not.) And The Constitution Act, 1982 does not refer to the Dominion of Canada at all, but only Canada, so this is the de facto legal name. But this is largely irrelevant here. On local news, the first instance of mention of the Hospital is always to the full name. They do often also use SickKids. The article clearly defines SickKids. While I prefer the full name within the article, it's not critical to the article.
Flyguy649talkcontribs06:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
If you want to be pedantic, the official name is The Hospital for Sick Children (note the leading, capitalized "The", which is part of the name). SickKids is also officially used by the institution now, although previously it was simply jargon. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rwintle (
talk •
contribs)
20:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)reply
In its present form this article makes a very bad usage of the term genetic code. The
genetic codes of humans, monkeys, rats and many other very distantly related living organisms are all absolutely identical. What the well intentioned editors wanted to mean instead of genetic code was probably genome. Please correct if I am right, and please explain if I am wrong. --
Sophos II (
talk)
23:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I rated the article "Start" class today for WP Canada and Toronto. I also changed the rating for WP Medicine from B to C - I don't believe this is a B class article yet, I don't believe the article is complete enough for a "C" rating, but I can accept it because I briefly thought about it for the other projects. Other editors may feel free to adjust to their tastes. PKT14:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)reply
The article as it stands is well written, but there's a fair amount of puffery. "critical mass of scientists and entrepreneurs"? -not unless they're about to undergo nuclear fission.-
Dhodges (
talk)
02:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
This article looks like an advertisement because any negative information is inexplicably absent. I've put the 1984 Grange Inquiry back into the history, no idea why it was removed to leave a ten-year gap.
K7L (
talk)
00:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)reply
The Maclean's article is interesting reading. Is it legally necessary only to say that criminal charges didn't stick, rather than that the single-use medications were later implicated?
Sminthopsis84 (
talk)
11:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)reply
The article looked like an advertisement because it was only eight kilobytes long before User:Cath33 added six more kilobytes of PR-style puffery
(diff) in October 2010. I thank you all for your past edits, and I ask of you one big favor for the future: Whenever you see a puffery-laced article about any corporation, organization, or musician, please figure out who caused the problem and please immediately revert back to the last PR-free revision. I have now done so for this article.
From what I can see,
User:Unforgettableid tagged the article, waited 13 minutes, then reverted it to a version from FIVE YEARS AGO! That user then selected which text they found worthy to add back to the article--thus making that user the de facto owner of the article. I propose the wholesale deletion by Unforgettableid be reverted until this can be discussed.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
23:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)reply
The article was created eleven years ago. Unfortunately, five years ago, in the fall of 2010, the
single-purpose editor Cath33 expanded the article from seven kilobytes of good content to fifteen kilobytes of PR-filled content. Please see the
diff for yourself. Over the years, Chowbok, CambridgeBayWeather, and Smithinopsis84 all noted in edit summaries and/or tags that the article looked at least somewhat like an advert, but nobody rolled the article back to the pre-Cath33 version. I don't know why. And, in fact,
Sminthopsis84removed the advert tag, with the edit summary "Less like an advertisement now", without rolling the article back. By the time I arrived, the article was up to eighteen kilobytes. Much of those eighteen kilobytes was still text contributed by Cath33. The quickest way to eliminate all of her words was to roll the article back. My goal was absolutely not to own the article: it's not my article. I only wish that someone else had rolled the article back sooner.
I hope that everyone will help out by restoring additional worthy text from the
May 2015 revision of the article to the current revision. Just beware: most of that revision's "History" section is PR material contributed by Cath33. I don't know whether she wrote it herself or copied it from elsewhere, but it was probably originally written by in order to try to make the hospital attract more donors and to attract more patients from other provinces and countries. In fact, much of it is even comprised of
self-sourced claims. It's probably better we shouldn't restore any of Cath33's "contributions".
Enough. This is Wikipedia and people do whatever they want to. As I suspected most of my edits were to do with there being a heliport here. The only edi of any substance I made was
this one when a copyright violation caught my eye. I removed it, fixed a few referenes and add some links. I did not address the advert and I'm not going to as it's not something I want to do in an article that I know little about. So please stop with scolding. While the quickest way was rolling back to 2010 it was also the worst way to fix the problem. In articles like this the correct way is to rewrite the material. The spammy look could have been fixed one section at a time. Oh yes, I do have Twinkle installed and have done for some time.
CambridgeBayWeather,
Uqaqtuq (talk),
Sunasuttuq07:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)reply
You didn't have to address the advert. No Wikipedian is ever obligated to do anything. It would have been good if someone would have rolled the article back sooner (or at least added an {{advert}} tag around the time of your edit), but nobody was obligated. And yes, you were allowed to roll the article back, even if you know little about the hospital. Advertising is advertising. With some detective work, anyone could have determined which user added the advertising. WikiBlame would probably have made it even easier. (When viewing an article, click "View history" then "Revision history search".)
I haven't checked, but I bet the apparent copyvio was probably added by the same user who made the whole article read like a news release. She probably just copied text wholesale from her employer's website.
Rewriting material would have removed the article's spammy look, but not its spammy essence. When a single-purpose account adds seven kilobytes(!) of material to an article, they tend to choose to mention only things which will make their employer look good. They tend to leave out anything which might make them look bad. When they have doubled an article's size, I believe that the best way to restore the article to NPOV is generally to remove all (or almost all) of the text which they person added. Rewriting it still leaves the article unbalanced. True, the text removal could have been done manually. Anyone is welcome to do so manually, and like you said, it's a superior option. I simply don't want to spend so much time. I have too many other things to do outside of Wikipedia.
I strive to not scold fellow Wikipedians. If I have ever done so, it was probably a misjudgement on my part; historically, I haven't always done so well at speaking politely. Which of my words came across as scolding?
Before you flit off, please remove the libellous allegations above about someone who you know nothing about, or I'll ask an administrator to do it.
I completely agree with CambridgeBayWeather's response above. Now that the revert has happened, it is so difficult to find what might have been the basis for good rewritten material, that I don't have the energy to try. If you had left it alone, it would have progressively improved as people patched parts that they felt the inclination and the wherewithall of fixing. Pages like this one improve over time as people who have them on their watch lists are prompted to make an improvement when they see some activity, but the massive disruption puts it beyond that kind of help. There are a number of wikiquette essays that you would do well to read, though they don't necessarily cover this exact situation; most of them are pointed to from
Wikipedia:Etiquette, and a supremely important one is
Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
Sminthopsis84 (
talk)
21:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Dear @
Sminthopsis84: Most of your points are excellent, but I'm unconvinced that that the article would have ever gotten back to a corporatese-free state without a revert. A significant portion of Cath33's "contributions" had remained in place for half a decade until I finally reverted the article. If problem text has remained for five years, perhaps that's a hint that it might remain forever unless someone does what's necessary in order to rectify things. —
Unforgettableid (
talk)
17:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)reply
In my opinion you have made the article more like advertising than before, not less. You are misrepresenting the Herbie Fund as if it covers all "patients not covered by Canadian health insurance", which is not true, it is a very specialized fund. The History section has been mutilated: some former negative components such as the Grange Inquiry (explicitly mentioned above) removed. I propose reverting to
this version. I consider user:Cath33 to be a minor player in the puffery on this page, which is most recently attributable to User:Unforgettableid.
Sminthopsis84 (
talk)
18:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - a revert would assure that all the deleted data was re-included. Unfortunately, editors have already been rebuilding the damage, and it would be a shame to delete their hard work.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
23:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Requested move 17 August 2019
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support move as proposed. There are several hospitals containing "Hospital for Sick Children" within their title and so this article name, which is very generic, should direct to the dab page and be geographically clarified. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)21:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support as per above - There's hundreds of hospitals named "The Hospital for Sick Children" - No evidence to say this well known over others. –
Davey2010Talk13:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: all of these hospitals are known locally as "The Hospital for Sick Children"; this Toronto-specific article uses a generic name for something specific. The inclusion of the definite article is not enough to distinguish this institution above any other similarly named hospital. The Toronto hospital is not well-known enough to count as a
primary topic.
Cnbrb (
talk)
09:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
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.
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Consensus is not supporting the idea. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (
投稿)
03:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.