Jump to content

Talk:NHS Test and Trace

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Outsourced" in the lead?

[edit]

Am I missing something? Why do we think "outsourced" should be the first thing mentioned in the lead? MOS:FIRST says: The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. How does that insignificant titbit help to tell the reader what the subject is? Surely, the fact that it is outsourced, as with many, if not most, other government-commissioned taxpayer-funded public services, is totally irrelevant. I propose removing it from the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if the organisation's name was "Test and Trace". The nonspecialist reader will assume from the NHS prefix that it's an integral part of the NHS. Wire723 (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wire723, it's an NHS service just like all the other NHS-branded services are. Indeed NHS England are very clear about their branding and say: All NHS services should be clearly branded NHS, regardless of who the provider is, so that it’s clear to the patient that it is an NHS funded service which meets NHS quality standards.[1] This is an NHS funded service, so we shouldn't try to muddy the waters. The minutia of the way the work is sourced belongs in the body (if anywhere) and not at the start of the first sentence in the lead, where it is imparts totally undue weight to it. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about 'NHS funded' – I doubt if NHS England have any control over this spending. Can we compromise by moving "outsourced" to the 2nd para of the intro? Wire723 (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wire723, yes, that sounds better to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to be giving it undue weight in the article at all, if anything the addition of NHS by those who named it when the NHS has nothing to do with it is giving undue weight on the NHS... 80.42.7.227 (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight to allegations of overspending on consultants?

[edit]

Could colleagues examine my edit of 09:43, 17 November 2020‎ and comment if appropriate?

Thanks

Videodragons (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Videodragons, clearly undue weight was given to the cherry-picked highest fee paid to a particular consultant from the sensationalised Guardian story, and whereas the source did go on to balance this with the rationale from the DHSC, this balance was not added to this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Videodragons Wrote in an editing description "There has been a widespread furore among press and politicians about overspending, and there are no other explicit references to this issue in the article." - and It is not only the Guardian who have picked up on this particular example, with for example msn and sky (indeed it's been all over the news) also running the story. Would it be appropriate to reinstate the text in a new subheading, e.g. 'criticisms of overspending' or similar under 'Appraisal'? Yadsalohcin (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yadsalohcin, that news is a few weeks old now, is this still appearing in the press, or was it just a sensationalised flash in the pan, on a quiet news day, used to fill pages? If it is still pertinent, then a neutral piece (i.e. covering both sides of the story) reflecting the consensus amongst reliable sources (i.e. not using sensationalised and cherry-picked exceptions) then it might be useful. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 October 2021

[edit]
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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 16:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NHS Test and Trace → Serco Test and Trace – Why is an encyclopedia giving in to obvious governmental propaganda? Even if it's mentioned in the second sentence, the title is just wrong regardless of what, and obviously only used to blame the NHS, so people would turn against it and it'd be easier to sell, all the while Serco happily goes on with its heist in the background with people who only read titles believing the NHS instead wasted billions... 92.0.5.48 (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME which is NHS Test and Trace. Also I'm not convinced the rationale for this move is entirely neutral. This is Paul (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose IP-like vandal don't understand the rationale of the move and per This is Paul argument. 36.77.78.40 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "IP-like vandal"...?
    User:This is Paul, neutral doesn't mean we say North Korea is democratic just because it claims it is... 92.0.5.48 (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The service is called NHS Test and Trace. Who provides what can be discussed within the article. --Mgp28 (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, I've never heard of "Serco Test and Trace" and that gets about 5,470 Google hits compared with 1,170,000 for the current title, several hundred times more. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Why would we want to name the article after one of the 400+ companies supporting NHS Test and Trace, one that only accounts for about 3% of the overall investment in the service?[2] -- DeFacto (talk). 11:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just Test and Trace then, DeFacto? I don't see how otherwise it's 'precise' if it's not even factual. It's just not provided by the NHS, no matter how many oppose renaming here. But I guess it's my fault for thinking encyclopedias deal with factual affairs... at this point all articles might as well be governmental press releases. Do you also intend to cover up the lie in title too? And User:Crouch, Swale, I guess that simply means the propaganda works... and Mgp28, sure, but the fact still remains the NHS isn't a provider. It's like saying rain falls from the sun. 92.0.5.48 (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be fine with moving it to just Test and Trace given that already redirects here unless people think that fails WP:PRECISE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is more precise because that is the proper name of the organisation. Why would we want to drop the front part off its name? I do not understand why you think it is incorrect or inappropriate. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why I think it's incorrect? Because it's not actually by the NHS? Those three letters have a specific definition, you know... if it was 'XYZ Test and Trace' then there would be less of a problem, as 'XYZ' could be some novel letters assigned to it for some reason... but the NHS is already an organization, and it just so happens to not provide this service (despite being mentioned a bazillion times in the article, truly the only thing "world-beating" by this government is its propaganda), and the least an encyclopedia could do is point out the facts - not remove them because of some supposed "editorializing"... we could go with just Test and Trace which Crouch, Swale agrees with, but the article certainly also needs some kind of comment as to why there's 'NHS' all over the article if indeed all those references remain, as I doubt some damnatio memoriae will help anyone. 92.0.5.48 (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be conflating the brand name, "NHS", as owned by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care,[3] and which is applied to a multitude of services overlooked by that department, including many provided by third parties, [4] with just one of the services to which it is applied. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I was mentioned, I just want to clarify that I'm not expressing an opinion on whether this service should be called NHS Test and Trace. But this article should match the name of the service it is describing. The NHS website calls it NHS Test and Trace (e.g. [5]), and I don't think I've seen any official reference to it by any other name. --Mgp28 (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that is because in that instance they optimize health, and so decided to remain consistent with the governmental propaganda (it's certainly not the page to contradict that). What about this for that? 92.0.5.48 (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand your comments. What instance? Who optimises health? What propaganda? What's not the page to contradict what? That for what? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It shouldn't be called "NHS Trace and Test" as the Tory Government are trying to obscure the fact that they failed due to outsourcing it (thanks to right wing devotion to private instead of public) instead of relying on the NHS. It's just a way of using Government failure (which they are trying wriggle out of the responsibility for) to continue a propaganda war against the NHS. Similarly the successful NHS-run vaccine programme is being claimed by the Tories as their success, which is extremely debateable. Ostercy — Preceding undated comment added 10:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Clear WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia isn't about WP:RGW or WP:POV. We are an encyclopaedia, not a political soapbox. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NHS_Test_and_Trace&oldid=1212838126"