Talk:Glasgow effect/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

I can see that it comes from the source, but what does "all deaths around 15 per cent higher" mean? More deaths per year per thousand people? Warofdreams talk 10:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know offhand; will have to read the source again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

All the research anyone needs

"The ability to attain good health, he suggests, depends in part on whether people feel in control of their lives, and whether they see their environments as threatening or supportive" Cf. the fiction of Irvine Welsh—I know he writes about Edinburgh (specifically Leith) rather than Glasgow, but since I read about this phenomenon last summer in The Economist, I thought it sounded awful familiar. Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That quote you added from the Economist was a good one. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Lede wording

I think the lede could do a little bit of reworking. The primary issue that I have is that it misleadingly implies that the article is about the term, rather than the phenomenon. Perhaps a change as simple as "The Glasgow effect is the unexplained poor health and low life expectancy of Glaswegians compared to the rest of the UK and Europe." Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the approach of addressing the term because that's the approach the sources take. Also it doesn't sound right grammatically to say the effect is the poor health. The effect is the range of things causing that poor health, over and above the known. So it may not exist. Hence the approach I took. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me in its present form. I recall reading many years ago some speculation suggesting that the effect was due to genetic factors, with mass emigrations largely being undertaken by the healthier fraction of the population. No idea what the source was. If anyone knows, I'm curious and wonder if more recent research has discounted that. Ben MacDui 11:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I have a feeling like we're not using the same meaning for "term." When I say "term" it means the word or phrase that is used as a referent for something. A Wikipedia article typically covers the referent, not the term that refers to the referent. If this is how you also use "term" then you can ignore this, though I hope you can understand why I don't see this article as covering the term itself, as it instead seems to cover the phenomenon and the study of the phenomenon.

Also, given your above comment, if the effect isn't the poor health but the range of things (potentially) causing it, then a reword is required whether we use "term" or not because the article currently states that it's the poor health, not the causes of it.

How about: "The Glasgow effect is the unexplained cause or causes of the poor health and low life expectancy of Glaswegians compared to the rest of the UK and Europe." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that no one knows what the referent is, or even whether there is a referent. The "Glasgow effect" may not exist. So this article is about the use of this term, who uses it to refer to what, and why a term emerged in the first place. I see that you've been removing "is a term used to describe" from a large number of articles, so your interest here lies in removing those words, rather than in this article. With respect, I think that focus is not a good reason to rewrite the first sentence, which makes perfect sense as it stands, and which reflects the way the sources express themselves too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read this article several times and not once is the term itself discussed, rather the topic is. It's not true that "no one knows what the referent is" because that would mean the word has no definition. It's the same with other unclear-but-named phenomena, fictional and otherwise, U.F.O.'s, bigfoot, singulary... no one knows what these things are and some of them may not even exist, but there is still a definition, and therefore a referent, of each.

My interest in removing "term used to describe" from articles is out of making clearer writing. I think what I do elsewhere or what has brought me to the article is irrelevant to the merits of my arguments. As someone unfamiliar with the topic, I defer to your judgment on what the referent is, but to say that there is no referent can't be true. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Aeusoes, I think the phrase is used appropriately here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The more you try to describe it to me here, the less correct the article's lede seems to me. But if I can't convince anyone that there's a problem with that introductory definition, then I can't really start a conversation on how to improve it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is clearly not about the term, but about the phenomenon to which the term refers. --JorisvS (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Health disparities

The phenomenon is a type of location-based health disparity. Shouldn't the term health disparity be used somewhere in the lead/article?Smallman12q (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added it to the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the phenomenon ever called the 'Glasgow health disparity'? --JorisvS (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen it called that, no. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Photograph of Glasgow City Chambers

What possible relevance can a photograph of the seat of local government have to the topic of this article?213.127.210.95 (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)