Talk:Dental tourism

message: I have rewritten this page - hopefully it is less dispensible than before. Much of the content could relate to Medical Tourism in general but the tone of that page is at present different from that which I was interested in. I still need to put in references and some supporting figures when I get time.
Revatim 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large Change 

message: I removed a comment with link to a specific company. Additional elements in the comment would have been more suitable for the article page and are now represented there in a more neutral and location independant form.
Revatim 14:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Comment 

message: This article is currently written like an essay or a white paper rather than an encyclopedia article. It also contains problems with WP:POV (point of view) and WP:OR (original research). Nposs 14:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: Nposs did an edit of the material to make it conform better to wikipedia standards - If you are going to make an edit maybe look back through the previous edits and have a look at the discussion on Nposs's talk page: I found it pretty informative. For the moment I am going to confine myself to small edits fleshing out sections supported by references to external sources: hopefully this will set the article off on a better track.
Revatim 13:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to say thanks again for all of your help with the article. Nposs 13:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: As opposed to the usual North American bias, this article, thanks to me, has too great a European emphasis. If there are any dentists, or anybody with information from other regions - Please edit.
Revatim 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more.  Dental tourism is not limited to the UK and Ireland.  Indeed, it has become so common in California for people to travel to Mexico for dental work that some California insurance companies are now including Mexican dentists as part of their coverage network.  Costa Rica seems to be a popular destination for American dental tourists as well, although I'm not sure why. // Internet Esquire (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm>Good news, people have now added American bias with stuff like "One other important consideration is location. If you go all the way to India or Singapore or Argentina for a dental procedure, and something goes wrong, it is a long way to go to have to return and get them to fix it. Many[citation needed] Americans choose to go somewhere easily accessible from the US, such as San Salvador or Tijuana." to help balance it out!</sarcasm> Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I have added some information about Thailand, where I've just had some extensive work done for approximately half the price I was to paid in Australia. The work is very complex including a complete reconstruction, nine implants, four bridges, 20 crowns, some root canal work. The dentist I visited was excellent, used a consulting specialist, and most importantly for me completely understood my perspective, took his time, was available when I wanted him and had the most up-to-date equipment. What I was so worried about before and undertook this work were the cynical and alarmist comments made by dentists that I spoke to in Australia, also highlighted by some negative industry supported press coverage. This propaganda, I view now as an attempt to  stop work from going overseas, to ensure that Australian dentists continue to "rip off" their patients. I just cannot understand, how dentists in Australia can justify the prices they charge for the work that they do, in the time that they do it.Greg Shaw (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for edits:Over European in tone 

message: I removed the additions with HealthCare Tourism International mostly because they did not match the tone of the sections they were placed in. The media link was kept but moved to the Media section. In general I think specific organizations should not be promoted, even if non-profit. References may be made to a peer reviewed journal - even still self attributed titles such as "medical expert" should be avoided. 
Revatim (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About removal of HealthCare Tourism International references 

message: I was concerned that the article may be a copyvio because of the way it was written like "Although some think it is a good idea to simply go to the country as a tourist and find a dentist there". I found this was added here but have been unable to find any source if it is copyvio. A lot of sources have copied from us as clear identified. I was worried for a while  may be the source but archive.org only shows from this site on October 2010 i.e. after it was added to our article and more importantly, the table in our article seems to have developed independently with different people adding new countries, e.g. India as have other stuff  whereas the Tijuana dentist site seems to have all this info suggesting they copied from us. Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: Anyone considering adding external links to this article must read the guideline Wikipedia:External links. In particular, please notice these passages:
What can normally be linked - Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
Links normally to be avoided - Links to individual web pages[4] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services.
External links added to this article will be evaluated by concerned editors, and we reserve the right to revert edits that do not meet the Wikipedia guidelines, or any other criteria that might be established by consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links notice 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dental tourism. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002210038/http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_chs_MedicalTourismStudy(3).pdf to http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-unitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_chs_MedicalTourismStudy%283%29.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: With  of 29 November 2019, User:Reywas92 changed the article into a redirect with the WP:EC "Entirely unsourced, redundant, or irrelevant". I've manually undone that change.
The article is quite clearly sourced with WP:RS. It is not redundant, because dental tourism is more specific than medical tourism. That is like saying that "Horseradish" is redundant because we have Radish. I'm bringing it here as part of the usual WP:BRD. 
This talk page was not redirected at the same time the article was (or ever, as far as I can tell). The article content is possibly a candidate for WP:MERGE, with a case for WP:UNDUE, but the contents are not "redundant", "irrelevant" or "entirely unsourced". 185.62.130.241 (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the entirety of the article is either unsourced, redundant, or irrelevant. The entirety of the "Reasons for travel" section is generic content irrelevant to dental tourism in particular and redundant to Medical tourism. The "Mobility of labour" section is also irrelevant to tourism, rather that dentists may practice in multiple countries. The "Pricing and quality" section is almost entirely unsourced, with ref 9 having nothing to do with tourism, ref 10 sourcing only the preceding sentence while the rest of the paragraph lacks verification, and ref 11 being a promotional site. The article is written like a school essay, not an encyclopedia article. There is nothing special about dental tourism that distinguishes it from medical tourism generally, which people can do for work on their teeth, eyes, fertility, joints, cosmetics, etc. etc., – most facts here could replace "dental" with "medical" and remain the same. While the main article can discuss dental tourism in particular, I would not merge any of this as it is unsourced and does not provide additional useful content. Reywas92Talk 04:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Change back from R to article