Do you say 'Hay fever' or 'Allergies'?

[Adsolution]

That's what I was thinking initially before I heard otherwise from people on this board. Then the apparent implications of this poll still stand.

[sonicbrawler182]

Yeah, Wiki claims that "hay fever" refers to an allergic inflammation of the nasal airway, when an allergen is inhaled. I suppose that gives hay fever a more general definition as it doesn't relate specifically to a pollen reaction.

Never trust Wikipedia for medical stuff. Hay Fever is not a general thing, it's a specific allergy, like eczema (something I used to have).

http://allergy-ireland.ie/hay-fever/

[Adsolution]

Wikipedia has on multiple occasions been rated either the first or second most reliable source for scientific information right behind Encyclopedia Britannica, so if anything, I would trust it over almost any other site.

After checking for myself, I see Xenon worded it a bit off. The article states that about Allergic Rhinitis, which is the page that 'hay fever' redirects to, it's not stating that they're one and the same.

[sonicbrawler182]

Wikipedia has on multiple occasions been rated either the first or second most reliable source for scientific information right behind Encyclopedia Britannica, so if anything, I would trust it over almost any other site.

After checking for myself, I see Xenon worded it a bit off. The article states that about Allergic Rhinitis, which is the page that 'hay fever' redirects to, it's not stating that they're one and the same.

From the "Reliability of Wikipedia" page on Wikipedia itself, the end of the "Science and Medicine" section:

In a U.S. study in 2014, 10 researchers examined 10 Wikipedia health articles of the most costly medical conditions in the United States and found that 90% of the entries contained errors and statements that contradicted latest medical research. However, according to Stevie Benton of Wikimedia UK the sample size used in the research may have been too small to be considered representative.

While I know that second point about the small sample size is there, I find it irrelevant, as if people are finding these contradictions to known facts, it really doesn't matter about the sample size. If you have finalised facts on something, and you find contradictions to those facts in a Wikipedia article, then the article is simply unreliable.

Another point worth noting:

A 2008 study examined 80 Wikipedia drug entries. The researchers found few factual errors in this set of articles, but determined that these articles were often missing important information, like contraindications and drug interactions. One of the researchers noted that "If people went and used this as a sole or authoritative source without contacting a health professional...those are the types of negative impacts that can occur."

I have NEVER considered Wikipedia a reliable source in the long run, and it's actually a pet peeve of mine when people direct me to it when trying to prove a point, no matter the subject. It's OK for getting started on researching a topic, to learn the basics of something and tickle your intellectual curiosity. For extended and particular research? It's often missing a lot of info, if not outright wrong.

At the end of the day, a specialised data base is always best for a specialised topic.

Like I said before on the hay fever thing, though - it's just a specific allergy, and there is no reason to not refer to it as such. As someone who has hay fever, when I go to the doctor, I have to actually let them know I am specifically dealing with hay fever. Otherwise, I can't get the correct treatment.

[Xenon]

Now don't shoot the messenger. I was as clueless as the other ten or so members with regards to the confusion about the definition. I was just drawing attention to wikipedia's official (yet indirect) article - I wasn't trying to prove a point against you.

Whether it is reliable or not is not for me to say, but even if it's invalid it does indicate a likely misconception that goes some way to answering the original question.

[Adsolution]

and it's actually a pet peeve of mine when people direct me to it when trying to prove a point, no matter the subject.

Well now, that just enters into obnoxious territory.

[sonicbrawler182]

Now don't shoot the messenger. I was as clueless as the other ten or so members with regards to the confusion about the definition. I was just drawing attention to wikipedia's official (yet indirect) article - I wasn't trying to prove a point against you.

Whether it is reliable or not is not for me to say, but even if it's invalid it does indicate a likely misconception that goes some way to answering the original question.

I didn't mean it in a sense I had something against you or something, sorry if I came across as such!