This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Washington Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance). Oregon Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical). Hospitals Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

From WP:EL: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

The inclusion of ProvidenceWatch, a union sponsored site that aggregates news and non-news sources as an external link is in fact undue weight. I suggest if folks want to use the material there they follow NPOV guidelines and incorporate criticism into the article referencing the actual sources, then no one can be accused of censorship. Awotter ( talk) 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Please explain what the term "ministry" means. As a key term in the first sentence of the first paragraph of this article, the term "ministry" should be clearly defined and 'wikified', but it's currently not. Wikipedia provides a number of possible definitions, but it's not clear which one fits in this particular case. Please correct this problem as soon as possible. Thank you.

David Kendall ( talk) 10:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

The official business relationship bewteen Providence and Swedish is an affiliation, not an acquisition ^{[1] [2]}. It is a false statement to report it as otherwise, and is also unsourced information. ErinShwatty ( talk) 20:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply

The official name is an affiliation but anyone with brains knows that if you take over all finances for a company without the intention of giving the finances back it is an acquisition. Affiliation is just a word to make people feel better about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.173.0.16 ( talk) 17:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I think this article should be merged with Providence Medical Group. They are two very similar topics, and I don't think Prov medical group is notable enough to warrant its own unique page. Thoughts? Rytyho usa ( talk) 00:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I am fully in support as not only is Providence Medical Group essentially covered by this article, it's exceedingly short. Voltaire's Vaquero ( talk) 18:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC) reply

@ 2600:6c50:37f:fcc8:bc9d:e5e3:aeb0:4fcb, 73.44.28.216, 73.25.190.117, Melissaannegrace, 156.72.30.1, and Snooganssnoogans: I've recently noticed that there has been a dispute that has turned into a bit of an edit war on the article as of late. I invite all those involved to reach consensus here, and I've sent a talk page message out to those involved. I strongly advise you to not edit the article until closure has been reached on the article.

The main problem is that a variety of editors have, over several days, have been re-adding and removing a specific paragraph critical of Providence Health & Services ( history). This paragraph was removed for not being a reliable source, however I go against this as in the perennial sources list the New York Times (which was the source used) was deemed to be reliable after a large number of discussions. Thoughts wanted, though! dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 00:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I see undisclosed paid editing and a definite COI problem with these whitewashing edits. I am not bonded to the subject of the article, but I find disconcerting that a NYT reference keeps getting removed by a publicist or other paid advocate. Ifnord ( talk) 22:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The COI accounts need to explain what the problem with the NYT content is. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Agreed. The editor recently removed sourced content from the New York Times, believing it to be inaccurately reported information. This is not a good enough reason to remove sourced content. This is particularly concerning as the author has declared a conflict of interest, identifying himself/herself as a employee of Providence, working in the communications department. I would encourage editors to weigh in on this issue, and refer to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information. Thanks! Rytyho usa ( talk) 22:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I've removed the advertisement tag; it looks like this has been addressed. If anyone disagrees, I would encourage discussion. Thanks! Rytyho usa ( talk) 04:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

This article indicates an intent to merge, but more info needs to be found to relate the merger properly > 2015 -- https://www.spokanejournal.com/local-news/providence-health-eyes-large-merger/ . --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply