Talk:University of Missouri School of Medicine

People talking

The following discussion 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.

---

Information about LCM accreditation probation removed citing lack of sources when it is sourced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 19:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that is not the start of the discussion. You need to put forward your succinct suggestions and reasons for their inclusion which we can then debate. In my reply to you on my talk page, I made some suggestions. You have chosen to ignore those suggestions. That is OK but you still need to reach a consensus here. Please read WP:BRD before replying and please may I ask that you sign all your posts using four tildes ( ~~~~ ). Thank you  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Person said I was using the article as a WP:SOAPBOX in order to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. @Velella Vitamindaughter Think this is false since I condensed article addition to include recent accreditation probation background which is widely documented information that is a concluded report of the governing body of schools. It's not something I am proposing but ongoing piece of history that this was the evaluation. Happy to shorten it if it is lengthy as far as soapbox but only wish to document accreditation situation. Vitamindaughter (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

To make progress, you need to make a proposal, other editors will then respond.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not really seeing a problem Her edits state what the sources state (paraphrased , of course ) , her sources are reliable, and all are directly related to the University School of Medicine. I'd say keep it in. I'd be curious to hear your objections, Velella.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@ KoshVorlon Thanks I appreciate that you think there was contributions. I will fix problems if I understand what needs to change. I am happy with whatever you guys decide on. I probably won't work on other articles or this one too much in future so I would like whatever you decide together. As long as all the information isn't deleted all at once without discussing. Vitamindaughter (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You might want to look at what I proposed here and which has, so far, been studiously ignored.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this would be good thanks Vitamindaughter (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The problems here are, quite simply, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. A sentence or two (reliably and independently sourced) is all that is warranted. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347 Thanks @Valella Hey your suggestions sound great, thanks. How can I just approve them. I don't need everything I wrote just some things on the subject which are most helpful to describe the events. Vitamindaughter (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Velella and Exemplo347 that the addition as made is disproportionate, and should be trimmed. It's OTT, for example, to state how many pages a report had, or to detail how a program remained 2 weeks long when a statement had been made about making it 4 weeks long. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, I think some info about neurology, anatomy deficiencies remaining would be helpful but if not that's ok. I agree the number of pages in the report should be edited out. Thanks for the suggestion. Maybe someone else could edit based on the articles to make it slightly more proportionate. Thanks.Vitamindaughter (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

If nobody else has time I can try to trim later, just trying to finish up so I don't have to work on it again. But I can try to look at it later if nobody else can. Thanks Vitamindaughter (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully I don't need to remind you, Vitamindaughter, that if you add this information to the article again you'll break the Three Revert Rule. Let someone else do it. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good I was actually kinda done with it. I don't know all the rules, so I wasn't sure if that meant put it back exactly the way it was. It is preferable to me if other people worked on it and I really appreciate that. So I will assume you guys can get an updated version published and I can move on to my other work. Thanks for your contributions I appreciate it. Vitamindaughter (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, moving on to editing another article is probably a good idea. Let an uninvolved editor make the changes that they see fit. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@ KoshVorlon I just don't have time to rewrite it without the old copy. I am happy to resummarize the sources to be less biased, but I am afraid this is just going to die because I don't personally have room to rewrite. I think it was fine the way it was. If you don't think so I think it would be better to remove parts that were not ok what rather than remove it all. Given that the medical accreditation report itself is not supposed to have bias at all and this summarizes the findings of the report, I don't really think it's biased. Velella Would be great if you could get some of it published, even if not all of it. I think it's pretty good. Vitamindaughter (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually disagree that the addition violates NPOV or UNDUE. For this to violate NPOV it would have to state an opinion as a fact, which it doesn't do. It would have to state seriously contested assertion as facts, which again it doesn't do. It states facts as facts and does indicate opposing views within the sources used., so I don't see a case for NPOV.

As far as undue -- I disagree that this is undue, again, four reliable sources state this is happening. The amount of information brought into the article is less than half of the article's content prior to it.
Yes, I hear you, it's a big addition, but it's not sensational, or tabliodesque, it's simply reporting the facts, I move to put it back in , as is. Intially I was going to move that it be placed in without the opinion of Traci Wilson-Kleekamp, however, within her statement, she actually shows an opposing point of view, so it would have to stay. For the record, I'm not a student of the Univserity of Missouri school of Medicine, nor do I know anyone that's gone, nor do I have an axe to grind with them in anyway!  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Uh.... Hot tin roof I think you're pushing into block territory yourself, you've been reinstating the exact same edits as Vitamindaughter, and you are editing this article only. This doesn't look good  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  18:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

KoshVorlon Why don't you reinstate the edits which you agree with so I don't have to since I'm doing nothing wrong by contributing to an article using many different news sources none with known biases? Obviously I'm doing nothing wrong with my contribution which meets all requirements. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot tin roof (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock/meat puppet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sock puppet. Article semi protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I've trimmed the lead of this article because it contained information that was not in the article's main body. I've also added one sentence about the reported discrimination issues, because I feel anything more than that would be WP:UNDUE given the article's length. This probably won't satisfy certain people, but let's hope we can move on to editing other things. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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.