Talk:MD Anderson Cancer Center

Pictures

I will try and take some pictures next week. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 22:23, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Biased and opinionated text

Pulled the following from the article, as saying it is biased and opinionated is an understatement. Only with both sourcing — i.e. proving the statements true — and tweaking could the text go back into the article. jareha 21:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This growth has come with a cost. Internal strife, backstabbing and nepotism rain supreme at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson. The only thing bigger than most medical doctor's paychecks at the institution are their egos. This practice is 'tradition' and a definitive product of the ingrained corporate culture and its effects trickle down the management structure.

The quest for gain runs rampant inside the corporate culture and the institution is quickly becoming a force of greed in its own right. The hospital has recently engaged in a veiled shift from non-profit to more profit in the doctor's pockets by entering the practice of leasing buildings from 'for profit' ventures. Who are the partial stake holders of these buildings?

The hospital is also increasing the number of their trainees and postdoctoral fellows (e.g. interns) as these non-employees are a great source of cheap educated labor useful in defraying the cost of research and development.

The biased material will made more neutral and given a factual basis.

There is some bias but what is wrong with bias? Of equal bias is to use the center's own web page to promulgate what should be skeptically evaluated as polished "spin doctor" rhetoric.

To use the analogy of writing this article with the writing of a historical report: The reporting of history by a historian does not lie in just listing the facts but also in the factual interpretation and succinct use in depicting a representation of that moment in time (see historical analysis in historian).

Who better to report in this article than someone immersed in the corporate culture as this author is. Do you know that the cancer center forces something akin to "non-disclosure" agreement on its employees?

It is improbable that a scholarly correlation between two factors such as "ego and salary" can be established, but I CAN produce a reference to publicly available (individual and average) published salaries and then show known acknowledgements of ego.

Most of the facts can be established by independent reporting (say articles from the local paper), the freedom of information act [1] or even the annual reports by the center itself. [2][3] It is intersting to note that the annual report is the Conquest Magazine and the leaders really are savy enough to have choosen the title for its multiple meanings. Two of the cancer center's presidents have had very strong ties with George Bush and past, present and convicted Enron execs. (BTW, the Enron staff had those savy named "Death Star" energy price gouging stratigies, right?)

Good or bad, the cancer center's culture and growth strategy lie in the facts as well as in the interpretation of the facts. Let M. D. Anderson defend itself. After all the center has an entire department of Scientific Publications [4] to make sure the influential message makes it out in the acceptable "Anderson way"!

So in the end I know what I am trying to get across is accurate and true, albeit unpolished. So bear with me while I try to get across my informed and experienced opinion.

Finally in that vein: Is there a good template, say for MS Word, so I can create and review the formatting of the whole article at once? This way I do not have to review and recover what has been removed each time I try to improve the article.

MakingCancerProfitable 13:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

With sourcing, criticism is allowed. And so long as you keep Wikipedia's no original research and neutrality policies in mind, I see no reason against critical facts being brought into this article. jareha 21:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

With the impact of Wikipedia growing critical or controversial insertions will receive more than the usual scrutiny. This is an encyclopedia and we shall not be accepting slander, defamation, dirty laundry and what have you. On the whole, individuals expressing criticism (an angry website) but without a trend (e.g. numerous newspaper articles) is a poor reason for inserting criticism. JFW | T@lk 07:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Facility name

M.D. Anderson is an accredited degree granting institution, unlike what was in the article. They do graduate a small class of undergraduates every year. (about 100 currently) as well as a majority of post-grad and post-doc work. - cohesion★talk 09:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

some of the departments should be listed. i tried to listi the skin group since im a patient but it got deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4ppeace (talk • contribs) 12:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The history section is entirely unsourced. This article therefore does not qualify for B-class status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

I reverted the addition of non-WP:RS blog sources being used as references for "controversy" regarding the status of the center. I'm not against the addition of notable controversy, just poorly sourced controversy. In addition, this may warrant the addition of a controversy section if there is more than one item, otherwise it's best as a single sentence with a WP:RS enclosed in <ref></ref> tags. My opinion. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Salaries

I fail to see the relevance of the section discussing physician salaries, and the title lends itself to some type of political motivation. I removed both the section and the title unless the reasoning for its inclusion is explained. will381796 (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)