From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the Greater Houston area. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project where you join the group and contribute to the discussion.	Portal:Houston
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Baylor College of Medicine article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 "Top" medical school 2 Well, 2.1 Notable section 3 Rabies Organ incident

[edit] "Top" medical school

a) Stop with the revert wars and let's move all discussion about the intro here. If there are objections, let's discuss them here and come to consensus.

b) That said, now that the source is given for the 'top' designation, it is a factual statement. The debate about the fairness of the US News rankings takes place on that page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_News_%26_World_Report

Spin2cool 01:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

my thoughts are that stating that baylor is the highest ranked medical school in texas by us news is a factual statement does not equate to claiming that it is the undisputed top medical school in texas. as an alum, i am embarrassed by this classification as it lacks scientific merit. i realize that pop culture holds these rankings highly, but that doesn't make them accurate. and i disagree that this discussion should be done on the us news talk page. it just sounds lame to suggest that it is the de facto "top" school merely because some pop mag says so. and to suggest that this is undisputed is myopic. Desert boy 15:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well,

each year, starting....?

Do each of these apply for the entire century?

Excess preposition?

100 students join the graduate program each year, of which one-half were women and one-third were graduates from foreign schools. The average graduate student GPA for is 3.5 and the average GRE score is above the 70th percentile.

gre

Graduate_Record_Examination

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 02:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it Baptist?

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 02:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly not Baptist.

[edit] Notable section

One must note that Alison Mao is a notable student at BCM currently and deserves to be duly noted in the 'Notable' section. --Avaron676 03:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please find a reference that indicates this? Thanks Postoak 04:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

With a quick search, I found Alison Mao's facebook profile and comments that confirm the addition was a joke. Please refrain from vandalizing the article in the future. Spin2cool 06:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A few points: first, since when are you two the arbiters of who is and is not notable? Are you yourself part of the "notable" club? If so, maybe, but otherwise.. no, you're not. Since facebook is being used as an acceptable source to invalidate 'notability', it should also be an acceptable source to validate it. If so, I refer you to the aforementioned profile, which proves that Alison Mao is a notable associate of The Baylor College of Medicine. Since I created the notable section on this page, and you seem to have accepted my judgment my other entries as notable, I think this one should stand as well. --Avaron676 00:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you would benefit from reading these Wikipedia guidelines:

Notability

On Notability

Spin2cool 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This editor is a riot. A riot who likes to make such edits like these. Great links Spin2cool, perhaps they should read more closely this section: Writing about subjects close to you.--Blueag9 (Talk | contribs) 01:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A few comments in no particular order

• The first page you linked to is under dispute and the other is a user's page, so neither source is particularly trustworthy. With regards to the second page especially, I could write my own page defining notability however I chose to and then refer to that as a source. You can say I cannot refer to myself, but how do I know you're not related to Uncle G?
• Any attempt to create an objective definition of a subjective notion ("notability") will ultimately fail. As the first page's general criterion notes about itself, it is not a necessary condition, so it is not really defining anything. I can alternatively define notability as whatever I deem notable, and this would not violate the general criterion.
• Vandalism is a fact of life on wikipedia. The problem is, one cannot always police page content ex post facto. Instead, the system should switch so that each page has its own editor who approves content before it is posted. I know, I know, it goes against the spirit of wikipedia, but seriously, if someone truly wanted to be a vandal, they could easily do so with the system in place.
• Although I still don't find your links to be valid sources, I shall quote from one: "A subject that is not famous or that is not important is not automatically non-notable; and conversely a subject that is notable is not automatically famous nor important." Realizing that, the burden of proof isn't on me to show that Alison Mao is notable, but rather for you to show that she is *not* notable. Having failed to do so, I think the assumption falls in my favor that she is notable until proven otherwise.
• You probably won't buy the previous point. So fine, how come Alison Mao is automatically deleted but the other links are allowed to stay up? Who is to say that Dr. Caskey is notable? The only reference provided on the BCM page is another wikipedia link, which cannot serve as a true reference, according to you sticklers. See, this is hypocritical. You take the time to investigate Alison, deem her unnotable, but do not question the other entries. Why? Okay, so maybe you did do a full search and find multiple independent sources for each person I added, but I highly doubt it. If you did, then.. fine. You have too much time on your hands =P

I don't recall stating that I was the arbiter of notability. I simply requested a source to back up your claim for Alison Mao. It's obvious that you are not a member of the "notable" club either. Please see the Wikipedia official policy regarding verifiability which states that any edit lacking a source may be removed from the article. Additionally, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Thank you, Postoak 04:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Postoak. Your comment was reasonable enough. My points were more directed towards Spin2Cool and Blueag9. --Avaron676 12:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I presented you with the guidelines for Notability, which Alison Mao does not appear to meet. I would be happy to be proved wrong, if you find substantial proof of notability. Until then, we'll continue to remove her name from the list of notable people.Spin2cool 17:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rabies Organ incident

Wasn't the incident where four people died because they had been given transplants from a person who had died of rabies at their hospital? RoyBatty42 (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)