Talk:Brigham and Women's Hospital
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Problems
editThis reads like a press release. Was it cribbed straight off the hospital's webpage? Alexisr (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have restored the article to an earlier version which was properly referenced and had an encyclopedic tone. --Boston (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Can we add the BWH logo? I was not sure how to do it without violating copyright.Cpeccora (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
First organ transplant
editI just wrote biography of Bohdan Pomahač, the noted BWH surgeon. I encountered one issue, which needs clarification. According to this page, BWH was the place of the first organ transplant. According to Organ_transplant#Timeline_of_successful_transplants (it is well sourced information) it was not; I put it into the Pomahač article as follows: Bohdan_Pomahač#Historical_connections_to_transplantations. I think it should be changed in this one accordingly. I am not a native speaker, so I don't know, how cornea vs. kidney transplant classifies. On the other hand, German language literature notes the Cornea transplant by Eduard Zirm expressly as Die erste erfolgreiche Organtransplantation.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- It has been two years since I've written this. Anybody? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the confusion lies in the cornea not being considered an organ, but rather part of an organ, namely, the eye. Do as you will; this article is so far from being encyclopedic that your only concerns will be with offending the PR staff at BWH. Oberonfitch (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Holy shit, no kidding. I don't really do much Wikipediaing but this needs to be torn out by the roots. I'm gonna blank the blatant PR content. Excalibre (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the confusion lies in the cornea not being considered an organ, but rather part of an organ, namely, the eye. Do as you will; this article is so far from being encyclopedic that your only concerns will be with offending the PR staff at BWH. Oberonfitch (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reads like an advertisement
editI added the "Advert" template to the homepage. And I decided on a lark to do a whois on the IP address that contributed all that glowing content -- it's an IP registered by the hospital in question. The absurdly overdone praise is coming from inside the hospital! Excalibre (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, it's very bad. These folks seem unaware of Mass General down the street for comparison. One would think that if the rest of the world paid attention there would be some independent evaluations beyond US News. Rjensen (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Does not Read like an advertisement 2
editThis article is filled to the brim with PR puffery nonsense which has not satisfactorily been fixed. I point out, again, that this shit was added by a user or users from the hospital itself. I yanked the worst of it. What's left needs to be extensively rewritten. Excalibre (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- No. advertisements sell commercial products. This is a not-for-profit non-commercial operation--and one of the most famous in the world. Facts are not "shit" despite the strange views of Excalibre. Rjensen (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, look. I don't have time to dig into whatever psychological maladies motivate you, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a means of self-promotion for organizations, and whether or not those organizations are non-profit (insofar as such a distinction even has any relevance when it comes to hospitals in the U.S.) is not relevant. Excalibre (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is an excellent hospital, but the article retains an overly promotional tone. I tried to add ref's, prune bad ones, still needs work though.--FeralOink (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- No. advertisements sell commercial products. This is a not-for-profit non-commercial operation--and one of the most famous in the world. Facts are not "shit" despite the strange views of Excalibre. Rjensen (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Promotional language is almost gone
editTo the previous commenter and his or her daring use of a word having more than 3 and less than 5 letters, I say amen. At the end of the History section, nix the gratuitous statements about where the president of the hospital is headed, and gee, what swell opportunities she'll be pursuing, when she steps down. You are writing for Wikipedia. You are writing a reference article about the hospital which, as far as we know, will stand for centuries. Say simply that she's leaving on date X. Period.