Talk:Cleveland Clinic

Boosterism

Here are a few examples of boosterism that were added to the article. Attempts to revert these additions have failed, so I'm going to restore the tag and maybe we can discuss these.

1. "The Cleveland Clinic is nationally recognized as one of the top medical centers in the United States, particularly in technological and management systems and in the treatment of cardiovascular disease." This was changed to "The Cleveland Clinic is recognized as one of the top medical centers in the world, particularly in technological and management systems and in the treatment of cardiovascular disease." This change is not supported by the cited sources.
2. Addition of "older" to "ratings stand in contrast to older rankings that feature a safety emphasis." This is an attempt to discredit these "older" ratings.
3. Addition of "Another report by Consumer Reports in 2011 noted, however, that...". This is wp:synth. "However" is listed at MOS:OPED.

Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, these are minor issues, and I've fixed them. They can't have been the reason for this edit of yours, which removed most of the reputation section. Please explain what that edit was about. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, that edit had nothing to do with the three points listed above. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

These hardly consider academic boosterism, with maybe exception to the first point (which was fixed). Point 2 is not valid in my opinion. The rankings that cite safety issues are indeed older. Perhaps we could use another word like "past." Without this modifier, it suggests that current safety ratings are poor which is false. Point 3 is not valid either. It is not balanced to have information about hospital safety without providing context; in this case, it has been documented that teaching hospitals have lower safety ratings in general. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

U.S. News rankings

I'm not sure whether the back-and-forth about the rankings is simply confused editing, but whatever is causing it, this is a potted history of efforts to remove the rankings, particularly the U.S. News rankings and the paragraph about safety.

Winged Blades of Godric, that you weren't aware of the connection between this article and the RfC is one good reason to undo your close. The RfC should be closed as inconclusive. No consensus emerged from it, and it was opened by the executive director of corporate communications at the Cleveland Clinic, who (I believe inadvertently) bypassed consensus here by not informing us of the RfC, although the issue was very much about this article. She was aided in that by two of this page's editors (Bluerasberry and Jytdog), who also didn't inform us.

The U.S. News & World Report rankings, first compiled about 29 years ago, compare 4,500 medical centers in several specialities. The rankings place the Cleveland Clinic highly in some areas and less so in others. Since 2015 several accounts associated with the Cleveland Clinic have tried to remove or rewrite these and other rankings, particularly the safety rankings, or change how they're presented.

Potted history

The U.S. News rankings were added when the article was created in 2004, although focusing only on strengths. By 2007, more detail had been added, but not in table form. FeatherPluma, a banned sock who said he was connected to Case Western Reserve University (which I believe runs an MD programme with the Cleveland Clinic), removed the rankings in May 2015 (alongside other edits), then 162.129.250.14 restored them in table form.

In August–September 2015, HealthMonitor, who said he worked at the Cleveland Clinic and had "volunteered to monitor [its] Wikipedia presence", rewrote the article, which included removing the U.S. News table. By 30 September the article looked like an ad. On 13 October, Elvey reverted HealthMonitor's edits, which restored the table. Bluerasberry reverted Elvey. After more reverting, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris restored the pre-HealthMonitor version, so the table was back. (In 2016 Bluerasberry created History of Cleveland Clinic used HealthMonitor's text.)

HealthMonitor remained involved (see Archive 1 and COIN, October 2015), assisted by BlueRasberry, but didn't remove the table again. In July 2017, Eileen Sheil, executive director of corporate communications at Cleveland Clinic, arrived on the talk page as ClevelandClinicES, and proposed a rewrite of the reputation section. At first she didn't suggest removing the table, but in February 2018, in response to a suggestion from Kendall, she proposed removing the table and summarizing the rankings instead; she suggested edits related to other rankings too. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris and I objected, and the edit wasn't made.

RfC in May–June

See RfC on rules for rankings, reputation for hospitals and related institutions

Eileen Sheil's next edit was in May 2018 to open the RfC on WikiProject Hospitals, without leaving a note here or pinging anyone on this page. The RfC asked that the rules "for how hospital reputation, rankings, ratings, and awards are handled" be made consistent across articles. Eleven editors responded, but there was no clear pattern to the responses. Several said they didn't mind there being no single standard. Others seemed not to be familiar with issue. Someone mentioned the difficulty of maintaining one standard across different countries; one said there was no widely accepted ranking in the U.S.; one said rankings were puffery; another (Jytdog) suggested barring non-government rankings; someone else wanted to include and standardize them.

Winged Blades of Godric (WBG) closed the RfC in June, writing that there was "numerical as well as policy based consensus to ☒ reject the usage of rating(s)/reputation-review(s) by NGOs and other private entities". But there was no such consensus, and what "policy-based consensus" refers to is not explained. That appears to me to be a supervote. One participant, Natureium, wrote on 27 June that there had been no consensus. Blue Rasberry agreed.

Removal of information in August

In July I shortened the U.S. News table by making it wider. In August Jytdog, then Kendall-K1, referring to the RfC, removed not only the table, but all the other rankings, including the safety rankings that hospital representatives had tried to remove or rewrite. I've asked Kendall-K1 twice why he did that, but he won't say. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The framing conspiracy theory about the RfC is silly.

It is FeatherPluma not Featherpluma and their last edit here was January 2016; this person made many good edits (as I had noted here for example) and then unfortunately had some kind of meltdown in October 2016 and retired; the socking happened after that. I am not sure why you believe they are affiliated with Case Western; it might be this inept diff by someone who actually was. More framing, inaccurate and cruel at that.

Finally, I am not sure what you are trying to communicate with the phrase, "potted history". Would you please explain? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "conspiracy theory". The phrase "potted history" means a summary, a very short history. I'll strike the Case Western affiliation. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

By conspiracy theory I meant this bit: it was opened by the executive director of corporate communications at the Cleveland Clinic, who (I believe inadvertently) bypassed consensus here by not informing us of the RfC, although the issue was very much about this article. She was aided in that by two of this page's editors (Bluerasberry and Jytdog), who also didn't inform us.

Thanks for explaining "potted history". I had to look it up and it had plain meanings and derogatory ones, I was just not sure. So the whole thing is a "potted history" not just the first bit. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It is also part of the framing that you didn't note Elvey's block log and indeffed status. And we might as well mention my current TBAN and my indef for OUTING, I guess.

This kind of stuff isn't helpful and is just distracting from whatever argument you are trying to make. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• The section as I had left it, pursuant to the RfC, was like this, leaving it with only the governmental ratings, which are quite negative. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Winged Blades of Godric would you please reply here? I think the post above is part of SlimVirgin appealing the close of the RfC and it would be useful if you would reply so that we can move forward. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• again Winged Blades of Godric would you please reply here, to the post above, and let us know if this changes your close of the RfC at all? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• User:SlimVirgin. You have tried to discuss the close of the RfC with its closer. You now need to take this the next step in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. In the meantime, I am again implementing the close.Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not a single ping from this thread did make to my notifs. Super-weird and I will be asking at VPP. Taking a look, as to the concerns raised, very now.

  And, when you are challenging a close, please leave a t/p message for the closer (I don't seem to find one). Ping(s) are not transmitted reliably and there are good reasons why many noticeboards explicitly asks for t/p messages to be delivered after opening a concerned thread. ∯WBG^converse 05:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  Obviously, except the first ping (above) wherein I did not see any reason. ∯WBG^converse 05:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from closer

• Whilst closing a RFC, I choose to go by the aims that even if there is no consensus for implementation of any broad proposal, the minimum common outcome ought be carved out and implemented.
  • Accordingly, the unproven assertions of Septentrionalis, Jytdog and Ozzie's arguments are lensed through BlueRaspberry's potent note about the academic dissertations about these ratings (which is true enough) and leads me to note:--....reject the usage of rating(s)/reputation-review(s) by NGOs and other private entities.
    • Jytdog's finer point about government rating(s) is correct enough (common sense) and I note:-- ...may be used at editorial discretion, without being subject to the outcome of this RFC.
  • I also note that Anaxial, Tim and Robert have stated that once a rating/award is established as notable, it ought be mentioned over the articles. DGG had also mentioned about a particular rating being treated as reliable in USA.
    • Coupling this with BlueRaspbery's point, I note that:--Local editorial discussions (over some centralized place, which might be here) may carve out individual exceptions for those private-reviews which have been extensively relied upon by other reliable sources/have been extensively covered in reliable sources and have not been near-unanimously criticized by the academic community.
  • To my eyes, the remaining participants did not air any opposing view to the broader facts expressed in my closure and discussed about implausibilities of implementing an uniform-ranking-system throughout the world et al.
• Thus, I do not see any case of super-voting in my garbs of closer.
• But, at the same time, it's a genuine cause of grievance, that editors over this local-thread (which seems to have precipitated the discussion) were not notified). I agree that this article has been witness to strange COI-editing, which often-centered around removal of rating-tables and Sarah is quite-correct to remark suddenly there was an RfC closure that none of us knew about, triggered by a paid editor, being used to remove the rankings.
  • Nonetheless, that the behavior of the conflicted editor was not any bad throughout these issues and that at-least 3 concerned projects were notified (one of which is heavily active), I cannot choose to agree with a mere vacation of the closure on grounds of (what might easily be) a good-faith error.
• Considering the above points, I will urge Sarah to relaunch a RFC on the same locus at the earliest with a much definitive question and advertise it as widely as possible to generate a definitive closure, that will supersede mine.
• Best,∯WBG^converse 07:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note from Cleveland Clinic

For the record: The accounts User:Wikiuser5991 and User:Tempest2552 are not affiliated with my work on Wikipedia. As far as I am aware, they were never authorized by Cleveland Clinic to make any edits on its behalf. I am the sole representative of Cleveland Clinic on Wikipedia. When I created my account in July 2017, I pledged I would not edit Cleveland Clinic articles directly as a result of my conflict of interest. I am currently looking into this internally to determine what happened.

Out of respect to editors who offered feedback when I originally proposed updates to Reputation, and the consensus from the RfC where I asked about the established standard for how ratings and rankings are included on hospital Wikipedia articles, I will recuse myself from the above and any further discussion of this article's Reputation section.

Also, a quick note of apology: My RfC was meant to be a more general question on how rankings and reputation should be set up. Because it was a more general question about hospital articles throughout Wikipedia and not a specific question about Cleveland Clinic, it had not occurred to me that I should ping this Talk page about the RfC. I will be more mindful in the future to keep editors here in the loop. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Were any of your staff staying at the Radisson Milwaukee West on the night of August 18? Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Cleveland Clinic has been looking into this issue internally and has not yet identified anyone who was working on the page. I know for certain that no members of my team were staying at the above-mentioned hotel and I am the only person tasked with representing Cleveland Clinic here on Wikipedia. Our staff has been reminded of Cleveland Clinic's media policy that prohibits editing Wikipedia on behalf of the organization. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Historical images are available

Hello, Wikipedians. I've uploaded 10 historical Cleveland Clinic images to Wikimedia Commons that can be used in this article, or perhaps History of Cleveland Clinic. These include historical photographs of Cleveland Clinic buildings, labs, doctors, and the aftermath of the 1929 Cleveland Clinic fire. I also uploaded an image of the Cleveland Plain Dealer's May 16, 1929 front page on the day after the fire. I'm not asking for all of these images to be used, or even any photo in particular. I simply wanted to provide the Wikipedia community with additional resources for your disposal. The images are:

• File:Biochemical_Lab_1921_A0422a.jpg
• File:Clinic_Lab_c_1950_A0395.jpg
• File:Clinic_Founders_A5595.jpg
• File:Crile_Building_A6110.jpg
• File:Drs_Rene_Favaloro_and_Mason_Sones_c1970_A0353.jpg
• File:Dr._Irvine_Page_and_Lab_Tech_1960s_A3112.jpg
• File:Original_Clinic_Building_c1921.jpg
• File:Original_Clinic_Building_Interior_1921.jpg
• File:Original_Clinic_Bookplate.jpg
• File:Xray_file_room_after_disaster_1929_A6159.jpg
• File:Cleveland Plain Dealer front page - May 16, 1929.jpg

Blue Rasberry, are any of these images helpful? As Cleveland Clinic’s representative on Wikipedia, I have a financial conflict of interest and will not make changes to the article myself. Thanks, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect and outdated stats

Hello, I noticed that recent edits have introduced outdated and incorrect information to the article.

The infobox claims Cleveland Clinic has 1,500 beds (no citation given in the article). However, our main campus bed count is 1,348; total for enterprise is 4,540. Unfortunately, these current figures have not been published yet, but given that the incorrect figure in the article is unsourced, I wanted to place the correct figure here for editors to consider.

The editor had also added that Cleveland Clinic's main campus had a Level I adult and pediatric trauma emergency department. That was removed, and the article now says the main campus has a "Level II adult & pediatric trauma". Cleveland Clinic's main campus emergency department is a non-trauma center. The Northeast Ohio Trauma System confirms Cleveland Clinic's emergency services.

I wanted to note here for future reference: Cleveland Clinic Akron General has a Level I Adult Trauma Center, Cleveland Clinic Fairview has a Level II Adult Trauma Center, and Cleveland Clinic Hillcrest has a Level II Adult Trauma Center.

Various other stats were updated using figures Cleveland Clinic reported from 2018, such as number of hospitals and facilities, employees, physicians, specialties, and main campus size. I will present updated 2019 stats once published.

As Cleveland Clinic’s representative on Wikipedia, I have a financial conflict of interest and will not make changes to the article myself. Thank you, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Swollen ankles

What causes my ankles to swell? 2600:6C4A:5D00:17F4:C561:67B3:4B52:EE16 (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this a possible update to the info box?

I'm not sure if there is a way to do this within template parameters, but in addition to a helipad, Cleveland Clinic additionally has operated out of the airport 3G3 in Wadsworth, Ohio since 2018. I'm not sure how to do that. C2 J45driver16 (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

References