Talk:Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science/Archive 1

Untitled
Sorry about the description of the schools themselves. I know they are cut paste but I needed something to fill in the spaces. I hope others will help me go back and rework them. Hitokirishinji
 * No, should be deleted. --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK · CONTRIBS 14:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The school is a professional and graduate school with four schools, not just one. I understand the need to remove copyrighted material but whoever deleted the chunks seems to have left only one of the four school headings standing. That's kind of ridiculous. I've fixed this, so even though the article is still a stub, at least it is hopefully coherent. Twinkied 23:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV, Advertisement tag removal
I've removed the tags for non-neutrality and advertisement as I'm pretty certain there is no longer any need for them. In the future, it would be greatly appreciated if you would add a comment on why you add these tags, what the specific complaint is, and how to remedy the situation. Otherwise it's not particularly helpful. Twinkied 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry; I nominated the NPOV as it was too similar to an ad copy. I later removed most content due to copyvio but forgot to remove the tag too.--Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK · CONTRIBS 10:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RFU SGPS small.jpg
Image:RFU SGPS small.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BuildingFront3 72.jpg
Image:BuildingFront3 72.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate style
Much of the text in this article, particularly the new The College of Pharmacy section, is not appropriate for Wikipedia because it is written as if it were on the official website, and is too promotional and detailed. To be specific, here is a sentence from the current lead: "Today, the University stands on the frontier of the new healthcare by educating the next generation of healthcare professionals, conducting leading-edge biomedical research, and serving the community in innovative ways." That is typical marketspeak which does not convey any useful information other than a warm glow. All such text needs to be removed or drastically rewritten. Johnuniq (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, and as of late one account continues to copy text into the article from the university's promotional publications . If it continues I'll seek a user block, and page protection if necessary. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits and for reminding me about this. I have just done some more cleaning. I left the OP (over two years ago!) as a gentle pointer that I hoped the editor would see. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

old name
I can't understand why the name Finch University is not mentioned in the article. I propose including it. Does anyone know when the name Chicago Medical School was changed to "Finch University of Health Sciences/the Chicago Medical School"? It must have been after 1912, but when? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Quotas and Minority Enrollment
This unclear statement comes off as rather suspicious: "From the beginning, the institution, long known as The Chicago Medical School, rejected the use of quotas to limit minority enrollment." It can be read to mean two opposite statements. Either: The school limited minority enrollment by rejecting the use of quotas that encouraged it. Or: The school encouraged minority enrollment by rejecting quotas that limited it. "From the beginning" implies from the school's inception in 1912. Were any colleges at all using minority quotas that long ago? Affirmative action arose many decades after "the beginning." Moreover, nowadays quotas are not used to limit minority enrollment, but rather to encourage it. If the statement is meant as an allegation that the school sought to exclude minorities by rejecting quotas, it is in the wrong section, because it comes in the same context and paragraph that claims the school recruits exclusively based upon academic merit. Furthermore, if the rejection of quotas was ever used to exclude minorities, this is a serious charge that probably deserves its own section so that it can be backed up. If it can't be backed up that this was the school's primary motive, then it should be removed until clear evidence can be cited. Some institutions have rejected quotas for reasons unrelated to the exclusion of minorities, particularly In the first years of Affirmative Action when the quota concept was new, more politically partisan, untested and misunderstood. It would be a surprise to discover the school still rejects quotas, but if it does, this would be a big deal that merits more than a vaguely-worded, glancing statement. At the very least the sentence needs two separate citatations; one for "From the beginning, the institution, long known as The Chicago Medical School, rejected the use of quotas," and another one for "to limit minority enrollment." I'll let somebody else decide whether or not to make a change in the article, since I'm editing anonomysly. I deleted my account to limit my editing addiction. It helped. Sort of.