Talk:Swedish Hospital

Axxent problems
I've just done a bit of work on the work done on my original entry on this subject. I have a couple of questions before going further. First, it's my understanding that the phrase used in the work done on my original work -- "intraoperative breast irradiation" -- is synonymous with Axxent Electronic Brachytherapy (EB), or pretty exactly descriptive of what EB does. Is that correct, may I ask? If so, I would spell out that the FlexiShield Mini was used elsewhere, at other hospitals in association with the EB system/program/device. I'm not trying to cause false concern amongst users of EB. I'm trying to make sure that those concerned by the recall can understand what it is and where it fits with the other Axxent procedures/equipment. So, second, the statement about the hospital's non-involvement in the FlexiShield Mini study is unsourced. Is it possible to get some website source, something on the record? Again, I'm not trying to cause problems. As some other editor has already prominently noted, though, this article involves lots-of-to-almost-all promotional-sounding copy. EB was part of that promotional package, and I happened to pick up on it while trying to fit the recall into the encyclopedia. I may not have presented it perfectly, though I think "incorrect"+- was too strong a negative characterization of my original work. (Doesn't "improve" sound better?) All to say, ... an unsourced denial ... just doesn't fit well in the encyclopedia ... approach. ...

I hope we all can continue to improve this article. (Working together, like.) Thanks, and cheers. Swliv (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was maybe wishful thinking, above. The editor who has spent all, I believe, of his/r Wikipedia time on this article did a pair of edits since; first the start of the Axxent System at the hospital -- 2008 -- was augmented by the "end" (quotes because it was unsourced) -- "2010"; then the whole Axxent section was deleted; neither edit was given an explanation; to see this progression, just move the two "Next edit"s ahead of the above "work" link. Since it has been said that the hospital did not avail itself of the test/flawed component of the Axxent offering .... I don't know. Erase history? I don't know. It has been recorded what has been done ... in Wikipedia. Swliv (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, re-collecting myself, I ... tried to pick up a few of the pieces. For now, the most interesting come from ..., well, some searching of the Hospital's web site.
 * I tried to go to the original Hospital web page that had been a link in one of the footnotes for the so-far-now-deleted section and was given "Access denied" on my Firefox tab. It was working and working, so I cut it short and gave up on retrieving it ... at that time. For direct follow-up, see last dot point below. Or follow my step-by-step:
 * Instead of waiting, I went to the main Hospital website and searched for "Axxent Electronic Brachytherapy."
 * I got one result, which led here, a page which said, re: cancer treatments, in part, "Read more about the treatments offered at Swedish Covenant Hospital:
 * Axxent Electronic Brachytherapy
 * Chemoembolization ....
 * Clicking on "Axxent Electronic Brachytherapy" led here, a page which said in full: "Axxent Electronic Brachytherapy / Electronic Brachytherapy is used to treat the early stages of breast cancer. A miniaturized electronic X-Ray provides a therapeutic dose of radiation directly to your cancer site. This method makes radiation safer because it reduces the amount of radiation that reaches your heart, lungs, bones and surrounding areas. Click here to find out more about Axxent Electronic Brachytherapy."
 * Clicking "[t]here" ... took me ... to a page with an identical URL to that original footnote (see first dot point above) except, for what it's worth, that it had no "www." in it. ("Intranet" v. "internet," maybe, in my tech-naive guess.) When I clicked, using the URL missing the "www.", I got: "Access denied/You are not authorized to access this page."

... Well, there's that line from Cool Hand Luke. ... And I hope I'm not cast in the Newman character's spot. ... Well, let me try to conclude this installment by saying it's at least a 50:50 chance in my mind, from the above evidence, that the Hospital is still marketing and performing the procedure. Despite that unsourced ... but with-the-air-of-authority ... "2010" insertion (see above, in 2nd 24 March entry) which came just minutes before the wholesale deletion. ... Mm. ... Well, yeh, I still just don't know. But the ... failure of communication here ... does seem undeniable. ... Well, ... hoping that the "you" was at least ... ... the plural form of the pronoun, I again leave this about that (all). Swliv (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Advertising Language
I have completed a number of changes over the past couple of weeks. All of these have been removed almost immediately for "advertising language." When it first happened I could see where it might come across that way, and I changed my approach in all of the following edits.

What I do not understand is why some of these edits, which have CLEARLY been to correct some of the already existing "advertising language," have still been denied and deleted.

For example, the blurb at the top should be a brief summary of the hospital. All of the dates given only serve to muddle it's purpose. I thought it best to move these down by the History section, thereby creating a chronological progression and expanding on that section.

While I was making this specific edit, I rephrased existing sentences like "The most significant change during the first 15 years of the Home came in 1899" (History section) because it was opinion based. Instead, I simplified it to "In 1899..."

The whole thing is very frustrating. I cite everything that I add and state it as facts. If there is a doctor on staff who performs a certain procedure, I should be allowed to state that. Whether or not it serves to caste the hospital in a positive light it is irrelevant. It is a fact that I am stating, not an opinion, and the language I use is less biased than the majority of the language that exists in the article already.

I'm sure there are times in which the edits made ride the line between biased and not, and I understand that occasional in these instances what I add must be deleted, but in cases such as the one above, there is no reason to change it. 50.204.145.2 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read your talk page, and the associated article WP:COI - your organization should not be editing its own encyclopedia article.  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)