Talk:Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine

Organizational Structure

The organizational structure of the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine is clearly defined in an announcement by the Mayo Clinic dated 2017 that states: "Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, formerly Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, is the organizational umbrella for Mayo’s five schools ─ each dedicated to a segment of medical education or research training. Four of the schools offer training and clinical experiences with diverse patient populations in multiple practice settings, including Mayo Clinic campuses in three states and many of the 70 Mayo Clinic Health System practices in Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin." A second more recent source from the Mayo Clinic Health System states that "Medical students and trainees come to the five schools within Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science for one simple reason: an unparalleled learning experience" and then shows a graphic that identifies the five schools: the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, the Mayo Clinic School of Graduate Medical Education, the Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Schineecs, the Mayo Clinic School of Health Sciences, and the Mayo Clinic School of Continuout Professional Development.

This organizational structure was a change from the previous structure in which these units operated independently or semi-independently as subsidiaries under the Mayo Clinic - the overall organization.Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Mayo Clinic College of Medicine (MCCM) was established in 1989, when the reorganization of the Mayo Foundation into a umbrella college occurred. MCCM was simply renamed Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science (MCCMS) in 2016 (citation published in 2017) without any changes to the organizational structure. The citation is also a duplicate of the very first citation in the article. This should be removed in accordance with WP:REFNAME. The assertion that MCCMS is a reorganization of MCCM forks content discussed earlier in the article based on the author's misunderstanding of the reference. Mention of this should be removed in accordance with WP:POVFORK. Details of the college's organizational structure not directly pertaining to MCSOM as a constituent school should be added to Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science. Trantorian (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Trantorian, are you an employee of the Mayo Clinic? How do you know that Mayo Clinic College of Medicine (MCCM) was established in 1989 as you describe? In fact when I search for that specific naming I don't see a reliable historical reference.

Just so we are clear, the Higher Learning Commission identifies in the accreditation history of the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science that it was first officially and formally accredited as Mayo Foundation in 1984, it identifies a Mayo Clinic College of Medicine as a formal entity in 2003.. The HLC, however, does not identify internal structures so I searched for additional sources. The Mayo Clinic research proceedings identify that the Mayo Graduate School was established in 1989 and that the Mayo Clinic School of Public Health Sciences was established in 1972 and most importantly the Mayo Medical School was established in 1972.. The information contained in these sources do not identify a Mayo Clinic College of Medicine. In fact the information suggests they are all separate schools operated directly by the Mayo Clinic or alternatively the Mayo Foundation. You also reverted a note that stated these programs were supervised by the University of Minnesota until the 1980s. This in fact true according to the Mayo Clinic. So your statement needs some sort of proof and you should NOT have reverted me a third time and broken the WP:BRIGHTLINE without actually discussing how we got to this idea that the ambiguous College you assert existed prior to this.Your opinion alone is not sufficient to suggest this is a WP:POVFORK.

In addition, your second statement concerning organization is incorrect. Per the university style guide at WP:UNIGUIDE: "Organization and administration – Discuss the structure of the administration, current leadership, budget, relationship with a board of trustees or regents, student government, endowment information, and academic divisions of the college/university. If this college/university has a special organizational structure, such as a residential college system, then it should be mentioned here. If the university is part of a larger system (as in University of California) or otherwise has formal relationships with other colleges/universities, discuss this relationship and provide requisite wikilinks." For that reason, the relationships between the college and the schools should be included with a reference for each school to inform the reader of it's organizational structure. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I've found your source, it's the MD-Phd student handbook. This is a secondary source that is less reliable because it does not contain the official history nor specific citations as the proceedings article did. The problem is that it specifically uses the acronym MCSOM in reference to the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine (e.g. not the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine). The handbook does not support your position. At this point from these sources: The Mayo Foundation is/has been the umbrella, the other schools have coexisted independently. The Graduate School was once specifically supportive of the Medical School. Now they are all under the same umbrella under the banner of the College of Medicine and Science.Randomeditor1000 (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand your hostility, Randomeditor1000. I am not am employee of Mayo Clinic and am not a paid advocate, so have not violated WP:BRIGHTLINE. My goals are to improve the quality of this article and learn more about the subject, so please WP:CRY and WP:GOODFAITH. Though an insider perspective may be helpful in parsing out the details, I only know what history I have been able to find in my cited references. Let's discuss contentious topics here before reverting edits on the actual article. Thank you for challenging me on these topics and helping to bring the article in line with Wikipedia standards. We have made significant improvements over these past few days. I have also learned a lot from collaborating with you. That said, I also urge you to proofread edits and citations before posting in order to maintain readability and quality. For example, the HLC accreditation statement is reference 3 separate times currently; this should be combined per WP:DUPCITES. More importantly, the article must reflect the facts stated in the sources. I do not see anything that suggests the renaming in 2016-17 was anything more than just a change of names. As seen in your quote above MCCM existed prior to 2016 and served as the umbrella college ("Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, is the organizational umbrella for Mayo’s five schools"). Trantorian (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not hostile. Let me be clear that my purpose here is to improve the article by utilizing Wikipedia pillars and guidance. I'm not here to attack you, rather I'm trying to get you to engage with references how you arrived at the edits that you did because I'm not understanding why you made those changes. In addition, I've noticed some of the article edits from all users have content that doesn't meet some our guidelines. Particularly WP:PUFFERY, WP:NPOV and WP:BOOSTERISM. WP:BRIGHTLINE refers to reverting or undoing another editor's edits three times or more during a single period of time without going to the talk page first and providing some form of engagement with our other editors.

The sources as stated above conflict. The MCCM is not referenced anywhere except for the Higher Learning Commission and even then it's in reference to the accreditation in 2003 NOT 1989 as you had proposed. If anything the Mayo Foundation was the overarching administration and the Mayo Clinic (Clinic itself) moved control from the Foundation to the 'new' Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science as very clearly identified in that news source.

Additionally, statements found in individual reference articles, particularly primary sources, need to meet WP:REDFLAG before they can be added. Just because Hoover says it is the number one, best vacuum in the world doesn't mean that information should be added as it very plainly isn't encyclopedic. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Randomeditor1000, thank you for working to improve the article in accordance with our guidelines. Let's see if we can propel this one to featured article status. As it stands right now, the first and last paragraphs of section 1 (History) are broader in scope than just MCSOM. They apply to MCCMS as a whole. For example, the section in the Warner citation is specific to Mayo Graduate School (i.e. MCGSBS), not MCSOM. Let's move these paragraphs to Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, which will comply with WP:OFFTOPIC. It is worth noting that he MCCMS page is lacking in detail and should be expanded considering that it is a much larger and older organization than MCSOM. Afterall, WP:5P4 points out "that there are 5,669,971 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss," so this is a perfect opportunity to improve another article too. Our teamwork may even get us two featured articles! Trantorian (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

As for the point about the renaming in 2017, the article cited makes no mention of any reorganization. It simply states that "The names of Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science and its five schools have changed to reflect each area’s focus and function more clearly" and "Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, formerly Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, is the organizational umbrella for Mayo’s five schools." This means that the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science existed before 2017 as the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, so the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine was previously the "organizational umbrella for Mayo’s five schools." Unfortunately, it does not mention when the five schools organized under the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine. A quick PubMed search shows that Mayo faculty have been using the name Mayo Clinic College of Medicine of a long time (since at least 2003, which is consistent with the HLC accreditation statement. The MD-PhD Handbook is a suitable source to state that 1989 is when this collegiate structure emerged, in terms of separate schools for MD and PhD degrees. Granted, it may have been under the name "Mayo Foundation" as mentioned in the HLC accreditation statement so we should update the History text to reflect this. There is no evidence that "the Mayo Foundation reorganized all educational programs under the banner of the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science" in 2017; therefore, this statement cannot remain under WP:VERIFY. That said, we should continue to research the matter to find evidence that could support or refute the MD-PhD Handbook history. Trantorian (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the some of the text is very clearly better arranged on the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science page. I also agree that the MCCOMS (oh the acronyms) page could be expanded and improved. Right now it is a start class article which means it needs expansion and more encyclopedic information to better inform the reader on the article subject. My view is that it is quite hard to obtain clear facts and figures from the Mayo Clinic public communications compared to other educational institutions so I'm very open to see what we could add there.

The second point you have on this article Mayo Clinic School of Medicine is something I disagree on. The reason is that the information from Mayo Clinic is very confusingly written. Taken with the other sources and the wording it clearly states that there is a change. That change is a reorganization. The other sources state very clearly that College of Medicine does not include the other schools. The Mayo Foundation is the umbrella and does include the other schools according to the Mark Warner article on the history of the organization published in the Mayo Proceedings. So as I stated before the information conflicts. Given that the primary source is unclear, it is other primary sources or the use of secondary sources that should be used to identify the encyclopedic text on the wikipedia article. The MD-PHD source is not the official voice of the Mayo Clinic, rather it is a primary source of the MD-PHD program. The MD-PHD program does not speak on behalf of the whole and therefor the text within the guidebook is not as WP:Reliable. That reference shouldn't be given WP:UNDUE weight over other sources as you have proposed above. In any case, the Higher Learning Commission source is thee accredited title of any institution. The HLC source is more reliable then the MD-PHD program. I want to point that by reverting my edits for the fourth time, you have again crossed the WP:3RR. Before deciding to further edit war on that subject I suggested we discuss before making changes which you then did anyway. I have asked that the first reviewer of the article provide a third party opinion as I don't want to continue in a slo-mo edit war senselessly. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Randomeditor1000, thanks for asking for a third-party opinion. I will hold off on making any other edits until we get their thoughts. I should point out that I have abided by the WP:3RR in that I brought the issues to the Talk page and waited well over 24 hours before making changes. All of my changes have been explained in my edit summaries and on this Talk page; removal or changes to any disputed text have been based on a close reading of the cited materials. Additionally, I have not reverted your edits (i.e. undo); rather I have cleaned up the text incorporating much of your wording and ideas. In particular, however, I removed this text: "During the early years the Mayo Foundation partnered with the University of Minnesota to develop college programming for graduate programs in clinical practice and research. The first medical programs were three years in length, and, in 1917 degrees were awarded to the first graduates." Note that the citation given makes no mention of the University of Minnesota partnership (try ctrl+F yourself). The second sentence has no reference at all. It appears to be derived from Dr. Warner's paper, where he begins the history of Mayo Graduate School (now called Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences): "Using its affiliation with the graduate school at the University of Minnesota, Mayo Clinic granted its first PhD degree in 1917." Note that PhD degree-granting programs are distinct from "medical programs" (i.e. the MD degree-granting program of Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, which is the primary subject of this Wikipedia article). These sentences would be great for Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences once they have been clarified and cited appropriately. Thanks again for helping to research and improve the quality these articles! Trantorian (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be because the Ph.D. program was the first academic, accredited program available at the Mayo Clinic. The Medical Doctorate program was offered later. For that reason that entire sentence was accurate. I believe the reference to that sentence was deleted at some point. The academic program would not exist without the University of Minnesota's partnership. The Medical Doctorate program was later developed with the University of Minnesota, under it's accreditation and programming. That the two programs are separate in this article is completely irrelevant since it describes the evolution of programming at Mayo Clinic. I will look at this sentence specifically to see if there are other sources. 13:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic! Discussing the history of the PhD program would be an excellent addition to Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, the PhD-granting school of the Mayo Clinic. I look forward to hearing about what you find and building that article with you. Trantorian (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Randomeditor1000, I also found evidence that Mayo Medical School was a constituent school of the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine prior to the renaming announcement in 2017. This Mayo Medical School brochure from 2011 (archived by the Wayback Machine—a great tool for this sort of historical research by the way) clearly states "College of Medicine" in the heading. This is logically consistent with the HLC accreditation statement, which accredited the "College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic" during that time (i.e. not Mayo Medical School specifically). So if Mayo Medical School was not a constituent of the College of Medicine at that time, then it would not have been accredited. That would be at odds with numerous sources, including the Warner article which refers to the "creation of Mayo Foundation as an independent degree-granting institution in 1983." Trantorian (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This article on Mayo Medical School from 2010 beautifully lays out the organizational structure of the then College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic: "The College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, has five schools." If you read on, it is clear that the organizational structure in 2010 is identical to the structure today, just with different names. Hence, there has been no reorganization of schools since that time. Mayo Medical School and the four other schools were constituents of the College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic then; this is analogous to the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine being one of five constituent schools of the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science now (only the names have changed). Trantorian (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The second article supports your position, the first does not. The first article only displays the relationships between 'Mayo Medical School and the College of Medicine' in 2011. The second article is a moment in time from which we read that in 2010 there was an arrangement under the COM for the five schools. That there was a "curriculum reorganization". We therefor can/should deduce that your renaming position is correct concerning the 2017 Mayo Clinic News article. Prior to this, however, things appear to be unclear. It's strange to me that there wasn't also an organizational chart that shows the entities in the Porter and Grande article. It's also strange that none of the organization pieces aren't mentioned in the Warner Mayo Proceedings article. Why would they leave that out... Randomeditor1000 (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad that we could find a suitable source. It is important to remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because one article does not describe the structure of the Mayo Clinic's educational activities does not mean that such a structure does not exist. Therefore, we need to be careful about inferring a major reorganization without an explicit reference. In any case, it sounds like we have resolved this "edit war." I look forward to reading up more on the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science and its schools, while fleshing out the other start class (and currently nonexistent) articles with you. Trantorian (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

National vs not National Collegiate Institution

The Mayo Clinic School of Medicine states a claim in several self-published documents to be a "National school of medicine". That self-claim is not factual. The Mayo Clinic does not have a national designation from the United States Congress similar to the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. In addition, the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine does not provide medical training throughout the nation or online in all locations. Geographically it houses medical training program sites at specialty Mayo Clinic Hospitals in Rochester, Minnesota, Phoenix, Arizona, Jackonsville, Florida. For rotational training priority sites are identified within the Mayo Clinic Health System as well as academic partners with Arizona State University and Yale University. This specific claim should not be included because it is promotional, and a self-claim that does not meet WP:REDFLAG and is intended to promote the idea of quality which is not directly comparable to other institutions Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Randomeditor1000, MCSOM calls itself a national medical school; however, as you point out, it is not a nationally disseminated organization. Therefore, by definition, it must have a headquarters location—an "administrative center." Both U.S. News and the Higher Learning Commission authoritatively state that the MCSOM administration is centered in Rochester, MN. Accordingly, I suggest that we eliminate the use of "national" medical school (per your deletion) and make note of the headquarters. Trantorian (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The use of terms like headquarters is this context is unclear and is akin to a WP:WEASELWORD. Administrative center may be appropriate. Primary location of medical education delivery may be appropriate. Given the fact that there are three medical cohort locations with three sets of instructors and three teaching hospitals, I don't believe headquarters is an appropriate use of the US english terminology. Headquarters applies to a military operation or an enterprise per your citation. Are you implying that Mayo Clinic School of Medicine is a business? Because that would be pretty funny given the current context. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Mayo Clinic does refer to itself as an "enterprise." Therefore, using headquarters to mean "the administrative center of an enterprise" would be appropriate for Mayo Clinic and reasonable to extend to its School of Medicine (i.e. it is a technical term, not a WP:WEASELWORD). That said, I am fine if we replace "headquarters" with "administrative center" as they are synonyms. Trantorian (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it very clearly refers to itself as a non-profit; not a business. The link you cited primarily uses the term 'enterprise' with reference to data not the non-profit institution, a clinic. It is definitely a WP:WEASELWORD in this context. It's not a military center, it's not a business - so use another more precise term. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I never said that Mayo Clinic was a business, only that it meets the definition of an "enterprise": "a unit of economic organization or activity" ("especially:a business organization" does not mean exclusively a business). A medical school would be a unit of economic activity: students exchange tuition money for a education. That said, I already mentioned that I am fine if we replace "headquarters" with "administrative center" as they are synonyms. The change has been made to the article. Trantorian (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Abbreviation

Randomeditor1000, I see you undid revision 846579609. WP:MOS states: "When an abbreviation is first used in an article, give the expression in full followed by the abbreviation in parentheses (round brackets). Thereafter the abbreviation can be used alone." Since Mayo Clinic School of Medicine was abbreviated as MCSOM in the lead, we should be able to use MCSOM in section 3.2 (Campuses: Phoenix and Scottsdale, Arizona). What are your thoughts? Trantorian (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, the WP:MOS states it can be used. I just want to point out that the MOS is a guide not a hard and fast rule. Using common sense for clarity's sake I believe that spelling out the full name at the beginning of that section provides clarity again to the reader between the numerous MCSOM MCCM, MMC, MMS, and other acronyms that have been used formally by Mayo Clinic in the past. In this specific article context it gets frankly confusing if you don't clarify once in a while, particularly for new readers who may no idea. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science acronyms get quite overwhelming and confusing. That is why it is important to avoid getting WP:OFFTOPIC by not discussing the other schools more than necessary. Remember that those other Wikipedia articles need a lot more work than this one, so let's focus on Mayo Clinic School of Medicine (MCSOM) here and the other schools on their respective Wikipedia articles. Not bombarding readers with other school information (e.g. MCGSBS, MCSHS, MCSGME, MCSCPD) here will make it easier for them to recognize the MCSOM acronym in this article. That said, I agree that we should spell out Mayo Clinic School of Medicine from time to time. A good rule of thumb may be to spell it out in each major section (e.g. section 3 Campuses) and then use the acronym in the subsections (e.g. section 3.2 Campuses: Phoenix and Scottsdale, Arizona). What do you think? Trantorian (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm only making a suggestion concerning spelling it out and doing so for the purposes of making clear to the reader what is being talk about in the section. I don't oppose your idea. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

History of MCSOM vs. MCCMS and its other constituent schools

The first paragraph of the History section describes the history of the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science and its present day constituent—and direct descendant—the Mayo Clinic School of Graduate Medical Education (both founded in 1915), which predate the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine (founded in 1972). This cannot remain in this MCSOM article because it is WP:OFFTOPIC. Perhaps we can use this text as a starting point for the MCSGME article. An alternative is to simply move it to the History section of the MCCMS article. That said, there is some unverifiable material (WP:INTREF) that needs to be cited appropriately or removed:

• The claim that the Mayo Clinic educational programs were "under the direction" of the University of Minnesota is not backed by the given citation.
• There is no evidence that suggests "Mayo Clinic was operated as a for-profit hospital" in the early 19th century.
• The Indian Medical Gazette article does not mention that the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research was created so that Mayo Clinic could affiliate with the University of Minnesota.

This needs be addressed soon; I welcome thoughts from other editors. Trantorian (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Since there has not been any discussion or opinions from other editors, I will WP:BEBOLD and move the verifiable material to Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science.Trantorian (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you were bold. But you removed verifiable content in an WP:UNDUE manner and did not read the material in the sources. It does NOT need to be quote "addressed soon", that is your personal opinion. All of this material is relevant to the history section and on-topic.

1. Regarding the claim of private, for-profit entity: If you would have actually read the content in the sourced references you would have read very specially that until 1919-1920 the Mayo Clinic was operated as a for-profit hospital/medical practice. There was controversy that was cited in multiple histories that the association of the University of Minnesota should not occur because per the UMN Medical faculty it would pose a conflict of interest with a private (e.g. for profit business).

Specifically from the Kennedy reference:

"The faculty and alumni were against an affiliation with the Mayo Clinic because it favored a private entity to the disadvantage of all others in the state."

Specifically from the Indian Medical Gazette:

"In 1920 the Mayo brothers transferred the whole of the property of the clinic to an association of trustees, surrendering their individual ownership entirely in order to ensure that the clinic shall be perpetuated in its present form."

and from an additional source just to be explicitly clear:

"A second son, Dr. Charles Horace Mayo was born after a move to Rochester - where the three Mayo doctors and four other physicians later founded the Mayo Clinic, which became a not-for-profit medical facility in 1919."

2. Regarding the development of the Medical Foundation at the Mayo Clinic:

Specifically from the Indian Medical Gazette:

"In 1915 the Mayo foundation, supported out of the surplus earnings of the clinic, was established to develop post-gratudate medical education and research in association with the University of Minnesota."

It's like you blatantly didn't read the source, I mean I am not sure how any more explicit that needs to be. But it is referenced in multiple sources, so yes, the MFER was developed to allow Mayo Clinic to associate with the University.

3. Regarding the programming, all educational programming was overseen by the University. The references clearly identify this and I have no intention of quoting each piece as I did with 1. and 2. above. At this point your edit was not correct.

I would ask that you do not remove this material again without actual consensus or verifying the material you are removing is incorrect. Blatant disregard for these references is inappropriate. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Randomeditor1000 Please do not leave threats on my Talk page. This is not constructive feedback. Thank you for adding additional sources and building the history of Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science. This is good material, but is WP:OFFTOPIC on the MCSOM page. I will be moving your text to the appropriate MCCMS page. Please continue to develop the history prior to 1972 (founding of MCSOM) there. Trantorian (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I did read the source. Please be respectful and assume good faith.Trantorian (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I included a link to Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science § History in the history section so that readers and editors can easily access the moved material. Hopefully this reduces some of the confusion between MCSOM and its much older parent organization, MCCMS. Trantorian (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Trantorian, I want to be very clear that I did not threaten you. I placed a template message caution on your talk page for your actions in choosing to remove content without reason. A caution is done to advise another user that they performed inappropriate editing. I could have also placed a WP:WARNING as well, but I did not think the level of warning was necessary. Due to the reasons above, I have reverted your edits to this section. Again, please do not continue to remove them as the history section is very much on topic, relevant historical milestones inclusive of both the parent institution as well as the history of medical educational programming at the parent. If you look at multiple other university, college articles there are very clear examples. You may also refer to the WP:UNIGUIDE which states: "History – Include noteworthy milestones such as sexual and racial integration, major campus expansions, mergers, renames, foundation of new schools, notable controversies such as student protests or reforms, and impact of major historical events like wars." Randomeditor1000 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not perform inappropriate editing so a caution was not warranted. I made edits in good faith and maintain that MCCSM is the main article per the references by Grande and Warner. MCCSM started in 1915 and MCSOM started in 1972, so the bulk of the history from that period belong on the MCCSM page. Please be respectful and use the talk page for productive discussions instead of personal attacks.Trantorian (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You absolutely violated the bright line triple revert. I have reverted your removal of related information that is not duplicated elsewhere as was discussed in your previous posts above. Frankly we can around and around but at the moment you aren't providing reliable, factual information as evidence by your attempts to remove the above cited materials. A published, reviewed book encyclopedia is more reliable then the source you cited. At this point more than one editor has identified this article as containing academic boosterism if that isn't a clear indication of the problem I don't what else is. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Randomeditor1000 I did not violate the three revert rules since nothing was reverted other than the "academic boosterism" tag (first revert). This tag was added by an IP editor without any discussion are specifics. We need open discussion so that the boosterism issue can be addressed, if it is in fact an issue.Trantorian (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Reopening this discussion section since the issue has not been resolved. Nearly half of the history here predates MCASOM (est. 1972) and describes the history of MCCMS (est. 1915) and its evolution into offering graduate (not medical) degrees through MCGSBS. The history starting in 1915 is excessive, conflates MCASOM with MCGSBS and MCCMS, and is of little relevance here. It only gives the illusion that MCASOM is much older than it is. Groundwork for the school started in 1970, announced in 1971, and opened in 1972. Let's focus on the history since then on this article. Therefore moving the first paragraph to MCCMS. Please discuss before undoing again. Trantorian (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

We very clearly discussed this above. You can conflate the numerous names but we are still referring to the same institution. I consider your opposition to primarily be based on your view that wikipedia shouldn't reference facts that are intertwined with the University of Minnesota. I see no good reason to remove this material and this it would be correct to include it per WP:BALANCE because it provides material that the average reader would find interesting and informative. I have reverted your undue again. See the above. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

MCASOM is not the same institution as MCGSBS. That is akin to saying that the University of Minnesota Medical School is the same institution as University of Minnesota Law School. They are different schools with different functions and unique histories. The share a common parent institution, University of Minnesota in my analogy, and the shared history predating both schools should be placed on that page. Similarly, history predating MCASOM that is common to all Mayo Clinic schools belongs on the main university page, MCCMS in this case. Trantorian (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not like saying an orange is an apple. The law school teaches law. Law is a separate academic discipline than the medical sciences. The historical information you removed discussed the entirety of the medical programs in combination including a focus on the medical doctorate programs. The academic accreditation for this medical school itself was administered through the University of Minnesota as they had a form of a symbiotic relationship for a time including cross appointments at both institutions. To place a value to that fact, I believe is your real objection. In any case, as we had previously came to a conclusion on the most recent press release from the Mayo Clinic was that the overall College would incorporate each of the sub-entities and departments. I believe a summary at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science is appropriate and an in-depth discussion of the history of the Medical School is appropriate here which why I spent the effort looking at the above sources to produce a half decent recount of it's history. If you want to see a truly convoluted example that counters your position look at William Mitchell College of Law]. The History section includes all of the predecessor forms and formulations. At some point the entire history section there will likely be combined into/merged into the present day Mitchell Hamline School of Law once someone gets around to fixing those articles. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be the core of our disagreement. The analogy I laid out comparing the University of Minnesota Medical School to the University of Minnesota Law School to the University of Minnesota is an accurate representation of the Organizational Structure of the educational programs at the Mayo Clinic, which we discussed at length above. Graduate medical education (i.e. residency for medical school graduates) and graduate degrees (i.e. Doctor of Philosophy for aspiring researchers) are different academic disciplines than undergraduate medical education (i.e. Doctor of Medicine for aspiring clinicians). This article focuses on undergraduate medical education, which is the purpose of a medical school. Spend some time looking through the official Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science (MCCMS) history page. You will see these points (quoted, with italics added to emphasize the University of Minnesota partnership and wikilinks to the school being discussed):

• "Establishing one of the first graduate medical education programs: In 1915, the Mayo brothers established the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. All income from the clinical practice was placed in a trust to fund stipends for fellows who came to Mayo Clinic to study after medical school. That same year, Mayo Clinic partnered with the University of Minnesota to develop Mayo School of Graduate Medical Education, one of the first three-year university-based programs to train graduate physicians in specialty practice. In 1917, the first graduate degrees in Mayo's programs were conferred to two women and two men. By 1922, more than 1,000 prospective candidates a year were seeking opportunities for graduate medical training at Mayo Clinic. Now known as Mayo Clinic School of Graduate Medical Education, the school has more than 270 individual training programs covering nearly every medical and surgical specialty. The school includes the largest number of ACGME-accredited programs in the country and is the only integrated school of graduate medical education conducted across broad geographic regions — Mayo Clinic's three campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota."
• "Advancing the science of medicine: The Mayo brothers were deeply committed to advancing the science of medicine through biomedical research. As early as 1915, Mayo Clinic began preparing candidates for master's and Ph.D. degrees in biomedical sciences, with the first Ph.D. degree in biochemistry awarded in 1917. Early degrees were granted through an affiliation with the University of Minnesota. In 1989, Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences began independently conferring master's and Ph.D. degrees. The school celebrated its 25th anniversary in 2014."
• "Training the next generation of physicians: Mayo Medical School, now known as Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, opened its doors to its first class of 40 students in 1972. And in 1983, the first class was admitted to the Mayo Clinic Medical Scientist Training Program, an M.D.-Ph.D. joint degree program offered collaboratively by Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine and Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences. In 2015, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine announced a national expansion of its education programs. Added to the existing four-year M.D. training program on the Rochester campus were opportunities for students to: Train for all four years on the Arizona campus in newly constructed medical school facilities; Participate in a 2+2 program, training for two years in Rochester and completing their third and fourth years on the Florida campus. That same year, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine launched its Science of Health Care Delivery curriculum, an innovative education program integrated into all four years of medical school training that prepares students for leading and working in today's ever-changing health care environment."

A corroborating source confirms that the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, "an endowed department of the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota" established in 1915, is the predecessor to the present day Mayo Clinic School of Graduate Medical Education (MCSGME) and Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (MCGSBS). It is clear that you keep posting a history that applies to MCSGME and MCGSBS, but is not directly relevant to this article, which is about the Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine (MCASOM). The history of MCASOM begins with its planning in 1970 and opening in 1972. Note that the history quoted above does not even mention the University of Minnesota partnership as it relates to MCASOM, likely because it only played a minor role in terms of sharing its North Central Association of Colleges and Schools accreditation until 1983. Trantorian (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Academic boosterism

40.129.238.146 and 172.58.83.91 Please provide details on your claims of academic boosterism. We need to know how we can improve the article if there is an issue. In the meantime, I have removed this unsubstantiated tag.Trantorian (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Randomeditor1000: Jytdog, ElKevbo, Natureium, and you have all made substantive edits to tone down academic boosterism. I see that you added the tag again without providing any details. What are the outstanding issues that need to be addressed to clear this tag and get the article in line with Wikipedia standards? Trantorian (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Trantorian, you keep revising the page to add in edits that we clearly previously discussed. I have reverted them (again). I can speak to specifics, if you need to. For example, as I have repeatedly pointed out the data field for the logo should not contain an image as per WP:UNIGUIDE. We have already discussed several of the issues prior on this talk page. I would support removing the academic boosterism tag if additional edits are made that add neutral (e.g. WP:NPOV) wording. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Randomeditor1000, you removed verifiable content that was discussed with other editors (specifically ElKevbo in regards to Curriculum below) on this talk page so this will be reverted. With regards to the Infobox image, WP:UNIGUIDE says "preferably with a lead image of the institution's official seal or coat of arms and an image at the bottom of the institution's wordmark." The word preferably means that this is not a firm rule. In fact, as Finnusertop pointed out on 25 March 2018, the Mayo Clinic logo here would violate WP:NFC#UUI§17 so this image was agreed to be acceptable. With regard to the topic of this discussion (academic boosterism), I have been asking for specifics since 24 August 2018. As no editors (including you) are providing specifics and several editors have since made edits to establish WP:NPOV, this tag will be removed. I encourage continued discussion here. Trantorian (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: Found an old (i.e. Mayo Medical School) logo on the Mayo Clinic Alumni Association website through Google Images. Uploaded it in an attempt to resolve the Infobox image dispute. This should work until someone can find a current version. Trantorian (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Curriculum

76.17.217.141 and ElKevbo: I agree that this section needed to be trimmed down. What level of detail is appropriate to include in a curriculum section? At the very least this section needs to mention the Selectives and Science of Health Care Delivery with its associated certificate since these are defining features of the school. The Chip Duncan documentary is also unique and offers a third-party reference. Trantorian (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I typically wouldn't expect more than a few paragraphs that provide a high-level overview and summary. If there are particular aspects that readers must know, they should be included. But it would rarely be appropriate to include a lot of specific details; that information is best left for the institution's own materials. ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes sense. I'm going to undo the section blanking by 76.17.217.141 and trim things down some more. Would appreciate your thoughts and continued discussion. Trantorian (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Selectives are unique to MCASOM and commonly confused with the clinical electives offered by all accredited medical schools. This section is therefore very appropriate in this article. Looking at editing patterns, it appears that Randomeditor1000 and 76.17.217.141 are the same editor. The repeated removal of material from the Curriculum section using WP:SOCK accounts is inappropriate in that this editor appears to be creating an illusion of support. Therefore, I have undone this WP:VANDAL. Trantorian (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I take offense to being accused of Socking. No, I am not the same as IP editor 76.17.217.141. I removed the curriculum from this article and will continue to do so because we have already discussed this as overly detailed, not helpful in explaining anything of relevance to the reader and overtly promotional. You keep adding it because you want to keep a more overtly WP:PROMOTIONAL tone in the article and that is unnecessary. See ElKevbo's very clear edit here: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Mayo_Clinic_Alix_School_of_Medicine&diff=875784255&oldid=875784164&diffmode=source. I have undone your edit and WP:VANDAL does not apply. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the edits are promotional. If this part of the curriculum is indeed unique then it may merit inclusion in the article. It's certainly much better sourced than most other similar sections in other similar articles! ElKevbo (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

When there is an overly detailed multi-paragraph section on the curriculum of a single program I think that could be fairly promotional, keeping in mind that on numerous similar UNI articles there has been a trend to remove program specific curriculum, programs, listing of degrees and so on as information that would not be helpful the reader. To suggest that this is somehow different I fully believe is inconsistent and based on the fact you, yourself removed it illustrates my point. Respectfully Trantorian has continuously attempted to add or remove content to have the content read in a promotional tone in this article as well as the predecessor article because they have some type of relationship with the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine. That was the reason that Jytdog added the {booster} tag [1] and removed SPS sections that were [2] pretty long. I see this section as no different, this section may have started out as SPS. For that matter, many collegiate academic programs have 'selectable' electives much less physician training programs which are entirely based on the premise that one completes a fellowship in a specialty subject after completing a number of other relevant coursework. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo: the edits are not promotional. The material has been trimmed down from its earlier iterations and is well sourced. As I mentioned in my previous edit summary: "Selectives are very different than electives (a common point of confusion, so very appropriate here). This is a unique feature of the MCASOM curriculum (i.e. no other medical school has anything similar)." Therefore this material merits inclusion in this article. Trantorian (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding an S doesn't make the inordinate amount of detail concerning the curriculum any more informative it just stands to advertise "how different" the curriculum is here versus elsewhere, when in fact electives/selectives/optional choices are fairly common across medical curriculum. Add to the fact that ElKevbo themself also removed it, I removed it and Jytdog removed the content in that section. I am glad to see that there were edits to make it more neutral and significantly shorter. I still fully believe it to fall under OVERLYDETAILED but I won't remove it based on this discussion. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Dispute

Randomeditor1000 and Trantorian: Stop edit warring. Work it out here. ElKevbo (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

ElKevbo, to be clear I did try to reason with them. I went through the entire above discussions using WP:Talking and editing. It devolved into Trantorian simply "being right" rather than making rational decisions on the content. As can be seen they dont care about actually improving the content or whether the content is informative or even properly sourced. Rather just to making glowing article about the Mayo Clinic [[3]] and it's School of Medicine [[4]]. I think it's disjointed right now to say simply don't edit war. As in the above section History of MCSOM vs. MCCMS and its other constituent schools Trantorian wasn't looking at facts, references or even information but rather in what light the content comes off to the reader. I did "talk it out", but they simply ignored my comments and will continue to do so because they don't care. Looking at the edit history they have already undone both of the previous edits which started as content that was added or removed several months ago. [[5]]. In addition, they made reversions way beyond the WP:3RR, nobody cared then and intervened. That's how we got to where we are today. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Randomeditor1000, let's drop the personal attacks and assume good faith—a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Since we are both working toward the goals of the Wikipedia community, I am confident that we can reach a consensus here. We both want to see this article be the best it can be. Let's work together to meet featured article criteria. Since we disagree on a few points, let's work them out here before making further edits as ElKevbo suggests. Perhaps we can start by continuing the discussion under the History of MCSOM vs. MCCMS and its other constituent schools section. Trantorian (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

First, let me be very clear that I am providing commentary based on your actions not your character. For example, I didn't accuse you of socking. [[6]] So please do not attempt to frame the above as me personally attacking you. My comments concerning your edits were based on your edits and responses to me. In any case, I have a very hard time believing in your statement here as being genuine based on your actions. You choose to copy-pasta self-published sources that expanded the articles that covered the subject of the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine et al. [[7]]. Editor Jyttdog very clearly identified numerous of your edits as being promotional in a non-neutral tone. Which corresponds to the [discussion]. Your position is in basis: don't include well sourced information here. You didn't provide a rational reason why. You just keep deleting arbitrarily way beyond the WP:BRIGHTLINE to the point that it's hard for me to even keep the edits straight with the history. You have in essence basically reverted or removed my major edits to this article and attempted to defend those reversions by saying it wasn't sourced as in the discussion above. The sad thing in my mind is that I fully believe our disagreement takes away information that the reader might be interested to know. For example, that the Mayo Clinic was founded as a for-profit business and the founders essentially gave up all their wealth to make into a non-profit. For many of us, even those who live in Minnesota, it is not a well known fact that the Mayo Clinic was not always the monolithic non-profit it is today.[[8]] Randomeditor1000 (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

All I noted is that the user compare report suggests that Randomeditor1000 and 76.17.217.141 are the same editor (particularly the series of edits starting at 2018-12-30 22:40 UTC). That behavioral issue aside, let's focus on building a quality, accurate article by continuing the discussion under the History of MCSOM vs. MCCMS and its other constituent schools section. Trantorian (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in, ElKevbo. I hope you can serve as a third opinion (as needed) as we work things out. I have found our earlier discussions productive and have learned a lot from you in terms of how to be a better editor. Trantorian (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Trantorian, in basis I have stopped editing these articles because of your overt territorial behavior. You apparently believe you own these articles to ensure they read with a positive composition. I don't see value in continuing to watch you delete any material I add or edit on the Mayo Clinic series of articles without any consequences to your hostile behavior. I would ask that if you decide to start a sock investigation on me in the future to please provide me the courtesy to respond to your allegations. Try not to continue domineering these articles in the future. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)