Talk:Ignacio A. Santos School of Medicine

Fair use rationale for Image:EMIS.jpg

Image:EMIS.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 Wikipedia: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) 05:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit about EMIS's results in ENARM

I consider the previous information about EMIS's results in the Mexican "Examen Nacional de Residencias Médicas" is important for the reader. That's the reason why I decided to place it again on the page, and I don't know why I'm continously reverted and received a message telling me my edit is considered vandalism. The information has reliable sources that prove what's being said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.160.54.29 (talk • contribs)

...and why should it stay up when the original account to add it (User:Epididymus10), who has a history of vandalism, was unjustified in adding it per this comment? Also, the edit inappropriately places the {{reflist}} template below external links, which is out of keeping with the manual of style. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This comment states the original edit was reverted because User:Epididymus10, besides having a history of vandalism, placed sources that were out of date; stating EMIS was ranked first place in ENARM, while it was Universidad Panamericana Sede México. However, the page was edited again and the correct information was placed according to the most recent source, stating EMIS was ranked in second place (that statement can be verified when consulting the most recent ENARM results, posted in WLU's article). The second edit also includes another source that includes all ENARM results from 2000 to 2009 which contains valuable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.160.54.29 (talk • contribs)

Controversial edit

As the previous user states, my post has valuable information that should be considered before reverting it. It can be verified by accessing the sources I've correctly placed in the article. Epididymus10 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the same post that you, a known vandal and possible sockpuppet, posted, and a Spanish-speaking editor stated was an incorrect summary. So no. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have asked an independent Spanish-speaking admin to review the text and sourcing (here). Please leave it until then. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I speak Spanish, and can't find that info in the source; if it's there, perhaps EPi can point it out with a direct quote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia,

The information can be easily found by clicking each year's link and looking for "Tecnológico de Monterrey" results under the state of "Nuevo León". You will see the average score for its students. If you enter the information in a Excel table, considering all the scores for all the universities, you'll see that Tecnológico de Monterrey has the highest average. Epididymus10 (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OR; in other words, we need to click through every single school listed to see if this info is correct, and no secondary source has mentioned it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. At best you could say the school has X score, but since it is a relative scale, that's ultimately meaningless. I'll remove it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment from User talk:WLU, 22:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC) From what I've determined, the statement: However, a careful evaluation of the overall performance (considering the last ten years) reveals that EMIS has the greatest percentage of students in a medical residency program in Mexico is true, considering that of all the medical residency programs that were evaluated continuously from 2001-2008, EMIS/ITESM had the highest percentage of placements at 71.35%. It was only surpassed by the military university, the Universidad del Ejército y Fuerza Aérea Mexicanos (sorry no equivalent English page), which was evaluated only in the period of 2001-2005 and had a placement percentage of 75.98%. Hope that helps! Minnecologies (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting analysis of primary source data, but WP:OR. If a secondary source mentions this, it can be added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The source directly supports the material as presented. No modification or interpretation is made regarding it. The numbers are clearly posted on the source, which is reliable. Epididymus10 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's time to take this to a place where we can get an outside opinion? I've stopped reverting again because I can't really comofrtably endorse either point of view. Is the PDF really a primary source? —Soap— 15:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be useful, but we still have a case of WP:3RR to deal with. There is still non consensus to add this material. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The information is definitively useful. My edit was reverted several times before without even writing on the discussion page or taking a look at the sources to verify them. What about WP:OR? The information is directly placed there, the source is verifiable, there's no modification, interpretation or personal opinion. Just tell me what's so wrong with my edit, and I'll stop warring. Thank you very much. Epididymus10 (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Epididymus10 has been blocked for one week by User:FisherQueen, not just for this but for edit warring in general, both here and on the Asperger syndrome article, where the edit he's been making has a lot less ground to stand on. —Soap— 14:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Epididymus10 has returned, and added this info again. I have reverted it as I still see no consensus to add the material. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Reconsidering previous "controversial edit"

I've been taking a closer look at the information that was previously added several times, and it seems the last source is correct and up-to-date (EMIS was ranked second place in 2010, the first one being Universidad Panamericana, and historically it has the greatest percentage of alumni enrolled in a medical residency program in Mexico since the ENARM was implemented as an evaluation tools for Mexican students interested in having a medical specialty). I'm a member of the Educational Commision for Foreign Medical Graduates (US organization responsible of selecting foreign students for a medical residency in American hospitals and institutios), and I'm aware of how good this school's (EMIS) performance has been within the last years. However, please pay close attention to the source being cited, because new 2011 ENARM results will be available in October/November and statistics might change. RaspberryKlonopin (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I imagine, however, that this still suffers from the OR problem noted above? I have reverted it, for now, to wait and see what others think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The source is primary, but it's reliable (unfortunately it's the only Mexican institution that has the authority for publishing this particular type of information, and I'm not able to find a reliable secondary source). It seems we should include the information and add the "original research" template for other editors to be aware, what do you think?RaspberryKlonopin (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a thought yeah, but I still would like to wait for others opinions, assuming they are still watching the page, the other user was a vandal, and a POV pusher, so it was hard to take him seriously. However, that is not the case here I think. As I said, let's wait a few days and see. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ignacio A. Santos School of Medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060517013928/http://dcs.mty.itesm.mx/index.html to http://dcs.mty.itesm.mx/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)