Talk:Loma Linda University Medical Center

Untitled

The Medicare fraud section needs some work. One of the references listed for the section goes to a dead page. The first reference about the Behavioral Medicine Center does not give the correct name, which is Loma Linda University Behavioral Medicine Center. Also this dot com website does not seem as reliable as getting the information from a newspaper. Additionally, a couple of times abbreviations are used without saying what they mean besides that the abbreviations are different. It should be LLUAHSC for Loma Linda University Adventist Health Sciences Center. It would seem that this section should be edited or taken down until it can be more accurate. Immerpunktlich (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Original name of school - CME

One of the references (Ryckman & Zackerson) in the Edmund Jaeger article says Jaeger attended the "Loma Linda College of Medical Evangelists (CME)" from 1911-1913 (Part Two, Chapter III, page 167). I suggest the history of LLUMC be revised to reflect this. --S. Rich (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Loma Linda University went through a name change in the early 60s.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So I see. I added the point here so that interested editors might incorporate the info into this article.--S. Rich (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Medicare Fraud Section

The Medicare fraud section is unique among like organizations (see pages of Kaiser Permanente, Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins) who have also admitted to or been accused of Medicare fraud. Section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.65.156 (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Or, information could be added about any settled lawsuits or legal actions against those entities. Defrauding a large US government program seems notable. Other pages exist and just because they lack something doesn't mean all such pages should lack something. 331dot (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia work? It develops standards over time. Like information has been removed from the Mayo Clinic Wikipedia page, and the community has approved. Keeping the section intact is a step backward, not forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.65.156 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please link to those discussions. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please review the "Other pages exist," which you referenced above and which I will quote here: "For instance, when an actor recently died suddenly, a discussion broke out about adding "the late" before his name in one of his movie pages. In order to judge the necessity of such a phrase, other articles of famous deceased actors could be checked, which was done. Generally, these other articles do not use this sort of reference, and thus the newest article did not. While not a strict OSE reasoning, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project." 76.174.65.156 (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus can change as well; but I again request that you link to any relevant discussions. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

76.174.65.156 keep in mind that WP:OSE is an essay, and not a policy or guideline. Criticism of a company or an organization is generally valid to keep in an article, provided that the information is relevant and based on reliable sources. Bjelleklang - talk 21:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a regular volunteer over at dispute resolution noticeboard where I saw this listed. I'm writing here because I'd like to chime in on this as a regular editor, not wearing my dispute resolution noticeboard volunteer hat, except to note that I am a neutral party on this: I have no prior connections, so far as I can recall with any of the parties, or with this article. Here's how I see this:

• IP editor: Those editors referring you to OSE are right about one thing (at least): Every article in Wikipedia stands or falls on its own and what happens in one article sets no standard or precedent for what happens in any other article unless there is a policy or guideline requiring uniformity. I am not aware of any such policy or guideline which applies in this case. If you feel that there should be such a policy or guideline, feel free to propose it using the methods described in the Policy policy (not a typo). That being the case, the more likely proper remedy for the absence of this kind of material from those other hospitals is that, if it is significant, does not give undue weight to those fraud issues, and can be verified through a reliable source (as defined by Wikipedia) that it ought to be added to those articles, not deleted from this one
• Everyone else: As I just said to the IP editor, this material should be retained if it is significant, does not give undue weight to those fraud issues, and can be verified through a reliable source. It would appear to me, at least on first blush, to satisfy both of the first two of those criteria (though it might be just a tad too long under UNDUE given the article length, but if so, barely, and what I'm about to say may have the result of curing that, too). I have grave reservations, however, about the sourcing. On first blush, it does not appear to me that either of the two sources cited for the "20 physician corporations" paragraph is a reliable source under SOURCES, and the first paragraph sentence is uncited altogether (and the word "several" in it is a weasel word unless a reliable source can be found which actually says that there have been "several"). The first and third paragraphs of the section should, in my opinion, be removed unless a reliable source can be found for them.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Minor clarifications and corrections made, as redlined above. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Tallest hospital in California

I added the update section template, since Loma Linda Medical Center is know the tallest hospital in California. Catfurball (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)