Talk:Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

message: Image:Liberty 1 by bencwright.jpg 	 shows up in red in the article, but I can't find it to fix it. Osomec 13:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical problem with image

message: This page is for the architectural value of this building, not the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center as an institution. This page SHOULD NOT be merged as its about the historical value of a offical new york landmark, not the current institution it is now.
:Vice versa, seems to me, with the present article being for the modern organization, and New York Cancer Hospital for the old building and the founding of the organization.  Anway I agree with our anonymous commentator that the merger between these two moderately large articles is a bad idea.  Jim.henderson (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: Is probably neither notable nor particularly appropriate for a song about one of the top cancer centers in the country/world 74.79.243.131 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Punk Song

message: Lots of conflicted editing on this article.  See above and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Memorial_Sloan_Kettering_Cancer_Center_nest_of_COI_editing Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which eventually got archived to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 83#Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nest of COI editing. DMacks (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: COI

message: Jytdog, I'm going to revert to the other version. First, one of the names is repeated. Second, it looks odd to repeat all the combinations of A = B = C. The point is that this was one person with three names. Sarah (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also in template news, I'm working on getting  to support more than 10 entries. DMacks (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks DMacks.  Slim, thanks for catching the typo. It was a lot of work going through and logging all the COI/promo editing that has gone on this article, and I goofed in the course of that.  In any case, it is great you are taking an interest in seeing how these tags actually are  used.  About the three usernames for the same apparent person... there is value in having the relevant username in the "User" field" - we lose information by condensing three accounts into one entry.  The point is that we have three COI accounts, each with their own contribs, Talk page, history etc. Others listed there could be her as well. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, fair enough, thanks for explaining. Sarah (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: I've been working with a paid editor, User:FacultiesIntact to revise this article in their sandbox User:FacultiesIntact/sandbox/Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.   I reviewed their work painstakingly and did a bunch of editing of my own on it as well.  This is in my view a neutral and well sourced update.  I over-wrote the article with the sandboxed version today in this dif.   If anybody is not comfortable with this in any way, happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  article update 

message: MSK maintained their ranking as the #2 cancer hospital in the nation for 2017-2018, per the latest rankings. Would someone without a COI mind making the update in the Reputation section?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  US News ranking 

message: MSK released some archival photos for use on the article, and I went ahead and mocked up a layout in my sandbox. I thought they help tell the visual story of the hospital throughout its many forms and locations. Can someone take a look and offer an opinion? It's an additional 4 images, but I don't think it's too visually cluttered or otherwise overwhelming.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that works, all down the right side.  Not sure how well that will work on mobile, but looks fine on a desktop. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks for the help! Any chance you're still interested in looking at some BLPs for some of the MSK doctors? I know it's a lot, but I appreciate your critical eye.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding images to the article 

message: Here are a few more straight forward updates on the article, but I won't directly edit due to my COI. In the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (1980–present) section, the Training section, and Associated facilities and programs section respectively:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chefmikesf (talk • contribs) 23:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: - a routine update to the most recent state. GregorB (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Although primary sources are used here, I'd say this is fine as long as they are used in a supporting role, along with non-primary sources, and that they are not unduly self-promoting. Is there a non-primary source specifically for the lymphoma statement? GregorB (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the Wired and GEN article that should tie the story together with secondary sources. Can you let me know if we need any other sources?-Chefmikesf (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Ok thanks for the feedback on this request. While I put together the list of references for the request #2, could you take a look at request #3 and #4? The last two updates are factual updates using the same sources previously citing in the content.-Chefmikesf (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sources are fine now, I have just one more remark: the FDA source provided above in support of leukemia statement (Commissioner, Office of the (2019-09-10). "FDA approves CAR-T cell therapy to treat adults with certain types of large B-cell lymphoma". FDA.) seems to actually support the lymphoma statement, so I suppose it had a secondary source all along, but I've overlooked it. Please review and rearrange if necessary, and I'll copy the content into the article. GregorB (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The content looks good to me. Please proceed! Thank you.Chefmikesf (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  with all proposed changes, thanks! GregorB (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

text: GregorB (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

text: GregorB (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

text: I will review the above updates, hopefully within a couple of days. The article is on my watchlist now. GregorB (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate you reviewing and updating the article.--Chefmikesf (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you  for your help, always appreciated. Can you take a look at one small edit to FacultiesIntact's update? I think he may have missed this earlier in the year.--Chefmikesf (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

text: GregorB (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your help GregorB Chefmikesf (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Article Updates 

message: No mention at all of treatment costs for patients! I came here looking for this info because of this comment in the Washington Post: 
"Sloan-Kettering set my dad adrift when his money ran out. I had naively believed that the Rockefeller Foundation would not let that happen." 
While looking for info about this elsewhere, i discovered that there are serious scandals that this article ignores, including Paige.AI and Raskin  https://www.statnews.com/2018/10/03/memorial-sloan-kettering-betrayed-my-trust/
--Espoo (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing info about treatment costs for patients and scandals

message: I noticed an error in the lead paragraph. The National Cancer Institute has designated Cancer Centers and designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers. 
The current article has 70 but when I read the reference, I found otherwise. The correct number is 51. Can someone update this? Maybe Htmlzycq?
"51 are Comprehensive Cancer Centers, also recognized for their leadership and resources, in addition to demonstrating an added depth and breadth of research, as well as substantial transdisciplinary research that bridges these scientific areas."
--Chefmikesf (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted? Is there a way to variable-ize common shared values? The count is off in other articles, too. 2600:1700:8A14:1A70:6C23:8B0B:4E26:9353 (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers error