Talk:Caribbean Medical University/Archive 1

Foundation Register

I propose that the text regarding the inclusion of CMU in the Chamber of Commerce's register be removed, since it only has to do with the business side of the operation, and has nothing to do with the academic side of the school. It gives a false impression that this school is actually sanctioned by someone, when the bar of entry is simply paying a fee. Any thoughts? Leuko 02:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no intention on giving impression in this article. That would be unencyclopedic. The fact that the school is registered with the Chamber of Commerce is entirely factual and as such need not be removed. Bstone 04:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Factual does not necessarily mean encyclopedic nor WP:NPOV. The fact is that it is rather irrelevant with regards to accreditation/charter of the school, which is the real measure of the legal right for the school to exist. Those unfamiliar with medical licensing laws may be confused by the inclusion of this less than useful fact. Leuko 12:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Leuko on this issue. Inclusion in the Chamber of Commerce doesn't actually amount to anything. I think we can remove the language without affecting the content of the neutrality of the article. Cheers, PaddyM 13:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The tone of the article is unencyclopedic. It gives the impression that this school is scam, fly by night, etc. As such it is clearly not neutral, thus I am flagging it at such until the article can be rewritten in an objective, neutral manner. Bstone 12:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean that it is appropriate to whitewash reality. The tone of the article reflect what WP:RS have to say about the school. Leuko 02:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV & Citations

This article reads like a propaganda piece against CMU. In addition, there are all sorts of claims which are not sourced. The article is not at all up to the standards of this wiki project and I have flagged it as such. Bstone 13:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. I am removing the citation needed from the various places you have placed it. How are we supposed to find a source that does not list this university in it's publications. If the school is actually accredited, you must find that source and post it yourself. Otherwise, the article is factually and neutrally correct. Cheers, PaddyM 15:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

PaddyM, you completely misunderstand. If you are claiming that a school which grants a professional degree does not have their degrees recognized then you must source that claim from some governmental of accreditation body which can attest to you assertion that their degrees are not acceptable. Further, while I am certain the State of Oregon has very good policies in place, those policies are limited only to Oregon. As such I will be changing the article to indicate, quite factually and entirely logically, that the degrees are not valid in Oregon but may be accepted elsewhere. Unless, of course, you can provide factual, unbiased information which indicates this is true for other states. Bstone 19:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No US state or other country will accept a degree from a medical school which is not listed in FAIMER or the WHO WDMS. Therefore, it is unnecessary to list each individual state's laws, as the school can't pass this basic criterion. Leuko 02:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Source? Bstone 06:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the sources. This degree is not acceptable in any state. As such, the article reflects a neutral stance on the fact that this school is completely unaccredited by any of the sources we have provided. So, I have removed the POV template since I added the last source. Cheers, PaddyM 16:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The article reads like a propaganda piece against the school. POV is certainly an issue. There is nothing about the make up of the school, philosophy, etc. It launched immediately into the issue of accreditation and nothing more. Replacing the POV tag. Bstone 21:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything else relevant other than the lack of accreditation that you can source from a WP:RS? I don't see the philosophy, curriculum, etc of an unaccredited school being all that encyclopedic. I would request that you remove the POV tag, unless you can show an WP:RS that indicates that the article is factually incorrect or a distortion of reality. I agree that POV/COI were issues in the past, where students/administrators of the school attempted to whitewash the article and replace it with an ad, but that is not represented in the current version, so I fail to see the utility of the npov tag. Leuko 21:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - There is nothing to indicate that the article is anything but neutral. It reads exactly like a newspaper article would read regarding this school. Cheers, PaddyM 02:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. It reads like a propaganda piece. Simply saying it is neutral does not make it to. POV stays until this article can be more neutral in content. Bstone 23:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is your end-game here, Bstone? Would you like us to accredit the school for you? Do you want a comprehensive listing of all the classes and teachers and buildings? Did you think that was common practice? Check Ross University or Southern Illinois University or University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and notice that they don't include the information that you think is appropriate for a completely fly-by-night school. The current version represents simple facts, backed with sources. If you think there is more information about the school that needs to be present, then, by all means, add it and source it, but just b/c you haven't added any new content, doesn't make the article POV. Cheers, PaddyM 01:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The article yields no other information about this school than it's location and 2 paragraphs detailing how it is not accredited. That is not balanced. My end-game: a neutral, balanced article. Thank you. Bstone 06:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is a neutral, balanced representations of facts regarding the school available in WP:RS. I don't see how you can say it is not neutral. Leuko 11:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying it's so doesn't make it so, Leuko. 1 line of real information followed by 2 paragraphs on how this school is anything but legit strikes of a biased article. Until more neutral content can be added (such as school history, philosophy, etc) then this article keeps the POV tag. This very discussion demonstrates it is POV. Bstone 14:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Just b/c you don't like what is written about the school doesn't change the facts of the matter. The school is unaccredited and its degrees are illegal in the United States. If any of that is untrue or unsourced, then remove it and fix it. But you know those statements to be factual and true. Perhaps you should spend some time reading WP:NOPOV or WP:NPOV and familiarize yourself with the policies contained therein. Your requirement for "balance" doesn't make sense in the context of wikipedia; only that sources can be found to verify facts and that neutrality in regards to opinions are not introduced. This article has no opinion whatsoever - only verified facts. Please cite the areas on the article which offer an opinion on the subject so that they con be removed; otherwise, there is nothing to indicate non-neutrality. Cheers, PaddyM 15:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuing to insist that an article which only consists of cited facts, and not opinions, is POV-pushing seems like WP:POINT or WP:COI. WP policies, such as WP:NPOV do not require that the subjects of articles can not include negative information if it is properly sourced from WP:RS, nor do they require that uncited, non-encyclopedic positive information be included. They only require that conflicting verified view points be presented equally. Since there are no WP:RS to indicate that this school is accredited in any way, WP:NPOV does not apply, since there is no verified opposing view point. I again respectfully request that the {{npov}} tag be removed, unless you can actually indicate how WP:NPOV is being violated in a tangible way. I agree with PaddyM's assessment that there is nothing that is non-neutral in the article. Thanks, Leuko 22:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Yes, the facts are sources. Yes, they are verifiable. However they are presented in such a way as to delegitimize and denigrate this school. 1 line of school info followed by 2 entire paragraphs is negative information makes for POV. It stays until the article can be balanced. It is not currently balanced in any way, shape or form. Bstone 03:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Like has been mentioned before, there is no WP policy that requires an article to be "balanced," only that opposing verified opinions are given equal treatment. Since there are no opinions, WP:NPOV does not apply. There is no attempt to delegitimize the school - facts are simply presented. Since there is no reasonable argument of an NPOV violation that has been explained over and over again, and it appears that the {{npov}} tag is being used in an attempt to cast doubt on the validity and accuracy of the article, I am going to remove it per consensus on this talk page. Please feel free to file a WP:RFC if you feel that it is necessary. Leuko

12:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

On the surface and in depth this article is not neutral. It is entirely biased against the school. POV tag stays until this changes. Bstone 04:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Point of View

Debate over whether the facts presented in the article are NPOV or constitute an "unbalanced" view of the subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaddyM (talk • contribs) 13:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it is a "Medical School", I don't think that it is "unbalanced" to make it clear that its graduates may not be able to legally call themselves "Doctors" or ever be able to obtain licensure in the U.S., UK, or Canada. How does the school respond to these criticisms? How do they explain their lack of accreditation? I would suggest including this information to eliminate the perception of bias. Are there any jurisdictions that would honor degrees granted here? For example, are they currently undergoing an accreditation process that, if approved, would apply retroactively to all medical degrees conferred by the university (doubtful, I admit)? Information of this type (if it exists) should definitely be included to balance the article. Otherwise, the "University" appears to be little more than a diploma mill and the article is fair. — DIEGO ^talk 14:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Diploma mills are typically fly-by-night operations and operate out of someone's home, small office or storage space. This school, however, has an actual campus, real physicians and PhDs as instructors and are in the process of obtaining the needed accreditation in order to have their graduates recognized. I emailed the school asking when they would be listed with FAIMER and they indicated it is less than a month away. As such it is clear they are not a diploma mill. Thus, this article would require a 3/4 rewrite (if not more) possibly within a month's time when they do obtain listing with FAIMER. At that point we would be seeing a very, very different article. Is it really worth all this effort of writing a supposedly encyclopedic article that will possibly have to be rewritten in a few short weeks or is it not a better idea to write a more neutral, balanced article that will require minor-to-moderate edits when their accreditation status changes? Bstone 15:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the phone number listed for the U.S. office of the school is someone's home, according to reverse directory listings: [1] Therefore, the school seems to meet your definition of a fly-by-night diploma mill. In any case, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and any promises from the school to be listed with FAIMER are only unverifiable WP:COI speculation which would not be appropriate for inclusion into WP. The article must be based on WP:RS which are currently available. If other sources become available in the future, they can be added, but to insist that the fact that the school is currently unaccredited be whitewashed from the article is POV-pushing. Leuko 17:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

InfoBox Type

In hopes of staving off an edit war between Leuko and myself, I would like to open discussion on the "Type" in the InfoBox. Specifically, Leuko is insistant that the school be referred to as "Unaccredited Medical School". I am under the opinion that accreditation does not matter and, at least, this is made abundantly clear in the article itself. Moreover, if we need to list if a school is accredited or not then should every school be listed not merely as "Medical School" but appending "Accredited" or "Unaccredited" onto it? Bstone 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Listing simply "Medical School" would give the false impression that the school has the authority to grant MD degrees that are worth something, which it currently does not. When using the title of medical school, there is an assumption of accreditation/charter/etc, none of which CMU currently possesses, so that should be made clear. Leuko 17:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is made abundantly clear from the article itself. The school *is* a medical school, accredited or not. It's status of accreditation has no bearing on the fact that they offer 4 year medical education. Bstone 17:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is no WP:RS to support the statement that any sort of medical education is offered. Without any accreditation or recognition, the institution is not a bona fide medical school. Unaccredited should really stay to promote consistency. Leuko 18:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Leuko, I kindly ask that you do not vandalize the InfoBox. You are only contributing to an edit war which ultimately will end up in mediation. I beg you to think through your edits before clicking save. Because stating "unaccredited" was entered after this discussion began I am removing it and asking that this page be protected from further vandalism. Bstone 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)