Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	Archive 1; ; ;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:57, 11 November 2006

Past editing of this article was the subject of a Request for Arbitration, now closed.

Regarding Disputes of Accuracy

ODA

I am removing the reference to the ODA from the page. It does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. They do not reference where the information for this page is obtained or provide any references to appropriate research or materials. Until they can do this it should not be a part of this article. Spike 09:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCCM is on Oregon's list of "Unaccredited Degree Suppliers." This information was presented in the article and cited with a link to the ODA page, nothing more. The adjacent text was not included because of the difficulty in verifying that information. But the fact stands that SCCM remains on Oregon's "Unaccredited" list, so I don't think graduates would be able to practice medicine in Oregon. It's a government agency publication, so I think that it would qualify as a reliable source. In order to prevent an edit war, I'll refrain from reverting, however, I would like to get a consensus on the reliability of this source, as well as the appropriateness of the inclusion of the simple undisputable fact that SCCM is in fact on the "Unaccredited" list. Leuko

Just because SCCM is listed on a webpage doesn't mean that it's an appropriate or reliable source, this is mentioned in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. The fact that it's a state gov. page doesn't automatically mean that it's reliable either. They don't source their information or provide any reference of any kind. It's the same as if I created a page and said "SCIMD is the premiere offshore medical school in the world" and didn't provide a source. I can list the fact that a webpage says "SCIMD is the premiere offshore medical school in the world" but if I don't source or provide reference for the statement or inclusion on that page, it means nothing and has no place in an encyclopedic entry. Spike 17:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to resolve this I suggest we seek wikipedia administration input for the final say on whether this is considered a reliable source or not. Spike 17:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's an official government publication on the web, and since it has implications for graduates licensibility in Oregon, I feel it is important to include it in the article. If anyone has concerns about SCCM being included on the ODA's webpage as an "Unaccredited" school, then they should take it up with the ODA, but the simple, undisputable fact is that it is there. I agree that more input should be sought to build a consensus among editors, so I've submitted a request for comment. Leuko 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you feel it's appropriate to include it doesn't mean that it is. The matter has been brought up with the ODA and litigation is pending against the ODA and the individual at the ODA that is responsible for maintaining that page. Just because it’s there doesn’t mean it’s accurate or appropriate for this article. If the consensus from the wikipedia admin is that it be put back then it should at least include a disclaimer saying “the ODA does not disclose the research or sources for their website and should not be considered an accurate source of information”. Spike 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't feel that it is appropriate or accurate, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be included. Can you please provide a reference for this pending litigation (does Oregon put pending civil cases online?), though it really wouldn't mean much. Just because there may be a civil suit pending doesn't mean the information is inaccurate or SC's position on the "Unaccredited" schools list is undeserved. Leuko 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't mean that the information is accurate, the sources or research methods used were valid or that being on the list is deserved since they don't bother to indicate anything about how they collect data. If I’m not mistaken the individual responsible for maintaining the ODA website is known for being unreliable and using inappropriate sources and unverified information. Spike 20:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the ODA, its data collection methods, and its employees. However, the fact remains that SCCM is on the ODA's list of "Unaccredited colleges." While some may dispute the reasons why it is on the list, no one can dispute that it is on the list. In keeping with WP:NPOV, the edit that I made said simply that it was on the list. I did not give any personal opinions because it was on the list, say it was a bad school because it was on the list, or anything else negative (not even that graduates will likely not be able to be licensed in Oregon). I just said it was on the list. Since the fact that it is on the list, I feel that it meets the standards of WP:V, since the page is published by the government agency responsible for assessing the validity of degrees in Oregon, which is the list they would go by should a graduate attempt to get licensed in Oregon. Leuko 21:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But just being listed is insufficient for the inclusion of such inflammatory information which is not neutral by nature and has bias attached to it. Data needs to be verified and proven. We will just have to wait for the wikipedia admins. to make a call on this. Spike 21:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it is verified and proven that SCCM is on the list. Including that information is not inflammatory or biased, it is just being truthful and fully disclosing all information so that prospective students can evaluate their options should they wish to be licensed in Oregon some day. Alright, we are talking in circles, so let's see if the RfC brings anything. If not, I guess we'll have to go to the arbitration committee with this one. Leuko 22:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not agreeing with a govt. agency, such as ODA, doesn't make their findings wrong. ANY govt. statements about SCIMD should be reflected and your decision to remove them and slander ODA is inappropriate. You can cite no lawsuits since there are none. azskeptic --Azskeptic 00:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Eggman, but your opinions can't be taken into consideration in this matter since you contribute to what is on the ODA page and thus cannot represent a neutral community POV. Someone who is responsible for material on a page that is being disputed shouldn't weigh in on whether it is valid or not. Spike 16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spike, again that you don't agree with the State of Oregon or other legally ordained sites doesn't change the fact that the official sites show SC as not being recognized. Trust that Wikipedia administration will carefully study this. --Azskeptic 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't deny that you are a contributor to the ODA page, an inappropriate one, but one none the less, and are thus a non-neutral in this discussion which means you cannot have a say in this discussion as a neutral community contributor. Spike 21:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again you use insults and uninformed judgements to try and belittle my work. Sad indeed. --Azskeptic 23:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you go to SC? if so, you too aren't neutral. --Azskeptic 22:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any educational or formal background in medical/health sciences education or training, Azskeptic? if not, you aren't qualified.--Vtak 00:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not in a position to qualify or disqualify. This talk section is not an appropriate place to discuss qualifications. Read the TOS of Wikipedia. --Azskeptic 00:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is no specific TOS for wikipedia, that I can find. So, please find me a copy of that, just link it here. Secondly, you are a public figure, of some sort, and discussing your qualifications, when you openly claim to be a consumer advocate for offshore medical colleges (@ [www.valuemd.com] ),is not an inappropriate issue to bring up.--Vtak 00:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars --Azskeptic 06:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. It's not up to us to determine whether what a source says is true or not. The only question is whether or not it qualifies as a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and the fact that it's a government website should certainly qualify. If another source disputes what's said here, we can include that as an opposing point. Fagstein 01:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, we can't say if it qualifies or not under Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I couldn't find anything in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that discuss .gov websites or their content. That's why wikipedia administrative input was requested for a final say. Spike 02:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think most people on Wikipedia would agree that .gov websites are reliable sources, but did you put in a mediation or arbitration request? If so, where is it, since I think all interested parties need to sign it. Leuko 02:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an administrative arbitration request was put in. You can locate it if you want to comment. Spike 20:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't find it, so I will put one in. Leuko 23:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an admin with some small experience in matters of accreditation, I would say that the ODA link is authoritative, and that lack of accreditation is usually proved by omission; if the school is not listed in the UK or US or UNESCO directories then it is safe to call it unaccredited. We have {{unaccredited}} for this very purpose.

Speaking as an Englishman who grew up not far from Luton, and with experience of the British educational system including the university system, indeed I married a former medical student, I would say that this is almost certainly a degree mill. If it's not accredited by the GMC it is essentially worthless in terms of UK medical training, regardless of how many graduates have found a place overseas on the basis of their degree (one proper US university was found to have a full professor whose degrees came from a degree mill; it happens). Just zis Guy you know? 22:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are accredited by Senegal and are recognized by IMED for lic. purposes in the US. Your bias here is obvious, typical nonsense.Spike 22:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how everyone who does not have an association with the subject is biased, while you are not... Just zis Guy you know? 08:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maine

Spike, you apparently have taken it upon yourself to remove ANY link you don't like I posted the state of Maine's inclusion of your school and you removed it also http://mainegov-images.informe.org/education/highered/Non-Accredited/UnaccreditedSchools-042706.pdf Where is a state website in violation of Wikipedia's rules? --Azskeptic 16:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the edit history. I reverted the page because the Maine list uses the ODA for reference. Since the discussion on the ODA has not come to a resolution it was inappropriate to include that link in the article. Plus, you added it in the wrong section. It's not a simple external link. It should have been included in the text of the article with a reference at the end. However, this shouldn't be done until resolution is met regarding the ODA. If you add it again before the discussion regarding the ODA is completed I will remove it.

Also, will you please learn how to discuss things properly here? I know you have various challenges, but it shouldn’t stop you from being able to handle this. You don't just start a new conversation in the middle of another one. It's bad form and it's incorrect. Your blurb had nothing to do with forums and BBS's so including it in the heading of forums and bulletin boards is inappropriate. Do you understand now? If you can't do it right, don't do it at all. Spike 21:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pray tell what my challenges are and what affect they would have on participating in a discussion group. I am indeed new to Wikipedia. Reference Maine, please show where they say they reflect ODA. I see nothing there and if you choose to continue removing state or country pages that you don't like I will request that the site be taken back to contested status.--Azskeptic 22:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AZskeptic as I understand you have no educational or formal background in medical education or any health sciences field and especially no relation whatsoever with this college, so why are you so adamant on edited out material from current students and alumni. I would please appreciate you refraining from do that or I will ahve to report you.--Vtak 23:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited NO material. You are in violation of TOS by listing my name in your post. Please edit it immediately. You don't know my qualifications nor my role so you are working from false assumptions.--Azskeptic 00:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says it right here that they use the ODA to construct their list:

http://www.maine.gov/education/highered/Non-Accredited/non-accredited.htm

"The Maine Department of Education gratefully acknowledges assistance provided by both the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization and the State of Michigan Department of Civil Service for sharing resources related to state, national and international non-accredited institutions."

As such, it is inappropriate to put that link in the article until the question regarding the ODA has been resolved.

Regardless, the only link that would be acceptable is the one below:

http://www.maine.gov/education/highered/Non-Accredited/UnaccreditedSchools-042706.pdf

It is the official PDF from the Maine Gov. education site. Spike 15:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean that there is a consensus to link the Maine pdf? How about the Oregon list then? Leuko 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus. I am saying it can't be put up since it references the ODA which is still being debated. Spike 21:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get how people can debate the accuracy and reliability of official government sources for Wikipedia... Leuko 00:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get it by now, you never will. Just because it has a .gov ending doesn't mean it's valid or reliable. Spike 01:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see if someone without bias comes along to provide an opinion. Leuko 01:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's what we are waiting for at this time. Spike 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a request for a 3rd opinion, but if that doesn't happen within the next few days, we'll have to try another method of dispute resolution. Leuko 01:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge this had already gone to an administrative arbitration and is currently being debated. Spike 01:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No debate going on in arbitration. Still waiting for Spike to agree to arbitration. --Azskeptic 00:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, there is currently a request for mediation, not arbitration. Spike does not appear to be interested in mediation, since he has simply deleted the requests from his talk page without response. The next step in the dispute resolution process would be arbitration. Leuko 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is a waste of time. If we could work through this without admin input we would have done it by now, obviously we can't. Arbitration is what will allow a final ruling about the validity of .gov sources that use unverified and undocumented research and sources as well as all the other issues regarding this article and will allow for a final entry to be constructed. Spike 01:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed Graduates

I've removed the phrase regarding licensed graduates/residents matching via the NRMP due to lack of citations in accordance with WP:V. While it might be true, it is not verified, and that is the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. I agree 34 citations (are there that many already? Wouldn't have guessed) would be a bit much, but how about a few representative ones? Leuko 15:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize the need for citations in most cases, however this is a case of past graduates who are currently practising after being allowed by their state's licensing board... it is open information and the interested individuals can always log onto State medical boards and look for them in details... I am sorry, we don't have permission from those graduates ( at least the ones i could contact) to put their names or contacts up here, however they did state that they wouldn't mind being referred to in the manner done by me, so with regard to their privacy, we have had to do this.--Vtak 19:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I am afraid we will have to remove it, since it is in blatant violation of WP:V, since you are not willing to cite your sources. While I agree it may be true, that doesn't matter on Wikipedia. It need to be cited and verifiable. From the policy:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.
A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.
Why not? Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?
For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review. It would be checked by a reporter, an editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it might be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. These checks and balances exist to ensure that accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper.

--Leuko 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is open information and any curious individuals can go to State Boards and verify them... look at SGU and other small medical college's articles none have it... So it is not unverifiable and is being posted back on--Vtak 20:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is so open, what is the problem with citing sources? Leuko 20:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is a technical problem... u can cite the state board websites but not the searched content and to find that u need to go thru the subcategories and find the grads, if they want their names released... try it and u will see what i mean... unless the names can be released, which is not fair to them, without hindering their privacy, searches have to be made in a long enduring way.... Again, not many medical colleges here cite their sources, so why pick on SCCM? Get everyone to do it.--Vtak 21:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "picking on" SCCM. It just happened to catch my attention for the many omissions as originally written, and I am just trying to make it the most accurate article possible. I added citations to the SGU article since you mentioned it, any other schools while I am at it? Leuko 00:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vtak is correct. It isn't possible to link the information directly since it is part of a database that relies on a setup which prevents it from being linked directly. Spike 21:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it possible to append a query string to link the record of interest? Most databases are set up this way. Can you provide links to the state databases where SCCM grads have been licensed? I can probably get it to work. Leuko 00:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome to try, but it isn't possible. Each search has it's own query and the query expires shortly after the search. Spike 01:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not required that a source be accessible online to be reliable. It does, however, need to be properly cited (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). Fagstein 02:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many vs. All US States

As requested, I would like to discuss the revert User:Vtak made deleting "most states in the US," and replacing it with verbiage that implies that SCIMD grads are licensable in all US states. This is clearly not the case, and can be verified. California doesn't recognize the school (as well as other states that use California's list), and Oregon/Maine state the school is unaccredited. Kansas is a no, because of the 15-year rule, and I am not sure about Texas or Florida. I thought "most" was pretty NPOV (in comparision to "some"), and represented a fair compromise given the verified facts. The paragraph later on is misleading, since it seems to indicate that SCIMD grads can get licensed in all but two states, which is not the case. Leuko 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose the use of "most", it's a fact. Spike 01:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Since the other methods of dispute resolution have not worked so far, I've put in a request for arbitration. Please go to the page to add your statements. Leuko 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning Up The Talk Page

Should I assume that any issues not brought up in arbitration can be archived? The page is complaining that it's too long again. Spike 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, all the topics on the talk page are currently at issue in the arbitration. Best leave it alone, and not archive yet. Leuko 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't archve. Fred Bauder 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.[reply]

It would be helpful if you provided a little more information. Do you mean don't archive ever, don't archive what's currently up on the page, etc... Spike 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred means don't archive, leave it to someone else. You are clearly personally involved in this particular subject, you are displaying symptoms of WP:OWN. Your best bet is to do nothing until ArbCom has decided what to do next. Just zis Guy you know? 21:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Your best bet is to do nothing until ArbCom has decided what to do next." This is exactly what I suggest for you as well since you seem involved in this and are demonstrating some very questionable behavior regarding this article. Spike 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The weakness in your case is that I am a previously uninvolved admin coming to this from outside, whereas you are associated with the subject so should not actually be editing it at all. Just zis Guy you know? 08:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unaccredited

I have checked the UK Department of Education and GMC databases of accredited institutions, this institution is not listed. As far as the UK authorities are concerned, it is not accredited to award degrees. As such, it should not be in the categories for UK medical schools and degree-awarding institutions. It should also be tagged with {{unaccredited}}, which I have done. With this edit [1] [[User{ParalelUni]] reverted my changes. That is not acceptable. I see no evidence that anyone other than this user considers this to be anything other than an unaccredited institution. This user also removed my statement from an WP:RFAR, which is also seriously problematic. Just zis Guy you know? 21:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Spike" - accreditation is binary. If this is accredited, give details of the accrediting bodies in the UK which recognise it. Just zis Guy you know? 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How incredibly shortsighted of you. Accreditation is not binary in the contact of multiple jurisdictions and countries. It's not simple black/white. Spike 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really have to learn to look beyond the end of your nose, just because we aren't accredited in the UK doesn't mean we aren't accredited period. Also, what proof do you have we aren't accredited in the UK? I haven't seen you provide a single reference, so your entries failed to meet WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. We are accredited in Senegal and are recognized in the US by IMED. The UK is not the end all and be all of everything. Unless you can prove we aren't accredited/recognized anywhere, which is impossible, the unaccredited tag is totally inappropriate.

Regarding what categories it is listed in, it's totally appropriate. We are a branch of a medical school located in England, thus we are indeed a "Medical School in England" you can't argue that fact. That category does not specify that you have be accredited by the relevant educational body to be listed in that category, thus your argument is waste of time. Is it really appropriate for an admin to alter the content of an article that is currently in the process of being evaluated or arbitration? I wouldn't think so.

Actually, I guarantee that others users agree with me, you just don't want to believe it. You should give people time to respond to what is going on here. Just because you are an admin. Doesn’t mean that you 1) Have final say 2) Are correct.

How did you ever get to be an admin. acting like this? I suggest you recuse yourself from acting as an admin. with regard to this article since your bias and lack on understanding on this topic is very obvious. Spike 21:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, is it possible to solve some of this by adding some relevant subcategory to "Medical Schools in England" such as "Medical Schools in England without UK Accreditation"? Thanks, TheronJ 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, there would be just the one member. Check the category - does this school look likely to attain parity with Guy's or Imperial? Not in my lifetime. The more we see of "Spike"'s input the more I suspect a scam. The "recognition" in the US is not by an accreditation body, the place is not listed on the exhaustive DfES database or by the GMC. Acredited in Senegal? Welcome to it. The campus is in the UK, and the obvious intent it to claim degrees as UK medical degrees. Cynical? You betcha. Oh, and I haven't used my Super Powers here, as is obvious I think. Just zis Guy you know? 23:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just zis Guy, I read your information about putting the unaccredited template because you could not find it in the UK Department of Education. I wish I read this before, because I could have saved you the trouble of searching. This is not a UK school, it is a Senegalese school. Its accreditation is through Senegal, so the unaccredited template is not warrented.

semi-protected

I have semi-protected this article since it seems that IPs are joining in a reversion war. This block shouldn't be needed for too long. Bucketsofg✐ 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that any of the IP's were acting inappropriately though. Spike 22:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLMAO! Just zis Guy you know? 23:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but, I was accused of a bad faith revert, which would be vandalism. Consequently, I consider the semi-protection to be appropriate. Addhoc 22:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anon was clearly "Spike" anyway. I admire your attempts to compromise, but actually I don't see why there is any need to compromise when Spike is in a minority of one. The UK medical school categories should go, and {{unaccredited}} should go back into the lead. That's how we handle dozens of other unaccredited schools. Just zis Guy you know? 23:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...The Truth always comes out eventually. This school is NOT a British Medical School..it is on the GMC website that its graduates can't license in the UK. There is NO proof available online to even show it is recognized in Senegal.Azskeptic 02:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional education in the United Kingdom should be removed, it has two entries, Association of MBAs and St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine - spot the odd one out. {{unaccredited}} needs to go back in to the lead. I have included the summary from Office of Degree Authorization in the State of Oregon, which is unquestionably a reliable source (Government agency). If anyone want sot link to the lists of accredited degree awarding and medical schools in the UK (from which it is absent) then feel free. Just zis Guy you know? 08:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than raping the college, we need to make a new category...something called ongoing controversy and then post all the ODA, Maine stuff there... I understand that this should be put on there, but not on grounds of putting the college down... which is what this article is clearly doing with members off the VMD posse. If any one disagrees please state a valid reason... (it is not advertising if this stuff is on there in a separate section, which people can add to or delete from) I will say it again though, there are numerous graduates who are in residencies and numerous who are fully licensed, taking care of our pts in this every growing medical crisis in US. (For all the non-medical folks, please realize that to get thru to become licensed you need to pass 3 standardized medical board exams (USMLEs), match into American residency programs, complete 3-7 yrs of Graduate medical training at the residency programs, finish your Board exams, graduate, apply for licensure and then get your licensure...)... A lot of them have done this... so this is not a diploma mill the way it is put at ODA.... These are skilled professionals. The only reason it cannot be cited is because the databases on State Medical Licensing Boards do not record the searches and unless we want to post grads names, which is against the Wikipedia rules because of privacy we cannot do it. --Vtak 23:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a troubled school with lots of information available in things like a NJ newspaper, BBC, that reflect the questionable status of the school. It is not in the same range as a St. Regis but it is largely unproven in its current form and greatly troubled in its former form and no way to verify what is true about the new form. Senegal govt. is very difficult to confirm anything with. Azskeptic 00:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the govt is not difficult in confirming info, you need to be bilingual and speak fluent French to get through to the administration. Also, http://www.stchrisimd.com/charter.htm shows the charter and the telephone number anyone is welcomed to call up.--Vtak 02:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wants to "rape" the place, only to write a neutral article - neither hatchet job nor PR piece. Feel free to add details of the campus and anything distinctive about the place (I removed the generica about the course, since all medical degrees are similar in that regard, but left the unique information regarding where the residencies take place). Just zis Guy you know? 08:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation

The article stated that it was listed by WHO. According to the linked source [2] WHO notes that it has been informed that instruction has commenced at this institution, but there is no mention of licensing. FARMER/IMED does list it but not as a UK school, and they do not appear to know that Universite El Hadj Ibrahima Niasse is not accredited in Senegal. Just zis Guy you know? 08:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article in a NJ newspaper which has now expired but in part it said:

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1080641518255060.xml

SPC partnership with med school hastily called off

St. Christopher's diplomas said to be meaningless in N.J.

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

By Ken Thorbourne Journal staff writer

A partnership between St. Peter's College in Jersey City and an overseas medical school was killed last night, two weeks after it was announced, amid mounting concerns that its graduates would not be recognized as medical doctors by the state of New Jersey.

Touting the benefit of adding international flair to one's education, St. Peter's College officials had announced in mid-March an agreement with St. Christopher's School of Medicine in Luton, England, to train medical students in seven years.

Students would spend the first three years obtaining an undergraduate degree in biology at St. Peter's College, and the next four at the medical school to complete their doctorates in medicine, according to the agreement.

But an investigation by The Jersey Journal raised serious questions about the 4-year-old medical school's ability to keep its end of the bargain.

Asked about the medical school yesterday, an official with a national organization of college registrars and enrollment officers said he was very familiar with St. Christopher's.

"I know what it purports to be," said Dale Gough, director of international education services for the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

"They aren't really a medical school that is recognized anywhere. The embassy in Senegal said the school is in the back of a doctor's office. The U.K., I believe, has asked them to stop listing offices in England," Gough said.

And an official with the state's Board of Examiners said the medical school's graduates would likely not be accepted at any three-year medical residency program at a New Jersey hospital, a prerequisite to becoming a full-fledged doctor in this state.

xxxxxxxx

you can see the entire article that I posted on a forum in 2004 at

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=112728 St. Chris denied that the information was correct at the time but nothing was ever printed to refute it in newspapers that I can find.

Azskeptic 15:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CONFLICTING INFO

Note the article at:

http://www.aaii.info/uehin.html

It shows the school starting in 2003, not 2000.

Azskeptic 15:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made changes with referencing... if needed please call Senegal to confirm though i did put the Ministry's letter on there... okay now back to 2ndry inf prophylaxis in AIDS--Vtak 17:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More resources on St. Christophers

From the BBC, 11/6/05:[3]

A BBC investigation has revealed that the General Medical Council has been recognising some British-based medical colleges that are offering worthless degrees.

...

The GMC has announced that it has suspended its recognition of the degrees of one Luton-based college and is investigating the status of four others.

...

There are now doubts about the validity of degrees awarded by St Christopher's College of Medicine in Luton, which currently has 400 medical students.

The GMC has given recognition to the college where students can pay up to £150,000.

Senegal

Despite its UK location, the college's degree awarding powers come from Senegal in West Africa and St Christopher's claims to have received this accreditation in 2000.

In an interview with the BBC, the director of the government's department of higher education, Momar Marieme Dieng, was asked if he was aware of any government accreditation for St Christopher's from 2000.

"No, not to my knowledge" he replied, although he said the government did award accreditation to a college called St Christopher - Iba Mar Diop medical college, which did not open in Senegal until 2003.

...

While the college claims to have received accreditation in February 2000, a Senegalese government letter obtained by the BBC, and dated seven months later, stressed that St Christopher's was starting on a process which might lead towards accreditation in the future, but that accreditation was not yet effective.

The Luton college says it is mystified by the statement from the senior government official.

The head of their UK operations, Allan Bain, said "We are accredited, we are supported by the government of Senegal so I really don't know what to say over and above that".

...

As a result of these revelations the General Medical Council announced that it had suspended its recognition of degrees awarded by St Christopher's while it investigates the college's accreditation in Senegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheronJ (talk • contribs)

Update: Not only did I forget to sign, I didn't realize this piece was already in the article. My bad. TheronJ 20:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC local news programme Look East

I tried searching for the video/text for the BBC local news programme Look East which was quoted without citation and my ^{[citation needed]} was deleted. If it is on the web, is it possible to link to it? I would like to see it. Thanks. Leuko 16:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked from the college website. It's a non-trivial media mention, and it specifically men tions the (lack of) accreditation, so actually it's a good source. Just zis Guy you know? 21:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the GMC suspension, Crum attempted to post the whole story, but his version was reverted. Why? Crum accurately stated that the GMC suspended recognition of ALL private UK based institutions, and SCIMD-COM was one of them. The article, in its current form, implies that SCIMD-COM was singled out and the only school suspended, and that is false and misleading. Explaining the whole story would give readers a more accurate reflection of the events that occured. Right?

Connection to Belize

Am I relatively new to this article, but I noticed that there is a press release [4] that it has merged with the Medical University of the Americas in Belize. On the website for St. Christopher, no mention of Senegal is made nor is "Iba Mar Diop" mentioned in the name of the school. The current article seems to be based heavily on the Senegal connection, but I wonder if that (or the title of this Wikipedia article) represents the current state of affairs with this school. Andrew73 15:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think the offical website now has switched to [www.stchrisimd.com]--Vtak 16:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of confused. So is it St. Christopher College of Medicine [5] or St. Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine [6]? They both appear to be very similar. Andrew73 20:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

read the college's history on the link I provided and with that read the article as put forth here and the IMED directory link on the article. gtg... must finish 30 more questions!!!--Vtak 21:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, there's no mention of Belize! Andrew73 21:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no mention of belize because there is no connection, the letter is there as are thousands of fake documents on WWW... if needed kindly call Belize ministry of education and ask if they revoked the accreditation 4 days after giving it through MUA-Belize when they were informed of the Senegal charter and accreditation, the link to support this is placed in the arbitration section under Vtak (its a letter from minister of education in senegal on govt paper stating the validity of SCIMD formally SCCM's charter and accreditation. Also, not posted is the complete reshuffling of the NA and UK admin. --Vtak 22:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Large Amt. of Changes?!?!?!?

All the changes are referenced and took time to do, so this will be changed back in the next few hrs with more pain staking work and will be taken up with admin if a editing war ensues because the mod is being prejudice to Govt's information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vtak (talk • contribs)

Vtak, I am an admin. You are an involved party with an apparent vested interest in the content and should probably not be editing this article directly at all. All your comments have been discussed before; per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Evidence it would help your case enormously if there were any editors other than single-purpose accounts with a connection to the institution who support your changes. At this point there appear to be none. Just zis Guy you know? 15:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well these are referenced sites and as per Wiki:policy I can edit if the article is cited--Vtak 18:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as explained before i am taking an exam soon and don't have much time to do anything but this.... also, i am not the only one editing, see the history before you do anything. The user Azskeptic has been an editor with a connection to this institution as well he has edited it. I recommend if we are going to wait for the arbitration result, we let the cited information remain on there--Vtak 18:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained before you have a vested interst in the content of this article so should not be editing it directly. All edits which agree with you are from single purpose accounts. All editors who have an edit history outside of this article disagree with you. Your exhortation to review the history is curious, since it is patently obvious from the evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Evidence#Evidence presented by JzG that I have already done exactly that. Just zis Guy you know? 00:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is so very clear to the objective viewer that this not only is NOT accredited, but it provides a questionable education and degrees that may be worth nothing to the real world. I'd put this page up for deletion per it being an ad, but it is clear that this a notable diploma mill per media sources and criticial government sources. C56C 22:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diploma mill? A difficult one, you need a WP:RS for that. But you may be able to help at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. Just zis Guy you know? 22:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this tied to University of Health Sciences Antigua?

yes the school was purchased by UHS and is being moved brick by brick to antigua. WikiBS 07:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Action Against Wikipedia

I've heard that rumors that legal action is being started against wikipedia as a result of this article for the following reasons:

1- the SCIMD sheild being used on this article is a copyrighted image that they refuse to remove even at the request of the holder of the copyright hence they are in violation of copyright laws.

2- Wikipedia and the users involved in editing this page, are being added to one (if not more) of the lawsuits due to the constant slander of the students and SCIMD in attempts to hurt the current and future student body?

--> any comments from the posters on the above and the fact that letters from the lawyers for the school, copyright holder, and one of the lawsuits have been ignored repeatedly?

just curious

Azrealist 11:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, why would or should anyone care about rumors or random unsubstantiated threats from anyone on the internet? The apparent copyright status of the image is documented on the image page; anyone is welcome to comment about it there, but nobody has done so, or use any of the other mechanisms to resolve copyright concerns about media files. You should read WP:THREAT before continuing down this line of discussion. DMacks 16:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is by no means a theat against anyone. I was just curious as i had heard about the legal action being taken, and curious as to why no one else had commented about it or why nothing was done. People are quick to post the negative and not question. I also understand and see that if anyone trys to defend this school or post anything positive their accounts are removed and the conversation erased claiming vandalism or something else obscure, so i'm pretty sure this will be erased and my account and IP will be banned in typical fashion to surpress anything that doesn't conform. Azrealist 12:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for jumping at you...I think I've been reading on-line ranters too long, and completely misread your intent. DMacks 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone heard any rumors that SCIMD sued several editors, had its claims dismissed immediately, and was forced to pay damages as a result of bringing a facially unmeritorious lawsuit? If anyone has heard any such rumors, do they have any comment? TheronJ 21:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More seriously, Azrealist, I don't believe "rumors" of a lawsuit -- have you heard anything involving (1) what court the suit was filed in, (2) who was sued, and (3) what the case number was? If not, I would assume that whoever told you the rumor was probably just some disgruntled person with a connection to SCIMD, trying to discourage editors from posting here. (I'm not questioning your good faith, but I'm betting whoever told you the rumor is an SCIMD apologist . . .) TheronJ 21:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what i heard the suit or charges were being started/processed in NJ and Florida concomitantly with the other suits in progress. Sorry but i don't have anymore info than that. If i knew all the facts i wouldn't have asked about it.Azrealist 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I once heard some rumors that a poster on this talkpage did not understand anything about fair use and thought copyright meant that no one could use an image. Care to comment on that Azrealist? -M^ask 22:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love how americans commit a crime or violate some law and then hide behind or claim freedom and the right to do so as a result of one of the amendments.Azrealist 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you honestly saying that pointing out that someone did not break the law is not a valid response to accusations of breaking the law? Might want to brush up either on the legalities of the situation (Wikipedia is hosted in Florida, all it's data is in florida, ergo the only law that matters is the US national and Florida state laws) or maybe the English language, if you meant something else with your statement. -M^ask

00:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is on 145.97.39.155, which is a RIPE IP owned by Kennisnet Platform Content en Diensten in the Netherlands. The domain name is registered with publicinterestregistry.net, which is in Mumbai. Your conclusion that Wikipedia only need worry about US and Florida law is a little naive. You might want to discuss this whole matter with Felix Somm. In his case, the servers were in Ohio, but he was convicted in German courts and sentenced to prison. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not naieve at all, and it's the official posistion of the Wikimedia Foundation. Perhaps your route to the wiki goes through that IP, but according to the Wikipedia:General disclaimer:

Jurisdiction and legality of content

Publication of information found in Wikipedia may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of Florida in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law.

Try again? -M^ask

23:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Some anon IP's have been trying to nominate the article for AfD. This is a perfectly legitimate effort, though its odds for success are not high. But to nominate it for deletion you must create an entry and explain your rationale, based on WP policies. Please read WP:AFD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion and WP:DEL. Then do it the right way and follow the process if you are still sure you want to. Hint: you need to prove non notability and that's not going to be easy with all the countries, states and other organizations referring to this institution. Crum375 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for speedy deletion.

(Removed unsigned legal threats per WP:NLT ) Crum375 22:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the (now-removed) concerns appear to be covered in any of the criteria for speedy deletion. And writing about it here is completely futile...one needs to follow the standard speedy deletion process to get someting speedy-deleted, not just make legal threats on the talk page. DMacks 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST FOR SPEEDY DELETION ON THE GROUNDS THAT UNFOUNDED CLAIMS APPEARING IN THE ARTICLE SUCH AS "SCIMD-COM is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body" STAND TO HARM MEDICAL STUDENTS AND RECENT GRADUATES WHO ARE CURRENTLY APPLYING FOR RESIDENCY... SCIMD-COM IS ACCREDITED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SENEGAL THROUGH ITS MINISTRY OF EDUCATION Gabrielwerder 03:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i second the above and since stated below that it will be corrected it should be done immediately. Also in the article stating that the school "claims" recognition is completely false as it has been proven otherwise through the IMED and WHO listing. Also in the 2nd section of the article "accreditation" it clearly states that the school is accredited. so one is incorrect and needs to be fixed.

Again i would like to state that the school sheild is copyrighted and i know for a fact the copyright holder has requested it be removed, so it should be

The use of oregon as any type of authority in medical licensure quality assurance is rediculous as it is clearly stated by the director of the oregon board that their main and possibly sole reference source is an eggfarmer from arizon with no medical knowledge or expertise at all. This has been debated for years and the board as well as the eggfarmer is currently the subject of several lawsuits for making fraudulant claims. Until the courts resolve this issue this should also be removed from the article.

the following statement from the article In July of 2000, the Department of Justice of the State of Oregon issued a restraining order as well as a lawsuit against St Johns University School of Medicine of Montserrat, which claimed that transcripts issued by the school would be accredited through St. Christopher's College of Medicine (the name of SCIMD-COM at the time). According to the Oregon DOJ, "St. Christopher’s College of Medicine does not appear to be licensed or accredited by anyone."[9] is a statement again which could come under both of my above points of oregon and the unfounded claim of being unaccredited by anyone which is completely false.

The claim about NJ is also completely false as the school currently has 2 graduates who have training licences in the state and have had them for 3 years now. 1 graduate is also currently applying for permanent licensure.

If you reference most of the other schools listed in wikipedia they don't have a "media section" which obviously only has 1 negative article in it while you can easily find 10 other "media" articles on SCCM/SCIMD which are positive and i'm sure a few more that are negative. So either the section should be removed since completely inadequate or completed with the postivie articles also. Since only moderators that want to "bash" the school can edit the article i doubt anything positive will be listed.

Thanks for reading and if more clarification is required please just askAzrealist 09:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher please note that the above is a single purpose account and is restricted from editing this article. Guy 06:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the substance of the request:

An improperly worded statement in an article would be subject to immediate correction if found to be wrong; it not a rationale for deletion of the entire article
In this case, the statement you seem to refer to, in the introduction, says:
"SCIMD-COM is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions. As of April 2006 it claims recognition locally by the Ministry of Education in Senegal. ^[1]"
Note that per WP sourcing policies, the Web site of an institution is not a reliable source for contentious information about it. It is acceptable to state that the institution claims that this is so, and hence the specific WP language.
If anyone anywhere has a verifiable and reliable published source showing that some recognized accreditation body has in fact accredited this institution (or any other well sourced pertinent fact), please let us know - it will be added to the article as soon as it's validated.

Thanks, Crum375 11:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nice to see the request for deletion has gone completely ignored, not even a response from site operators (and not from biased admin members) to state that the article would not be deleted and why. Solid work at keeping this website credible. Azrealist 02:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see message above by DMacks responding to the Speedy Deletion proposal. You must supply specific valid criteria for Speedy Deletion. Crum375 18:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite obvious this page should be deleted per it being an ad. Actually, with the large amount of flaws in the article, one could reasonable argue false advertising and misrepresentation. It was noted on August 23, 2006, by user C56C, who suggested this page be deleted per it being an ad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine#Large_Amt._of_Changes.3F.21.3F.21.3F.21.3F

and over two months ago, on August 11, 2006, arbitrator Charles Matthews suggested possible misuse of enWP for promotional reasons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/St_Christopher#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.284.2F0.2F0.2F0.29 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Logic77 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: Logic77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Hmm, another SPA? When Mr. Matthews made that comment, he was referring to the article in its original form, when it did read like an ad. However, thanks to the hard work of a number of editors, the article is now contains verified facts from reliable sources. It most definitely is not an ad. Leuko 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually i don't think it matters if this page is deleted, it looks like wikipedia is constantly being discredited all over the media circut. I was listening to the news this morning and yet again more people are bashing this poorly constructed site including the founder, and how there are such a large number of articles that includ little to no facts and are "contributed" by people with no expertise in the field. This site has become a complete joke really by everyone including the founder. http://news.com.com/Growing%20pains%20for%20Wikipedia/2100-1025_3-5981119.html http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/1328/

2 seperate news stations carried the story saying that the founder of wikipedia is going to start another website with FACTUAL information and not alone just anyone to sign up and edit and add things. Way to destroy this site even furthur. This is the beginning of the end for this disaster of a site http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/53137.html

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060923-9999-lz1n23wiki.html

The links could go on and on and on.. just goole wikipedia founder new site and it does nothing but list the embarasement this place has become... LMAO

Azrealist 20:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, this is what's in your links:

An old reference to the Seigenthaler controversy which is very old news and has been re-hashed to death by now;
Wales describing why WP should not be directly used for academic work - WP (even EB) is a tertiary source - academic work needs secondary or primary sources - again, non-news and obvious
Larry Sanger and his future projects; we all wish him success in his future endeavors, but this is not WP

Bottom line: if this is the 'bad press' for WP, we are in good shape. Crum375 21:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily semi-protected article

Temporarily semi-protected article until I can sort out the issues related to the legal threats and the arbitration case rulings. Remember that people and organization are encouraged to pursue regular dispute resolution processes on Wikipedia. If legal options are chosen instead then please honor Wikipedia policy and do not continue to edit this article. Thanks, --FloNight 00:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think full protection might be better given the legal threats removed earlier. I find the idea that a Wikipedia article might be accepted as authoritative by a court of law somewhat amusing :-) Guy 08:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I went to bed before read email from Legal. Will contact office for further action ASAP. Still early here so will be at least a few hours. FloNight 08:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How nice of Wikipedia to protect this article so that this disgusting distortion of the facts can't even be edited. Hopefully they will do the right thing and just delete this article and prevent its recreation, but I highly doubt that given Wikipedia's history of bias with respect to this subject. Whatever they decide, they would be smart to do it quickly since the longer this farce continues the stronger the legal case becomes. SpikeyPsyche 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd stand a much better chance to effect results if you point to one specific item in the article that is improperly sourced, for example, and ask that we focus on it. Then repeat as necessary. I assure you that each issue you raise will get proper attention and respect. Crum375 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. SpikeyPsyche 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP is supposed to work like this. In my own experience, if you operate within these boundaries and follow the fairly basic rules, you'll be able to bring any WP article, on any subject, very close to the ideal WP:NPOV balance. If you feel this particular article is not quite there, or even far off the mark, the best way is to take it on one point at a time, as I suggested above. Crum375 21:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have indef-blocked SpikeyPsyche as a reincarnation of the banned user ParalelUni (talk · contribs), aka "Spike". See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. Guy 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senegalese recognition date

The letter copy appearing on the SCIMD Web Site is dated April 2006 and also refers back to a date of December 2005. Hence the year in the article needs to be corrected. Crum375 12:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my point above: the reproduced letter from the government on the SCIMD Web Site is dated April 3, 2006. The December 2005 date is when, according to the letter, the institution self certified. From the translation on the Web Page:

"The academic authorities of Saint Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine the Director and the Dean assures permanent control of the academic and the administration to which they have agreed upon and signed on December 13, 2005 after the General Medical Council GMC had removed all privileges."

So for accuracy sake, I think the date should be April 2006, not December 2005. Thanks (and sorry for the confusion). Crum375 12:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, my bad. I think the new wording is slightly clearer. Guy 12:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks fine to me now. BTW, not that I think it's critical, but the recognition, according to the letter, is by the 'government of Senegal', not the ministry of education, although the letter is signed by the minister of education. Crum375 13:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The date of the letter is not the date the recognition began, it is just the date the letter was written. After reviewing the content of the letter, it is clear it was written in response to the GMC suspension, and the date of the letter corresponds to the timing of the suspension. The actual government recognition of the school began in 2000.

IMED question

I have an IMED question.

IMED apparently seeks to identify "international medical schools that are recognized by the appropriate government agency in the countries where the medical schools are located."[7].
IMED lists St. Christopher as being licensed by Senegal and located in Dakar, right?[8]
The St. Christopher discussed on this page is located in Luton, England, right?

I'm confused. Is the Luton school listed in IMED, as the article currently claims, or just the Dakar school? TheronJ 14:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I can see only the Dakar address listed as the "school address". I wonder if someone who is familiar with IMED can shed more light? Crum375 17:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually asked IMED this same question. As far as they are concerned it is a Senegalese institution and therefore included on the basis of the Senegalese Government's acceptance. I think if the campus was in Senegal we would simply not be having these arguments. Guy 17:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do they mean to include only the school at the Dakar address they specify on their page under "school address", or are they saying the school can be physically located anywhere on earth? Crum375 17:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The campus in luton is a satellite campus of the main campus in senegal. Thus it is a senegalese school with a campus that operates in the UK. The luton campus is chartered through senegal and its graduates have the same recognition in senegal as anyone who graduated from the main campus in senegal. As far as i know the luton campus never claimed to be giving out UK degrees? Rather simply giving students the option to study in the UK through a senegalese school. Correct me if i'm wrong.Azrealist 20:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but that is just an opinion of an anonymous person. My question was about the official position of IMED. If you are aware of a reliable and verifiable source that could help us establish what their official position would be for a government in country X approving a school in country Y (where X and Y are on different continents, if that matters), then that would be useful. Also I would be interested to know if IMED list country X and a 'school address' specifically inside country X (only), does that cover a 'satellite school' of country X located in country Y (on a different continent), not mentioned in their listing. Crum375 21:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is what IMED say in their Web site:

"The International Medical Education Directory (IMED) provides an accurate and up-to-date resource of information about international medical schools that are recognized by the appropriate government agency in the countries where the medical schools are located. The agency responsible for this recognition in most countries is the Ministry of Health. "

(Note that the emphasis is mine.) It seems to me that the emphasized words can only mean the school must be located in the same country as the approving government. I see no allowance for 'satellite schools' outside the country, and the 'school address' in the case of this particular record is located in Dakar, Senegal. Does anyone have any other reliable information about this issue? Crum375 21:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the above point is exactly why SCIMD is being evaluated and site visited by the GMC and other accreditation organizations as we speak. I'm not sure if you're aware that this isn't an overnight process and seeing how government agencies actually deal with more than one issue this wont be resolved tomorrow or next week. SCIMD has already been visited since the ECFMG re-instatement by various organizations for inspections and are still open for buisness, so i'm guessing that they haven't found anything grossly wrong and run them out of the country.Azrealist 23:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstand my point. I am trying for the moment to take a step back from the SCIMD recognition issue and focus specifically on the IMED policy issue, per the title of this section. My self answered question was if anyone knows the official policy of ECFMG/IMED regarding their listing of schools. From their own Web page that I quoted above, it is clear to me that their policy is to only list schools inside the country of the recognizing government. This would exclude, as far as I can tell, any satellite schools whose address is in a different country (or even continent as here) from the recognizing government. The points you make, unless I am missing something, are not addressing this ECFMG/IMED policy, as stated on their Web page. This, for me seems to be a fundamental issue, independent of the SCIMD status. Crum375 00:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstand IMED... their point is that they "provide an accurate and up-to-date resource of information about international medical schools that are recognized by the appropriate government agency in the countries where the medical schools are located" - SC is located in Dakar, Senegal and they have the right to educate their students wherever they want, provided it is not in violation of local law where they choose (as it would be in the US, but is not in the UK)Gabrielwerder 15:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current language on the ECFMG/IMED site, which I quoted above is very clear and unequivocal:

"The International Medical Education Directory (IMED) provides an accurate and up-to-date resource of information about international medical schools that are recognized by the appropriate government agency in the countries where the medical schools are located. The agency responsible for this recognition in most countries is the Ministry of Health. "(emphasis added by me)

They list the schools that are recognized by their government in the countries where the medical schools are located. They list an address for the school to show where the school is located. In the case in point of IMED, the address they list is in Dakar, Senegal and the approval is by the government of Senegal. I do not see anywhere on their site an allowance for the school location to be anywhere but at the address and in the country noted. If the school moved, that record would have to be updated. If IMED intended to include a satellite location in a different country or continent, it would have to be stated explicitly, because right now the clear meaning to me is that the school is in Dakar, Senegal. Any other interpretation of this clear statement would be WP:OR. Crum375 18:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why this article places so much emphasis on the negative aspects of the college and not equal emphasis placed on the positives? Isn't it fair to make a statement in the article that the college is listed and regcognized by WHO? It's a true and factual statement, and would be misleading not to include such an important fact. Likewise, the students can take the USMLE and get ECFMG certification, but I don't see any reference to that in the article. Why? WHO and ECFMG are prerequesites to licensing in the USA, and really should be referenced in the article, in the US licensing section.

deleting edits?

just looked at the history on this page and its nice to see Crum375 deleting the contributions or discusion put in by other user (on october 4th). Nice work and way to keep the discussion going and impartial. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to work by having everyone contribute and discuss things... guess not. Azrealist 09:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about WP working "by having everyone contribute and discuss things". But there are also rules such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NLT that must be followed to allow for a productive discussion. If anyone (currently only registered users) wants to objectively and calmly discuss the article, while carefully adhering to WP's rules, they are more than welcome to do so. Crum375 13:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Senegalese recognition letter by Minister of Education

[1] Senegalese recognition letter by Minister of Education

[1]

@@ Line 324: / Line 324: @@
 I tried searching for the video/text for the BBC local news programme ''Look East'' which was quoted without citation and my {{cn}} was deleted.  If it is on the web, is it possible to link to it?  I would like to see it.  Thanks. [[User:Leuko|Leuko]] 16:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 :It's linked from the college website.  It's a non-trivial media mention, and it specifically men tions the (lack of) accreditation, so actually it's a good source. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 21:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
+Regarding the GMC suspension, Crum attempted to post the whole story, but his version was reverted. Why?  Crum accurately stated that the GMC suspended recognition of ALL private UK based institutions, and SCIMD-COM was one of them.  The article, in its current form, implies that SCIMD-COM was singled out and the only school suspended, and that is false and misleading.  Explaining the whole story would give readers a more accurate reflection of the events that occured. Right?
 == Connection to Belize ==