Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Just delete it

I say, just delete this article. St Chris is always on a rollercoaster ride: good sometimes, bad sometimes. You should be aware there are a number of licenced graduates practicing in the US. DrGladwin 19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a mechanism in WP for deleting articles, which includes a specific process and rules. Deletion, in general, would require proof of lack of notability or a problem with the article's sourcing or neutrality that cannot be repaired. Given that we have many reliable published sources referring to the article's subject, lack of notability would be very hard to prove. Lack of neutrality or proper sourcing has to first be debated on the Talk page, and as of now there is no such valid argument for either. Note that to delete an article, the bar is set fairly high - there has to consensus for the deletion. If no consensus is reached, the article stays by default. Also, votes of single-issue advocates may be discounted in such a process. Crum375 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears this article lacks neutrality that can not be repaired. The college could have suffered irreprable harm because of it. Simple research proves that the college has some obvious recognitions that are important for licensing in America and it's not even included in the article. Prime examples: ECFMG, IMED, WHO. Most states require any or all of those things to issue a graduate a license, which the college has, yet it's not listed in the article's licensing section? Why? lack of neutrality and biased POV? Those 3 things are important for medical boards but not important for wiki. go figure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.22.9 (talk • contribs) 16:01, January 9, 2007 (UTC)

All of these issues have been addressed at length here. If you'd like to make a substantive comment, please follow up on that discussion (e.g. "Item X was rejected here for reason Y but I think that's incorrect reasoning because of Z"). Thanks, Crum375 16:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, Crum375, I don't have the time, nor the vested interest in debating these issues. I was just presenting facts. After reviewing the history of this page, it appears that the Wiki admin have a biased emotional involvment in this article due to personal insults, hence the reason the article lacks neutrality.

Facts (e.g.: ECFMG, IMED, WHO) that are valid, critical and instrumental to issuing someone a medical license in america are not listed in the article. Why? Quite frankly, I only see negative propoganda in the article.

Another example, only negative media reports are in the article, while a simple google search would show the college is written about in India Daily and New Medicine magazines. They write about the college in a positive light and it was not included in this wiki article. Why? Biased and lack of neutrality.

My vote is for deletion of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.139.22.9 (talk)

Regarding deletion, please read my response to that suggestion at the top of this section. As far as the substantive issues, if you "don't have the time, nor the vested interest in debating these issues", how do you expect to effect change? That's just like saying you can live with the status quo. If you feel that change is needed, you need to invest the time and energy to achieve it. If you'd like to address these issues, I suggest doing it one at a time, with proper reference to prior discussion as I suggested above, so we don't go around in circles. Also, despite your apparent perception, there are many WP editors, hopefully most (and myself included), who are neutral in this matter. I would also suggest, if you would like to edit here, to read up on WP:5 and specifically WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, as following these rules and guidelines will get you much farther than ignoring them. Thanks, Crum375 19:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Office Protection

Proto - is it possible for you to find out the status of the office protection? Is the Office actively attending to the article? Because, it almost appears as if this article has been frozen and ignored. I can not see how purposely leaving outdated and inaccurate information in the article is a good thing, it is probably only making matters worse, article loses validity. Might as well just delete the article then.

Administrators have already weighed in here, and said (essentially) it's out of their hands, so repeatedly adding tags (regardless of how appropriate or inappropriate the specific tag might be) to get their attention just wastes everyone's time. DMacks 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, let an admin reply. 67.177.149.119 14:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am an admin, and here is the response: It is out of our hands. Only someone from the Office can unprotect the page. Prodego talk 01:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We know that removing office protection is out of the admin's hands. The question was what is the status of office protection. This article either needs to be deleted or to be updated. I've clicked 3 links referenced in the article that gives either page not found or redirect.

Talk to someone at the office (the problem is that Danny retired a few hours ago, so only Jimbo is left...). They can tell you the status. Prodego talk 20:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Prodego for this information. I have tried to email Mr. Wales but the emails get returned undeliverable. Any advice?

This is the inherent problem with WP:OFFICE, there is no way to request unprotection. I suppose you could try to contact the foundation... Prodego talk 00:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What a wonderful, efficient, and appropriate process... 67.177.149.119 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Bastique about this and another article, see User talk:Bastique#WP:OFFICE questions. --Conti|✉ 21:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

PRODEGO and CONTI, thanks for your help. I'm sure the students appreciate it.

Yes, thank you for your help with regard to this rather frustrating matter. 67.177.149.119 18:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has been done, and no response to comments left on the individuals talk page. Can anything else be done to try and get movement on this issue? 67.177.149.119 15:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And nothing will be done until I have a chance to review why it was office protected in the first place. You may continue to request changes via the talk page. Cary Bass demandez 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Image/Remove Image Link Associated With This Page

Can anyone delete the image or remove the link to the image that is listed as being the crest for the college at the top of the article? That is not the crest the school uses, it is misleading and should not be a part of this article. 67.177.149.119 15:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed from page. Cary Bass demandez 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE protection

I'm removing the OFFICE protection of this article and placing it on full administrative protection as a "step down" measure. Any changes to this article may be discussed on the talk page and any administrator may perform them. Cary Bass demandez 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for attending to this article Cary

Thank you. 67.177.149.119 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Department for Education and Skills (DfES)

SCIMD-COM is listed and recognized by DfES, under both its former and current name. See http://www.dfes.gov.uk/providersregister/search.cfm?browse=1 Click S and on page 20 and 27 you will see their listing. This information should be added to the article. Sparklingsun

'IMPORTANT: The Register does not quality assure or accredit in any way the learning provision of any registered providers. Registration does not imply quality standards and should not be used in marketing.' [1] 209.139.208.178 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Plenty of precedent for not mentioning directory entries where they might give a misleading impression of official approval. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have just been informed by DfES that the entry has been removed. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It still seems to be showing up for me, but maybe the database isn't updated yet. In any case, it should not be added due to the reasons mentioned by JzG and .178: it means absolutely nothing, and even the DfES states that it shouldn't be used for marketing (which would be its purpose on WP). Leuko 02:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The entry is present. Just click the link above, click "Search The Register" on the left hand side, under "Search By Provider Name" enter Iba Mar, click Go, and the entry will pop up. Is that really all that difficult to do? 67.177.149.119 21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I emailed them about the entries under St Christopher and they removed them, thanks for letting me know about the others, I'll let them know so they can get rid of them as well. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The SCIMD-COM entry in the DfES is there to stay, regardless of what you try to do. 67.177.149.119 17:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The SCIMD-COM listing was added and is valid. The SCCM listing was removed because it was outdated and no longer accurate. The college reorganized and was renamed to honour its founder. It also moved into larger facilities. New name and new address..hence the reason SCIMD-COM listing was added and SCCM was removed. Very Simple. This occurred several months ago.

  • Nope. I mailed them, they immediately removed it. Nothing to do with address changes, everything to do with it being bogus. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

SCIMD is listed on the DfES site and this has not changed since it was accepted for a DfES listing. 67.177.149.119 15:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important for students who need student visas to gain entry in the UK, to be informed that the college is recognized by DfES for such purposes. Admin, add this to the article: "Students of the college seeking entry into the United Kingdom by way of student visas may be eligible. The college is listed in the Register of Providers by the U.K. Department for Education and Skills for such purposes" Reference: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/providersregister/search.cfm {{edit protected}}

I agree with the above. What length of time is standard for changes to be seen as having a "consensus"? It really doesn't seem to be appropriate to go by sheer numbers since this article doesn't get much traffic. 67.177.149.119 18:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please find consensus for changes first, then use editrequested tags to request a change. There does not appear to be consensus for this change. CMummert · talk 13:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the above proposed addition. Its only purpose it to promote the school, and it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Leuko 21:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Leuko. It is important information that people need to know about the school and it's ability to obtain Visa status. 67.177.149.119 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see: 'IMPORTANT: The Register does not quality assure or accredit in any way the learning provision of any registered providers. Registration does not imply quality standards and should not be used in marketing. Since marketing would be the purpose of adding this statement, disallow per JzG. Leuko 03:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can prove that it's marketing. Prove your assertion. If you want to include that statement along with the one above, that's fine with me. 67.177.149.119 04:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can prove that it's not marketing. Prove your assertion that this is encyclopedic. Leuko 04:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Easy, it's factual data concerning the school and it's ability to obtain student visas that can be referenced by a valid external governmental source. If the material on the ODA page can be used then this certainly qualifies under the same standards. So prove to me that it is marketing. 67.177.149.119 04:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Easy, the only people that would care about the availability of student visa would be potential students. Therefore, the only purpose of adding this would be to attract potential students, and therefore it is marketing and non-encyclopedic. Leuko 04:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I believe that Visa status would be of concern for many individuals, not just potential students. Well, I guess we are at a standstill on this. We will have to wait for unbiased administrative input on the issue. 67.177.149.119 04:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

 Not done - I have clarified this with DfES, entry in their database implies and grants no status whatsoever, it is just a database. St. Christopher is in that database at the insistence of St. Christopher and only because it is listed in FAIMER, which is again only a database and implies no academic status. To describe the school as "approved" or "listed" by DfES would be false, in the former case, and misleading in the latter, and he request for addition of this link appears to be motivated solely by the desire to give an appearance of legitimacy where none exists. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oregon

Resolved

Oregon appears to have revised their summary of the college. Mainpage article needs to be revised accordingly http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html Great Britain ceased accepting its degrees, March, 2006. No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006. Price, Waterhouse has taken over the entity's records (UK/Senegal) and students who want to get information must contact PWC. The phone number is +44-771113725. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.28.180.30 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, someone needs to take care of this. Any admin's out there? They really need to remove the office protection from this page so it can be more freely updated. Office protection is only supposed to be short term according to its own page here on wikipedia, why has it now been used for months? Someone from the wikipedia offices needs to review this. 67.177.149.119 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Wiki Admin? Anyone going to update the article or remove office protection so others can update it? User:DandyWalker

Well, the article remains Office-protected probably because there is active litigation brought by SCIMD-COM over the verified information presented in the article. I do agree though that the article should include the phrase "No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006." Given the article's past history, even if the Office-protection were removed, it would still have to be semi-protected. Leuko 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It still hasn't been updated to reflect the new information on the Oregon page. 67.177.149.119 18:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It still hasn't been taken care of. Is any admin. going to do this or are they really falling down on the job? 67.177.149.119 13:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
What's the rush? I have over ten thousand articles on my watchlist. You need to add {{editprotected}} for edits to protected articles. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Er, it looks to me as if the article already says this under "United States". Guy (Help!) 10:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Guy, the article says this in an outdated and different version. If you read Oregon's current version closely, it omitted the last couple of lines referring to Medical University of America and ownership. {{editprotected}} User:DandyWalker

It still hasn't been updated. I think we need another admin. on this since this one doesn't appear to know what he is doing. 67.177.149.119 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As you well know by now, talking about doing something here doesn't get it accomplished...you've been told how to resolve disputes. And you also should know that personal attacks are counterproductive to getting yourself and your ideas taken seriously. DMacks 17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Office protection, in particular, is a very sensitive issue. Without knowing a great deal more than I currently do, I'd be uncomfortable making any changes whatsoever to the page (if I'd ever be comfortable making any), and you'd have to look very hard for any admin willing to fuss around with office protection. On the rare occassion when office protection is used, it's for issues of great importance and sensitivity. Luna Santin 19:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Editprotected request not done. As it's in the hands of WP:OFFICE, leave it until they give the all clear. We have over 1.6 million articles, so there's always something else to do until they are done. Proto::► 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The article does not accurately quote Oregon's entry for the college. Article needs correcting. Compare http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html very closely with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine#United_States User:DandyWalker {{edit protected}} {{edit protected}}

Not done. As mentioned immediately above, no changes until it is no longer with WP:OFFICE. Further editprotected requests may well be summarily deleted. Proto ► 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't an appropriate response considering that the Office status of this article can't even be reviewed since staffing changes have occurred at the Wikipedia foundation which makes the review of Office status unlikely. In addition, Office status is meant to be temporary (according to the official page on Office Protection), whereas this has been going on for quite some time, obviously in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Office status policy. 67.177.149.119 15:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The office protection appears to be removed (see below) but the article was left as fully protected and I have no immediate intention of unprotecting it. If you want to have changes made to the article, the talk page needs to show evidence of consensus for the exact new language desired. Once everyone agrees to it, then put on an editprotected tag. Editprotected tags are not used to have an admin write the article, do research, etc. Even if there is apparent consensus on the talk page, admins may still decide not to make the change until the article is unprotected. CMummert · talk 13:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I don't see where anyone asked you to remove the protection on this article. Bastique seems to have everything under control with regard to this aricle and it's level or protection and what not. 67.177.149.119 10:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

CMummert, The article inaccurately quotes the content of a government website. Does that really need to reach a consensus? The quoted website is what it is, why would anyone here need to agree on it? Doesn't it make logical sense that if the website is going to be quoted, then it should be quoted accurately? This editprotected request is merely to correct quoted content, or delete it. Thank you.

I agree with the above. 67.177.149.119 18:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC) — 67.177.149.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thanks 67, for agreeing. It only seems logical. Correct me if I'm wrong please, but no one has really disagreed with the above, right? It seems to me that the entire Oregon discussion has been centered around making the changes after Office Protection has been removed, right? Realitymed 20:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC) — Realitymed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Actually, at the time that the the website was quoted (the date used in the reference), that is what it said. There is still mention of Belize being a SC campus, so I don't think this issue is resolved yet. Leuko 21:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What it said then really doesn't matter, the page still exists and has changed. The article needs to be updated to reflect what it says now. 67.177.149.119 03:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have update the Oregon section to the current text as of today, which differs in minor detail only, and updated the URL following redesign of the Oregon site. No reservations are currently expressed regarding accuracy of data, so one must presume that Oregon have resolved that issue and it did not materially affect this record. I also removed the last (uncited) para since no authority has been provided for this despite several exchanges. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Proposed changes

Oregon

Resolved

3. The entire first paragraph of the "United States" section either needs to be removed or rewritten as the information quoted is no longer an accurate reflection of the website it references and quotes.

Disagree: At the time the source was quoted, (which is specified by the date in the reference) that's what it said. Currently, SCIMD is listed as having a Belize campus, so I am not sure if anything has changed here. Leuko 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it used to say, the paragraph needs to be rewritten to reflect what it says now or it should be removed since the information is inaccurate, misleading, and not representative of what the State of Oregon currently lists. 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. At this time, the citation (ref 8, osac website) places St. Christopher's in its "list of unaccredited degree suppliers", with a location of "Senegal, UK, Belize" and a commentary of "Great Britain ceased accepting its degrees, March, 2006. No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006. Price, Waterhouse has taken over the entity's records (UK/Senegal) and students who want to get information must contact PWC. The phone number is +44-771113725." Nothing about any dispute, so maybe it's been resolved to the satisfaction of Oregon that the school is not accredited and doesn't even exist as a real entity as such? DMacks 23:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How about a compromise? It looks like the information of being announced as a branch campus of MUA-Belize is accurate, since the page still lists Belize as a location for SCIMD. And instead of currently, how about "the ownership of the school was previously disputed." This seems to be the most accurate. Leuko 23:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This would have to be acceptable as long as you can provide a second reference to an archived sourse that contains the phrasing that is currently used in this article. 67.177.149.119 02:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, web.archive.org stopped archiving the page before the current reference date, but here are a couple of archived references: [2], and [3]. The first is interesting as it says: "***Suspended by the British medical licensing authority, November 2005.*** ***Senegal denies its degree-granting authority*** ODA has no evidence that this is an accredited or otherwise acceptable provider of postsecondary education meeting Oregon standards. Note: "St Christopher's Medical school (aka) St Christopher's Medical College based in Luton is not recognised by the UK authorities as a degree course provider nor does it satisfy the criteria for degree awarding..." UK Higher Education Governance office, 2004." Leuko 04:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you can't provide a reference for what you want to include it is obviously non-verifiable then. If you wish to include those past pages as part of the references then I require that the phrasing at the top of the page you refernced also be included so that people can determine the veracity of the information for themselves:

"PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE HAVE BECOME AWARE OF SOME QUESTIONS AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATABASE.

UNTIL THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED, PLEASE DO NOT RELY SOLELY ON THIS RESOURCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT AN INSTITUTION IS PROPERLY ACCREDITED."

Reference: http://web.archive.org/web/20060101083531/http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html

67.177.149.119 04:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, we have confirmation from Texas and the UK. Leuko 04:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any pages listed or referenced here that rebut the warning on the top of the Oregon page. If you want to include other information on those pages then including this warning about the accuracy of the information is appropriate. People should be away that the information being used in this article may be inaccurate according to the ODA itself. 67.177.149.119 04:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that was only that version of the page. And the fact that the school is on at least two other lists stating the the degree is invalid/illegal to use seems to indicate that the warning did not apply to that listing. The current version of the pages does not have that notice, and states "No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006." Leuko 04:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually that warning was part of that page for quite some time and you lack the authority to say which entries that warning applies to and which they don't. Since the warning doesn't say that it excludes certain entries it has to be applied to all of them. As I said above, if you want to include information from those archive pages then that warning should also be included since it is a verifiable and valid part of that webpage. If you say one part is valid and verifiable you can't say another part of the same page isn't, the entire page either is or isn't valid and verifiable. 67.177.149.119 04:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As the notice says : "Do Not Rely SOLELY"... With at least 3 different sources saying the same thing, we can be pretty sure it is accurate. In any case, we can use the current language on the page which states "No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006," meaning that the existence of the school can not be verified and any degrees are fraudulent. Leuko 05:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you will notice that they do not say the same thing. I will agree with any information being included that has a valid current reference, meaning that any information that cannot be supplied with a current, valid reference must be removed as non-verifiable. I also stipulate that any information that appears on this page: [4] must also include the warning that occurs at the top of the page to warn individuals about the potential inaccuracy of the material contained on that page. Also, if any material is included from this page [5] must also include the phrase "Not a diploma mill" that occurs at the beginning of the information on the school. BritishDad 05:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • References updated. No significant change to content, minor changes to wording, as noted below. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Category Listing

9. The article needs to be removed from the "Unaccredited Institutions of Higher Learning" Category since no references have been made which demonstrate that this article discusses an "Unaccredited Institution of Higher Learning". Furthermore, references contained in the article actually demonstrate that it is accredited in Senegal, such as reference 2 (IMED), which only lists accredited institutions of medical education. Also, the last sentence links to an official document from the government of Senegal which shows that the school is recognized. Therefore the entire second paragraph at the begining of the article is inappropriate and contradictory.

 Not done. No evidence has been presented that this school is accredited, and plenty of evidence has been presented to the contrary. The target market is clearly British and US students, and it is not accredited in either country. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

DfES

Resolved

10. As mentioned above, this should be included in the article:

Students of the college seeking entry into the United Kingdom by way of student visas are eligible through the DfES. The college is listed in the Register of Providers by the U.K. Department for Education and Skills for such purposes

Reference: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/providersregister/search.cfm

You have to use the search engine and search for Iba Mar Diop, with the way the database is constructed it's impossible to link to the schools entry directly. 67.177.149.119 19:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree as per above. 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As per above what? 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


I second the motion that edits 1 - 10 as noted above should be made in the article. Thanks in advance for your cooperation Wikiadmin. Realitymed 20:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC) — Realitymed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree with changes 1-10 needed to be made above. Thanks.Nhmd 02:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC) — Nhmd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Not done. DfES database listing implies and confers no academic legitimacy. Inclusion seems designed to imply that the institution has some legitimacy in the UK, but sources all agree that its degrees have no legitimacy in the UK, and including the DfES listing (which is in any case there only because of FAIMER and at the request of the college management) would serve mainly to obscure this. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Year of Establishment

Resolved

1. In the info box on the right hand side under "Established" it says "2000/2006". The "2006" part should be removed since the reference link that was used to justify its addition is no longer valid.

Disagree per this source. Leuko 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This just appears to be some random site. Why should this site be considered a valid reference? For all we know this is some personal website. 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Umm, maybe because it says: "Copyright © 2007 St. Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. All rights reserved." Seems to be the official homepage of the school. Leuko 22:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, my WP:AGF is dangling by a buckytube here. DMacks 22:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, so you believe it is, but you have no proof that this isn't just some personal page that someone with no link to the school made? If I'm not mistaken Wikipedia requires a higher standard of proof for references/sources than "Seems to be". If you can prove, with factual information that can be verified by others, that the site you linked is indeed the website for the school then I have no problem with it. This is a basic level of verification, I don't think it's too much to ask. Since you seem to believe in the copyright statement, you best route would be to prove that it is a registered copyright with the school.67.177.149.119 02:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is also easily verifiable if you take two seconds. It appears as if the Whois data for the domain name is registered to the school, with its address matching the address for the US headquarters: [6]. Please stop wasting our time with these disruptive edits. Leuko 03:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See, it wasn't that hard at all to prove what you were trying to assert. Also, you really need to stop saying edits are disruptive when they clearly aren't. You are acting in bad faith. 67.177.149.119 03:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  •  Not done. Not clear what the problem is, no reason to change. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

Resolved

2. The second paragraph of the article should be deleted in it's entirety since there are no references for the statements made and the one reference provided for the last sentence is no longer valid.

Disagree: Reference is now here, and there has been no evidence presented toward the contrary. Leuko 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Same as above, why should the site that is provided as a new reference be considered valid? It could just be someones personal page. 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
See above. 22:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See above as well. 67.177.149.119 02:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Domain name changed in link. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Texas

Resolved

4. This line:

"The State of Texas has similarly placed SCCM on their list of "Substandard or Fraudulent Institutions" and notes that attempting to use the degree to obtain a medical license is a Class B Misdemeanor.[14]"

located in the 3rd paragraph of the United States section needs to be removed as the link that it quotes and references is no longer valid.

Disagree: Possibly a temporary server hiccup. Luckily google cache still has a copy: [7] Leuko 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

But if the material was removed from the website should a cached copy of old material still be considered to be the stance that is endorsed by the state of TX? Unless the state issues a statement saying that they still endorse this material it should be removed from the article. 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, just because somebody isn't still publishing something on his own dime doesn't mean it wasn't said or that it is clearly no-longer-true. There's no evidence that the information was removed because it was woefully out-of-date, incorrect, or superceded by some other statement that contradicts [whatever specific part we're interested in using for this cite], so it's still the "last statement by [whomever] about [whatever]". But let's moot this whole issue: the webpage appears to have been simply relocated to here. DMacks 22:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Endorse updating the reference to the new webaddress per DMacks. Leuko 22:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't argue. 67.177.149.119 02:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Reference updated. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

New Jersey

Resolved

5. This line:

"The Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners in New Jersey has stated graduates of the school "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" because New Jersey law requires that students spend the first two years of their medical education studying in the location where the school is chartered.[15]"

located in the 3rd paragraph of the United States section needs to be removed as the link that it quotes and references is no longer valid.

Disagree: The quoted source is a newspaper. Go look up the hard copy if you want. Just because the online version is no longer accessible without paying a fee, doesn't mean it is no longer valid. Leuko 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to demonstrate that a hard copy exists. Unless it can be proven to exist in another format that is available offline it should be removed from the page. 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You're kidding right? Prove that a newspaper exists? This is getting ridiculous and bordering on disruptive edits. Leuko 22:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Leuko. A cite has been provided that (at the time it was available electronically) supported the statement. A cite has been provided in one format that is likely to exist in another, and anyone who really wanted to read it is free to go find it. You know the name of the paper..."can be verified by anyone" doesn't mean "Editor A will actually do the legwork to get the original copy of the document for Editor B." Seems like you're just pushing the goalpost here...why accept proof that the newspaper "does" exist and not require that the actual article be scanned in? And notarized and digitally signed so that you know it wasn't just something created in photoshop. Assuming you trust that the notary seal wasn't PS'ed too? Do we need to CheckUser these SPA vs someone banned from this article by ArbCom? DMacks 22:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. I'm not saying prove that the newspaper exists, prove that the article exists in another format that is available offline. If there are no online copies and you can't prove that it exists in any offline capacity then it's nonverifiable. It seems that you are being the disruptive editor by not assuming good faith. I'm simply asking for verification that this article exists somewhere in some capacity, if it can't be proven then it's unverifiable. What good is an article in an "encyclopedia" if people can claim something as a reference but there is literally no proof thus far that it even exists. There are plenty of methods to demonstrate that it exists in an offline capacity without actually scanning the article in, but it's not my job to prove it for you. If you want to prove it exists then do it. 67.177.149.119 03:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

But there are still online copies available. You just have to pay $2.95 to view the article now. - 12.158.190.38 03:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to WP:AGF with evidence to the contrary. In any case, the article is easily verifiable. Search for the article's title here. You can verify that the article is in the newspaper's archive database. If you wish to read the article, you must pay $2.95. I will not pay that for you. Leuko 03:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See, it wasn't that hard to verify after all, was it? 67.177.149.119 03:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Jersey Journal is correctly cited to issue and page, login required to see the content but citation is, and always was, adequate. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Media Coverage

Resolved

6. The entire section titled "Media Coverage" need to be removed as the link it referneces is no longer valid.

Disagree: Again, just because the online version linked out of convience is no longer available, doesn't mean that it wasn't said on a real news show. You may get the tape from the BBC archives if you want. Leuko 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, feel free to demonstrate that a hard copy exists. Unless it can be proven to exist in another format that is available offline it should be removed from the page. 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, just because a TV episode is not currently online doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Feel free to contact the BBC for a transcript/video tape if you are not convinced the information is valid. Leuko 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See my response in item 5 for my response to this. 67.177.149.119 03:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you disbelieve the quote, feel free to request the transcript from the BBC. Leuko 03:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Link was provided 67.177.149.119 03:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I removed the broken link and cited it back to the original source, BBC Look East of Feb. 2003. Having checked the file before editing the section originally, I have no reason to believe it is fake, but as noted, it has been removed from the site. This issue is resolved. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Resolved

7. The section "External Links" need to be removed as the link it references is no longer valid.

Disagree: Looks like it has changed to [8]. Leuko 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, why should this site be considered a valid replacement reference? This could just be someones personal site for all any of us knows. 67.177.149.119 22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, the whole "Copyright © 2007 St. Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. All rights reserved." seems to kind of refute that theory. Leuko 22:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See the first item on this list for my response. 67.177.149.119 03:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And mine. Leuko 03:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's acceptable. 67.177.149.119 03:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Link updated. "Acceptable" indeed. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Resolved

8. In the references section, references 1, 3, 14, 15, and 17 need to be removed as they are no longer valid external links.

Information does not need to be removed simply because a link has changed or gone inactive. That's why the citations state when they were accessed. Someone could go through and replace them with links to archive.org, though. - 12.158.190.38 19:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
That really doesn't make any sense. Information included in Wikipedia articles has to be verifiable, if it can't be verified it shouldn't be included. If someone wants to dig around and include archive links, more power to them, but unless someone wants to do that it should just be removed. 67.177.149.119 19:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead" - 12.158.190.38 19:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
However, you'll notice that the link you provided only talks about the reference links placement in the reference section, not about it's place or content within the article. If people want to retain the link in the reference section, that's fine, but the material it cites should be removed from the article since it is not verifiable, which is mentioned right on the edit page itself "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". 67.177.149.119 20:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
That seems like a pretty inconsistent reading of that...why should a citation be kept but not any information that it supports? DMacks 21:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the link says to keep references that are dead in the references section. I assume it's meant so that they can be replaced at a later date if a valid archive is found. But the rules regarding actual article content are very clear, material contained in the body of the article must be verifiable and the material I listed above cannot be verified with the references provided. 67.177.149.119 22:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
At the time they were referenced they could be verified, hence the date accessed in the references. Leuko 22:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't. Someone could have easily said they were able to be accessed at that time when they never were. The fact that someone listed that they could be accessed really means nothing. They can't be access now so they are unverifiable. 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: I've provided updated links. Leuko 22:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See my disagreement with the links and information provided by Leuko. 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See my disagreement with his assertions above. I will drop my objection to reference #14 as long as the reference is updated to point to the new location of the page. 67.177.149.119 03:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I drop my objections to 1, 3, and 15. That only leaves 17. 67.177.149.119 03:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[9] Try this... following the pattern of the other URL changes... Leuko 03:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me. 67.177.149.119 03:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


I second the motion that edits 1 - 10 as noted above should be made in the article. Thanks in advance for your cooperation Wikiadmin. Realitymed 20:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC) — Realitymed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree with changes 1-10 needed to be made above. Thanks.Nhmd 02:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC) — Nhmd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


{{edit protected}}

For the admin. that takes care of this "Edit Protected" request, please look for the updated links in the discussion above and update as necessary. 67.177.149.119 03:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


  • Links fixed to new domain. Other issues already addressed above. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Will this page be unprotected? It's been protected since 27 September 2006. Arbustoo 04:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently with good reason. Within hours of the page being taken off WP:OFFICE status an army of meatpuppets arrived intent on whitewashing the article of cited facts. I am sure if the article is unprotected edit wars would ensue. Leuko 05:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd ask. Arbustoo 02:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess we could try to downgrade to semi-protection instead of full protection, but I don't know what everyone else thinks... Leuko 21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Semi-protection

Making semi-protected for now. Please let me know if problems occur and require full protection again. FloNight 20:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope not, Leuko 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom' Subsection

The second sentence and third sentences should read:

This restricts graduates of SCIMD-COM from registration as licensed physicians and from taking the Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board (PLAB) examination. Currently, the suspension is still in force.

Unless I can't read, this is already what it says. Leuko 23:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Check again, there is a very slight grammar change. 67.177.149.119 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done You are correct - tense changed. Leuko 00:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Programmes

This section should really be titled "Programs" as American English is the style, grammar, and spelling used throughout the page.

The first paragraph in this section should read:

SCIMD-COM offers two English-language curricula: a four-year curriculum for students who have previously completed all pre-medical requirements and a six-year curriculum for students that have not. There is also a five-year curriculum that is conducted in French at the main medical campus in Dakar, Senegal.

 Done Leuko 23:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Since this has been resolved, the talk page is becoming long, and there are newer items to attend to...can we archive this now? Buzybeez 13:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


External Links

Please change the text from Official College Website to Unofficial College Website or Information College Website as the site that is linked is owned by Mr. Firoz Shaikh and he is no longer employed by SCIMD-COM as noted in the article and on the webpage itself and thus is no longer official. Thanks. 67.177.149.119 21:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the Whois, the domain now belongs to Dr. Sow, who claims to be the new administrator, and is registered to the new Atlanta address noted in the references cited about the firing of Mr. Shaikh. Leuko 23:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, must have gotten a cached version of the last page. 67.177.149.119 00:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Since this has been resolved, the talk page is becoming long, and there are newer items to attend to...can we archive this now? Buzybeez 13:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

2000/2006

Resolved

As stated in IMED, the college began instruction in 2000. IMED is an authoritative body, so their information should be accurately copied onto the article. 2006 should be removed. Buzybeez 19:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC) — Buzybeez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

St. Christopher's College of Medicine started instruction in 2000, but it was re-organized into SCIMD in 2006 due to ownership change. Please see the talk page archives for consensus on including 2006. Leuko 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Buzybeez ThePackLeader 06:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC) — ThePackLeader (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thanks for directing me to the archives, Leuko. I reviewed them. Even though Wikipedians came to a consensus about the 2006 reoganization, Wikipedians don't have the authority to override official information posted on IMED. IMED clearly states the year instruction began was in 2000 and this article does not accurately reflect the webpage(IMED) it is sourcing. Buzybeez 14:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The 2000/2006 is a more accurate representation of the circumstances of SCIMD's history than 2000 alone...I think it should stay that way. Andrew73 16:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, 2000/2006 is more accurate and should remain. This statement is sourced from the college's own website. Leuko 00:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. If you guys agree as did those in the archives, that's fine by me. Buzybeez 13:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this has been resolved, the talk page is becoming long, and there are newer items to attend to...can we archive this now? Buzybeez 13:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The first paragraphs need some rephrasing, the way it is currently phrased is somewhat misleading. In order to be more accurate it should read something like:

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (SCIMD-COM) is a branch campus of the medical college Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD) located in Luton, England (30 miles north of London). The main medical college and it's branch campus operate under the umbrella of the Universite El Hadj Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal. The branch campus operated under the name St. Christopher's College of Medicine from 2000-2006. Degrees are current issued under the authority of the parent university through SCIMD-COM.

SCIMD-COM is not accredited by any recognized body of medical accreditation. 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.

I seems more clear to me the way it is written now. Leuko 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, it is much more clear in the phrasing above. 67.177.149.119 00:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, since we disagree, we'll wait for a consensus to develop with the input of other editors. Leuko 01:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[unindenting due to long quotes] For my own sanity at least, here are markups for the substantive requested changes (removed text added text):

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (SCIMD-COM) is a medical college branch campus of the medical college Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD) located in Luton, England (30 miles north of London). The college is a satellite campus main medical college and its branch campus operate under the umbrella of the Universite El Hadj Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal. Two medical colleges exist under the umbrella of parent university UEIN: Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD) in Dakar and SCIMD-COM in Luton. The college branch campus operated under the name St. Christopher's College of Medicine from 2000-2006. Degrees are now currently issued from under the authority of the parent University under the name of through SCIMD-COM.

SCIMD-COM is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body body of medical accreditation. 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: major change regarding relationship of SCIMD-COM, EM-SCIMD, and UEIN. The new wording is certainly clear (SCIMD-COM is branch of EM-SCIMD, which are under UEIN) but that's a change from previous meaning (SCIMD-COM and EM-SCIMD are under UEIN). Is SCIMD-COM really just a fragment of EM-SCIMD, or is it something on its own too? If there's a three-level chain here, then the phrase "the parent University" (regarding degree issuance) will need to be clarified. DMacks 05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, SCIMD-COM is a branch campus of EM-SCIMD, it is a three level relationship between the three entities. I don't understand what about UEIN being the parent university isn't clear. It's like any other University that multiple colleges within it (the medical college with its branch campus is not the only college under the University). 67.177.149.119 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ¶1: now currently. I don't like either. This part of the article isn't just talking about what's happening at the present time, but also in historical context or something of a timeline of change. "Now", moerso than "currently" at least suggests that there was a difference vs "then". Can we be more precise though? If it was one way 2000–2006 and now it's the current way, how about "Since 2006" (or 2007, whichever is correct). DMacks 05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
"Now" is fine with me, it is more clear than "currently" 67.177.149.119 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ¶1: from under the authority of the parent University under the name of through: need clarification. Who actually issues them on whose behalf (delegated authority vs customized drop-shipment). DMacks 05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The authority to issue degrees is that of the University, and that authority is exercised through the college. It's not different than the setup at an American university (University of Whatever through the College of Whatever issues a Doctorate of Whatever) 67.177.149.119 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ¶2: accreditation body body of medical accreditation. I oppose. Not sure what a "body of medical accreditation" is, but we're talking about the school, its recognition as a medical school, and other academic accredidation issues at least, not purely recognition of something related medicine itself. New wording is too limited, old wording more inclusive and correct for this article. DMacks 05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That's fine with me. 67.177.149.119 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence should read "In April 2006 it reaffirmed recognition by the Ministry of Education in Senegal." The word "locally" should not be there, because the letter clearly states it recognizes the Dakar AND Luton campuses.

Any objections to the above? Buzybeez 14:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the intent of "locally" is the scope of where that recognition is meaningful (Senegalese recognition), not the scope of what is recognized. But I agree that the word "locally" doesn't add much to this meaning either ("recognition is always restricted to where that recognition applies" is obvious). DMacks 14:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Accreditation and licensing issues

The first part of the first paragraph for this section should be removed since it's redundant; I think it should go something like this:

The branch campus, the main medical college, nor their parent university are listed in the UNESCO database of accredited institutions. It is currently listed in the FAIMER/IMED database of medical schools based on its recognition by the Senegalese Ministry of Education. The main medical college was also included in the 2002 update to the final edition of the World Directory of Medical Schools published by the World Health Organization.

Reference for the last sentence: http://scimd.com/files/wdms_updates.PDF

Is there a source for the World Directory of Medical Schools that is not hosted on the school's website? Just for WP:V/WP:RS and all... Leuko 23:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Check the properties of the PDF, it was created and signed by the WHO, edits are prohibited by the file, and the checksum is valid. Other items from the school website are accepted and included under WP:V/WP:RS so that shouldn't be an issue. 67.177.149.119 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but since this is an official government publication, (and not a recording of a TV show not otherwise available), I think we should attempt to obtain the original source. The other problem is that it lists St. Christopher's College of Medicine, which is now defunct, and not SCIMD or UEIN, etc. Leuko 00:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it doesn't exist on the WHO site anymore as they have completely revamped that section of the site. It is however available in hard copy at any institution that has a copy of this book that received the subsequent update as well as on hard copy at the WHO itself, that should certainly meet WP:V/WP:RS. If this is the best available source, given what I have said above about the properties of the file and it's availability in hard copy, it should be included. In reference to the use of the website, it is used to provide verification by PDF of the local approval in Senegal of the college and that is a government document. If it meets WP:V/WP:RS for one government document that cannot be found elsewhere it is certainly good enough for any other. 67.177.149.119 01:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it lists a defunct school that no longer exists, so really its inclusion is pretty superfluous. Leuko 01:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because it is discussing SCCM in Dakar, Senegal which has existed continuously since 2000, not the luton branch campus. If information concerning SCCM is considered "pretty superfluous" then several items and references from the article need to be removed since they only discuss SCCM and not SCIMD or UEIN and are of less note than the WDMS entry. If those are going to be included in this article then this needs to be included as well. 67.177.149.119 03:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I take it since there has been no more discussion on this that the requested edits will be included? 67.177.149.119 01:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there is no consensus to include this edit. Leuko 23:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I found a document that demonstrates the SCIMD listing by the WHO on the WHO site, now there should be no trouble with including the above text:

[10]

"Is there a source for the World Directory of Medical Schools that is not hosted on the school's website? Just for WP:V/WP:RS and all... Leuko 23:56, 27 June 2007"
Since the WP:V/WP:RS was provided, I included it in the article per consensus reached in this discussion. thanks. Buzybeez 13:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

United States Subsection

The last sentence should read:

Graduates are also not eligible to be licensed in the state of Kansas as state regulations require medical schools to be in operation for a minimum of 15 years.

 Done Minor grammatical change. Leuko 23:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't mark things as done when they are not. If you disagree with the change discuss it but don't say it is done when it's not. I think the grammar above it more clear than the current phrasing that is used. The current phrasing is awkward and uses an inappropriate comma that breaks the flow of the sentence. 67.177.149.119 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the page's history, you'll see I did make the change, I just missed two words. My apologies. Please WP:AGF. Leuko 00:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The sentence breaking comma is still there regardless of reloading the page. 67.177.149.119 00:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the comma is gramatically ok, makes sense with a pause. Leuko 01:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, I guess we will have to get more input to come to a decision 67.177.149.119 03:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Insertion of "the state of" for Kansas: let's be consistent about this usage in the whole US section. How about wikilinking each state-name and add an intro sentence like "Different states have specific rules for accepting or recognizing medical degrees". That way the extra "state of" wording is never needed (I think it's wordy, and not needed regardless). DMacks 05:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The comma is allowable but not needed. I'd say remove it. However, "because" might be a better choice for the conjunction word. We're really talking cause-and-effect here, don't want to give any hint of an implied "ever since" (the state regs did not change and suddenly render the degrees unrecognized). DMacks 06:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please demonstrate with a restructured sentence how you would write it? 67.177.149.119 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like this issue has been resolved. Can we archive it now? Buzybeez 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

New Jersey

This statement, since taken out of context, is factually incorrect.

The Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners in New Jersey has stated graduates of the school "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"

A doctor does not need to do a 3 year residency in NJ to be a full-fledged licensed doctor in NJ. The doctor just has to complete an approved residency program anywhere in the U.S. That's the problem with taken random statements out of context. Buzybeez 17:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually can't find the source of that above statement. But I agree with Buzybeez that you definitely don't need to do your residency in NJ in order to be licensed to practice medicine in NJ. Andrew73 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
A quick google search for the quote finds a copy of what seems like the same article here. The quote (actually, looks like a summary statement, not a quote) we're talking about could be in the literal and more limitted situation of becoming a doctor via this state's residency system (vs. being a doctor, having gone through residency in some other state), and therefore the "a prerequisite…" clause is not needed and only adds confusion. However, other statements in the article suggest that perhaps the state would not recognize a doctor who had gone through residency in another state either (a separate non-acceptance issue from being accepted into NJ residency). DMacks 19:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Without seeing the NJ laws firsthand, I don'think NJ's requirements are as strongly worded as the California situation which explicitly lists the medical schools that it recognizes. On the other hand, I imagine that there is a sizable proportion of people who practice in NJ who have not done their residency in NJ, making Wikipedia's discussion about NJ sort of inaccurate. Andrew73 19:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the full article DMacks, now it makes more sense. That information was the journalist's summary of what someone told him. Is second/third hand info allowed in wiki articles? Also, the way it is written implies it was a direct quote, which now we know is not the case. In my opinion that quote/statement should be removed. Buzybeez 19:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

the Wiki article states, "The Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners" but the newspaper sourced states "And an official with the state's Board of Examiners" slight difference, but should be edited for accuracy. Buzybeez 14:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the NJ section to improve accuracy by splitting the two separate quotes with attribution to the correct parties. Leuko 22:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I've clarified the statement about NJ residency. While it's likely true that SCIMD graduates may not match in a residency in NJ, the rest of the statement implies that you need to specifically graduate from a NJ residency in order to practice medicine in NJ. This is not accurate. Andrew73 00:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was directly quoted from a WP:RS, and the threshold for inclusion in WP is verifiability, not truth, I guess the article is more accurate this way. Leuko 04:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose that this NJ newspaper report not be included in the article because, #1, we already found one factually incorrect statement made and can not be sure that the article does not contain more incorrect information and is just sensationalized journalism. #2 the source we are using was what someone copied and pasted onto a chat room forum and therefore its authenticity is not 100% certain. Buzybeez 18:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The newspaper is a reliable source and must be included. As for authenticity, I have purchased the article from the newspaper's archives for $2.95 and verified its authenticity. If you have any doubts, you are free to do the same. Leuko 18:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like this issue has been resolved. Can we archive it now? Buzybeez 14:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Recognition

I have removed this section, as there is no WP:RS for it. The school's website stating that it is recognized can not be a WP:RS because of the inherent conflict of interest. We need independent references for this information. Leuko 18:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Leuko, regarding the charter- the fact that the college has been listed in IMED since 2000 confirms the charted existed since 2000. A college can not be listed in IMED until it has gone through extensive review and until the chartering government supplies the proper documents to IMED. That is the basis for IMED/FAIMER. Regarding WHO listing, that can easily be confirmed as it is listed. Buzybeez 18:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Acutally, the Senegal campus has been listed in IMED. There is no mention of the Luton campus in the UK section of the site, nor is it listed as an official college address on the Senegal page. And IMED/FAIMER does not require any sort of review, so a listing does not speak to the inherent quality of a school, rather it just says that the school has a charter to operate in the country of charter. Leuko 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, having the IMED listing confirms the charter. Hence the reason for adding a recognition section to the article so it could be mentioned. I copied the information directly from http://www.stchris.edu/charter.htm which confirms the charter/IMED listing. I figured it was acceptable to copy that information since other information has been copied off the website also (U.S. offices moving, 2006 letter, etc.). Not sure what the problem is in mentioning the charter in the article? Buzybeez 18:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The reaffirmation of the charter is already mentioned in the article, with the school's site being cited. Leuko 18:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Where? I mentioned the reaffirmation and you reverted it, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine&diff=144831841&oldid=144831115
even though it was agreed upon here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine#Introduction
Also, it may sound like splitting hairs, but if we are going to mention when it was re-affirmed, wouldn't it also be nice to mention it was first affirmed? Just makes more logical sense? Buzybeez 18:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, some text on the school's website as to the status of it's charter is not really WP:RS and is kind of contrary to WP:V, but in the sense of WP:NPOV, I've added the original charter date, as well as removed the word "locally" per the consensus above. Leuko 19:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Leuko Buzybeez 19:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like this issue has been resolved, can we archive it now? Buzybeez 14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)



The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Inappropriate Archiving

I ask that an admin. undo the archiving that was done by User:Leuko. User:Leuko archived material that was actively commented on less than 48 hours ago and contains recent and relevant information with regard to this talk page and this article. It was my understanding that material should only be archived after it has been inactive for quite some time. Please review this action for inappropriate use of the archiving function. 67.177.149.119 04:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is getting huge. I archived the WP:OFFICE threads since office-protection was removed and there should be no need to discuss it further, hence it is inactive. Leuko 04:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any notices on the edit page concerning the size of the article, which is usually a good indicator that the page needs to be archived. I asked an admin. to look into this. 67.177.149.119 04:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's showing up on mine. Did you feel that these topics legitimately needed to be discussed further, or are you just trying to be difficult? Leuko 04:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering how recently some entries were made to those topics of discussion, particularly notes of administrative actions taken by wikiadmins regarding the main article, how can anyone be sure after less than 48 hours that the community at large will have nothing more to say? It really doesn't seem like a sufficient amount of time to assure that the community has spoken it's mind. I believe any materiral that has been commented on in 2007 should be on the talk page. Under your own definitions what you did would be considered vandalism, which I believe you have accused others of even when they were attempting to archive materials that was many months old. If I wasn't WP:AGF I would almost think you were applying a very obvious and disturbing double standard, one for yourself and another for the community at large. 67.177.149.119 04:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I can be sure because it was a request for an action which was completed. What more can one say? I did not delete it, it is easily readable from a readily accessible link at the top of the page. In the past I have disagreed with wholesale archiving of relevant threads of the talk page when User:ParalelUni's case was in front of the ArbCom. Since that is not the case here, I really don't see a double standard. What I do see is someone purporting WP:AGF, but their first action is to report the user to admins - that appears to be a double standard to me. Leuko 05:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you would assume that just because an action was taken that comments from the community are concluded. It's easy to see from this talk page and its history alone that action or inaction doesn't usually mean the end of discussion in any circumstance. If this is the assumption that you operate under you may want to rethink any further actions you might take with regard to archiving content here on Wikipedia. When I talked about you pursing other editors for similar behavior, I was talking about 67.177.149.119 which is easily seen on that IPs talk page. I'm really not surprised that you don't see a double standard at work here. I don't see any problem with asking for administrative input when an editor believes that another editor is acting in an inappropriate or potentially vandalizing manner. That's exactly what you did above with your note to the admins about the accounts that are contributing to the current discussion that is still unfolding. Seems like another double standard to me. BritishDad 05:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC) — BritishDad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thank you for your comments, but considering that this account is 10 minutes old, and this is the only edit, I think that this might be a WP:SPA WP:SOCK. Also, is it just me, or did I not even comment on the inappropriate archiving section of User talk:67.177.149.119? Leuko 05:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I through registering as a "Wikipedian" is encouraged? Are you trying to discourage people that wish to register and participate in this discussion? I see, when you don't have a constructive arguement you resort to attacks. Sounds about right. It seems that you are once again in violation of WP:AGF. BritishDad

Registering as a Wikipedian is encouraged as is discussion, however maliciously using multiple sock/meatpuppets is not. Also, accusing someone of not WP:AGF is a violation of WP:CIV. Leuko 05:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse anyone of a violation of WP:AGF, I said "It seems that you are...", and the last time I checked posting ones perceptions were not accusations. I would think that saying you think someone "might be a WP:SPA WP:SOCK" is a violation of WP:CIV. If you feel that someone is using socks and meatpuppets, please bring it up with the proper individuals here on Wikipedia for investigation, but it doesn't seem that this is the appropriate place, is it? That seems like something you should know. BritishDad 06:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess that is just my perception then. And yes, I know the appropriate place for sock puppetry. It also seems like you should know that the Help Desk is not the appropriate place to report "Inappropriate Archiving." Leuko 06:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If it wasn't the right place to ask for help with this issue then I am sure they will be able to direct me to the appropriate forum. That's what they are for after all, to help. BritishDad 06:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

GMC

Hi Dmacks, the information about the general suspension of all private UK medical colleges was obtained from the GMC website http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/join_the_register/registration/uk_based_medical_colleges.asp Buzybeez 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits regarding the suspension of all UK squatter medical colleges as not being relevant. Per [11], SCIMD is the only UK medical college specifically mentioned for "The GMC is not satisfied about the status of the schools' programmes in the UK with respect to the schools' recognition by the government nor is it assured that the schools' are subject to adequate quality assurance arrangements." I also removed the statement that prior to 2005, SCIMD degrees were accepted by the GMC, as no WP:RS was provided. Leuko 23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Leuko, you are joking, right? In order for something to be suspended, it needs to be recognized in the first instance. Can your driver's license be suspended if you don't have one? Surely you knew that, maybe you were just messing with me? Anyway, I found a web archive letter that confirms SC degrees were acceptable,http://web.archive.org/web/20040707212317/www.stchris.edu/files/gmc_recognition.pdf just like I originally posted on the article, which you reverted. Also, regarding the general suspension of all UK based private medical schools, that is of paramount importance, as it appears to be some sort of policy change. This GMC website http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/join_the_register/registration/uk_based_medical_colleges.asp lists 10 schools in which the GMC "does not register graduates who have been awarded primary medical qualifications in such circumstances nor does it give any entitlement to book or sit the PLAB test." I will go ahead and update the article accordingly. Buzybeez 14:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
In case you are unaware, per WP:V, you need to cite WP:RS to include information in WP. Otherwise, it can be challenged and removed as WP:OR. Now that you have sourced your claims, it can stay in. Leuko 15:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

seems like this issue has been resolved, can we go ahead and archive it? Buzybeez 17:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

UNESCO

What is the significance of mentioning UNESCO in the article? I was under the impression that UNESCO's database is not all-inclusive of every accredited college in the world. Can someone clarify if I am mistaken? Thanks. Buzybeez 18:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose that UNESCO be removed because it is not an all inclusive list of every single accredited college in the world. Furthermore, it is already mentioned that the college is "not accredited" so noting every list that it is not included on is undoubtedly redundant. Buzybeez 14:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Since no objections, I will go ahead and update the article accordingly Buzybeez 14:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't see a consensus to remove this, and I think that it is important to include the lack of listing to support the claim that this is an unaccredited school. Leuko 21:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

I think this statement is redundant, as the succeeding paragraph outlines in detail, ad nauseam, with references, where degrees are not acceptable, etc. No need to belabor the point and mention it repeatedly in different words. This should probably be removed- "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." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine#Accreditation_and_Licensing Buzybeez 18:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is part of the {{unaccredited}} template. For consistency (as it is present in the articles of other unaccredited schools), I think it should stay. Leuko 20:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any objections to the unaccredited tag being there. But the further explaination is redundant. (I think the further explaination was meant for schools that don't have the extensive paragraph following the template). See my point? Leave the unaccredited tag, but remove the subsequent sentence since it has a subsequent huge paragraph to explain it. no need to explain the same thing 2 and 3 and 4 times. Buzybeez 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, IMHO, the initial statement should remain, as the next two paragraphs support the statement as to why the degree would be restricted/illegal to use. I don't see it as redundant, but I think it helps the flow of the article to make the statement, the follow it with supporting facts. Leuko 21:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Repetitious material about Luton

Using a NPOV, this is obviously being overzealous in trying to make (and belabor) a point. It is making the article look quite comical to have that same bolded wording repeated (literally) every other sentence (here and elsewhere throughout the article). I'm sure you agree? Readers don't forget what they read from line to line and repeating so frequently is childish, IMHO.
"(IMED) database of medical schools. It is listed as such based on its recognition by the Senegalese Ministry of Education[2] through its issuing of a charter in February 2000[3], and again reaffirmed in April 2006 (after a reorganization of the school)[4][1]; however, the Luton, UK location is not listed as being recognized in that country.[5] Being listed in FAIMER/IMED is a prerequisite requirement for medical students and graduates to be able to register for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) and gain ECFMG Certification. SCIMD-COM's Dakar campus is listed in IMED[2], however the Luton school is not". Buzybeez 19:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are better ways to write it, but they would involve synthesis, which we can't have. I don't think it is childish, merely trying to point out the facts in the case. I ca try and condense it, however, if you don't like it, I would support the removal of the entire USMLE/ECFMG section... Leuko 21:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The USMLE section is not the problem. The problem is repeating the same information repeatedly in the article. I don't see how someone with a neutral point of view can do this. It appears to me like someone serving to advance a position. Take a look at how comical this is (quoted from your edits in the article):

2nd paragraph: however, the Luton, UK location is not listed as being recognized in that country.[
3rd paragraph: however the Luton, UK campus is not recognized in that country
6th paragraph: however the Luton school is not recognized in its host country
7th paragraph: The Luton, UK campus is not recognized in that country.

Does that not appear redundant to you? Like someone intentionally trying to vandalize an article? Isn't once enough? Buzybeez 15:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC) and here you did it again, (actually worse, by repeating the same information in the same paragraph!) Your edits quoted:

2nd paragraph: However, after an investigation, the Office of Degree Authorization in Oregon concluded that "No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006.
7th paragraph: however, after an investigation, the Office of Degree Authorization in Oregon stated that no Senegalese school under this name exists
7th paragraph: No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006.

Buzybeez 15:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Those edits are only in place because another editor with a Conflict of Interest as a student of the school keeps making white-washing edits or edits which encourage the reader to distort reality and advance his/her position. I am trying to keep this article as WP:NPOV and WP:V as I can. Leuko 16:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're joking right? I'm not sure how one could justify repeating the same sentence twice in the same paragraph and 3-4 times in the same article; while in the same breath claiming a WP:NPOV. Fighting against whitewashing (which I am all for) is one thing, but repeatingly saying the same thing 3-4 times in the same article appears to me like someone serving to advance a position. Buzybeez 20:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the material seems to be advancing a position as well. I suggest a WP:RFC or WP:3PO as it is apparent we are unable to agree. Leuko 14:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Leuko, I left each statement their one time in the article (no material information was deleted, it's still there, just only once and not 3-4 times). Only the subsequent duplicate statements were removed. If you can provide a logical explanation for why posting the same thing multiple times is acceptable, please do so. I mean, really, when will the redundancy end? I too, can pick out a statement and repeat it over and over, would that be acceptable? I think not. Try to look at this with a NPOV, instead of an "I'm right, you're wrong" kinda thing. If this were any other article, you would have probably removed all the duplicate stuff and cited the editor for some violation. Buzybeez 15:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It is acceptable because it directly applies to statements made in those sections of the article, i.e. the claim that SCIMD is acceptable by the MCC. Those unfamiliar with medical licensing might assume that students at the unaccredited Luton campus would be eligible, when this in fact is not the case. While you and I know this, the general encyclopedia reader does not, hence the insertion of qualifying statements into sections of the article where they are relevant. Leuko 15:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If that is the reason, then those qualifying statements are not needed at all. I tried to explain this to you before, that IMED does not list sub campuses. There is plenty of precedence for this. St. Matthews in the Cayman islands has a subcampus in Miami, which are not listed in IMED. Ross university in Dominica has a subcampus in Miami, which is not listed in IMED either. But all those students (including SCIMD luton students) are eligible. So, your qualifying statements are actually misleading because the luton, Miami, etc students are all recognized. Buzybeez 16:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But Luton is not a sub-campus - it is the only campus. SCIMD students never set foot in the country where their charter is from, which is the case of Ross and SMU. Their Miami campuses are clinical sciences anyway, not basic sciences. The Luton campus is not recognized by anyone - hence the GMC, various US states, etc have all said that it is unaccredited and ineligible for licensure. Leuko 16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, those synthesis conclusions not correct. Those Miami campuses are for 5th semester and basic sciences run from semester 1-5. Regarding the luton campus being a sub campus, technically it is. The Luton campus is recognized by IMED, just as the various other schools sub campuses which are also recognized. Also, nowhere does it say "SCIMD-Luton is not recognized" so those statements you are adding are synthesized. I will go ahead and remove those synthesized statements.Buzybeez 21:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not synthesized information - it is a fact that the Luton school is not listed under the UK in IMED, that is what is stated and cited. Removing cited statements is tantamount to vandalism. Leuko 21:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess there are several levels of interpretation. One interpretation is that Luton campus is recognized by virtue of the fact that it's parent institution in Senegal is recognized. I wouldn't expect the Luton campus to be listed under the UK listing since it's a subcampus and not the "main" campus used for registration purposes. Andrew73 21:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew. I'm glad to see someone who understands the process speak about it in a NPOV. Much respect to you Andrew.Buzybeez 22:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the way it is listed in Canada, is synthesized. Leuko, now I see why no one else (except you) regularly edits this article. Because every minor change becomes a huge time consuming debate with you. Like you have become the authority and all changes need your approval. What a total waste of time. Buzybeez 21:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The only reason I still edit this article is because no one else wants to deal with all the WP:COI edits made by students/others associated with the school (hence the ArbCom case). I would be happy to have an uninvolved editor participate in the editing of this article - would make much less work for me. But I am not about to abandon the article, as I am sure it would be white-washed into a puff piece in less than a day. And changes do not need my approval, they just need to comply with WP policies, which most do not. I would love to have those without WP:COI issues participate, that's why I suggested WP:RFC or WP:3PO to resolve this dispute. Leuko 21:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the Luton campus isn't listed under IMED isn't really a fair statement. It would be like arguing the fact that (for the sake of argument) Johns Hopkins' medical school's subcampus in some random town in Uganda isn't listed under IMED as being an issue, when in reality, there shouldn't be an expectation for subcampuses to be listed in IMED. Andrew73 21:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
But JHU doesn't have a Ugandan campus. The Luton campus isn't a sub-campus, it is the main campus of the school, and therefore needs to be listed, especially if SCIMD continues to purport to be a UK school. Schools need to be located in the country where they are chartered, which SCIMD is not. Leuko 21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew. I'm glad to see someone who understands the process speak about it in a NPOV. Much respect to you Andrew.(I'm not sure why leuko wants to determine where schools 'need to be' and what schools are 'purporting to be.' I haven't read them purport to be a UK school, they seem quite proud of their Senegalese charter.) Buzybeez 22:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

While the school doesn't explicitly hide their Senegalese origins, they (on the website) certainly appear to amplify the Luton and emphasize the "Englishness" of the school for recruitment purposes. Andrew73 22:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Leuko, while I agree that for all intents and purposes, the Luton campus functions as the main campus, SCIMD was registered under Senegal, so in this respect, the fact that Luton isn't listed in IMED in the UK isn't an issue nor to be expected. The fact/interpretation that this is an unusual arrangement (i.e. Senegal charter with Luton "main" campus) is amply discussed elsewhere in the article and by multiple credentialing authorities. Stating the fact that Luton isn't listed in IMED, while factually accurate, is sort of equivalent to saying that women don't die from prostate cancer. I favor removing this "fact" from the article. Andrew73 22:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I believe the fact that while the school is located in the UK, but is not chartered/recognized there is a central issue. For licensing purposes, authorities require that students attend medical school in the country of charter, and all other medical schools abide by this. SCIMD is the only medical school (to my knowledge) where students attend all of their basic sciences classes in a country where it is not chartered, and I feel that this is rather notable and worthy of mention. All of the other medical schools who tried this approach have been closed down. Leuko 02:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that that this is a central issue. However, technically speaking, the Luton campus should be considered the "subcampus," as far as charterting issues go., even if none of the students ever set foot in Senegal. My point is that this central issue is amply amplified elsewhere in the article in how SCIMD isn't recognized by various authorities, etc.. Again, to say that Luton isn't in IMED has the same ring as saying men don't get cervical cancer...technically true, but not a fair comparision. Andrew73 12:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I still don't get how it is not a fair comparison when every other medical school in the world manages to be chartered where they are located. Technically true, and relevant. Leuko 13:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Leuko, you are forgetting that SCIMD does have a campus in Senegal where it is chartered. If in doubt, call Senegal. I did, and they claim they have been supplying paperwork to Oregon. If that's true, then Oregon probably knows they exist and will update their page soon. That's my guess, but I can't speak for them. Also, just like every other carib school with 5th semester basic science subcampus in Miami,etc, SCIMD also has a subcampus in Luton. Luton students can go to Dakar if they want, and vise versa. I'm not sure why you keep saying a Dakar campus doesn't exist? SCIMD website has photos of President Wade at the campus, appearantly when it became affiliated with UEIN. Also, the website archives has photos of a student's visit to the dakar campus. I have seen more evidence to suggest its existence then nonexistence. (hence my interpretation of ODA referring to a name change). Finally, I did some research regarding IMED, and they confirm that they have documentation that the government of senegal recognition of SCIMD includes both the dakar main campus and the Luton subcampus and students from both can register for the USMLE. Sorry Leuko, but it is obvious that you don't like the set up of the college and your postings only serve to advance you personal opinion. Since clarification of any doubts or questions regarding IMED can be obtained directly from the source, and we have a neutral, knowledgeable third party (Andrew) who agrees with this action, I will go ahead and remove your misleading statements which will only confuse the reader. If history is any indication of the future, you will revert my edits, and I ask that prior to doing so, you provide evidence to suggest whats I just posted above to be false. Thanks. Buzybeez 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have to provide evidence that your claim that the Dakar campus is actually active - the burden of proof in WP is on the editor that wants to insert information, not the one that wants to remove it. Therefore, I would ask that you provide independent reliable sources (the school's website doesn't count) that it is a functioning medical school. Thanks. Leuko 15:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree it's very relevant that the situation with SCIMD is unusual. On the other hand, when I mean it's not a fair comparison, I'm arguing that the article creates a false expectation that the Luton subcampus (on paper) but defacto main campus should be listed in IMED under England when it is appropriately listed under Senegal. The fact that this is unusual is reflected by the fact that various licensing boards in the U.S. don't accept this unusual arrangement, as discussed in the article. My point is that this false impression/expectation specifically with respect to IMED shouldn't be repeatedly stated in the article. I really doubt that removing these statements about Luton not being listed in IMED would "whitewash" the article, since it's pretty clear elsewhere in the article that many credentialing authorities don't recognize the graduates of this type of arrangement. Andrew73 15:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I see your point, but then again every other medical school in the world manages an appropriate charter. There is no proof that the Senegal campus is active, and not just a purchased "shell" charter for the Luton campus, which is not chartered. I would suggest mentioning it once in the lead paragraph in the licensing section, and we can remove where it is repeated. Leuko 15:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad we could all come to an agreement. And Leuko, no sense in arguing about the existence of the Dakar campus, I'm sure that issue will resolve itself sooner or later. Nice chatting with you guys. Buzybeez 15:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

issue resolved. archive it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzybeez (talk • contribs) 17:58, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Luton Recognition

ok, here we go again, not sure why Leuko reverted this, it seems to be an accurate summary of what was discussed above. The consensus reached was that discussing Luton/IMED was misleading and removal of such statement would not be considered whitewashing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine&diff=153371711&oldid=153369438
Andrew, since you appear to be a knowledgeable, neutral 3rd party, can you please be so kind enough to comment on whether this is a fair and accurate statement. Thanks.

The recognition of the Luton, UK campus is through the authority and Senegalese charter of its main campus in Dakar. Buzybeez 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide a WP:RS that uses this phraseology, because it looks like synthesis to me. Specifically, can you provide a WP:RS that the Luton campus is recognized? Thanks. Leuko 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Quoting a translation of the document signed by Moustapha Sourang, Minister of Education, Republic of Senegal- I confirm that Saint Christopher’s College of Medicine in Luton, England is a satellite of Saint Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine in affiliates with the University of El Hadji Ibrahima NIASSE of Dakar Senegal. The government of Senegal recognizes the programs that were taught at Saint Christopher’s in Luton, England. http://stchris.edu/charter.htm

Do you prefer to just quote the Minister? I thought my statement was more brief, basically saying the same thing. But quoting is fine, if you prefer.Buzybeez 17:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am not so sure that is a WP:RS. First of all it is hosted on the school's website, so it may not be reliable, as it is not independent. Secondly, and more importantly, this letter was addressed to the GMC, who stated SCIMD was unaccredited and banned graduates from licensure in the UK. This leads me to doubt the veracity and validity of claims made in the letter as the actions of the GMC indicate, they did not find it acceptable either. We should probably look for an independent WP:RS indicating that the Luton campus is recognized before adding it into the article, or if we can't find one, I guess we'd have to insert the Minister's statement with the above caveats mentioned. Leuko 19:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...what is one reasonable person's "synthesis" may be another person's "fact." Personally, I don't have a problem with the statement the Luton campus is a "satellite" (albeit de facto main) campus of the SCIMD. To insist on a hard copy version stating this seems a bit much, since this is what's stated/implied on the SCIMD page and in reality (given that there are real, living students on the Luton site as seen on the BBC program). I agree with Leuko though that the Luton campus is not an idependently recognized entity in and of itself. On the other hand, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the recognition of the Senegal "main" site is sort of an umbrella statement that would also include the Luton site. Andrew73 19:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the Luton school exists and that real live students go there is a given, and this is not at issue. What is at issue is 1) the recognition of the Luton site, and 2) the reliability of the sources used to verify this. I don't feel that an "umbrella recognition" statement is appropriate because not a single licensing authority has approved of this arrangement. Leuko 19:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: I agree with Andrew's edits re: the Luton site not being recognized as an independent entity. Leuko 19:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
(Added after the edit conflict) Which licensing authority are you referring to? It appears that WHO, etc. have approved of SCIMD with respect to its charter. I don't think it's within the purview of the chartering, etc. to approve or disapprove of the Luton campus, nor would I expect these bodies to make an explicit statement about it. Granted, it seems that the requirements for making into the WHO list or IMED, etc. are minimal (as opposed to the requirements for U.S. state medical boards, etc.). Andrew73 20:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The WHO WDMS and the IMED database are directories, nothing more, nothing less. Inclusion in them does not guarantee any sort of quality assurance oversight. I am referring to US/UK medical licensing boards, of which numerous ones have explicitly stated that this charter arrangement is unacceptable. Leuko 20:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Leuko, only NJ has stated that this charter arrangement is unacceptable. ONE STATE. Why did you say "US/UK medical licensing boards, of which numerous ones have explicitly stated that this charter arrangement is unacceptable."

I count at least 7 - NY explicitly states that medical students must go to school in the country of charter, and the rest (CA/IL/FL/ME/TX/etc) have chosen not to recognize SCIMD, or ban SCIMD grads outright. I can only assume it is because of charter/licensing issues, and not that they don't like British trained doctors. Oh, and forgot to mention GMC, who also stated that the charter and quality assurance arrangements were unsuitable. Leuko 20:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not correct. I don't have time to get into another huge debate about this with you, because really, it's irrelavent as all this is already in the article, whether states approve or disapprove is at their discretion. But, the umbrella recognition exists by the chartering entity, it's verifiable and should be included in the article. Not including such, only serves to advance a well known position that one is against the arrangements of the college as has been so vehemently stated several times. Buzybeez 20:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, how is it not correct? I am curious. As far as the "umbrella recognition exists by the chartering entity," there has been some doubt on the reliability of the source as mentioned above. I think there is a WP:RS noticeboard somewhere, perhaps we should get their opinion on it. Also, including it only serves to advance the well known WP:COI position of the college and its students, so that's really just the pot calling the kettle black. Leuko 21:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Gosh Leuko, sometimes I think you enjoy a good debate. Regarding the WP:RS, I would tend to agree with you about a school's webpage generally not being such, except that: 1) it is not just some random wording copied from there page, it is pdf copy of a signed letter that is easily verfiable. 2) some information, like this for example, could only be found on the school's website. Realistically, where else would that letter be expected to be posted? the coffee shop? 3) information from the school's website has been included elsewhere in the article when it was obtained from a pdf file (actually you included that info, http://www.scimd.com/FIRED.pdf , and http://www.scimd.com/Dr.%20Sow%20Notice.PDF ). And regarding "not a single licensing authority has approved of this arrangement." is entirely incorrect. I did some research and found this school to have residents and licensed graduates in several states. A handful of states (as indicated in the article) do not approve of this arrangement, but your global summation is not correct. (thanks Andrew for your input, I also agree that luton is not independant of Dakar). Buzybeez 20:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize that there probably aren't many sources other than the school's website for such a letter, however, it disagree that it is easy to verify. To be honest with you, I don't even know if the person who signed the letter really is the Minister of Education in Senegal. As such, I said I would be amenable to including it, but with the caveats above. As far as licensing, which states are those? Do you have a WP:RS? I've actually heard the opposite, where SCIMD grads had their residency contracts terminated as a result of the inadequacy of the recognition/accreditation of the medical school. Leuko 20:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why Leuko reverted this again? Is there a consensus on this wording, as being a fair compromise? "The recognition of the Luton, UK campus is through the authority and Senegalese charter of its main campus in Dakar; as such, the Luton, UK location is not listed as being recognized as an independent entity in the UK." Buzybeez 20:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Andrew's wording. I don't believe that there is a consensus on The recognition of the Luton, UK campus is through the authority and Senegalese charter of its main campus in Dakar because of the issues already mentioned. Leuko 20:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This is sort of an issue of interpretation. I don't think the subcampus is explicitly recognized per se. Furthermore, explicit recognition or lack thereof of the subcampus doesn't affect the recognition of the school entity as a whole. Andrew73 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:49, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
But there has been precedent to the contrary. When Cornell University opened up another campus in Qatar, they were chartered by the Qatar government, and are listed in IMED as such. [12]. The situation is very similar to SCIMD, in that Qatar is a subcampus of Cornell University, but its subcampus is appropriately recognized by the local civil authorities, while Luton is not. Leuko 20:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the Cornell example...I haven't heard of this Qatar entity before. While it is closely connected to Cornell, it seems that that WCMC-Q is meant to be a distinct entity from the NYC entity. I don't think this is the case with SCIMD. Andrew73 21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the difference - both have Universities and sub-campuses of those Universities. And Luton is meant to be a distinct entity from the Dakar school, as none of the Luton students study in Dakar, just as none of the Cornell Qatar students study in NYC. Could you please explain how it is not the case with SCIMD? Thanks. Leuko 21:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Good points. If I may continue the argument further...while Luton may function as a distinct entity, it is not explicitly meant to be a distinctly distinct entity. With Qatar, the distinction seems to be more distinct. I do agree that this is stretching the argument a bit thin.... Andrew73 22:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree - it is getting a bit thin. :-) However, to continue the discussion, Luton is in fact explicitly mean to to be a distinctly separate entity. You said yourself that in their promotional materials they play up that this is an English school, not a Sengalese one. If the school wanted to resolve all of its licensing problems quickly and easily, all it would have to do is close up shop in Luton, and move the school to Senegal, so that the medical school is located in the country of charter. But they don't do this, do they? Leuko 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Well on the other hand, while it does promote the English component, it doesn't hide the fact that it is chartered in Senegal. True, they could do what Cornell did and try to get their Luton campus listed in IMED (and this would probably solve some problems with U.S. state licensing boards). However, on the other hand, the fact they don't doesn't mean that the school in aggregate isn't chartered by IMED. Andrew73 22:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
No, they don't hide that they have a Sengalese charter, but they sure do play up going to medical school in the 1st world, rather than Senegal. No one ever said that the Sengalese school or the University wasn't chartered. The question is whether the Luton school needs to be chartered in its host country. I believe per the precedent of Cornell Qatar, and the numerous licensing restrictions due to the lack of a charter in the host country, that yes, they do. Yes, getting the Luton school listed in IMED would solve their licensing issues, but that won't happen, as they will never get a charter from the UK government. Leuko 22:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we're ultimately on the same page. The Cornell example is starting to resonate more with me, so I've added a mention of it on the SCIMD page. Andrew73 22:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparing SCIMD to Cornell is not a parallel comparison. It is comparing apples and oranges. A parallel comparison would be St. Georges in Grenada (listed in IMED) with a program in the UK (not listed in IMED) is more appropriate and sets precedence of similar. http://sgu.edu/website/sguwebsite.nsf/som/global-scholars.htmlER44 23:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC) — ER44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The SGU program is in conjunction with an accredited UK University, and a BSc is earned after completion of the program. SCIMD is more parallel to the Qatar school, as both do not have an academic partnership with an accredited school in the country where they are located. Leuko 00:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the UK program of SGU is not listed in IMED, and the UK university of which they are using, is not a medical school nor is it listed in IMED. Their set up is an example of doing basic sciences outside the country of charter where it is acceptable, even though the UK program is not listed in IMED. Also, comparing Cornell (a LCME school) to SCIMD (a non-LCME school) seems a bit off. A closer comparison is SCIMD (a non-LCME school) to SGU (also a non-LCME school), both of which have basic science programs outside the country of charter that are not spefically listed in IMED or listed anywhere as being independently recognized. Buzybeez 16:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the UK program of SGU is associated with a UK university chartered to grant BSc (H) degrees, and that's how the classes are being accredited. Students are not spending their entire medical education outside the country of charter. And comparing this program with SCIMD seems a bit off, since this program is targeted towards those who want to practice medicine in developing countries [13], whereas the SCIMD program is aimed at people who want to practice in the US, where those licensing laws matter. As we are unable to agree on the appropriateness of comparison between the various examples, I think a good compromise would be to remove them from the article. Leuko 18:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh My! Leuko and I agree on something! While SCIMD would probably find it flattering to be compared to Cornell, I didn't think that was appropriate. And to list that example, would open the door to listing all the other examples of "unique situations" The article would have become a tangent of explaining the explanations. I am very happy to say that I agree with leuko that "I think a good compromise would be to remove them from the article." Thanks. Buzybeez 18:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
It's amazing! :-) Leuko 19:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

seems like this issue has been resolved, can we go ahead and archive it? Buzybeez 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine/Archive_3&oldid=1074616756"