Talk:St. George's University

"...corrected inaccuracies in the previous version"

@PhilKukielski (good faith) edits were posted to two paragraphs in history section and were tagged as 'correcting inaccuracies'. No citations were provided. Edits have been tagged as 'citation needed' and may be deleted if no citation is provided. In other terms, if we claim there are inaccuracies we need to provide sources to support it.MedGME (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Additional edits made without citations. Original research template added. MedGME (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Failed to gain entry

I added some information about the medical cirriculum here but I would like it if someone could come in and edit the structure and grammar of my additions. Furthermore, SGU now has a nursing program and an undergrad program.

Removed: "...failed to gain entry..." line. It is not appropriate to denegrate the university in its own entry. To say "while disturbing, is there any evidence this isn't true?" avoids the issue: this is an encyclopedia. You use proof as justification to add entries; not as justification to refuse the removal of them. You must prove things true to add them. Not add them, and then demand them to be proven false to be removed. Furthermore, I do not see other medical school wiki entries saying "the majority of our students failed to gain admission to Harvard," despite the fact that this is true for most schools. If you have an issue with SGU, this is not the appropriate forum for expressing it.

Unforunately, for 90% of the students who attend SGU (including myself), we didn't get into US based schools. My earlier edits to add more information was putting a line in which is FACT. It is you who must prove that line to be false because I am a student at that university. I am putting that line back in.

Article Work

This article needs some work. It needs to be properly cleaned up, info needs to be added, and the section on popular culture probably belongs on a different page. PaddyM 06:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Bstone 19:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is also wrong to say that the coup against the Gairy government in 1979 led to Operation Urgent Fury in 1983. It was the subsequent intra-New JEWEL Movement coup removing the Bishop government that led to the U.S. invasion. 75.216.136.125 (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo-header.gif

Image:Logo-header.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have added a fair use rationale. (EhJJ) 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Invasion of Grenada

I believe this part of the History section is completely inappropriate for the article. It's written like a propaganda piece (students kissing the ground, etc) and it's just not appropriate for this article. It cites no sources, either. I am removing it. Please discuss here is you have a different opinion. Bstone 21:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the section b/c it is legitimate and it is true. I have posted on the editors talk page to help add source and I am looking for them myself. Give it a day or so for us to fix it. Cheers, PaddyM 21:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PaddyM, you added a section which has no references, sources, may be a synthesis of information and you're asking for it to remain? You will of course understand that I have added the appropriate templates. This section is not appropriate for this article as it is currently written and really should be immediately removed. Bstone 21:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The reference being used for the statement

The reason given by the U.S. Administration of Ronald Reagan to justify the October 1983 invasion of Grenada was to rescue American medical students at St. George’s University from the danger posed to them by the violent coup that had overthrown Grenada’s Prime Minister Maurice Bishop

is wrong and misleading. Indeed, a quick view of the article demonstrated that the rescue of the students at SGU was a not the main reason but rather to quell political violence:

when Mr. Reagan sent 7,000 troops to end political violence and, he said, to rescue American students at St. George's University Medical School

As such, I am removing this source until either the section is rewritten or a different source is found. Bstone 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the article "Getting Back to Normal" which has been used as a source for the SGU student who communicate via amateur radio has references to SGU students but nothing about such a radio station. As such, I am removing it as placing it with {{Fact}}. If I simply missed this then my apologies, but I did not see any mention of it. Bstone 22:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong and misleading? It is a direct quote from the article regarding the administration's viewpoint at the time. You can't simply re-write what you want to read and then hope that no one notices. Additionally, the second reference you removed talks about a "ham" radio operator on one of the pages, so I have re-inserted that reference into the paragraph. Instead of completely disregarding the information posted, perhaps you could contribute to bettering the article. Cheers, PaddyM 23:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PaddyM, I suggest you rethink this method. Both of the sources which I remove do not support your claims. Is the first claim an actual direct quote? I didn't see it in the article and, yes, I did read the article. Perhaps you can post it here. The quote which I presented here directly states that the US Gov't sent in forces because of political violence, first, and to protect SGU students, second. The second one, about the amateur radio station, simply doesn't talk about such a station. Perhaps you can present the direct quote here. That would be helpful. Lastly, this section simply isn't appropriate. It's too lengthy, contains synthesis and isn't appropriate for a medical school article. Perhaps one sentence or so about SGU students being evacuated during the invasion is proper. Lastly, your note in the article history is a bit derogatory. I ask you to please maintain civility and avoid all personal attacks. Thank you! Bstone 00:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the history section to conform to an appropriate, non-synthesized version. Please discuss any possible changes here. Bstone 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This section is simple, non-synthesized and represents events portrayed on the sources. It is a simple collection of a part of the history of SGU and belongs in the article. Your continued insistance on removing and white-washing a simple of the history of the school is confusing at best and disruptive at worst. Cheers, PaddyM 08:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

PaddyM, I will have to ask you to please refrain from adding in inappropriate and extraneous information into an article about a medical school. The invasion of Grenada is merely a blip on the radar of this school. The way which I phrased the section represents a concise presentation. The way which you have phrased it lacks coherency, is poorly written and simply lacks relevance. Please do not simply delete content from an article. Rather, please discuss it here. I will be reverting your edits as they are inappropriate for this article. Bstone 08:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review exactly who is deleting information and who is adding information, with reliable sources, which accurately discusses the history of the invasion. It is highly relevant to the history of the school. The original phrasing reflects accurate accounts of the invasion and should not be unilaterally deleted. I don't see why you are stalking my edits, but perhaps you should realize you are editing against current consensus and try to add verified content instead of removing verifable content. Cheers, PaddyM 08:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

PaddyM, since it is clear that we are in a dispute about this content, what do you suggest? We can either continue reverting each other's revisions with silly notes or we can discuss and compromise. I maintain that adding sentences about the Prime Minister and his cabinet being shot in immaterial to this article. Additionally, the ham radio part might be sourced but it's not relevant to this article. I do believe that there should be a concise description about this event but the current presentation belongs not on this article but rather on the article about the invasion of Grenada. I look forward to your speedy response and compromise. Sincerely, Bstone 16:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid I disagree. An invasion and complete evacuation of 600 American students is hardly "a blip on the radar of the school". It represents a major intervention on part of the US government and it also illustrates the apparent danger of the students of the school. Wikipedia is not paper and there is no real limit to the amount of information that can be accurately recorded for each article. The information is verifiable and true, and yet you want to remove it b/c it's supposedly irrelevant. I'm afraid I have trouble understanding your position, as the 1983 invasion of Grenada was a major world event and took place with the ostensible reason to save the medical students. If that doesn't qualify as relevant history, what else does? Cheers, PaddyM 17:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

PaddyM, are you indicating to me that you are unwilling to discuss compromise? I am very disheartened by this. For the sake of sanity I shall cease editing this part of the article. However, history will record that I attempted to compromise and discuss while you did not. Your version of this section clearly violates WP:IINFO and WP:BATTLE. Good day. Bstone 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am still having trouble understanding your problem with this article. Just placing templates without explanation does not give other editors help when editing the "problems" you see. I have removed the essay and wikify template as they are neither needed nor accurate for this article. Your continued harassment of other editors is confusing at best and disruptive at worst. The "History" section has clear statements, is supported by verifiable sources, and is immensely relevant to the subject of the article. Cheers, PaddyM 13:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Citecheck

The current version of this article [1] has several claims which are inaccurate. These include:

• "and the island had been placed under a 24-hour shoot-to-kill curfew", which, although partially accurate (the country was under a 4 day curfew) was not under a "no questions asked, shoot to kill anyone one in sight". Rather, "Anyone who seeks to demonstrate or disturb the peace will be shot." Based on the proclamation by interim leader General Hudson Austin [2]. Although schools were closed, essential services were still running. Additionally, the source (a conversation between a press secretary and a talk show host) is a) not an independent source, and b) even if it was, does not mention anything about a shoot-to-kill curfew. In fact, he claims that although there were no locals in the streets, there were American student freely walking around.
• "during the days of the curfew, the only information coming out of Grenada was from a ham radio operated by a St. George’s student". Also, not supported by the citation. Rather, the citations says that there was miscommunication during the invasion of Grenada. "The glaring lack of advance intelligence about Grenada and the haste with which the military was ordered to mount the invasion showed in the fact that the U.S. forces, as it turns out, were unaware that the medical students were located on two campuses, True Blue and Grand Anse, some four miles apart. The soldiers reached 130 True Blue students early on the invasion day. But it was not until 30 hours later, during which time a student ham-radio operator on Grand Anse kept listeners throughout the hemisphere informed that his campus was still cut off from U.S. forces, that Army Rangers finally rescued the 224 students there."[3] You are saying that this amateur radio operator was the only source of information, but that is not necessarily true.

I am not an expert on the invasion of Grenada, but I do know when claims are in excess of the supporting evidence. Please feel free to add additional citations if you can find them, otherwise I will change the text to what can actually be substantiated based on the references provided. (EhJJ) 16:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You make good points EhJJ and I will try to address them. As for the details of the curfew, I will look to additional sources. The assertion that life went on as normal, but for a ban on demonstrations is certainly soft-peddling what was really going on. I will look for additional sources. I agree that Don Rojas’s statement that students were walking around freely is not to be given tremendous weight. For one thing, he admits to have been in hiding at the time because (as the spokesman for murdered Prime Minister Bishop) the coup plotters were looking for him. One thing that I will try to rephrase is the ham radio bit. Understand, there are TWO periods of time here: the first was in the days that followed the coup but BEFORE the invasion. During that time, the only independent information coming out of Grenada was the St. George’s ham operator. After the invasion, you are correct, there were many confusing and contradictory reports. In that time, the ham operator continued to broadcast — but was no longer the only information source. Roregan 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (EhJJ), thank you so much for chiming in on this. I was just about to give up as I did not want to be party to an edit war with PaddyM, but now I will take a more active roll in editing the history section again. Your analysis of the situation on Grenada is very accurate and in line with some of the fact checking that I did earlier on this talk page. If you look at the history of the article you will notice that at one point I edited the history section to read as:

In October 1983 US troops were sent into Grenada in order to protect the lives of the 700 US citizens who were students at St George's from political unrest and violence.

with using Less Strategic Now, Grenada Is to Lose American Embassy and Jonetown. I believe this is the most concise and (up until now) the most factual way to present this piece of history. At this point I can hope that with another editor indicating how the sources do not support this section in it's current form will be enough to convince PaddyM to engage in discuss and compromise. Bstone 17:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the changes to the text, do we still need the “citecheck” banner here? Also, Bstone, I do advise you to be wary of accepting at face value the assertion that the troops were sent to protect the lives of the St. George’s students. Whether or not the students were in actual danger is a matter of considerable dispute. Saying that it was the given reason is accurate. Roregan 18:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Roregan, I am not married to the idea that the troops were sent in to protect the lives of the SGU students. Two of the sources seem to indicate that the troops did indeed protect them and one of those two states it was the primary reason they were sent, but I have a suspicion that's not true. Indeed, I think an examination of many other sources would be prudent. I think that in the meantime we should consider removing the history section until we can reach consensus on how to appropriately phrase it. Thoughts? Bstone 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

EhJJ, upon looking at the source you cite (General Austin’s statement) I am not sure you are correct in your interpretation of the curfew edict. To quote from the source you cite: “An all day and all night curfew will be established for the next four days, from now until next Monday at 6:00 p.m. No one is to leave their house. Anyone violating this curfew will be shot on sight.“ This, to me, more than substantiates our saying that a 24-hour shoot-to-kill curfew was in effect. The declaration that “essential services” would continue above that seems not to change the warning to Grenadians that if they left their houses they could be killed. This was much more than a school closing. And there is no backup to the assertion that “essential services were running.” Austin’s statement that they would be does not make it so. Do you disagree? Roregan 18:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bstone, I think that removing the history section altogether in order to straighten out mild differences in emphasis amongst the sources is excessive. What is there right now is true, well sourced and appropriate. At some later time, and after consulting more sources of information, we may choose to temper some of the qualifiers that are now there, but remove the whole section?!? Why would we want to do that? Roregan 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it really excessive to remove a section which has disputed citations? We must remember that this section is live and people are viewing it under the assumption that it is entirely accurate. As such it may be prudent to remove it, post it here and have us work on it until it can reach consensus and be appropriate. I won't move it, however, unless there is consensus for this proposal of mine. Bstone 19:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate: The information is accurate. It is sourced. It is appropriate. The events related are important and directly relevant to the subject of the article. The citations are NOT disputed. The questionable assertion by Don Rojas that students wandered about freely during the days of curfew has been treated skeptically by all of us and is NOT included in the article. Those places in which there is an argument to be made that additional information might be required are being discussed here -- which is appropriate. I see no reasonable argument to excise the section. If you are seeking agreement with your position that it should be omitted, let me go on record as most emphatically NOT agreeing with that position.

It puzzles me that this idea is even viewed as worth discussing. How does excluding the story of the important role played by St. George's and its students in a significant international event make the story more complete? The fact that different sources report the details of that event differently is an argument to expand the section, not eliminate it. Some of that expanded discussion, however, belongs more properly in the relevant sections - the one on the invasion of Grenada, for example. What does belong here is the role played by the University and its students. Roregan 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The citecheck banner should stay until we can settle on what information should be included, and more importantly, that the text is supported by the references. Roregan, I agree that this was "more than a school closure", but I think the original text of the article overstated the situation. Let's try to keep it to what is supported by the citations or references. Can you provide a reference to support that the amateur radio operator at Grand Anse was the only source of information coming from Grenada? The citation still does not support that claim. (EhJJ) 00:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Premed program & POV from IP

The IP 200.50.72.156 is adding a fair bit of information about the pre-med program with claims of controversy. I edited out the POV to keep just the sourced premed info but the IP keeps reverting my edits to re-add the POV. Keeping a log here, as well as edit summaries, in case this turns into an edit war. Bstone (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

keeps revering is misleading, it was reverted once to date. There is controversy with regard to the two programs. This is something which has been accepted by the directors in the Premed program in SGU. If you wish to contact them to clarify then go ahead. There are currently no on-line sources to cite this but it looks as though there official investigation into the program is in progress. Shortly I will be able to get a release that will allow me to cite it, I will put the edit back now, but if in 24 hours from now I have no cite, then go ahead and take it back down, This is wethin Wikipedia regulations as this provides we with 'reasonable time' to cite my material as stated in "Wikipedia:Citing sources". sorry if I caused you any aggravation.

JMD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.208.128 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First, you may wish to create an account on wikipedia. That is very important in case your IP changes. Also it helps to preserve your own anonymity as right now people can traceroute you and find out where you are coming from. Second, if you wish to create a controversy section then you are free to do so, but everything must be sourced and verified. A newspaper article would be best. Bstone (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh just come back if you have the reference. What is the rush? Does this need to be online today? Does the article need to be finished by tomorrow? No it does not. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I can post it when I want as long as i provide a cite wethin 'reasonable time' I am following the Wikipedia rules and so there is no need fo it to be removed before the time previously state.JMD

I think you may be mistaken by the rules of wikipedia. At this point you are engaged in a content dispute. Moreover, if you make more then three reverts in a single day then you can be temporarily blocked from editing. See WP:3RR for more info. I'd like to gently caution you against making any further edits that are unsourced and violate neutrality. Further, I know of no 24 period you speak of. Can you provide a link to this? Bstone (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bstone and TheDJ here. The addition by the IP user is clearly POV and would need to be modified even if a citation can be found. Wikipedia policy is on of verifiability. It seems to be that consensus is this content is not appropriate. (EhJJ) 23:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tuition

I looked all over the site and was not able to find the cost of attending. Can someone give me a break down or rough idea of tuition, fees, books, living expenses etc.. ?

Machn (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia article?

This entire text reads like a prospectus or an advertisement, not an encyclopaedia article. Can anyone explain or justify why this university justifies an entry of this kind? Gordoncph (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No question that its not a very well-written article, but it definitely is notable and deserves inclusion. Go to work on it... Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

British

I removed the term "British West Indies" and replaced it with "West Indies". Colonialism is over and Grenada is independent. We are not British any more than the Americans are British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.48.203.174 (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. Although it should be noted that Grenada is most certainly more British, as it is still a member of the Commonwealth Realm, making the current British Queen its official head of state. Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant and inappropriate references

Many of the references used in this article have nothing to do with this university other than being located in Grenada. Will begin clean-up. OccamzRazor (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I just deleted most content

Most of the article did not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines so I deleted it.

• Content in Wikipedia articles must come with citations to published sources. I removed content without citations. See WP:V.
• The citations cannot be to self-published sources provided by the subject of the article, per WP:SPS and WP:PROMOTIONAL.
• Citations should not be to WP:PRIMARY sources, like government accreditation records. If it is worth mentioning that the university is accredited, then secondary sources will publish these facts.

Any comments? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)