Jump to content

Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine/Archive 4

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

New York

I removed New York as a state not recognizing St. Christopher, since the New York website [1] doesn't actually comprehensively list schools which are or are not accredited. The schools that it does list appear to be schools that have a unique relationship with New York state. Andrew73 17:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Since SCIMD-COM is not on the list of accredited/approved schools, I think that this prime-facie evidence that the state does not recognize the school for the purposes of clinicals, and I've replaced the referenced citation and text. Leuko 18:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to make sure we're on the same page, are you referring to the section about Form 2CC and how it's "not needed for graduates of the following medical schools, which have been approved by the New York State Education Department to allow students to complete more than 12 weeks of clinical clerkships in New York State." My impression is that these schools have special arrangements with New York State for the purposes of doing more than 12 weeeks of clinical clerkships. Just because a foreign school is not on here does not mean it's not accredited...otherwise are you implying that medical schools like Oxford and Cambridge are not accredited? Andrew73 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we are referring to the same thing. The sentence says that NY has not approved SCIMD through it's formal evaluation process. (NYS completes site visits and other reviews for the purpose of allowing students more than 12 weeks of clinicals - it's not a contractual arrangement or similar). The absence of SCIMD from the list means it has not been approved. I am not saying that Oxford and Cambridge are not accredited, but students from these schools may not do more than 12 weeks of clerkships in NY and expect to be licensed. I've changed accreditation to evaluation to make it more clear. Leuko 23:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to split some more hairs, the way the sentence reads, it's comparing apples and oranges. In the California website, it lists schools which are recognized for the purposes of getting a license to practice medicine. The above information on the New York website is narrowly restricted to the situation of where you graduated from a foreign medical school and did a clinical rotation in another country. The fact that SCIMD is not on this list does not say anything at all about SCIMD or its accreditation status or whether or not a SCIMD degree will qualify you for a license. Andrew73 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I've made some edits to separate them and hopefully clarify. Let me know what you think. Leuko 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This wording is misleading and should be removed since SCIMD never underwent a formal review by NYS:

through its formal foreign medical school review process, has not approved St. Christopher

Better wording might be "New York has a formal review process for foreign medical schools to complete more than 12 weeks of clinical clerkships in their state. SCIMD-COM has not been reviewed nor approved by New York for such purposes."

Thanks Leuko for your efforts in clarifying the article. Buzybeez 14:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not to split more hairs, but we don't have any WP:RS to indicate whether SCIMD went through a NYS review or not. All we have is the fact that it is not approved by the fact that it is not included on the list of approved schools. So we could put "may or may not have reviewed the school, but has not approved it" but this seems overly wordy. Leuko 00:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to continue the hair splitting some more, I'm not sure how germane the NY review is to the SCIMD entry. Granted, it's nice if NY has reviewed a medical school and included it on the list. However, the lack of review doesn't say anything about the qualities of SCIMD. Again, I return to the absence of e.g. medical schools such as Cambridge or Oxford on the list. Perhaps the simplest solution is to just leave the NY list out of the article. Andrew73 02:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both Leuko and Andrew. Leuko, it is fair to say that "may or may not have reviewed the school, but has not approved it" because that is the truth. But, as Andrew states, mentioning NY for clinicals is not really a crucial thing to even include in the article. Many states have their own rules about clinicals and listing each and everyone would be kinda tedious, especially since the rules always change. Also, We have to remember this is a Senegalese school. Mentioning where students can do clerkships takes away from other more important information in the article, in my opinon. As Andrew states, "Perhaps the simplest solution is to just leave the NY list out of the article." is probably the most reasonable solution. What do you guys think? Buzybeez 13:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, since NYS law requires schools that are chartered in another country but do clerkships in another country than to be approved to do more than 12 weeks of clinicals in NY, I feel that the fact that SCIMD is not approved germane to the discussion. As other medical schools only two years old are on the approved list, to me this means that 1) SCIMD did not apply to NY because they were concerned about the possible outcome, or 2) the school was reviewed and not approved. Either way, I think it does speak to the qualities of the school. And since the article points out that most SCIMD students are Americans, I assume this information would interest them. Cambridge and Oxford to not need to be approved since those students do clinicals in the country of charter. Leuko 00:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The 12 weeks issue seems to be a more of an administrative issue rather than an actual merit issue. For example, St Matthews University is listed, and it has similar issues with accreditation as SCIMD. Besides, it's not clear where SCIMD students do most of their clinical rotations anyway, so the NY dispensation for these other schools may not necessarily be relevant ot SCIMD. Andrew73 02:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Leuko, do you happen to have a reference for this information you stated: "And since the article points out that most SCIMD students are Americans," I was under the impression that the students of the school are from all over the world. Also, I really don't think mentioning NY clerkships is all that important but if we are going to mention where students are not eligible for greater than 12 weeks of clerkships, then it's only fair to mention where students are eligible. It will be a tedious process to review the laws for each state to determine eligibility, but in fairness to the article, I will do it. Let me know what you guys think. Buzybeez 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the reference is the BBC program listed under "Media Coverage." And as far as where students are allowed to do clinicals, I've requested a WP:RS that clinicals are done in the US for over a year, without any result. So if you could find something, that would be great. And since NY actually goes out and does site visits/evaluations for inclusion onto the list, I would contend that it is an indicator of merit rather than an administrative issue, such as SCIMD not paying a fee or some such. Leuko 22:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
"And as far as where students are allowed to do clinicals, I've requested a WP:RS that clinicals are done in the US for over a year, without any result. So if you could find something, that would be great." Gosh, Leuko, You've been editing this same article for over one year? Why? What's your motive? Anyway, I would be happy to help with your request, but I'm not sure I understand what you are asking for, can you please clarify. Thanks. Buzybeez 17:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Just trying to ensure that WP has the most accurate and complete article on the subject. As for the request, just looking for any reliable source that indicates where SCIMD students do clinicals, i.e. some independent verification that they do clinicals in the US. Leuko 18:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that info is not usually published, that I know of. Buzybeez 19:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, then per WP:V and WP:NOR it can't be in WP if the information has not already been published in a WP:RS. Leuko 19:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't really comment, because I don't know where to find that information, if it is even published. Probably best to ask one of the students of the school where their list is posted. But, back to a previous unsolved issue from July 11-

This wording is misleading and should be removed since SCIMD never underwent a formal review by NYS:
through its formal foreign medical school review process, has not approved St. Christopher
Better wording might be "New York has a formal review process for foreign medical schools to complete more than 12 weeks of clinical clerkships in their state. SCIMD-COM has not been reviewed nor approved by New York for such purposes." Buzybeez 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, again, we don't have any WP:RS to indicate whether SCIMD underwent a review or not... So your proposed wording could be seen as inaccurate as well... So maybe we have to add "may or may not have undergone a review" for complete accuracy, but this is rather cumbersome.
Good point Leuko. I see now where you did mention that previously. Well, I don't think it is really cumbersome to add in those few extra words, and readers will appreciate it since it is making the statement more accurate. This is an accurate summary-
Currently, SCIMD-COM can complete up to 12 weeks of clerkships in New York. This state has a formal review process for foreign medical schools wanting to complete more than 12 weeks of clinical clerkships and it is unknown whether SCIMD-COM has been evaluated for such purposes. Buzybeez 14:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
In order to be even more accurate, I would suggest: Currently, SCIMD-COM students can complete up to 12 weeks of clerkships in New York, similar to student from any foreign medical school. This state has a formal review process, which includes site visits, for foreign medical schools wanting to complete more than 12 weeks of clinical clerkships and it is unknown whether SCIMD-COM has applied for evaluation for such purposes. Leuko 23:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fair and accurate Leuko. Good work. I will go ahead and insert your statement into the article. Buzybeez 13:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC) can we archive this now, since it has been resolved and there are other pending discussions? Buzybeez 14:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, not just yet -- I've added a further disclaimer, since it was moved to the clinical section, because we don't know if SCIMD has any affiliations with NY hospitals, so students may not be able to do clinicals in NY after all. Leuko 22:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That disclaimer sounds about right, I don't think there is any problem with it. Buzybeez 18:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that I've read it over again, it seems like we are using a lot of words to say we don't know if SCIMD students can do clinicals in NY. I propose deleting the paragraph. Leuko 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's ok as is. no need for deletion. Buzybeez 20:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Licensing in NY

Per [2], getting a license in NY requires study in a medical program "recognized as an acceptable educational program for physicians by the appropriate civil authorities of the country in which the school is located." As SCIMD is charted in Senegal, but the school is located in the UK, SCIMD grads will not be able to get a NY license. I'll add this to the main page. Leuko 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


California

The article currently states, "The Medical Board of California does not recognize SCIMD as being an accredited medical school, and therefore a degree from this school does not meet requirements for a medical license in that state, as well as other states who utilize California's list."

It seems like redundant wording for self-explanatory information, also we don't know if other states use california lists. Also, California has neither approved nor disapproved SCIMD-COM, since it is on neither list. What do you guys think about this wording: "The Medical Board of California has neither approved nor disapproved SCIMD-COM. As such, students are not currently eligible for licensure." Buzybeez 14:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Until we get a WP:RS on which states use California's list, I agree it probably should be reviewed. But I feel the rest of the sentence is not redundant and fine. Leuko 00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Leuko, for the sake of accuracy, I suggest this wording- "The Medical Board of California has neither approved nor disapproved SCIMD-COM. As such, students are not currently eligible for licensure." Because the college is on neither list, it is obvious it has not been evaluated by California via site visits, etc. Buzybeez 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but have to disagree. The exact wording from the California medical board's website: "If a medical school is not listed on the recognized school list, the medical school is either unrecognized or disapproved. The education and training received at an unrecognized or disapproved medical school does not meet California licensure requirements." So I think the current language is pretty similar to that. Leuko 22:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Leuko, I was not aware of the exact wording on CMB website. Ok, so your wording is pretty similar, I don't see a problem with it now. Thanks Buzybeez 18:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
actually, I retract the previous statement, CMB states "If a medical school is not on this list of disapproved schools, it is either a recognized or an unrecognized medical school. Please check California's Recognized Medical School list to determine if your school is recognized by California. If a school is not on either the recognized or disapproved list, it may be a school that has not requested recognition by the Medical Board of California. Please be aware education obtained at a school is not acceptable for licensure in California."

So I will go ahead and add that wording ("not acceptable") to the article. Buzybeez 20:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Per this RS], it is the school that is unrecognized, not the degree. I've modified the wording slightly to match up with the source. Leuko 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The modification you made makes the current wording the most accurate, to date. thanks Buzybeez 20:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you for your alphabetizing. Leuko 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the article again, I think it is more accurate to mention why CA does not recognize SC, in that it is on neither the approved nor disapproved list. Not sure why Leuko reverted explaination of the truth? Any reason to hide it? Buzybeez 14:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
And I am not sure why the WP:RS is being misquoted... Perhaps to hide the truth... Leuko 15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Leuko, why do you keep reverting a quote directly from the CMB website "If a school is not on either the recognized or disapproved list, it may be a school that has not requested recognition by the Medical Board of California." http://www.medbd.ca.gov/Applicant_Schools_Unapproved.htm I have edited dozens of articles on wikipedia and this is the only one where one single person (aka leuko) keeps reverting factual information. Why are you so obsessed with this article? You mentioned you've been editing it for one year? and it seems you only want to allow information that you write on their to be included, (excluding factual quotes from medical boards). Do you work for this school? Buzybeez 15:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the quote does not add anything of value to the article. Stating "it may be a school that has not requested recognition by the Medical Board of California" is not useful, because we don't have a WP:RS to indicate whether SCIMD applied and was denied or never applied at all. It's back to "may or may not have requested recognition" because that is all we can say to satisfy WP:V. As far as your other comments, please focus on discussing the content, not the contributor. Yes, I have been editing this article for a while, but that's because students/admins of the school keep trying to whitewash it and remove cited facts. I worked hard to change a spam article extolling the virtues of the school [3] into the current article which represents reality by adhering to the WP policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, therefore I have an interest to make sure that the article continues to adhere to these policies. And no, I don't work for the school, nor do I have any WP:COI issues, as others apparently do. Leuko 21:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I respect your opinion and what you are saying. Although I don't know you, you seem like a good person that has good intentions. Might I suggest, though, not to try so hard with this article. Being hyper-critical/negative is just as bad as whitewashing. For example, IMED (which is an authoritative source) documents the Dakar campus, yet you have said there is not proof a campus exists and wrote 'citation needed' for Programs, that IMED could have a 'shell' address. I didn't get into an argument with you about it, but really, don't you think IMED has done their homework, that's their job, not yours or mine. A WP:RS shows a campus exists, but you being overly critical have put this poor college on trial for seemingly innocent things. Maybe that stems from animosity over the original editors/students and has caused you not to have a NPOV? Anyway, All I'm trying to say is, take a step back and allow others to edit the article also, after all that is the basis and beauty of wikipedia. Just because you may not think something is relavent, doesn't mean others will agree, and you know what, it's ok. There are so many more important things in the world to worry about than these trivial issues. Really. I'm not sure how healthy it is for someone to so vehemently edit the same article over and over and over for nearly 14 months, holding a grudge on the original editors and taking it out on new people who try to had something of value. It has gotten to the point where you consistently change everyone else's edits to you're way only. Everyone else can't be wrong all the time and you correct all the time. Get some fresh air, read a good book, catch a movie, edit other articles that will help change people's lives. Enjoy yourself with positive, healthy activities. Life is too short. Hopefully you won't look back on all the time devoted to this article and regret not doing other more important and rewarding things. Buzybeez 14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words and advice. Perhaps it would be good advice for you as well. :-) Others are more than welcome to change the article, as long as they add verifiable material supported by reliable sources, and don't make edits in violation of WP:COI. Unfortunately, this is not the case with most of the additions/deletions made by students of the school. And I don't mean to be overly critical, and am trying to make the most WP:NPOV article as possible, however, most sources published regarding this school do not paint it in a positive light. As with IMED, the listing of the Dakar campus indicates that the Sengalese government has issued a charter, but it does not prove a functioning medical school exists at that location. It could be just a dummy charter for the Luton campus. Call me skeptical, but I think it is a healthy skepticism. And I beleive making this article the most accurate, best referenced, etc article is a worthwhile and rewarding activity. Thank you for your concern, though. Leuko 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks leuko. nice chatting with you. Buzybeez 14:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Programs

In the programs section of the article, it states citations are needed for the Senegalese campus curriculum taught in french, but that information can be found at www.stchris.edu Also, it states the U.S. offices are being moved to Atlanta, but I could not verify it with the reference provided. Does anyone have a proper citation for that information? If not, it should probably be deleted. Buzybeez 18:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The citation is provided. The file was removed from the site, per per WP:CITE#What to do when a reference link "goes_dead" the information/reference link should not be deleted. As for the Sengalese campus, the citation is requested as there are not independent WP:RS to indicate that the campus even exists. Leuko 18:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Leuko, the evidence that the Senegal campus exists by indication of the physical address of the campus listed on IMED. I would think the IMED listing could be inserted where the citation is needed. Buzybeez 13:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but there is no WP:RS to indicate that this is a functioning medical school, and not just a shell for the squatter Luton campus' charter. Leuko 22:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)



Synthesis

Thank you for alerting me to the rule about "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SYN#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position I wasn't aware of that rule wikipedia has against it, that information can not be posted on the basis of A=B and B=C then A=C as that synthesis is against wikipedia policy. Continuing application of that rule, the discussion about California, Kansas, and New York are synthesized material. Those states do not specifically list anywhere on their website that "SCIMD is disapproved" (just as Canada does not specifically list anywhere on their website that "SCIMD is approved"). I will go ahead and update the article accordingly and removed synthesized material. Buzybeez 13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know who that was, since I was unaware of that policy as well. I have replaced the information on these states without any synthesis, citing only facts published in WP:RS. Leuko 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Good work Leuko (in your continued quest for "the most accurate article"). I also replaced Canada without any synthesized statements. In my opinion, the artical reads much better now. Buzybeez 15:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this statement could represent synthesis: "SCIMD-COM's Dakar campus being included in FAIMER/IMED is a prerequisite requirement for its students and graduates to be able to register for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) and gain ECFMG Certification." ECFMG does not state whether all campuses of a medical school need recognition by authorities in the country which they reside, so to say that the listing of the Dakar campus only (and not the Luton campus) is sufficient for USMLE registration/ECFMG certification for all students (including those in Luton) is WP:OR and should be removed. Leuko 16:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
http://ecfmg.org/2007ib/ibfaq.html
3. How can I find out if students/graduates of my medical school are eligible for ECFMG Certification?
To be eligible for certification by ECFMG, among other requirements, your medical school must be listed in the International Medical Education Directory (IMED) of the Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER®). If you are a medical school student and you want to apply for examination, your medical school must be listed in IMED and your medical school’s "Graduation Years" must be listed as 'Current," both at the time you apply for the exam and at the time you take the exam. If you are a medical school graduate, your medical school and graduation year must be listed in IMED to be eligible for examination and for ECFMG Certification. To verify that you meet these requirements, access IMED on this website. See ECFMG Certification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buzybeez (talk • contribs) 16:14, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
Right. The Dakar medical school is listed, but the Luton school is not. Therefore, to say that all students of the school (including those attending the unrecognized Luton school) are eligible for USMLE/ECFMG is misleading WP:OR/synthesis, and should be removed or edited to say that only the Dakar students are eligible (though that school does not even exist!). Leuko 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be misreading oregon's statement. They said no senegalese school under this name exists as of march 2006. That is because that's when the school's name changed, so of course SCCM wouldn't exist at that time (because it's SCIMD). That's how I read it. And it makes sense, because in order for GMC to suspend the school and IMED to list the school and say "in 2006 degrees are issued from...", means there is a school and there was a name change/reorganization. If you want to say that only the dakar students can take the USMLE, really, I don't care, that's fine if you insist on including it, but this should be included- Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG®).Buzybeez 16:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC) I just noticed that it already says it the way you want it to, leuko. It says dakar is listed and its students blah blah... That whole sentence is talking about Dakar only. "SCIMD-COM's Dakar campus being included in FAIMER/IMED is a prerequisite requirement for its students and graduates"Buzybeez 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm, that's not how I read it... From my understanding, Oregon is saying that the Senegal school does not exist, the name change non-withstanding. I guess we need to get clarification from the ODA. Again, no evidence exists to indicate that the school in Dakar is a functioning medical school and not just a shell charter for the UK school. As per consensus, I will add that only Dakar students are eligible, however, I am not sure there are any students there. And I am confused on the addition of ECFMG -- where and why? Leuko 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I see the addition of ECFMG, and it looks fine. Leuko 16:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

the way you wrote it is back to synthesizing. You said you were just going to write that only the dakar students are eligible, but that's not how you wrote it. I think changing the original wording sightly would solve that problem. "SCIMD-COM's Dakar campus being included in FAIMER/IMED is a prerequisite requirement for the Dakar campus' students and graduates..."Buzybeez 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't clear enough the other way. I think I've edited it to be the most clear, synthesis-free statement (IMHO). Let me know if you agree or not. Leuko 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


California

The article currently states, "The Medical Board of California does not recognize SCIMD as being an accredited medical school, and therefore a degree from this school does not meet requirements for a medical license in that state, as well as other states who utilize California's list."

It seems like redundant wording for self-explanatory information, also we don't know if other states use california lists. Also, California has neither approved nor disapproved SCIMD-COM, since it is on neither list. What do you guys think about this wording: "The Medical Board of California has neither approved nor disapproved SCIMD-COM. As such, students are not currently eligible for licensure." Buzybeez 14:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Until we get a WP:RS on which states use California's list, I agree it probably should be reviewed. But I feel the rest of the sentence is not redundant and fine. Leuko 00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Leuko, for the sake of accuracy, I suggest this wording- "The Medical Board of California has neither approved nor disapproved SCIMD-COM. As such, students are not currently eligible for licensure." Because the college is on neither list, it is obvious it has not been evaluated by California via site visits, etc. Buzybeez 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but have to disagree. The exact wording from the California medical board's website: "If a medical school is not listed on the recognized school list, the medical school is either unrecognized or disapproved. The education and training received at an unrecognized or disapproved medical school does not meet California licensure requirements." So I think the current language is pretty similar to that. Leuko 22:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Leuko, I was not aware of the exact wording on CMB website. Ok, so your wording is pretty similar, I don't see a problem with it now. Thanks Buzybeez 18:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
actually, I retract the previous statement, CMB states "If a medical school is not on this list of disapproved schools, it is either a recognized or an unrecognized medical school. Please check California's Recognized Medical School list to determine if your school is recognized by California. If a school is not on either the recognized or disapproved list, it may be a school that has not requested recognition by the Medical Board of California. Please be aware education obtained at a school is not acceptable for licensure in California."

So I will go ahead and add that wording ("not acceptable") to the article. Buzybeez 20:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Per this RS], it is the school that is unrecognized, not the degree. I've modified the wording slightly to match up with the source. Leuko 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The modification you made makes the current wording the most accurate, to date. thanks Buzybeez 20:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you for your alphabetizing. Leuko 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the article again, I think it is more accurate to mention why CA does not recognize SC, in that it is on neither the approved nor disapproved list. Not sure why Leuko reverted explaination of the truth? Any reason to hide it? Buzybeez 14:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
And I am not sure why the WP:RS is being misquoted... Perhaps to hide the truth... Leuko 15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Leuko, why do you keep reverting a quote directly from the CMB website "If a school is not on either the recognized or disapproved list, it may be a school that has not requested recognition by the Medical Board of California." http://www.medbd.ca.gov/Applicant_Schools_Unapproved.htm I have edited dozens of articles on wikipedia and this is the only one where one single person (aka leuko) keeps reverting factual information. Why are you so obsessed with this article? You mentioned you've been editing it for one year? and it seems you only want to allow information that you write on their to be included, (excluding factual quotes from medical boards). Do you work for this school? Buzybeez 15:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the quote does not add anything of value to the article. Stating "it may be a school that has not requested recognition by the Medical Board of California" is not useful, because we don't have a WP:RS to indicate whether SCIMD applied and was denied or never applied at all. It's back to "may or may not have requested recognition" because that is all we can say to satisfy WP:V. As far as your other comments, please focus on discussing the content, not the contributor. Yes, I have been editing this article for a while, but that's because students/admins of the school keep trying to whitewash it and remove cited facts. I worked hard to change a spam article extolling the virtues of the school [4] into the current article which represents reality by adhering to the WP policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, therefore I have an interest to make sure that the article continues to adhere to these policies. And no, I don't work for the school, nor do I have any WP:COI issues, as others apparently do. Leuko 21:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I respect your opinion and what you are saying. Although I don't know you, you seem like a good person that has good intentions. Might I suggest, though, not to try so hard with this article. Being hyper-critical/negative is just as bad as whitewashing. For example, IMED (which is an authoritative source) documents the Dakar campus, yet you have said there is not proof a campus exists and wrote 'citation needed' for Programs, that IMED could have a 'shell' address. I didn't get into an argument with you about it, but really, don't you think IMED has done their homework, that's their job, not yours or mine. A WP:RS shows a campus exists, but you being overly critical have put this poor college on trial for seemingly innocent things. Maybe that stems from animosity over the original editors/students and has caused you not to have a NPOV? Anyway, All I'm trying to say is, take a step back and allow others to edit the article also, after all that is the basis and beauty of wikipedia. Just because you may not think something is relavent, doesn't mean others will agree, and you know what, it's ok. There are so many more important things in the world to worry about than these trivial issues. Really. I'm not sure how healthy it is for someone to so vehemently edit the same article over and over and over for nearly 14 months, holding a grudge on the original editors and taking it out on new people who try to had something of value. It has gotten to the point where you consistently change everyone else's edits to you're way only. Everyone else can't be wrong all the time and you correct all the time. Get some fresh air, read a good book, catch a movie, edit other articles that will help change people's lives. Enjoy yourself with positive, healthy activities. Life is too short. Hopefully you won't look back on all the time devoted to this article and regret not doing other more important and rewarding things. Buzybeez 14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words and advice. Perhaps it would be good advice for you as well. :-) Others are more than welcome to change the article, as long as they add verifiable material supported by reliable sources, and don't make edits in violation of WP:COI. Unfortunately, this is not the case with most of the additions/deletions made by students of the school. And I don't mean to be overly critical, and am trying to make the most WP:NPOV article as possible, however, most sources published regarding this school do not paint it in a positive light. As with IMED, the listing of the Dakar campus indicates that the Sengalese government has issued a charter, but it does not prove a functioning medical school exists at that location. It could be just a dummy charter for the Luton campus. Call me skeptical, but I think it is a healthy skepticism. And I beleive making this article the most accurate, best referenced, etc article is a worthwhile and rewarding activity. Thank you for your concern, though. Leuko 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks leuko. nice chatting with you. Buzybeez 14:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Programs

In the programs section of the article, it states citations are needed for the Senegalese campus curriculum taught in french, but that information can be found at www.stchris.edu Also, it states the U.S. offices are being moved to Atlanta, but I could not verify it with the reference provided. Does anyone have a proper citation for that information? If not, it should probably be deleted. Buzybeez 18:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The citation is provided. The file was removed from the site, per per WP:CITE#What to do when a reference link "goes_dead" the information/reference link should not be deleted. As for the Sengalese campus, the citation is requested as there are not independent WP:RS to indicate that the campus even exists. Leuko 18:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Leuko, the evidence that the Senegal campus exists by indication of the physical address of the campus listed on IMED. I would think the IMED listing could be inserted where the citation is needed. Buzybeez 13:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but there is no WP:RS to indicate that this is a functioning medical school, and not just a shell for the squatter Luton campus' charter. Leuko 22:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)



Synthesis

Thank you for alerting me to the rule about "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SYN#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position I wasn't aware of that rule wikipedia has against it, that information can not be posted on the basis of A=B and B=C then A=C as that synthesis is against wikipedia policy. Continuing application of that rule, the discussion about California, Kansas, and New York are synthesized material. Those states do not specifically list anywhere on their website that "SCIMD is disapproved" (just as Canada does not specifically list anywhere on their website that "SCIMD is approved"). I will go ahead and update the article accordingly and removed synthesized material. Buzybeez 13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know who that was, since I was unaware of that policy as well. I have replaced the information on these states without any synthesis, citing only facts published in WP:RS. Leuko 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Good work Leuko (in your continued quest for "the most accurate article"). I also replaced Canada without any synthesized statements. In my opinion, the artical reads much better now. Buzybeez 15:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this statement could represent synthesis: "SCIMD-COM's Dakar campus being included in FAIMER/IMED is a prerequisite requirement for its students and graduates to be able to register for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) and gain ECFMG Certification." ECFMG does not state whether all campuses of a medical school need recognition by authorities in the country which they reside, so to say that the listing of the Dakar campus only (and not the Luton campus) is sufficient for USMLE registration/ECFMG certification for all students (including those in Luton) is WP:OR and should be removed. Leuko 16:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
http://ecfmg.org/2007ib/ibfaq.html
3. How can I find out if students/graduates of my medical school are eligible for ECFMG Certification?
To be eligible for certification by ECFMG, among other requirements, your medical school must be listed in the International Medical Education Directory (IMED) of the Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER®). If you are a medical school student and you want to apply for examination, your medical school must be listed in IMED and your medical school’s "Graduation Years" must be listed as 'Current," both at the time you apply for the exam and at the time you take the exam. If you are a medical school graduate, your medical school and graduation year must be listed in IMED to be eligible for examination and for ECFMG Certification. To verify that you meet these requirements, access IMED on this website. See ECFMG Certification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buzybeez (talk • contribs) 16:14, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
Right. The Dakar medical school is listed, but the Luton school is not. Therefore, to say that all students of the school (including those attending the unrecognized Luton school) are eligible for USMLE/ECFMG is misleading WP:OR/synthesis, and should be removed or edited to say that only the Dakar students are eligible (though that school does not even exist!). Leuko 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be misreading oregon's statement. They said no senegalese school under this name exists as of march 2006. That is because that's when the school's name changed, so of course SCCM wouldn't exist at that time (because it's SCIMD). That's how I read it. And it makes sense, because in order for GMC to suspend the school and IMED to list the school and say "in 2006 degrees are issued from...", means there is a school and there was a name change/reorganization. If you want to say that only the dakar students can take the USMLE, really, I don't care, that's fine if you insist on including it, but this should be included- Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG®).Buzybeez 16:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC) I just noticed that it already says it the way you want it to, leuko. It says dakar is listed and its students blah blah... That whole sentence is talking about Dakar only. "SCIMD-COM's Dakar campus being included in FAIMER/IMED is a prerequisite requirement for its students and graduates"Buzybeez 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm, that's not how I read it... From my understanding, Oregon is saying that the Senegal school does not exist, the name change non-withstanding. I guess we need to get clarification from the ODA. Again, no evidence exists to indicate that the school in Dakar is a functioning medical school and not just a shell charter for the UK school. As per consensus, I will add that only Dakar students are eligible, however, I am not sure there are any students there. And I am confused on the addition of ECFMG -- where and why? Leuko 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I see the addition of ECFMG, and it looks fine. Leuko 16:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

the way you wrote it is back to synthesizing. You said you were just going to write that only the dakar students are eligible, but that's not how you wrote it. I think changing the original wording sightly would solve that problem. "SCIMD-COM's Dakar campus being included in FAIMER/IMED is a prerequisite requirement for the Dakar campus' students and graduates..."Buzybeez 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't clear enough the other way. I think I've edited it to be the most clear, synthesis-free statement (IMHO). Let me know if you agree or not. Leuko 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kansas

The recent additions to the statement regarding Kansas are a bit misleading: "A curriculum of not less than 32 months (4 academic years) in a medical program recognized as an acceptable educational program for physicians by the appropriate civil authorities of the country in which the school is located." The way it is currently written makes it seem like SCIMD grads are eligible for licensure in Kansas, which is not the case, since the school has only been in operation for 8 years. Leuko 21:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing Kansas and NY, as that quote seems to be from NY. Not sure which part is misleading? There is a statement in the kansas discussion that says "SCIMD has been in operation for 8 years." Buzybeez 21:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, my cut and paste wasn't working, and I missed it. The actual confusing statement is: "an applicant may still be eligible for a license if the school has not been disapproved and has been in operation (date instruction started) for not less than 15 years." I know the statement that the school has been in operation for 8 years is in there, but to make a statement only to negate it with the next sentence is confusing. Leuko 21:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
But that is the truth, quoted verbatim from Kansas med board website. Not sure what you want to do? Leave the quote and remove the next sentence? Buzybeez 21:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
No, that would be even more confusing. We don't have to quote directly, we could paraphrase into more grammatically correct English... Leuko 22:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm kind of skeptical about the 15 years existence clause, even though this is what it says in the website. There are certainly LCME medical schools in the U.S. that are <15 years of existence (e.g. Florida State University College of Medicine, founded in 2000). I imagine that their graduates would be accepted in Kansas. Andrew73 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Leuko, I don't think it is confusing, and quoting is the most accurate way to mention these licensing laws. I certainly don't want to paraphase and possibly misrepresent what the medical board says. They used that wording for a reason, and if we are going to talk about their rules, their wording is best, in my opinion, as they are the experts on their rules, not us. Andrew, it's possible that the 15 year clause may only apply to non-LCME schools? (that's my guess). See this goes back to your original point of (not) mentioning states that don't have lists, just reading their licensing stuff and extrapolating how it may apply to SCIMD. Like you said, not sure how appropriate this is? Buzybeez 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A discussion of where graduates of a school can not be licensed due to various laws is rather pertinent and appropriate to the article, IMHO. We can leave the quote, but I will try and update the following sentence to make it more clear. Leuko 20:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry leuko, but that statement was a synthesized conclusion. No where on the Kansas med board website did it say SCIMD "does not meet Kansas' requirements." And by the way, Andrew, you were correct about LCME schools being eligible, see this excerpt - K.S.A. 65-2873 requires an applicant for a license to practice medicine and surgery to have graduated from a school approved by the Board. If the school has not been approved by the Board, an applicant may still be eligible for a license if the school has not been disapproved and has been in operation (date instruction started) for not less than 15 years. Schools approved by the Board are: (1) All schools accredited by the Liaison Committee for Medical Eduction (LCME Buzybeez 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I was just trying to make it flow more smoothly, but I've re-edited to make it synthesis free. Leuko 20:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Work, Leuko

Fine job in recruiting your friends with similar points of view as you to revert the progress that was made this past month. It will be very interesting to see how fair you are in reinserting information. My conscious is clear in knowing I only added factual information in a NPOV. In the future, if the school were ever to decide to seek legal remedies for the misrepresentations in the article, at least I know I can live with each and every post I have ever made in efforts to provide an article written in a NPOV. Have fun "running amok" as you have accused me of doing. Buzybeez 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The page is now protected so that all edits must be discussed on the talk page, and only consensus edits will be preformed by an admin. I can't make any edits either. I did not "recruit my friends with similar points of view" to the article, I merely asked a couple of administrators who had edited the article in the past to offer their opinion on it. And please see WP:NLT regarding your legal threats. Leuko 15:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Leuko, you have yet to surprise me. Looking at your contributions, you only re-added information that serve to advance your position (selectively EXCLUDING facts that are written in a NPOV). Then, you requested full protection so no further edits could be made. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=154189756 Very interesting. Actions speak louder than words... Buzybeez 15:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that is not true. I've re-added the curriculum/clinical rotations section, which is written in an NPOV. I don't know what position you are referring to - my only aim is to have this be the most accurate article possible. I did not even request full protection, I just merely pointed out to the admin that while he tagged the article with a full-protect tag, it was actually only semi-protected. It was actually the admin who decided the article needing to be protected. This is standard practice to stop protracted edit wars as have been occurring on this article. Leuko 16:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This article was subject to office protection for some time, to regular protection as well, and was subject of a request for arbitration. It is not a surprise that extensive reworking of the article which serves to make the subject appear less problematic, will result in the attention of administrators. I cannot recall any previous example where the GMC have explicitly stated that a purported medical school is not acceptable to them, which is not to say it hasn't happened, but it's pretty exceptional. Given the past history of whitewashing, and the aggressive whitewashing of the article in the past, edits are going to be subjected to considerable scrutiny. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's see Leuko, did you re-include any mention of IMED, ECFMG, USMLE, Canada? Did you remove all the synthesized statements in the US licensing section? Did you add that degrees were at one time acceptable to the GMC, with the verifiable pdf file reference? Did you add back the quote from Kansas medical board? I could go on and on and on. Like I said previously, if the school ever decided to seek legal remedies for the misrepresentations in the article (and as it currently is written, there are MANY), at least I know I did my best to represent it accurately, in a NPOV. Not sure anyone else who has edited the article recently could say the same, except maybe for Andrew. Buzybeez 16:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was working on it when the article got protected, though not all those had consensus. Leuko 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

JzG, you said I was "screwing" with the article, however everything I added was factual and verifiable, written in a NPOV. I am happy to defend my posts to anyone, I welcome scrutinizing the facts I presented. If you chose to revert the article, might I suggest to revert it to maybe yesterday? As a significant amount of new material was added, with consensus of editors, throughout the past several weeks. I am aware there were problems in the past, but those problematic editors do not seem to be involved any more. Buzybeez 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"but those problematic editors do not seem to be involved any more." I beg to differ - I would consider editors making legal threats to be problematic. Leuko 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Leuko, I merely said in the future "IF the school seeks legal remedies..." I never said "I was going to seek legal remedies" Big difference. Buzybeez 19:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Though being associated with the school makes those one in the same. Leuko 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably not, because all that is special pleading. Success in being listed in some directories does not address the issue of academic credibility and accreditation. Failure of any specified jurisdiction to take any specified action ditto. What we have is credible evidence that there is something seriously fishy about this place, and a long history of people trying - aggressively - to hide that. So instead of the ad-hominems, how about you propose changes that can then be discussed line by line. Experience indicates that such an approach works in a way that hurling abuse does not. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's back up. First of all, Hi JzG, nice to meet you and welcome to this Talk page discussion. As I have never personally attacked you for anything, I think accusing me of "screwing" with the article was a bit of a harsh and unwarrented attack on me. Next, is the purpose of this article to list ALL factual and verifiable information about the school (whether positive or negative), and let the facts speak for themselves? Or is the purpose to only include selective information that serves to advance a position? Once that premise is determine, we can know how best to proceed. Thanks. Buzybeez 17:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

US

There was a consensus for the first paragraph in the US section to read-

Being listed in the FAIMER/IMED directory of medical schools 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 FAIMER/IMED. [2] Satisfactory results on the USMLE examinations, as well as Certification by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG), are some of the prerequisite requirements to obtaining residency training and licensure in the US. [17] [2] Buzybeez 19:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually this was still being discussed... Leuko 19:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
As with the Canada section, the above paragraph doesn't really say that much about SCIMD. I thought the section as a whole about licensing issues was focused on where there are actual issues. The listing in FAIMER/IMED is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. Andrew73 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I might have missed the consensus on this. But if there was a consensus not to include this, then I retract the edit request. See the problem is, the last known consensus to everything was around yesterday or the day before. Now we have to try and pick through the pieces to see what was voted to be removed and what was voted to stay. I thought it would be easier to just revert to the version before today's edit war. Anyone agree? Buzybeez 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As that version apparently didn't have consensus, and certain sections were just being left alone to prevent further edit wars, perhaps it would be best to actually establish consensus first. Leuko 20:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Buzybeez 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Fully protecting the article seems a bit heavy-handed, and then relying on a third party to make these edits seems asking a bit much. I think the article should be de-protected. Andrew73 20:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As there have been continuous edit wars on this article over the last week, Full Protection is appropriate per the Protection Policy. As has been mention before, this article has spent 90% of its time under some kind of protection (including WP:OFFICE for 9 months) due to continuous disputes. Leuko 20:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we can ask the people who have been editing this page in the past week or so (I can count three as the main number of participants) to behave themselves! Andrew73 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, it hasn't worked previously. :-) Leuko 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I can agree to that. Just one request, that major edits are discussed on the talk page first and a consensus is reached. That's what we've been doing all along, except for today... Buzybeez 20:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Just looking through the article's history for the past few days, and it's mostly reverts and edit-warring. Leuko 20:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, the various reverts, etc. have been leading to some kind of improved article. I favor this over keeping it in its fixed state and then relying on admin (when he or she has the time) to make the changes. Andrew73 20:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It was much improved from the current version. I just read the current version, and it appears someone was in a hurry to add selective information, that duplicate sentences were repeated back to back. Since 3 editors have been editing the article for over a month and eventually came to a consensus on most things, that an isolated edit war, in my opinion, didn't need to result in full protection. The 3 editors were making progress in a professional way 99% of the time. It would really help to revert to the last consensus version from a few days ago, rather than starting from scratch, line by line. Buzybeez 21:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
While more recent versions were better in some areas, not everything had consensus, and people were selective about what to pursue and what not to pursue in order to prevent more edit wars. I would disagree that there was an isolated edit war, and that progress was being made 99% of the time - there were a whole bunch of reverts without discussion. As I said before, I think it would be wiser to actually develop consensus first, and edit/revert later. Leuko 01:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that Leuko, just as I always have. The edit war started with your non-consensus additions. As I remember, the new list was added while there was still discussion about it because the host was not hosting the list. One editor thought it shouldn't be included because of that, while I thought if you insisted to include it that dislaimers should be added about google cache. The discussion was progressing and would have reached a consensus within a day or so, but you just added it anyway and an edit war resulted. Same with the visas, it was an ongoing discussion. Usually when everyone presented their reasoning, a consensus is reached, but you added it without even discussing on talk first. I volunteerily will say that I won't make any additions/reverts until a consensus is reached on talk, if you do the same, in exchange for removing full protection. Buzybeez 14:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously you didn't understand what I was saying if you agree with me. First of all, my additions were not "non-consensus." I believe your additions of Canada/USMLE had less consensus than my addition of the visa issues. Secondly, (and I don't want to make this personal, but feel I have to defend myself after you made it personal), it was your persistent deletions/modifications of sourced material in order to whitewash the article contrary to WP policies which perpetuated the edit war. And thank you for the offer, but you don't have to volunteer to be on 1RR probation, you have already been placed on it by an admin. As I am not a WP:SPA engaging in disruptive editing per the terms of the ArbCom decision, I don't need to be on 1RR, and I elect not to be. However, as always, I will be civil and respect the consensus driven process in the context of the relevant WP policies, with the exception of reverting vandalism contrary to those policies. Leuko 14:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as I understood the 1RR, I could make one revert in a 24hr period. I voluntarily declined to even doing that, showing good faith, and said I wouldn't do any reverts. As for Canada, I think I agreed to the recommendation of removing generic statements (which included Canada and NY). There was a 2:1 consensus on that, but neither ended up being removed. As far as being a SPA, I disagree. I joined Wikipedia and started editing articles, this was the only article that created such controversy and hence much focus of attention. I have improved many articles pertaining to Dermatology and other misc topic. Buzybeez 16:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, since the article had been protected in some shape or form the previous 9 or so months, there really wasn't much controversy or much attention focused on it until a new editor came along with an usual knowledge of the subject [5]. As it stands now, close to 50% of Buzybeez edits are to either the SCIMD article or its talk page. Pretty much all of the other edits have been minor/non-substantial. For example, on Melanoma 6 edits for capitalization [6]. If we count these and others like it on other articles as 1 edit, then it's probably closer to 75-80% on these pages. As MastCell said, almost all of the edits of substance are to these two pages, hence the designation of WP:SPA. Leuko 17:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I am going to go out on a limb here (being BOLD), and assume that you are an Admin, and therefore entitled to smear someone with the SPA flag. May I just comment therefore that IMHO Buzybeez has done as much constructive editing to this page recently as you have, and that, were it not for the fact that, as I am well aware, taking any form of critical action against the cabal leads to one's immediate blocking and banning, I would be considering referring this artivcle to dispute resolution, before a full-scale edit war erupts. I imagine that you will now block me, indefinitely, for interfering, but I wished there to be some indication (before the page is edited to remove all trace) that Buzybeez is not condemned by all -- Simon Cursitor 09:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There has been a real problem with single-purpose advocacy accounts here, as indicated by the prior Arbitration case. It is in Wikipedia's best interests (as determined by ArbCom) to put some limits on such accounts. Buzybeez can continue to contribute constructively, or pursue dispute resolution, without edit-warring, so I don't see the 1RR as overly restrictive. I'm not sure what "cabal" you think I, or Leuko, belong to; you won't be blocked for commenting, though your tone leaves much to be desired. MastCell Talk 16:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

For JzG

Since I (and others) agree with you that a shorter article might be better, I am interested in what you suggest? How/where to make it shorter? Buzybeez 21:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPA / sockpuppet accounts

Admins: Please note that per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/St_Christopher, accounts which have the single purpose of editing this article and its talk page may be considered as a single editor, are restrained from making disruptive edits, and may be banned if they do so. Current single purpose accounts are: User:Realitymed, User:Nhmd and User:67.177.149.119. Also, User:12.158.190.38 has few edits outside this area, but does not share the same agenda as the other SPA's. Leuko 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is how Leuko typically tries to deal with editors who don't agree with his point of view when editing this article, he tries to silence them rather than hash it out in good faith. You can see that my account in not single purpose since I have a number of edits (minor, but still edits, I'm more of a WikiGnome in other areas) in other articles. You will also notice that even though User:12.158.190.38 also qualifies as a Single Purpose Account under his definition he didn't list that editor because this editor agrees with his point of view in the current discussion. When dealing with Leuko I try to WP:AGF, but you easily see how that is rather difficult when he only singles out the editors that disagree with him but not the editors that do agree with him. 67.177.149.119 03:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually 75% of the contribs from this IP address are related to this article, so considering other people may have made some of the non-related edits, that indicates that this is a WP:SPA for editing this article. I grouped the SPA's together because as the ArbCom case said, they can be regarded as a single editor using sockpuppets when editing disruptively. I'll add the other one too if it makes you happy. I try and WP:AGF too, but it's hard with the history of abusive sockpuppetry and personal attacks perpetuated in the past, which still continues. Leuko 03:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
75% means that 1 out of 4 edits has been on articles outside this area, that's not a terrible ratio, and certainly shows this is not a WP:SPA. Also, if you look at the quality of the edits you will notice that the majority of that 75% are to rephrase comments I have made or simple/minor spacing or formatting issues. It may be your opinion that the edits by the users you listed were "disruptive" but I doubt you will find a reasonable person that will agree with you on this. I agree that it's unfortunate that some biased editors continue there attacks and campaign of disinformation but it seems that some people just can't help themselves. 67.177.149.119 04:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Demanding that information be removed because other editors would not provide you with a physical copy of a newspaper article which is cited is definitely not productive. Now I had to look up what a buckytube was, but I don't think this comment was very supportive of the nature of the edits on this page: [7]. Leuko 04:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. Actually, since you were able to prove the existence of the article without a physical copy demonstrates that it was rather easy to obtain verification. I don't think asking for verification for information that is included in an article in what is supposedly an "encyclopedia" is asking too much. Without verification Wikipedia would be no better than any other garbage out there on the internet. Do you really think that even basic verification to prove that material even existed is unnecessary? 67.177.149.119 04:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was rather easy to obtain for someone who had the desire to actually re-verify a source which has been there for a year. I don't know why it needed to be such a difficult process. Leuko 05:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You tell me, you were the one that was complaining about it being so difficult. BritishDad 05:41, 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)"

You rule, buddy. You rule.

Don't let the bastards keep you down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.17.252 (talk)

It appears that there is a new SPA after the downgrading to semi-protect... Leuko 12:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
This new SPA has been reported to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement for violation of the ArbCom decision. Leuko 11:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

discussion inactive for almost 2 months. archive it for now? Buzybeez 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was just an WP:SPA who posted, so I would suggest keeping it on the main page. Leuko 18:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
And another one has become active... Leuko 19:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lists vs. extrapolation

Just a quick note, if you both believe that Canada should be removed "since it doesn't say anything specific to SCIMD." Then California, NY, and Kansas discussions should also be removed since those don't say anything specific to SCIMD either. Just presenting both sides of the argument here.... Buzybeez 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But we know that SCIMD is not on California's approved list and not eligible in NY and Kansas because of the very clear requirements. These are cited facts, not conjecture. Leuko 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Buzybeez does have a point, as what the article is stating about NY is sort of generic (in the same way that Canada's statement is generic). The section as it stands should comment specifically about SCIMD. Otherwise, you could include generic statements from every state in the Union and then make extrapolations as to how it applies to SCIMD. Andrew73 19:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
But we know that California has a listed of approved medical schools, and the fact that SCIMD is not on it is relevant, IMHO. Similarly with NY, the citation states that the school must be located in the country of charter, which SCIMD is not. Also, the school has not been open long enough to meet Kansas' standards. Leuko 19:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree Andrew. I have no objections to removing Canada if the other "generic" summaries are also removed. California has lists, but since SCIMD is on neither list, so nothing specific is mentioned about SCIMD it and results in a generic extrapolation. Kansas actually has a disapproved list and SCIMD is not on it. So that would mean removal of Canada, California, Kansas, and NY. Consensus? Buzybeez 19:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The absence of SCIMD on the California list is worth including, since this seems pretty definitive. However, the NY statement does appear to involve some extrapolation (albeit true). Furthermore, the section could probably fit better if it were wworded differently so that it doesn't appear that states are listed on an ad hoc basis, e.g. it could be reworded along the lines of: "Some states require that students attend..." In any event, I did go to the NY page listed in the reference [8], and couldn't find specific mention of the chartering issue. Andrew73 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
We can change the wording, what exactly did you have in mind. As far as the reference, "A curriculum of not less than 32 months (4 academic years) in a medical program recognized as an acceptable educational program for physicians by the appropriate civil authorities of the country in which the school is located" is under section B, paragraph 2. Leuko 20:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess first we should come to a consensus on whether only states with lists should be included in the article? Buzybeez 21:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
What is the Admin's opinion on this? Buzybeez 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the New York issue, the statement in this current version is pretty neutral and doesn't say anything informative (as compared to the statements regarding recognition in Maine, etc.). I favor removing the sentence involving NY. Andrew73 21:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As the NY and NJ sentences are basically saying the same thing, I've combined them for less redundancy. Any thoughts? Leuko 21:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Andrew73 22:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It does sound better (less redundant wording). But, it's factually incorrect. New York does not require studying in the country of charter for the first 2 years. It just requires to be recognized where the studying is located (not necessarily the country of charter). So, if GMC/UK were to recognize the Luton campus, that would be ok with NY. This is precisely the problem that was mentioned above, reading licensing laws and extrapolating how it might apply to SCIMD. We (or at least me) are not medical licensing authorities, and it's a bit out of our scope to extrapolate this kind of information and potentially mislead the reader. The safest thing to do is only discuss in the article states that have lists. Buzybeez 15:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think you need to be a medical licensing authority to realize that if a state requires that the school be recognized by the country where the school is located that SCIMD would not qualify for licensing, because it is not recognized by the UK (quite the opposite actually), and I don't feel that it is misleading at all. If you object to the wording, we can change it back to the previous version which quoted the NY licensing website, but IMHO, recognition by and chartered by are essentially the same thing. Leuko 16:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Visas

The statement, "In addition, SCIMD-COM's Luton campus is not listed in the Register of Education and Training Providers published by the British Department for Children, Schools and Families, meaning that students will not be granted student visas for study at the Luton campus by the UK Home Office." Is this actually true? There doesn't appear to be a shortage of foreign students at Luton. Andrew73 19:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it used to be listed, but I can't find it anymore... So it must have been removed as a result of "Failure of continuing compliance with the criteria may lead to removal from the Register." Perhaps the Home Office is unaware of this, or I don't know how SCIMD students are getting visas, because as you say they must almost all be foreign. Leuko 19:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, from my understanding, when the college relieved certain representatives of their duties (as discussed in the programs section), they appear to have changed locations for the luton campus and US administrative offices. With the change of addresses/contacts, they have to re-do paperwork with DfES, from my understanding. As they have been on DfES for years already, even after the GMC suspension, I think this is more of temporary administrative thing, rather than a non-recognition. Leuko, by you adding them not having DfES now, then by default you will be agreeing to mentioning them having the listing recognition when/if it is reinstated (which is likely to be reinstated). Is that what you wish to do? Just wondering? Buzybeez 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course, the listing would be based on a WP:RS, so how could I object? If it is not a derecognition, and the school is re-listed, I will support the addition of this information with the added information that this only makes students eligible for student visas, and is not a recognition/accreditation/or any other measure of the quality of education at the school, as stated on the DfES website. Leuko 20:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Addendum: Now that I think about it, we have discussed this before, and an admin declined to add this into the article, however we can discuss it again... Reviewing my previous comments, would it be considered as advertising as prohibited by the DfES? If we add all the disclaimers, maybe or maybe not. But as DfES can remove schools from the register for using it in advertising, I am not sure it would be appropriate for WP editors to make the school take that risk by including it. Leuko 20:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, leuko... interesting that when the school was listed you were against posting it because it would be viewed as advertising. But now that the school is temporarily not listed, you added that negative information. hmmm... Well, I think that each editor is responsible for their own posts. If a problem were to arise, my guess is that you would be responsible, not wikipedia. I could be wrong though. Also, if it was to be included, the "accreditation and licensing" section is does not seem like the right place, IMO. Buzybeez 20:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact that students can't get student visas would be hard to characterize as advertising by anyone. What I was saying was that there was a risk that DfES would view the inclusion of the information that SCIMD is listed in the Register as advertising, and would remove it from the Register for that. I wouldn't want to be responsible if this happened, so I wouldn't add it. If someone else were to add it, the disclaimers about not being a accreditation agency/quality assurance program/etc. should probably be mentioned. If you think where it is located in the article right now is not the right place, where would you suggest? Leuko 20:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question, the appropriate location for all this would be in the "programs" section, in my opinion. Since DfES does not have anything to do with "accreditation and licensing" I'm not sure the reasoning for inserting it there. But, Leuko, I think you are creating a mess for yourself! A double standard is emerging! The DfES listing was not allowed to be posted when it was a positive statement, but is allowed to be posted now that it is a negative statement? hmmm.... And, If you are going to add all those disclaimers about DFES not being an accreditation agency when/if the school gets relisted, then in all fairness it should be added now too. But, that is just going on a tangent of explaining your explanations. In my opinion, the easiest thing to do is remove reference to it. Buzybeez 17:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the statement to the "Programs" section as suggested. The reason for its original location was that the Luton campus was being discussed at that point, so it seemed to naturally flow. We can add the disclaimers, but as you said yourself, DfES does not have anything to do with accreditation/licensing, and the cited statement is relating to Visa issues, so a disclaimer about not being an accreditation agency really isn't relevant, but if you feel you need to add it... As a cited WP:RS, I don't think it would be appropriate to remove it. Leuko 18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the disclaimers are needed now or in future if relisted. Although I find it so interesting that you knew all along the school had DFES but you never added it to the article (and actually fought against including it). But, the moment they are not on there, you added it. hmmm... I can't shake the thought of a double standard emerging... Buzybeez 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it would have been advertising, which is not permissible per the DfES. Per the previous discussion, it appeared that the DfES was in the process of being removed. As I said before, the inability for student visas could hardly be advertising. Leuko 21:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Leuko, the bottom line of the point I am trying to make is that advocating not including DFES when the school is listed, but then advocating to include DFES when the school is not listed, appears to me like a double standard, like an editor who is trying to advance a position and seeking the best of both worlds. The premise that including DFES when the school is listed will appear like positive advertising, will lead to the conclusion that including DFES when the school is not listed is negative advertising. So, with that said, it appears only fair that DFES is included in the article regardless of the school status, or DFES is not included at all. I will advocate for all or none. If you insist on leaving it in the article now, then when/if the school is listed again, it will have to be mentioned (especially to update the reader on a change of status). Since you included it now, I personally won't revert it, but I'm just saying the precendence you are setting. So it's up to you I suppose... Buzybeez 14:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
And as I said before, it would be fine to include it when (and if) the school is re-listed again, as long as the disclaimers that it is not a licensing/accreditation agency are included as required by the DfES and only relates to the visa status as it does currently. Leuko 20:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I replaced the information removed as "synthesis" (even though it was not) with information quoted from the DfES website. And I thought we decided adding the quality assurance disclaimer was unnecessary. We could leave it, but it looks rather silly, since we are discussing the ability to obtain a student visa, not the quality of the school. Leuko 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Leuko wrote"And I thought we decided adding the quality assurance disclaimer was unnecessary. We could leave it, but it looks rather silly, since we are discussing the ability to obtain a student visa, not the quality of the school"
  • and Leuko also wrote, "it would be fine to include it when (and if) the school is re-listed again, as long as the disclaimers that it is not a licensing/accreditation agency are included"
  • In my opinion, it sure does appear as though Leuko is creating a mess and underscoring a double standard serving to advance a position. Maintaining a NPOV is a non-negotiable requirement, and implementing a double standards underscores a confllict of interest. It appears to me that Leuko's true motives for editing this article are coming to light, by way of Leuko's own conflicting words. It also appears to me as a COI and Leuko's posts are borderlining on vandalism, in my opinion. Andrew has been a fine model of maintaining a NPOV with professionalism, maybe others can learn by his example. Buzybeez 14:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, WP:KETTLE, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:COI, and WP:CIVIL. Why don't we discuss the article, rather than make baseless personal attacks? Leuko 14:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks, those quotes were your words not mine. NPOV is non-negotiable, and implementing a double standard is also non-negotiable. I don't believe editors can/should do things one way when it serves to advance your position and then do things another way when it doesn't. Buzybeez 14:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Quick note, before engaging in an edit war, it might be more productive to discuss it here on the talk page first. Buzybeez 14:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that edit-wars are counter-productive, but then again, the pot calling the kettle black is not productive either. Leuko 14:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As Buzybeez does not seem to agree that a discussion of visas is relevant to a discussion of the Luton campus, I've moved it in to it's own section. As previously stated, and backed up by WP:RS, most of the student body is foreign, so listing in DfES' Register is essential, and disclaimers otherwise are not necessary. Leuko 15:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if the Administrators maintain a NPOV or a double-standard with their approach to this section. In the past, discussed this before, when DFES was positive information, it was not allowed. Now that it is negative information, will it be allowed? Buzybeez 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The lack of listing is more notable than being listed. Being listed in-and-of itself is something that is a generic fact for most academic institutions and not necessarily worth including. Andrew73 11:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
As I previously suggested, discussion of visas should go in the programs section. It is currently in the Accreditation section, but that visa agency clearly states they have nothing to do with accreditation. Buzybeez 17:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
As we are discussing the UK in that general area, I thought it would be more logical there. I've retitled the section and included legal issues to indicate it is not all about accreditation and licensing. Leuko 18:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a better title would be "Accreditation, Licensing, Visas" Buzybeez 18:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fine. Leuko 18:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with the word issues? Leuko 18:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

AISC List of Bogus Universities

I've added SCIMD's listing on AISC's list of bogus universities back in. It can be verified through GoogleCache's html version of the pdf. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead" which states that these references should not be removed. Leuko 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If the creators of such a list are not hosting that list, then it raises some concern. I don't believe it should be included in the article if the creators of the list are not even included it on their webpage, since we don't know their reason for removing it. When/if they rehost that information, might be a better time to include it in the article, in my opinion. Buzybeez 14:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that they did host it, and like you said, we don't know why it was removed. Could be just a technical error. Per the WP policy above, it needs to stay unless the AISC issues a statement that the listing was in error. Leuko 14:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't waste time arguing whether it should stay or not. However, it should be noted that they don't currently host such a list and the information contained herein is from google cache, so as to not mislead the reader. Buzybeez 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Quick note, before engaging in an edit war, it might be more productive to discuss it here on the talk page first. Buzybeez 14:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, WP:KETTLE - it takes two to perpetrate an edit war. Leuko 14:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Leuko, I merely added disclaimers. You were the first to begin reverting such disclaimers, without discussing your reasoning on this Talk page. Buzybeez 14:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did discuss on the talk page, as evidenced above. Leuko 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Relying on the Google cache is a bit of a stretch. It may have been removed from the list for a reason. It's asking a bit much for AISC to issue a statement that the listing was in error before removing this link. Leuko, given your concern for reliable sources and verifiability, it would seem that this entry is the least reliable one on the page Andrew73 17:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". The college itself was not removed from the list, it's just the list is no longer available at the web address cited. The GoogleCache link really isn't necessary, and we are not relying on it, it is just there to provide WP:V that this did exist for Buzybeez. Leuko 18:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". While I don't dispute that this list existed, I'm just wondering why the heavy reliance on a "dead" link when there's plenty of other (more verifiable) material in the article that discusses the validity of degrees of SCIMD. Andrew73 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Because this is pretty much the only reference to state that the degree is unaccredited by and of itself (in an academic sense). The rest of the refs state that the degree is unaccredited and illegal for the purposes of licensing. Leuko 18:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree that this list is a bit of a stretch. While it may be true that SCIMD is on the list, the server is not posting the list and it is only verifiable by google cache. There are other more definitive sources discussing the credentialling status, that I agree using this one is a bit of a stretch, as mentioned above. If the converse was true, and a website said "SCIMD was accredited" but it could only be verified by google cache, I highly doubt it would be allowed to be included in the article. Buzybeez 17:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I really can't think of a more definitive source than a UK accrediting agency stating that a school in the UK is unaccredited. As far as the insinuation that this is POV-pushing, I can't see how citing a WP:RS consistent with WP:CITE conflicts with WP:NPOV. Leuko 18:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Addendum: As a counter example, we cite the charter and recognition by Senegal from the school's webpage. As it is self-published, it is not the most WP:RS, but there is no better source available. Same with this. Leuko 18:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
In terms of WP:RS, I don't see how this is the the most definitive source, given that you can only find it on a Google cache. And to take the Google cache as the "truth" until there's a document stating, "no, we didn't really mean to exclude SCIMD" issued by this ASIC agency (which is an impossible expectation, since I can't imagine any agency going out of their way to issue an erratum). I just get the feeling that this is somehow a double standard. Imagine, for a second, that there was some document that vouched for the credibility of SCIMD, but was only found by Google cache. Clearly people would be hollering WP:RS back at this document. Furthermore, when you do go to the website for ASIC, it's not clear that this document even existed or should exist. Andrew73 21:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The Google Cache is provided as a convenience only, and per WP:CITE, the original reference can stand on it's own. But I do agree about the development of a double standard. This source does vouch for the credibility of SCIMD (at least at one point), but it is found in a web archiver, which is basically equivalent to Google Cache, and no one has been questioning its reliability. If one goes, both probably need to go to apply the same standard. Leuko 21:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Some good points. But to take this issue in a different direction, what about the validity of ASIC "accreditation" in and of itself. Is being recognized by ASIC something even worth mentioning? Since it's possible that it's in the same realm as List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning. Andrew73 22:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Good question. Apparently, it is one of the two general accreditation bodies recognized by the Home Office for the purposes of issuing visas. [9] (The other is the British Accreditation Council, which SCIMD is also not recognized by. There is a 3rd, but apparently it only accredits schools which teach ESL). Leuko 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparing google cache to This source is a bit off. That GMC letter has a signature, it's on formal letterhead, with contact information, the full name and title of the author. Fully verifiable with a government agency. Hence the reason no one has questioned it. That fact that at least 2 editors are questioning ASIC not hosting the list and the validity of google cache, goes to show that with a NPOV, it is probably better not to include it at this time. Why not just remove it (temporarily). If/when the list resurfaces from a reliable, verifiable source, then re-add it? That is the safest, fairest thing to do. Actually there has been a 2:1 consensus not to include it for a little while now. (By the way, I would advocate for including any organization that has done site visits and formal evaluations of the college, and then formally disapproving/approving, whether AISC or BAC,etc., but we have no evidence of this yet). Buzybeez 16:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is off at all - both sources rely on web caching mechanisms. The fact that there is no signature is irrelevant - it was posted on an official accrediting agency's page, whereas the GMC letter was posted on SCIMD's website. It would be improper to remove it because it is based on a WP:RS, and WP:CITE says that these should not be removed, even if the link goes dead. Consensus is an evolving thing, so it may have changed in light of the new evidence. Also, interestingly, it appears that the GMC never did a site visit and only mentioned that it was approved based on its WHO listing. By your own standards, we should probably remove it, as the safest, fairest course of action. Leuko 16:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to follow that logic of only listing licensing bodies that did site visits, then the entire U.S. and U.K. licensing sections would need to be removed, because none of those did such. Is that what you wish to do? My comment was more directed on inclusion of material from accrediting agencies (ASIC, BAC,etc). Re-read above. Buzybeez 16:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly why I think such a stipulation is unreasonable. Leuko 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the list just changed web-addresses and titles in an effort to be more politically correct. So as it is once again verifiable, I've added it back in. Leuko 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Leuko, much better than google cache. Buzybeez 16:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I have changed it back to the original wording, which is taken from here. Leuko 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This wording must be more important since it was written as the title/header of the list, thus it's probably more appropriate to use this The Accreditation Service for International Colleges, a UK-based accrediting agency, has included SCIMD-COM on their list of higher education institutions which they "suggest you undertake detailed research before embarking on a programme of study" Buzybeez 14:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, I think the current wording is more appropriate. I've referenced the web page where the wording is from to make the source clearer. Leuko 14:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

2nd and 3rd paragraphs

Since those 2 paragraphs were referring to the same thing, there was a consensus to consolodate them. This was the last known version that received consensus, as such, it should probably be added back to the article.

The college's programs award the Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree through the authority of UEIN. The Dakar, Senegal campus is currently listed in The Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER) International Medical Education Directory (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]. Of note, the Luton, UK location in and of itself is not listed as being recognized as an independent entity in the UK.[5]. SCIMD-COM's Dakar location is also listed by the World Health Organization in the updated 7th edition of the World Directory of Medical Schools.[6] However, the Office of Degree Authorization in Oregon listed the former name of SCIMD and stated that "No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006."[7] SCIMD-COM is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body and neither the college, nor the parent university, is listed in UNESCO's database of accredited institutions.[8] 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. Buzybeez 19:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, except that we should probably add that neither IMED/ECFMG nor WHO are accrediting agencies. Leuko 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC) {{edit protected}} - not done, decide exactly what you want first. Neil ム 13:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Again I think this illustrates my point, that it can be somewhat clumsy (and confusing) asking a third party who is unaware of the content to make the edits. Andrew73 14:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now that the page is unprotected, we should probably work on consensus. IMHO, we need to include that neither IMED nor WHO are accrediting agencies. Leuko 17:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Shorter article

Moved from: User_talk:JzG Frankly I think the project would be better off if that article were a lot shorter. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

JzG, I agree with you that the article would be better if it were alot shorter, just as most other schools' articles. The first 2 paragraphs stating the location/identifying information and the credentialling status are enough, IMHO. That says it all. The rest of the article appears to just create chaos among everyone. I have would advocate for those 2 paragraphs and leaving the article fully protected. Buzybeez 19:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
So basically you want to whitewash the article of all licensing/GMC/other issues? Big surprise, but not likely to happen. Take it to the article's talk page. Leuko 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, don't want to whitewash anything. I just thought JzG idea of it being better as a shorter article was a wise conclusion. The main point you guys seem to want to make is that the school is not accredited, right? So, just list identifying information and the not accredited tag. That's the simpliest solution and says it all. The rest of the article creates havoc and headaches for everyone. Sometimes less is more. I wonder how many people actually read full articles? or Do they just stop after the first few paragraphs? Buzybeez 20:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So you don't considering removing all the licensing issues/banning by GMC/etc as whitewashing? Interesting. Perhaps we should remove the section about the curriculum and administrative office location, as this would make the article shorter. Leuko 20:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The issues related to the banning and its recognition by various states in the U.S. is worth including, since these features are quite distinctive. The fact that the location of its various offices is in two different states is also worth including. As for the curriculum, reasonable to include as well. What could be removed is information that's not specific to the article (generic statements about Canada or U.S.), as discussed previously. Andrew73 20:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Endorse Andrew's statement. Leuko 20:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That would mean removing Canada, USMLE, New York (since all those are non-specific to the school). As well as the synthesized statements. I can endorse that. Buzybeez 20:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

New Jersey is listed because they require that students spend the first two years at a medical school in the country of charter. The same with NY. I fail to see how one is relevant, and one is not. The synthesized statements can be re-worded, but all the quotes is what was making the article rather long. The current phraseology is more natural, gramatically correct, and flows better because it's not just a random collection of quotes. Leuko 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It could be about half as long and still say much the same. A lot of it looks like tap-dancing around the controversy. Much as I dislike controversy sections, the controversy is the dominant feature here and there is virtually nothing else to say about the place, other than to list what courses it says it offers, which we typically do not do for such institutions. I will stress this: it is incredibly unusual, probably unique, for a purported medical school with premises in the UK to be explicitly not recognised by the GMC. The US publications about lack of accreditation are generic for an unaccredited school. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with JzG, that "It could be about half as long and still say much the same. A lot of it looks like tap-dancing around the controversy." Buzybeez 20:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well - a lot of it could be said more effectively and effeciently, but that would require making statements that some called synthesis. Leuko 22:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is being meant by synthesis? By my take on the article, it's all in the eye of the beholder, as there appears to be examples of synthesis being used on both "camps" of the article (e.g. 1. SCIMD is not on this list, 2. you need to be on this list in order do (A), 3. therefore SCIMD is not good for (A)). This would appear to be "synthesis" (not that I'm specifically opposed to "synthesis" per se). Andrew73 23:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If A=B, and B=C, then synthesis is saying A=C. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SYN#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position Buzybeez 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It is normal to note when a "university" is not accredited, by reference to non-appearance in the authoritative accreditation databases. There are usually plenty of sources which say the same, but the authority is CHEA / USDE so we reference it to that. But being listed in directories which have no accreditation criterion, such as FAIMER, is of no particular relevance. Guy (Help!) 07:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that plenty of references are just repeatedly saying the same thing. In efforts to make the article shorter upon JzG's recommendation, is there a consensus for the following:
1. Just using the non-accredited tag (which says it all) and substantiate that claim with a bunch of references. That would reduce the length of the article considerably. (As oppose to how it currently just says the same sentences over and over that the school is not listed in 123, xyz).
2. Remove reference to lists (FAIMER,etc)
Suggested wording for consolidating 2nd/3rd paragraphs:
"SCIMD-COM is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions." [1] [2] [3] Buzybeez 16:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Whitewashing the article by removing WP:RS stating the actions of various licensing boards, such as GMC, have banned the school will not improve the article. Leuko 17:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Slow down leuko, JzG suggested breaking it down and tackling line by line. This is just for paragraphs 2 and 3. No one said anything about removing licensing boards or GMC. Re-read above. Buzybeez 17:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1RR for User:Buzybeez

Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher, accounts which focus primarily or exclusively on this article and advance an agenda may be restrained for disruptive editing. Buzybeez (talk · contribs) meets the criteria for a single-purpose account, as virtually all of his/her edits of substance have dealt with this article. There's evidence of disruptiveness in the form of edit-warring. Therefore, in accordance with the ArbCom decision, I'm placing Buzybeez (talk · contribs) on 1RR probation, as a half-measure rather than an outright block or ban. Buzybeez may revert once in a 24-hour period on this article, with a revert being defined broadly as undoing any recent edit in full or in part. Talk page discussion is highly encouraged; if in doubt over whether something is a 2nd revert or not, take it to the talk page. Violating the 1RR limitation will result in a warning; if not self-reverted, it will result in a block. MastCell Talk 23:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case, perhaps the protection on the article could be changed to semi-protected. Andrew73 23:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I was not the one who initiated the edit war, it appears I'm the only one receiving the warning. But, that's fine by me, I can accept it. Buzybeez 21:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

Given the clumsiness of requesting edits to a protected page, and the 1RR that is in place per the terms of the prior ArbCom ruling, I'm going to go ahead and try unprotecting the page. Please avoid edit-warring and try to reach consensus for changes here on the talk page before implementing them. MastCell Talk 16:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Andrew73 17:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks MastCell. Buzybeez 17:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive Talk

Since the majority of this talk page was just bickering, any objections to archiving most of it and starting fresh, so that we can all reach a consensus on these issues and move on to other articles? Buzybeez 18:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing, I'll start working on it. Leuko 18:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. We could probably also archive # 6 and 7, in my opinion, as those are already resolved or being discussed elsewhere. Buzybeez 17:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I archived #6, since it was your thread per your request. As for 7 (Shorter article), I thought that was the current article improvement drive - to make it more compact, so I left it in for now. Leuko 18:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Curriculum

If people are interested in making the article shorter, the material in the curriculum section is pretty redundant, as it pretty much applies to any medical school. (See for example the articles about Johns Hopkins or Mayo Medical School; these articles do not describe their curriculum). What would be worth including is where the Luton students do their clinical clerkships (e.g. England, US, maybe even Senegal?). Andrew73 21:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there really isn't anything notable about the curriculum, so it could be removed in the interests of making the article shorter. The location of clinical clerkships used to be present in the article (stating US, UK and Senegal), but was removed for lack of WP:RS indicating hospital locations. Leuko 21:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Other offshore medical schools had their curriculum added,see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George's_University#Medical_curriculum. Hence the reason I think it was also added to this article. Actually, that school also has a student government section which could theoretically be added to this article also, since they are listed by various student groups such as AMSA http://www.amsa.org/intl/listfor.cfmBuzybeez 16:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought we were trying to make the article shorter, not longer. I don't see adding information about the student government as useful to the article. Leuko 16:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

UNESCO/International Association of Universities List of Universities of the World

The UNESCO list is simply a "List of universities of the world" and does not claim to be any indication of accreditation status. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But isn't "being provided by national authorities and other competent bodies" a defacto indication of accreditation? Leuko 14:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
So it's not in the Unesco list, but is in FAIMER's IMED. It's in a WHO update dated 2001, but the WHO list doesn't appear to have been updated at all since then, and although I can find references to a new database service being operated by the University of Copenhagen on behalf of the WHO that is due to start in 2007, I can't actually find the database server. I choose to interpret the ambiguous data as neutrally as possible, and that means that I can't determine whether the college is accredited or not! What I don't choose to do is state that the college either is or is not accredited when the matter is clearly in doubt. Incidentally, the State of Oregon has it's own definition of accredited, so you can only use Oregon's determination of the accreditation status to assert accreditation or otherwise in the context in which that definition applies, i.e. Oregon State Law! DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Not every single accredited college in the world is listed in UNESCO. I'm not aware of UNESCO stating its list is "all inclusive". So not being listed in there does not mean as much as being listed. It is OR to draw conclusions like this anyways. Buzybeez 15:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Issue resolved. Archive it? 67.52.248.146 (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

California, Kansas, New York

These states do not mention SCIMD specifically and represents OR research. Previously, other information that did not mention SCIMD specifically was removed (Canada and USMLE eligibility for example). As such, these states should probably be removed to ensure no double standard of OR is being applied to this article. Buzybeez 15:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum in the archives. No reason to bring it up again and again. Leuko 17:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe there's every reason to discuss it. There are 5 states (Alabama, Indiana, Maine, Oregon and Texas) which do not recognise qualifications from SCIMD-COM / EM-SCIMD / UEIN for the purpose of licensing of physicians. These 5 cases are sufficient to establish that qualifications from those establishments may not be accepted by US states. It would be a needless padding of this and other similar articles to include discussion of the licensing requirements for physicians of all states and countries in every such article, and thus it follows that only such states and countries that specifically refer to the institution concerned should be included in the article for any such institution. It may be beneficial to have a single article that gave an overview of the licensing requirements for physicians on a global basis, possibly structured along the lines of this, that could be wikilinked as "Main article" under the section "Licensing" for any medical school. It would then be possible to include information such as "Kantuckois does not accept any qualification granted following a course of internet based study", "Califansork rejects qualifications that are deemed unacceptable by any other medical licensing authority" or "Fritalaria only accepts qualifications from institutions that teach in Fritalarian" in that general article, and hence make the information available to anyone seeking it, without needlessly padding a multitude of other articles with duplicated comments based on references that don't actually refer directly to the article subject. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The fact that the school is not on the list of CA's recognized medical schools when Saddam Hussein University is, is pertinent and should be mentioned in the article. New York and NJ's statements that the medical school must be located in the country in which it is chartered is also pertinent. As there is no other medical school in the world that is not chartered where it is located, moving this information to another article wouldn't make much sense, since it wouldn't apply to any other school. Leuko 15:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
What has the presence of SHU on the CA list got to do with whether the absence of SCIMD from that list is relevant to this article? Is your argument that "SCIMD does not appear on a list that includes SHU?" There are 5 good references which clearly demonstrate that "some US States do not accept qualifications issued by SCIMD-COM for the purpose of licensing of physicians" by, in each case, naming the school as unacceptable to a specific state. Additional references that do not specifically refer to the school are extraneous padding, and publishing two references such as "state x requires schools to have been in existence for n years" and "school y has been in existence for m years" requires that a conclusion is made from those 2 references. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a 2:1 consensus to remove the current text in the United States subsection, since it includes OR, and replace it with the following:

=== United States ===
  • Alabama includes "St. Christopher's College, Dakar, Senegal" in a list of "Colleges of Medicine or Schools of Medicine [which] are not approved by the Board for applicants for certificates of qualification pursuant to the authority of [Alabama State Law]"[4]
  • Indiana "St. Christopher’s (Senegal)" is on the list of "Questionable Foreign Medical Schools" and applications for licensure from graduates will be considered on a "case by case" basis.[5]
  • Maine has added "St. Christopher's College of Medicine" (SCCM, the former name of SCIMD-COM) "Senegal, UK" to their state's list of "Unaccredited Post-Secondary Educational Institutions".[6]
  • Oregon Office of Degree Authorization lists "St Christopher's College of Medicine, Senegal, UK, Belize" on the list of "degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)."[7][8]
  • Texas has placed SCCM (Senegal; United Kingdom) on their list of "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas" as defined by Texas Code 61.302(11).[9][10]

Buzybeez 15:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this edit - it is still being actively discussed. Leuko 15:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Although I fully support the replacement of the USA section with the text in Buzybeez proposal, which I suspect he has lifted from my userspace, 2:1 isn't consensus when there are only 3 people involved in the discussion. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll temporarily remove the edit request. Buzybeez 18:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

There has been no further comment in this section, so I am replacing the edit request. Admin, please note that a concensus is not really needed (although 2:1 consensus exists), since the edit request involves removal text which violates wikipedia policy regarding systhesis and original research.

I strongly suggest that at the very least, we wait for the outcome of the RFC (if any comments are received) on the similar article Medical University of the Americas - Belize before requesting any edits - it is stupid to use edit requests to have changes made that will just be the subject of more disagreement once protection is removed, and user:Leuko has not (as far as I am aware) indicated any acceptance of the beliefs that I hold namely that (a) we don't actually need to use every negative word that we can find in every reference to generate an article that is as negative as it's possible to make it about the value of a qualification from these institutions, and (b) that the only references that we should use in the section that discusses licensing are those jurisdictions that make explicit statements on the recognition of qualifications granted by each article's subject, plus perhaps a single link to a wider discussion of licensing of physicians. The article was initially protected because of edit warring between Leuko and myself, until there is consensus between us, edit requests are pointless. Absence of comment here does not necessarily imply consensus, as this debate spans multiple similar articles. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the current text in the United States subsection (since it includes Original Research and synthesized conclusions) and replace it with the following:

=== United States ===
  • Alabama includes "St. Christopher's College, Dakar, Senegal" in a list of "Colleges of Medicine or Schools of Medicine [which] are not approved by the Board for applicants for certificates of qualification pursuant to the authority of [Alabama State Law]"[11]
  • Indiana "St. Christopher’s (Senegal)" is on the list of "Questionable Foreign Medical Schools" and applications for licensure from graduates will be considered on a "case by case" basis.[12]
  • Maine has added "St. Christopher's College of Medicine" (SCCM, the former name of SCIMD-COM) "Senegal, UK" to their state's list of "Unaccredited Post-Secondary Educational Institutions".[13]
  • Oregon Office of Degree Authorization lists "St Christopher's College of Medicine, Senegal, UK, Belize" on the list of "degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)."[14][15]
  • Texas has placed SCCM (Senegal; United Kingdom) on their list of "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas" as defined by Texas Code 61.302(11).[16][17]

Thanks. Buzybeez 15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 Not done since there is still some opposition to this edit. Tra (Talk) 22:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections to the edit request? DMcMPO11AAUK, you mentioned that "this debate spans multiple similar articles." Are those debates still active or has a consensus been reached? Buzybeez 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Issue resolved. Archive it? 67.52.248.146 (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

UNESCO discussion

{{editprotected}} To summarize the extensive commentary below:

3 editors agree to removal of that sentence.
1 of those 3 editors is concerned that someone may appear in the future and may begin edit warring when the full protection is removed.
My suggestion would be to go forward with this consensus edit, and if such time occurs where a disruptive appears, they can be referred to the admin. Buzybeez 15:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Per the rationale below, I endorse the below recommendation to remove this sentence from the article:
Neither SCIMD-COM nor UEIN is listed in the UNESCO/International Association of Universities List of Universities of the World.[8] Thanks Buzybeez 18:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur with the request to remove the sentence "Neither SCIMD-COM nor UEIN is listed in the UNESCO/International Association of Universities List of Universities of the World." and the associated reference, as I believe that non-inclusion on that specific list is not significant. However, unless User:Leuko also agrees to removing the sentence, there's no point, as it will simply become the subject of more edit warring when the page protection is removed. Also I note that the request seems to have come from yet another WP:SPA. In fact, I'm starting to suspect that there may be several sock puppets taking part in this and related discussions, and would like to remind any such users that although this discussion spans at least 4 (is it 6 now?) talk pages, using multiple identities in the discussion to give the perception that one viewpoint has more support than it actually enjoys is forbidden. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 20:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask the editors to please remove the discussion in this article related to UNESCO. The lack of SCIMD-COM/UEIN listing in UNESCO is not relevant here. UNESCO has a completely volunteer database listing universities worldwide and no licensing of any sort is dependent on its inclusion. I will not list them all, but there is no medical licensing laws that stipulate a university must be listed by UNESCO.

Also, if we are to consider the community standard, we see that very few foreign medical universities are listed by UNESCO:

I suspect that detailed examination will show that the majority of foreign (for whatever definition of foreign you choose to use, remember we';re not all in the same country here!) universities including those with generally recognised medical schools probably are listed in the UNESCO database, as well as FAIMER/IMED, WHO and others. Moreover, your posting of masses of data here from the various lists doesn't actually help make your case at all. The validity of including the UNESCO list for this School of Medicine isn't dependant upon whether any specific other institutions are or are not featured in that list. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 20:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Netherlands Antilles

UNESCO list [10]:
Universiteit van de Nederlandse Antillen

FAIMER/ECFMG List [11]:
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF THE CARIBBEAN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE CUPECOY
SABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE THE BOTTOM
ST. JAMES SCHOOL OF MEDICINE KRALENDIJK
ST. MARTINUS UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF MEDICINE OTRABANDA
UNIVERSITY OF SINT EUSTATIUS SINT EUSTATIUS
XAVIER UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, BONAIRE KRALENDIJK


Dominica

UNESCO List:
None

FAIMER/ECFMG list [12]:
ALL SAINTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, DOMINCA LOUBIERE
ROSS UNIVERSITY

Grenada

UNESCO List:
None

FAIMER/ECFMG list [13]:
ST. GEORGE'S UNIVERSITY ST. GEORGE'S


Cuba

UNESCO List http://www.unesco.org/iau/onlinedatabases/list_data/c-nw.html#Cuba:
Universidad Agraria de La Habana
Universidad Central Marta Abreu de Las Villas
Universidad de Camaguëy
Universidad de Ciego de Avila
Universidad de Cienfuegos Carlos Rafael Rodríguez
Universidad de Granma
Universidad de Holguín 'Oscar Lucero Moya'
Universidad de La Habana
Universidad de Matanzas 'Camilo Cienfuegos'
Universidad de Oriente
Universidad de Pinar del Río Hermanos Saíz Montes de Oca
Universidad Pedagógica Enrique José Varona
Universidad Pedagógica Frank País García
Universidad Pedagógica José de la Luz y Caballero

FAIMER/ECFMG List [14]
CENTRO UNIVERSITARIO DE MATANZAS MATANZAS
ESCUELA LATINOAMERICANA DE MEDICINA HABANA
FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS MEDICAS 'MARIANA GRAJALES COELLO' DE HOLGUIN HOLGUIN
FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS MEDICAS CIENFUEGOS 'RAUL DORTICOS TORRADO' CIENFUEGOS
FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS MEDICAS DE CIEGO DE AVILA CIEGO DE AVILA
FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS MEDICAS GRANMA 'CELIA SANCHEZ MANDULEY' MANZANILLO
FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS MEDICAS GUANTANAMO GUANTANAMO
FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS MEDICAS LAS TUNAS 'ZOILO MARINELLO VIDAURRETA' LAS TUNAS
FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS MEDICAS MATANZAS MATANZAS
FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS MEDICAS PINAR DEL RIO PINAR DEL RIO
FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS MEDICAS SANCTI SPIRITUS 'FAUSTINO PEREZ HERNANDEZ' SANCTI SPIRITUS
INSTITUTO DE CIENCIAS MEDICAS PINAR DEL RIO DR. ERNESTO CHE GUEVARA DE LA SERNA PINAR DEL RIO
INSTITUTO SUPERIOR DE CIENCIAS MEDICAS 'CARLOS J. FINLAY' DE CAMAGUEY CAMAGUEY
INSTITUTO SUPERIOR DE CIENCIAS MEDICAS DE LA HABANA HABANA
INSTITUTO SUPERIOR DE CIENCIAS MEDICAS DE SANTIAGO DE CUBA SANTIAGO DE CUBA
INSTITUTO SUPERIOR DE CIENCIAS MEDICAS VILLA CLARA SANTA CLARA


Belize

UNESCO List [15]:
Galen University

FAIMER/ECFMG List [16]
AMERICAN GLOBAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE BELMOPAN
CENTRAL AMERICA HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY BELIZE
GRACE UNIVERSITY (BELIZE) BELMOPAN
HOPE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE BELMOPAN
INTERAMERICAN MEDICAL UNIVERSITY COROZAL
MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF THE AMERICAS (BELIZE) AMBERGRIS CAYE
ST. LUKE'S UNIVERSITY BELMOPAN
ST. MATTHEW'S UNIVERSITY (BELIZE) SAN PEDRO

There are more that could be listed, but I think this should be sufficient to illustrate my valid point.

Thank you, --Stevemackey 17:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, either that, or you have established that any articles relating to other universities and similar institutions that are not on the UNESCO list should also record that information as being a notable fact. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 20:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done Tra (Talk) 00:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Issue resolved. Archive it?

Corporation Information

It appears they just created a new corporation, so I updated and corrected what was posted. But, mentioning the corporate dynamics of an educational facility appears to be rather generic information, and not really pertinent to the academics of the college. I don't see the corporate structure of any other college (regardless of their accreditation status) included in their articles. Buzybeez 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The CompaniesHouse database does not list any new corporation, so I reverted your deletion of WP:RS. While it is not pertinent to the accreditation of the academic programs of the college, it is pertinent to the article, as it seems to indicate that this school is no longer operating. Leuko 02:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Leuko, I provided references to the new corporation information. Here it is again:

http://www.ukdata.com/creditreports/companySearch.form?page=1

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/87721286dff4ba5b8f250e5c616f15a2/compdetails

Using those links above, you will find the same college address that is listed in IMED and stchris.edu. Not sure what the problem is or why you reverted this information? Buzybeez 15:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, looked like the same URL, and listing a link with over 2 million results really isn't helpful. I've moved this information into the infobox, as that's where it seems more appropriate. Leuko 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Glad this didn't turn into a huge debate again! :) Although, not sure how relavent/accurate it is to put "2007" for the "establishment" infobox since the coporate structure and dynamics change all the time and don't really have any bearing on the "establishment" of the college. You personally know the college was established long before 2007, as you've been editing this page since mid-2006? Buzybeez 15:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It may have been established before 2007, but it appears that it has been re-established at other addresses/with other owners multiple times since then. Leuko 15:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • year of establishment of an academic facility is not based on corporate structure. For example, St Matthew's and Saba Universities have both undergone changes in ownership but that has no bearing on when the university was established. It is more accurate to use IMED's notation of "year instruction began" as the date of establishment. Actually, this is what other schools (like St Matthew's and Saba) have done. See: [17] [18] and: [19][20] Buzybeez 18:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it does have some bearing, as the school seems to be changing its location, name and owners, hence re-establishing it itself. This has been covered in the 2000/2006 discussions in the archives, and consensus was that both dates were relevant and appropriate to include in the article, and including 2007 is just a logical extension of that. I'll take a look at the other articles and modify accordingly, if necessary. Leuko 18:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Addendum: Now that I can actually click on the links provided, it is just a news article about recapitalization. I fail to see how that is similar at all... Leuko 18:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I have 3 listings at companies house - St Christopher School of Medicine is dissolved, SCIMD-COM is active but up for dissolution, and IMD-COM is active. I also found several other UK addresses associated with the college, either through companies house listings, the current stchris.edu website or archives of it. Also, I'm curious about the scimd.com website - that seems to have sprung up as a copy of the UEIN site, then the stchris.edu site, and disappeared again - although the whois records seem to tie it to stchris.edu, and the admin and tech contacts for stchris.edu are emails at scimd.com DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 20:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Accreditation, licensing, visas, media coverage

This read like an attack page. A large amount of the information given was surplus, and I have removed it. The facts are still stated, and anyone who wants the detail can follow the references. As has been said previously, the article can be a lot shorter. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 18:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the large scale deletion of citations from WP:RS as lacking consensus - probably should discuss here first. Leuko 02:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Note that I took great care to ensure all references remained intact. The section fails NPOV. Removing all the extraneous text which appears to exist only to disparage the qualification granted by the college improves the neutrality of the article. It's quite apparent that this and similar articles relating to other similar establishments are the subject of edit wars between those who see wikipedia as a "consumer watchdog" platform, and those who wish to promote these establishments as genuine seats of learning. I am not interested in your edit wars, but those wars damage WP when they lead to articles of questionable neutrality. WP:SOAPBOX, if you want to lead a campaign against what you perceive as a diploma mill then you need to find a more appropriate platform, this is an encyclopedia, and as such is not the place for the publishing of personal opinions, be it mine, yours, or the chief medical officer of some state in the USA. Facebook, myspace, livejournal et al are that way. -----> DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV only requires that opposing viewpoints be given equal treatment. In the case of SCIMD, there is only one viewpoint, that the school is unaccredited, and the citations are included from WP:RS. WP:NPOV does not require that negative information needs to be whitewashed. Leuko 03:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hoewever, it does need to be presented in a neutral manner, avoiding any bias in the text used in the article, and avoiding the use of weasel words. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed the "media coverage" section for reasons in the edit summary - the reference was pointing to a website whose domain name is apparently unregistered, the file gives a 404 error, and there is no coverage of this bbc article on the bbc website. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead" Leuko 02:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The cite was suspect - it was effectively self published even if it was ever valid. There's no reference to the media visit anywhere on the relevant media organisations' website. Not verifiable!. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw the clip and can verify it. I am sure if you call up the BBC and request a transcript you could verify it as well. Leuko 03:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you claim to have "seen it" does not qualify under accepted Wikipedia policy as reliable MDToBe 18:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Then order a copy of the transcript or video from the BBC. Easy enough to verify. Leuko 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Visas is not a subset of UK licensing. Accreditation is also separate from UK licensing. Ideally visas is a student issue that should more correctly be a subhead of programs and curriculum, not accreditation and licensing.
    • As the availability of visas for students of the school depends directly on DfES listing which is based on accreditation (or lack thereof), it is more appropriate in the accreditation and licensing section. Leuko 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope - obtaining visas is a separate issue. EEA residents have no requirement for visas. The DfCSF listing does not speak to accreditation, it is an immigration tool. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"We take very seriously any allegations we receive about a possible bogus college on the Register. In every case, the Home Office or appropriate Government agency is asked to investigate the allegations. If the investigation upholds the allegations, then that college is removed from the Register; a number of colleges have been removed from the Register following complaints" -- from the DfES website. Since SCIMD was removed from the register, it must have been due to it being bogus. Leuko 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't double indent, it's almost as annoying as idiots who comment without indenting at all. Unless you can show that SCIMD was removed from the DfES/DfCSF register for a specific reason (there are many reasons that an institution may be removed) you can not draw any inference from the removal of the institution from the register. For example, if it was originally on the register as SCCM, it is possible that removal was automatic when SCCM Ltd was dissolved, which appears to have but may not have been due to failing to file annual paperwork at companies house. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Info Box - Needs Correction

The info box needs to updated with the correct information. Dr. Charles Sow is the US Dean, not the UK dean. Dr. Rawlani is the UK dean. MDToBe 18:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So Fix It! DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
S/he can't - s/he has been indefblocked. Leuko 14:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
When/if that information is clarified on the school's website, then the info box can be updated. thanks. Buzybeez 15:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Bogus" in connection with ASIC listing

The ASIC list is described by ASIC as:

"a list of organisations which have been brought to our attention offering degrees and we suggest you undertake detailed research before embarking on a programme of study."

The word "bogus" does not appear in the title of the list, it is incorrect to present the list as a list of "bogus" establishments.

The use of "bogus" on the ASIC Choosing a College page can not in any way be extended to infer anything about the contents of the list. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"It is important to check that they are not offering bogus qualifications" is basically quoted directly in the article from the website. The article does not say that the school is bogus, just that the qualifications offered need further investigation to ensure that they are not. The former reference link is from a previously posted copy of the list which used the terms "List of Bogus Universities," but the text was changed to comply with the ASIC's new PC-ness. Leuko 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The phrase that you quote does not refer to the ASIC list of colleges. Trying to suggest it does is misrepresenting ASIC. I suggest you go back and read the reference again. No, the text was changed to include a non neutral weasel word supporting your soapbox position that does not actually appear in the list at all, I have again changed it to accurately reflect ASIC's position. The ASIC list makes no reference whatsoever to the word bogus. The ASIC guidance uses the word "bogus", but NOT in connection with the list of establishments, it uses the word "bogus" when referring to the need to ensure that a college is not a bogus establishment, however that statement does not apply to the list of colleges. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 12:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I looked through the reference and it does say "bogus qualifications." I added some quotation marks to reflect this in the article. Andrew73 12:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
There are two references - the ASIC guidelines on "choosing a college" and the "list of establishments ...". The guidelines for choosing a college state that certain characteristics of an institution should be checked to ensure that a college is not offering bogus qualifications, and then lists such characteristics. The use of the word "bogus" in connection with a list of characteristics that can be used to verify the pedigree of an educational establishment does not imply that a separate list of establishments that ASIC suggests be investigated prior to study are all bogus, and can not be used to suggest that any specific establishment in that list is bogus. Note also that the ASIC list of accredited colleges for foreign students does not include any institutions at all, not even such notable UK establishments as Oxford, Cambridge, University of London, the LSE etc. This makes ASIC look like a dubious source, indeed it appears to conflict with several US State boards that explicitly recognise several such UK institutions. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The ASIC is recognized by the Home Office as one of three official accrediting agencies for the purposes of issues student visas, so that would make it a WP:RS. The words are quoted directly from the website where the list of institutions is located, and states that one must verify that the institution is not offering bogus qualifications, not that the institution itself is bogus. In any case, it is appearing that consensus is leaning towards including it. Leuko 14:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the words are on the website or not. You can not represent the inclusion of any institution in a list as meaning anything other than the stated purpose of the list, and the ASIC list does not state "These institutions may offer bogus qualifactions", it states "These institutions are ones that you should check out before signing up for a course". DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 06:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The wording that is written as the title/header of the list, is what is most accurate to use when referencing the list. I suggest this or something similar: The Accreditation Service for International Colleges, a UK-based accrediting agency, has included SCIMD-COM on their list of higher education institutions which they "suggest you undertake detailed research before embarking on a programme of study" Buzybeez 15:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but your definition of "relevant and pertinent" often means "the most negatively phrased text that I can find to refer to the provenance of qualifications issued by the institution" even when the actual wording that you wish to quote is not actually stated in a manner that is directly applicable to the institution concerned. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 06:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

OR - Accreditation

In the absence of any RS proving that the college's parent University that issues the degree (UEIN) is not duly accredited by the Senagalese government, it is inappropriate to state that the qualification is unaccredited. It may not be recognised by various authorities, but the leap from that to unaccredited is not supported by any of the sources quoted. The only authority for the accreditation of a member college of a Senagalese University is the Senegalese education authorities. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How about the numerous US state governments who state that it is unaccredited (hence being on lists of unaccredited schools) after investigations? I would think those are WP:RS. Leuko 02:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
US State governments are not the accreditation authorities for a University in Senegal. That the Senegal education authorities submitted the college information to FAIMER's IMED suggests that the Senegal education authorities consider the college to be genuine within the requirements of their education system. The article is not about the Senegalese education system. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 12:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a reasonable solution would be to say that it's "not known to be accredited." I don't see any evidence of it being explicitly accredited, however. Andrew73 12:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It is "not known to be unaccredited" either. It is impossible to make any statement about the accreditation without reference to the Senegalese authorities. We have two different international databases, both of which rely on the government of each country to submit information - FAIMER/IMED and UNESCO/IAU. FAIMER/IMED lists the college, UNESCO/IAU doesn't. The listing in FAIMER/IMED implies that the Senegalese government submitted the college details to FAIMER/IMED. The absence of the listing in UNESCO/IAU implies that that the Senegalese government didn't submit the college details to UNESCO/IAU. Unless we know what the reasons were in each of those cases, we can not draw any inference or conclusion from the existence or non existence of either UEIN or SCIMD-COM in either list, regardless of what any other so called authority says. To do so is WP:OR DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
As has been previously mentioned, multiple official state agencies have determined the college to be "unaccredited" or "fraudulent." Therefore it is not WP:OR to say so, all we need to do is cite those sources. Leuko 14:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Those state agencies are irrelevant in the absence of any statement from the senegalese authorities. There are two databases that appear to have received input from the Senegalese authorities. It is appropriate to quote those two databases. It is not appropriate to draw any conclusions from either the inclusion in FAIMER/IMED or the non inclusion in UNESCO/IAU. However, the only authority for accreditation of UEIN/SCIMD-COM is the appropriate Senegalese government department, and unless you can show directly that they either (a) do or (b) do not recognise the college, you can not state that it is either accredited or unaccredited. If you wish to state that the college's accreditation state is uncertain, you must do so in a completely neutral manner. US state agencies are not authorities for education matters in Senegal. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Those state agencies are most definitely not irrelevant and are authorities on the validity of degrees, as they have conducted independent investigations of the school and its accreditation status and have found it to be unaccredited. I would venture to say that statements from Sengalese authorities are more irrelevant, as the school is not located in Senegal, but in the UK. Leuko 14:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Senegal is the authority under which the School claims it's charter. The school presents documents from the Senegalese authorities to support this claim. The Senegalese government is the relevant authority for the accreditation of the college. If the college claimed to be accredited by the UK government, then the UK Government would be the relevant authority. If the college claimed to be accredited by the State of Oregon, then the State of Oregon would be the relevant authority. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
State agencies are authorities on the validity of the degree within the state. The GMC is the authority for the validity of any MD degree within the UK. Neither State agencies in the USA nor the UK GMC is are authorites for the accreditation of Senegalese educational establishments. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
But it's not a Sengalese educational establishment - it's located in the UK, which makes the GMC's view on the subject very relevant. Leuko 17:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The GMCs view is wholly appropriate to licensing, but the GMC is not in any case the accreditation authority for UK medical schools. The relevant accreditation authority is the nation state under whose auspices the qualification is awarded, which in this case is Senegal. I do note that Senegal does not have an accreditation authority listed in FAIMER/IMED, however I choose not to read anything into that. There is insufficient RS to state with any certainty that the school either is or is not accredited, in which case we can only report the facts that are pertinent to accreditation. The situation is quite clear, if the degree is issued under the auspices of a Senegalese institution, then the Senegalese Government is the accreditation authority, and hence the opinion of the UK GMC on the suitability of the qualifications concerned for the purposes of licensing of physicians can only speak to the licensing of physicians, and not the accreditation status. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Being chartered in Senegal, the degrees are issued under the authority and accreditation of the government of Senegal. To argue otherwise is just soapbox and POV-pushing. Buzybeez 15:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Why can't Senegal accredit a qualification issued by a Senegalese University through study at a college in the UK? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 06:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Leuko, I'd have to agree with DMcMPO11AAUK. I would imagine that Senegal can accredit SCIMD since it's chartered out of Senegal. Now whether or not an accreditation by Senegal is seen as meaningful (or recognized by US licensing authorities) is a separate issue. Andrew73 14:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

UK Companies House References

UK companies house search results include dynamically generated paths which are subject to periodic housekeeping. Therefore, quoting such links is pointless, it is better to link to the main search page and state the index searched and the search term used. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, they always worked for me, but whatever makes it easier for people to verify the refs... Leuko 03:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
UK companies house links that you generate won't work for other people. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The corporate structure of a company associated with the college has nothing to do with the the academic facility. Company establishment is not the same as university establishment. A more accurate way to write this is by removing "establishment" and replacing with "Year instruction began" as noted in IMED. Buzybeez 15:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The incorporation dates of the school is definitely pertinent. It's basically the only legal status that the school has in the UK. Leuko 17:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The incorporation dates of the company may not relate directly to the activities of the school, but the company information may tell you a lot about the management of the school. I'm surprised, for example, that the management at a reputable school would choose to let the existing company lapse and form a new one instead of filing the paperwork and undergoing a simple name change. Moreover, were I the cynical type, I'd wonder if the company was doing this to avoid transfer of liabilities from the existing company to the new one, and that might make me suspect fraud of some sort. Mind you, I'd also expect a reputable school to keep their website up to date. SCIMD-COM might not be a diploma mill, but I'm beginning to get the feeling that despite ISO accreditation (note to self, cross check that) it's not exactly offering MD degrees of the same class as Oxford University/John Radcliffe or Cambridge University/Addenbrookes, or even such recently established schools as Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't seem to be able to find SCIMD-COM on the BSI ISO 9001 database search (see SCIMD-COM website ISO 9001:2000 announcement). The database may be overly sensitive about the case / spelling of company name, suggestions anyone? Or a certificate number? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD)

The article is about SCIMD-COM, not EM-SCIMD. In the same way that other articles about university colleges do not generally discuss other colleges at the same university, there is no reason to discuss em-scimd in this article. If you wish to write articles about uein and em-scimd, then go ahead. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 12:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

W.H.O.

Just wondering why reference to the WHO listing was removed? Since other lists are included in the article, this one might as well stay also. Buzybeez 15:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a listing for a college in Dakar, Senegal, not a college in Luton. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit protected}} I request that the article be reverted back to this version, as it has been the consensus version for a long period of time, and further edits should be discussed on the talk page first in order to determine a new consensus (if any). The current version deletes a lot of WP:RS and other blanking without consensus. Leuko 18:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I request that the article not be reverted without understanding of the rationale behind the edits concerned.

  • Text removed from the introductory paragraph is extraneous in that paragraph and would be better located in the body of the article, not the introduction. It is now in the section "History".
  • Details of qualifications awarded by the college sit better in "Programs and Curriculum" than in "Accreditation, Licensing and Visas"
  • Recognition or otherwise of the qualifications issued by the college by specific US states is relevant in the "Licensing / United states" section but the Oregon reference speaks, if at all, to the existence of EM-SCIMD (the Dakar college), and not SCIMD-COM (the UK college). Clearly the UK college would not exist in Senegal, as the Senegal college would not exist in the UK, I would not, for example, expect to find the UK college in the Dakar phonebook.
Furthermore, in so far as the Oregon reference allegedly speaks to the accreditation of the college, Oregon State has its own definition of accreditation, and therefore the reference can only speak to accreditation as defined by the State of Oregon. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The statement "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." is speculative and an interpretation of the references.
  • The positioning of "visas" as a sub heading of UK licensing was illogical, visas as a section is applicable to non EEA students of the school, UK licensing is applicable to students who wish to pursue a career in the UK. It makes more sense to place "visas" after all licensing discussion within the heading "Accreditation, Licensing and Visas", although it would make even more sense to place "visas" outside of "Accreditation and Licensing"

Thanks. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The current version removes 5 references from the reversion requested. These are as follows:

On reflection, this sits better in licensing/uk immediately after the UK GMC item, as it addresses the action taken by the GMC in respect of degrees issued by the college.

As you can see by actually checking the references, with the exception of the BBC item, there is no significant coverage of the subject and their removal detracts very little from the overall article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 19:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I may have made a mistake when comparing the lists of references earlier, here is a correct list of references excluded from the current article that exist in the version that a revert has been requested to:

  • FAIMER IMED for UK This reference doesn't mention SCIMD-COM, the article also contains IMED Senegal ref which does list SCCM Dakar & Luton
  • ASIC asic is referenced more appropriately in another reference
  • GMC should be the current gmc ref - needs swapping for the other one (which relates SCCM/Dakar, not SCCM/Luton)

Some comments

  1. FAIMER's IMED list for UK makes no mention of the college. - Which is exactly why it is pertinent - the school is located in the UK, however it is not recognized by the UK as a medical school.
As far as I can determine, the school is not claiming accreditation or recognition by the UK Health or Education authorities, and therefore I would not expect IMED to list it under the UK. If the school was claiming to be accredited by the UK Government then it's exclusion from the UK listing in IMED would be significant. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This was discussed before. The schools are listed according to their chartering country, despite having subcampuses elsewhere. Compare to SGU in greneda that has a branch campus in the UK[18]. IMED does not list SGU under the UK either. And the facilities SGU uses is not a medical school and that facility is not listed in IMED. Expecting SGU or SCIMD to be listed in IMED in the UK is not appropriate, thus their lack of UK/IMED listing should not be used to mislead the reader.Buzybeez 15:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it has been discussed before, where it was determined that SGU's program is not comparable to SCIMD at all. As a medical school whose programs are entirely located in the UK, one would expect that they are accredited in the UK. Readers are going to assume that, and that is simply not the case. Leaving them to their assumptions is misleading the reader, not specifying the facts. Leuko 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In both cases, a satellite institution is physically located in a host country other than the country of the parent institution, and IMED lists the parent institution in the parent's country. I don't how the fact the two cases are handled in the same way by IMED is an argument for specifically mentioning the fact that IMED doesn't list them in the host country. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. GMC Uk Medical Colleges makes no mention of the college - Look closer, actually it does - St. Christopher's College of Medicine, Dakar, Senegal
My apology, the GMC actually appears to refer to this institution in two places, I do not see any merit in including both links when one is sufficient - and the article contains the link to the GMC page with the list titled "Primary medical qualifications not accepted by the GMC" containing "St Christopher's College, Senegal" DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I went back and looked again, the better reference for licensing/UK when discussing SCIMD-COM is indeed the one at Private UK based medical colleges and not Primary medical qualifications not accepted by the GMC. The latter should be used in the licensing/UK section of any article about EM-SCIMD in Dakar, Senegal. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Why? They both explicitly mention SCIMD. Leuko 16:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
No they do not. One referring to Schools in the UK mentions SCCM Luton, which I can accept as being the fore-runner of SCIMD-COM at Luton, and that one is appropriate to an article about the college in Luton. The other one, referring to overseas (from a UK perspective) medical schools, discusses SCCM, Dakar, Senegal, and is a reference to the forerunner of EM-SCIMD, not SCIMD-COM. SCIMD-COM is specifically rejected by the GMC of the UK on the basis that it is a private UK based college with a qualification awarded by a foreign institution (UEIN). EM-SCIMD is a different college, and its qualifications are rejected under a different rationale by the GMC. The article is about SCIMD-COM (which incidentally may be preparing to rename itself Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine, see information from companies house at User:DMcMPO11AAUK/scimd-com) and not EM-SCIMD. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Choosing A College is general guidance from ASIC and does not mention the college. (You mentioned this twice) - While this page does not specifically mention the College, it does link to the list of questionable schools - thus information on the page applies to those schools on the list.
Because one GMC page addresses qualifications obtained by study at SCIMD-COM in Luton, UK, and the other addresses qualifications obtained by study at EM-SCIMD in Dakar, Senegal. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The list stands on it's own accord, is referenced separately, and described by it's own title. Furthermore, the phrase "bogus qualifications" which has previously been included in the article based on this specific reference is used, in the reference, not in connection with the link to the list of colleges but instead with general advice about choosing a college. To use this reference to justify the use of the phrase "bogus qualifications" in the article is a disingenuous misrepresentation of the reference DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not a misrepresentation at all - the list is a subsection of the webpage, and the comments on that page obviously apply to the schools on the list. Leuko 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how you read "When checking on a college to undertake your studies you should check that they are genuine and fully accredited. It is important to check that they are not offering bogus qualifications. Some tips to help check these colleges out are shown below" followed by a list of characteristics of diploma mills in such a way as to be able to apply the phrase "colleges issuing bogus qualifications" to a separate list of colleges entitled "Below is a list of organisations which have been brought to our attention offering degrees and we suggest you undertake detailed research before embarking on a programme of study" DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oregon's statement that no school exists in Dakar refers to EM-IMD/UIEN. SCIMD can not be a satellite campus if there is no primary campus/school. So far I have not seen any WP:RS to indicate that any school in Senegal exists.
IMED clearly indicates an address in Senegal. The information in IMED is collected from the Senegalese Government. Do you wish to assert that (a) IMED has included data for Senegal that it did not receive from the Senegalese Government; or (b) that the Senegalese Government provided incorrect information to IMED? The Oregon listing states of "St. Christopher's College of Medicine" that "No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006", however the Senegalese institutions are "Ecole Medicine St. Christopher Iba Mar Diop" and "Universite Elhadji Ibrahim Niasse", hence the Oregon statement is not incompatible with the existence of a duly recognised and accredited UEIN or EM-SCIMD. Additionally, the State of Oregon has it's own definition of "accreditation", hence any finding that an institution that is physically located outside of Oregon is "not accredited" by Oregon is not incompatible with that institution being duly accredited by the relevant authority for the jurisdiction in which the institution is located. To use this reference to speak to the accreditation of the uk college is a disingenuous misrepresentation of the reference - note however that I fully accept the use of this reference elsewhere in the article in respect of whether Oregon accepts qualifications issued by the college for licensing of physicians. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I would assert that the Sengalese gov't provided false information to IMED regarding the existence of EM-SCIMD/UIEN in exchange for payment, and when Oregon investigated, they found no evidence that these schools existed. Leuko 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Oregon's investigation involved looking for "St. Christopher's College of Medicine" in the Dakar phone directory. That might explain why they didn't find it as well. Do you have an affidavit from an Oregon state employee who has visited the published Dakar addresses of either UEIN or EM-SCIMD to state that the institutions do not exist? I can't find "St. Christopher's College of Medicine" listed in the Dakar directory in my local library. An assumption of corruption in a foreign government department is not a solid basis for stating anything in WP. I find it easier to believe in an incompetent directory search by a minimum-wage employee in an office in Oregon. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. The statement "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." is speculative and an interpretation of the references. Is not speculative or an interpretation - there are many WP:RS that outright say it is either restricted or illegal (i.e. OR, TX), therefore this factual statement must be added back in.
Try the statement "Degrees conferred by SCIMD-COM are not accepted for the licensing of physicians in some jurisdictions." and I'll happily agree. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In respect of Oregon, the fact that a qualification does not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1) does not make use of that qualification inherently illegal, but it does disqualify that qualification from being used for certain purposes. Oregon permits the use of such qualifications generally provided every location that the qualification is presented carries a suitable disclaimer, see ORS 348.609(2)(a). In respect of Texas, Texas Penal Code Title 7 Chapter 32 Section 52(b)(2)(B) defines the specific uses of a qualification that falls within the definition given in the Texas Educational Code Title 3 Chapter 61 Section 302(11) that are illegal in Texas. It is clear when the minutiae of the relevant statutes are examined that the use of such qualifications and titles is actually "illegal for certain purposes", and so a more accurate statement might be that "As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted by statute in some jurisdictions." DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Since the inability of students to obtain visas is directly linked to the school not being recognized/accredited, I think it makes more sense in that section. Leuko 02:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Visa concerns are not connected to the accreditation of the college. It's a totally different issue. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
How so? Leuko 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
visa concerns address the legitimacy of the entrant, not the legitimacy of the destination. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 Not done per "this template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request." If the edit you are requesting is controversial I won't make the change unless a consensus in support exists first. Please make sure anything you propose includes no original research or personal opinion and is cited to reliable sources. Feel free to replace the template when you have finished your request. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Dispute

I initially noticed this page and others like it through checking recent changes and noticing suspicious edits - these led to my reading 4 articles which all had the appearance of WP:SOAPBOX campaigns against medical schools that in each case lay somewhere in a grey area between, on one side, a fully accredited university, and on the other, a diploma mill. In each case, the articles were (and to a large extent still are) characterised by weasel words and edits written in a non neutral point of view, and consist in the majority of references and assumptions drawn from those references that throw some level of suspicion on the provenance of qualifications granted by those establishments. Initially I attempted to correct one of these articles, simply attempting to present the relevant facts in a more neutral fashion, however my attempts were immediately reverted in such a manner that it was clear that any corrective editing would lead to a revert war. I then attempted to RfD all 4 articles on the basis of the fact that they were being used as attack pages, and the response was that if I felt there were issues with the articles I should attempt to correct them. I am attempting to do so. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for campaigning against diploma mills, and in the case of this article, there is, for example, no WP:RS that the subject either is, or is not, accredited through it's parent establishment in Senegal for the issuing of the qualification "Doctor of Medicine". Personally I suspect that UEIN may well be a paper university, and the address of Latimer Road in Luton appears to be an industrial complex, not an educational campus, however when editing articles here I try and leave my personal opinions about the subject at the door, my concern is that WP remain a quality source of well written articles, and at present this article is not one of those (although I believe it is now better than it was). DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 20:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see what I think the article should really look like, see User:DMcMPO11AAUK/scimd-com, which I believe contains all relevant pertinent facts, all of the existing WP:RS that are still active links and which make direct reference to the college, and is an accurate statement of the current situation of the college in respect of accreditation, the visa state and licensing of students post graduation. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 20:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that the article in my user space is dynamic, for example I have just discovered that the Luton, UK address given in IMED (Latiner Road, Luton) can not be found on Google Maps, and the UK Postcode given (LU1 3D) is not a valid UK Postcode (second group should be digit + 2 letters).Google maps search "latiner road, luton, uk" A UK Post Office Postcode Search suggests "Latimer Road" (which is the address on the college website), and offers "White Knight Design Ltd, Bishops Court Yard 69-71, Latimer Road, LUTON, LU1 3XD".UK Post Office Postcode Search I am trying to work out how to incorporate this information in a neutral manner and without drawing any undue inferences from the discrepancy between the IMED entry / college website and the public mapping and postcode databases used by google, multimap etc. Clerical errors in the road name and postcode might be accidental, but further investigation is needed when companies house databse opens later today to see whether white knight design and / or scimd-com in any identifiable form occupies that address at present (it being 3:25 am BST here and the companies house databases having limited hours of public on-line access). DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Licensing / United States

Only 5 of the 9 States of the USA mentioned in the article actually mention the college or an institution that might refer to the college in the references given. These are Alabama, Indiana, Maine, Oregon and Texas. The basis of including 4 other US states in the article (California, Kansas, New York and New Jersey) seems to be either

  • the combination of the medical licensing requirements of those states with other facts stated in the article to draw the conclusion that the school is not approved by those states (which fails the test of WP:OR), or
  • an assumption that any institution that is not listed as approved in states that publish lists of approved establishments has specifically been unapproved, when the absence of an institution in a listing of approved establishments may instead mean that the institution concerned has never been the subject of an application that might lead to either approval or disapproval in the state concerned.

I believe that in either case, the inclusion of the extra 4 references to US states that do not explicitly mention the article subject does not significantly add to the article, that the 5 US state references that actually list the institution are sufficient to establish that students may find that the degrees it issues may be of little value in seeking employment or practising medicine in the USA, and that the inclusion of this information only serves to promote the negative tone which the article takes about the subject, failing the test of WP:NPOV. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 12:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

3PO / RFC

A WP:3PO or WP:RFC that may affect issues of contention in the editing of this article has been proposed in a similar article here: Talk:Medical_University_of_the_Americas_-_Belize#3PO_.2F_RFC. Please go there to comment! DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 22:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting changes with editprotected

Please do not use editprotected to request changes to the article by admins unless either (a) the proposed change has been discussed here and an agreed consensus reached or (b) the requested change relates to the article being verifiably factually incorrect. All you do otherwise is create excess and unnecessary workload for admins. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Licensing, United States section

{{edit protected}} This edit request involves removal of original research and removal of synthesis statements/conclusions. Admin, please remove the current text in the U.S. licensing section of the article and replace it with the following. Thanks. Buzybeez 20:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

United States

  • Alabama lists SCIMD-COM in a list of "Colleges of Medicine or Schools of Medicine" which are not approved by the Board for applicants for certificates of qualification."[19]
  • Indiana lists SCIMD-COM on the list of "Questionable Foreign Medical Schools" and applications for licensure from graduates will be considered on a "case by case" basis.[20]
  • Maine lists SCCM on their list of "Unaccredited Post-Secondary Educational Institutions".[21]
  • Oregon Office of Degree Authorization lists SCCM on their list of "degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)."[22][23]
  • Texas lists SCCM on their list of "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas" as defined by Texas Code 61.302(11).[24][25]
I would like to see other editors on this page comment on this proposed change before I make it... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll disable the template whilst you discuss this. When you have reached a consensus, please re-enable it. Tra (Talk) 00:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO the current statements in the article (a) contain synthesis and / or OR, and (b) transpose unnecessary negative commentary from references into the article. I'm in favour of the proposed change, but I'm not happy that people are requesting it before any consensus has been reached. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Plenty of time and no objections. Let me know if you need anything else. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits 1 and 2

Is that about it for this article? It's strictly factual, clear, and concise. I can't think of any more edits that really need to be made to it. StrongPassword (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, spoke too soon. I would like to see two edits to the article. 1) Move the first sentence in the first paragraph of "Accreditation, Licensing and Visas" to the last sentence of the first paragraph. 2) Remove the article from the "Unaccredited institutions of higher learning" catagory, as the reference in the article demonstrate that the medical college is accredited by the Senegal ministry of education. StrongPassword (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The college is currently listed in The Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER) International Medical Education Directory (IMED) database of medical schools with contact addresses in Dakar, Senegal; Luton, UK; and McDonough, Georgia, USA.[26] It is listed as such based on its accreditation by the Senegalese Ministry of Education through its issuing of a charter in February 2000[27], and again reaffirmed in April 2006 (after a reorganization of the school).[28][29] The college is also listed by the World Health Organization in the updated 7th edition of the World Directory of Medical Schools.[30] The Accreditation Service for International Colleges (ASIC), a UK-based accrediting agency, has included SCIMD-COM on their list of organisations about which ASIC suggest students undertake detailed research before embarking on a programme of study.[31]
  • Consensus = 2
  • Objections= 0
  • Adding admin edit request for two edits. 1-remove the unaccredited institution category tag. 2- replace first paragraph of accreditation section with the above box wording. Thanks. Buzybeez (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

 Done Tra (Talk) 23:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits 3 and 4

I have gone through the article more closely and I found some more things I believe need to be updated:

3)

Remove the "2007" from the info box. The business registration information in the UK has nothing to do with the "establish"ed date of the college.-StrongPassword (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

4)

In the paragraph above and in the UK section under Accreditation, Licensing and Visas after currently it says (october 2007), I think the (October 2007) should be dropped and just use currently. If the status changes in the future then further information can be added to the article at that time.-StrongPassword (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


{{edit protected}}

 Done Tra (Talk) 17:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits 5-7

5)

Under Programs and Curriculum the last sentence should read: "The college's programs award the Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree through the authority of EM-SCIMD"-StrongPassword (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


6)

Under Media Coverage the second section should say "noting that no private medical college has ever been given full accreditation in the UK"-StrongPassword (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


7)

The opening paragraph has the wrong relationship for the medical college in relation to the University and it's parent medical college. It should say: "St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (SCIMD-COM) is a branch campus located in Luton, England. The parent medical college is Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD) which is a college within the Universite El Hadj Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal."

-StrongPassword (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there has been ample time for anyone to disagree. Can these changes please be made to the article? StrongPassword (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

I have lifted the protection. The page may now be edited normally. Sandstein (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I think everything on the talk page can be archived except the discussion for edits 3-7. All the other stuff has been resolved and/or not actively discussed for a while. Buzybeez (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. StrongPassword (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Since no objections, and issues resolved, it can probably be archived now. Buzybeez (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)



Discussion of Changes

Do you want to discuss this JzG or do you just want to edit war about it? StrongPassword (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • For someoen whose edits are not disruptive, you sure seem to do a lot of edit warring. I wonder, are you a single-purpose account or a sockpuppet? Either way the arbcom enforcement applies. You may not disrupt this article, as you have been doing. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You are the one that started edit warring with me. As an involved editor you need to recuse yourself from any kind of arbitration enforcement and leave it up to someone else to handle on the Arbitration Enforcement board. Do you want to try and hash this out or just be a bully? StrongPassword (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

On topic, what about the edits I made don't you agree with? You duplicated information that is already present. You included two incidents of synthesis. And a publication belongs in the media section, not the lead of the article. I don't see why all of that is so unreasonable. StrongPassword (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that BBC and General Medical Council calls degrees from this school "worthless" and the history behind the school seems to be the most notable aspect and should be given a prominent placement in the article. This version you revert to seems to be heavily slanted in favor of the school by not including that information. henrik•talk 12:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
That's my view as well. The US has many unaccredited universities, the UK has almost none. It is a singular claim, and the fact that the GMC has specifically named this as the cause of a change of policy makes it even more so. I just noticed it's full, not semi protected; I made a couple of edits to fix refs (duplicated and a moved web page) and added one link to the GMC page on foreign schools, since this does not change the sense of the article I think that should be uncontroversial. Here's the diff: [21]. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


Article Lead/Media Section

Something needs to be done about the duplication between the article lead and the Media section. It's easy to see that the information in the second paragraph of the article lead and the second paragraph of the media section substantially overlap. The information should be in one place, not two, especially for such a small article. StrongPassword (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The media section enlarges on the lead. The lead contains the most significant facts about the place, which includes the fact that it caused the GMC to change its policy on satellite campuses and create a list of unapproved schools and strike off a doctor, which is as far as I can tell a unique set of attributes for any institution in the UK. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Are things going to get discussed here, or are people just going to continue edit warring that results in the protection status of the article being changed every few weeks after the edit storm? StrongPassword (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Ok, I'll start. I think the Licensing section should be revised to this version [22] as it has just removed the duplicative wording. Just say the college is listed by X, X, X states; instead of stating individually that X state lists Y college, X state lists Y college, X state lists Y college. Buzybeez (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, each state has banned St. Christopher's under different criteria. It is relevant to list each individually and the reasoning given for the ban. StrongPassword (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
StrongPassword is the only one who disagreed with this edit, and he has appearantly been banned. Since there have been no other objections for about 2 months, I'll go ahead and revise per above. Buzybeez (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposed edit. 204.39.194.5 (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Of tangential relevance


Reference 4 in the article (to http://www.gmc-uk.org/publications/gmc_today/gmctoday0707.pdf) can't be found at the linked location. —Wookipedian (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And references 6 and 7 seem to be to the same location — they should be consolidated into a single reference. —Wookipedian (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And reference 9 (to http://www.asic.org.uk/Documents/Universities.pdf) also seems to be a dead link. —Wookipedian (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

and ASIC is not even listed as a recognized accreditation body[23]. I vote for its removal. What do you think wookipedian? Buzybeez (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree. By the criteria applied to this article it shouldn't be listed. 204.39.194.5 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I think perhaps I have stumbled into some discussion that has been going on here for a while that I don't fully comprehend. My best guess would be to refer to the Wikipedia policy on dead links. My understanding is that it basically says that "bad links … should … be fixed". One way to fix them would seem to be to just refer to a former publication by listing its author, title, and forum and date of publication (whether the referenced source can currently be found on the web or not). Another would be to find some other place where the same publication or something substantially similar can be found. —Wookipedian (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What matters is the source not the link. The GMC's news article may not be online anymore (or it may have moved) but it was a valid source for the ocntent and was verified at the time it was online. I removed the link, but the source remains for the statement because it's a valid source. Yes, this has been going on for a while, the college has viciously attacked me and others for refusing to allow them to obscure the problematic status of the institution. Guy (Help!) 07:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Guy, sorry to hear about the loss of your dad. Best wishes to you for strength and peace during this difficult time. About the links, I agree that the GMC information should stay mentioned just once in the article, even though the link is bad. I think the question is about ASIC. It is not listed as a recognized accreditation body here [24] (and coupled with the bad link), makes me inclined to vote for it's removal, mostly for the former reason. Buzybeez (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

ASIC

I checked the ASIC website and they don't have any list like the article suggests, so I will remove that sentence.Buzybeez (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Since ASIC does not have any list on their website that I could find, and even if they did, ASIC is not listed here [25], I request that this sentence be removed "The Accreditation Service for International Colleges (ASIC), a private UK-based accrediting agency, has included SCIMD-COM on their list of organizations which the ASIC suggest students undertake detailed research before embarking on a program of study.[10]" Buzybeez (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Removing edit protected. Buzybeez (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I checked ASIC website, and count not find any such list. Since there has been no comments or objections to this discussion for about one month, I have removed reference to it in the article. Buzybeez (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

company report

there was a recent edit to the article suggesting its in liquidation. however, this information from companies house shows it is still active http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/4a8eb145cf7076d41a002b848642ec37/compdetails Truth101101 (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work but the link I provided does and shows the school in liquidation. Azskeptic (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Try this http://www.ukdata.com/creditreports/companySearch.form?page=1

or do a search for "Iba mar diop" and you'll see they have an active corporation. Also, the address for the "iba mar diop" corporation matches the address for the college in imed and on the stchris.edu website. The corporation you listed is in liquidation, but it's not a current one for the college. They appear to be operation through the "iba mar diop" corporation. I'll update the article accordingly. Thanks. Buzybeez (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Another odd fact: US address is listed as 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue McDonough, GA 30253, but Google Earth says there is no such place. McDonough appears to be a one-horse town with no such street. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

changes made

I have changed the visa section to reflect the fact that the DFES has re-listed SCIMD making its studnets eligible for student visas. Please search [26] Considering this, it is plainly obvious that a UK campus remains so I have also changed the word "was" to "is in luton" in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevemackey (talk • contribs) 20:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Reverted. Being in a directory does not imply currency of data, and being in the directory does not actually affect the status of the place in any meaningful way, especially given the multiple reports of insolvency. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, you are knowingly violating Wikipedia policy. The entry can be clearly seen right here, at the bottom of the page. As a government site it is accepted as a Reliable Source and it is easily Verifiable, which is all that is required to be included in any Wikepedia article. If you don't reverse your reversion I will take it to the Administrator Noticeboard so that another admin. can correct what you have done. 82.220.2.75 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Um, no, I am knowingly upholding policy. SCIMD has been on and of that register several times, each time it's added with some variant spelling there seems to be a complaint and it's taken off again. We don't know how current the data is, and it's not actually relevant anyway. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That rhetoric is a combination of WP:SYN, WP:OR, and WP:OWN expressed by an editor who is currently be analyzed for a massive amount of controversial edits and posts [27] Given the validity of the governmental source clearly listing the college, the inaccuracy of the current wording in the article, and that three editors agree to this update, I will go ahead and update the article. Buzybeez (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Buzzybeez, Stevemackety, and the anon above concerning what needs to be done with regard to this article. JzG needs to step back. Shentek (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • To me, this is prima facie evidence that the school is listed in the registry. If you have a reference for the contrary, you'd better share it with us. The bottom line is that it makes no sense for the article to say an exact opposite of what the referenced page says. (A case could be made for removing the paragraph altogether.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • They've been on and off the register several times - they keep registering with slightly different spellings, and when they are reported to DFES, they seem to be deleted again. But in any case it's largely irrelevant since the "registration" is really only being used to obscure the fact that the institution is, according to every reliable source, sub-standard. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Fine. Now the key point: find a reliable reference for that. We do seem to have valid references for the school to be sub-standard, and perhaps even facing bankruptcy. Now what reference do you have for it being currently off the list? (At the moment it is included in the online list.) "I know" is not a valid reference. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Um, Mike? I have an email from DFES confirming that they removed the entry first time round. I'm just waiting for a response from them about the new entry. But I have pruned the article to what is verifiable from secondary sources, whihc I suspect makes the whole thing moot. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Defunct?

Is this institution now defunct? The comments about liquidation in lead paragrah seem to imply this. Perhaps this could be better clarified in the article. Andrew73 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I think they are playing dodge-the-creditor, but I don't really know. There is a profound lack of independent sources for anything much beyond the fact that it was found to be sub-standard. Perhaps it's time to take a hatchet to it. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the use of "was" in the first sentence implies that this institution no longer functions. Andrew73 (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As you'll see, I pruned it. But now the third company has vanished, and the liquidation of the second is stated to be compulsory (with tax returns listed as overdue). I suspect they may be candidates for http://www.fuckedcompany.com Guy (Help!) 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. The third ref should be outside the full stop, consistent with the first, seventh and eighth. You need a full stop before the fourth, fifth and sixth. "Website" should not be capitalized. The article could probably also do with one of those all-but-uselessly-uninformative-yet-better-than-nothing lock icons to show why the likes of me can't edit it. 86.44.23.66 (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi Protect?

Is this article really semi protected as it seems here? If so, why? I saw no edit warring, no vandalism, etc. Bstone (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration case and single-purpose accounts

In light of yet another influx of single-purpose agenda accounts, the following single-purpose accounts are subject to restriction (1 revert/24 hours) under the terms of this Arbitration Committee remedy:

Logged at the Arbitration Committee page. MastCell Talk 05:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. The arbitration committee never said anything about 1 revert/24 hours. You are just making that up. In addition the remedy only applies to "disruptive edits" none of these edits was disruptive. Thus the remedy does not apply. Uponleft (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Would you prefer to be banned from the page as the remedy explicitly stipulates? Using a handful of agenda accounts to remove sourced information and bias the article is disruptive, and it's occurred often enough that the Arbitration Committee has provided for streamlined handling. I thought that 1RR/24 hours was more generous. MastCell Talk 05:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Where has the arbirtation committee provided for "streamlined handling"? I don't see it anywhere on the final decisions by the arbitration committee? Regardless, the arbitration committee resolution only allows for a ban "for repeated violations", which I have not done. Banning me now would be an abuse of your power. No useful information was removed from the article. All the information that was removed was synthesis, speculation, and weasel words. What information was removed that you want returned to the article? You don't even bother to say what you want changed or try to discuss it. Uponleft (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

MastCell's revert parole is a standard remedy. Arb rulings clarify, amplify and extend standard remedies, not overrule them. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of verifiable information

Hello, I would like to know why the following information was removed from the article, and which WP policy it violated that would make it wrong to include this verifiable information?

  1. AMSA

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine&diff=222286294&oldid=222285987#Student_Groups_.26_Associations

  1. VISAS

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine&diff=222286294&oldid=222285987#Visas

  1. IMED/WHO

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine&diff=222286294&oldid=222285987#Accreditation Bluestrawz (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's a good question. Uponleft (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable?

Is this institution notable enough to warrant an article? See WP:ORG ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. We shouldn't be afraid of the size of the wikipedia. 189.30.126.89 (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
See WP:SCHOOL. This university easily passes the notability test. Bstone (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:SCHOOL is not yet a guideline, and in any case, I do not see evidence of "significant coverage in secondary sources." Most of the sources here are primary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm neutral on that subject. Much of the (reliable) sourcing is either to the BBC piece, where it's mentioned as an example of the phenomenon of unaccredited schools, or via its inclusion on a number of governmental lists of unaccredited institutions. The deletionist in me tends to agree with jossi. Plus, I'm just tired of seeing round after round of wikilawyering SPA's come through, but that's just me. MastCell Talk 21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with deleting the article as long as it was SALTed (St. Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine and St Christopher College of Medicine) to make sure it doesn't rise from the grave in the future. Uponleft (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This school has gotten a fair bit of coverage in the British press. Further, it's a real school (tho it's accreditation status remains a mystery). I do believe this school passes the notability test and it's non-controversial. Bstone (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide more sources from the British press covering the school? That would go a long way toward the notability issue. MastCell Talk 23:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
A really quick google search found this lengthy article in the BBC. Bstone (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, How About This Version?

So how does this version of the page work for everyone? It includes everything from both revisions, minus the incorporation information as it can't be proven these companies are even related. Their principles are totally different. The only thing they have in similarity is their names, which doesn't mean anything, lots of companies have similar names. If people can't agree on this version, which as I said before, has EVERYTHING in it, then just delete the whole thing and SALT it like there is no tomorrow. How many things must be included to make everyone happy? This one crappy little article has 27 freaking references. Uponleft (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Formal Challenge

I am not sure how one goes about this (and I will probbaly be banned for trying it but ... ) but I should like to register a formal challenge to the last re-edit by User: MastCell, based upon his/her edit summary. If what s/he has done is simply to remove all alleged-SPA entries, then I believe that this breaches the Assume Good Faith principle, since any editor could add something material, whether an SPA or not. His argument would therefore appear to run: 1) I (or people like me) know what we want this page to say; 2) I am (or people like me are) capable of calling someone an SPA; 3) Therefore if someone edits this page in a way that I (or people like me) do not like, we are entitled to call that person an SPA and revert their edit even if it is helpful, accurate, and sourced.
Admin: Please delete this in due course, once the page has settled down. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the article has been through a case with Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee and they and the community in general are actually the ones who decided that there were SPA's very active on the article, that these SPA's behaved disruptively and that they could be banned from the article should any more show up. MastCell's actions are directly in line with that decision and not something done on his own. When a new editor shows up and makes identical edits (with multiple accounts mind you) as prior SPA's, its perfectly reasonable to assume that the same people are up to the same things again. Hope that helps clear things up. Shell babelfish 08:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hang on. His argument would therefore appear to run: [...] I (or people like me) [... am/are] capable of calling someone an SPA; [...] Therefore if someone edits this page in a way that I (or people like me) do not like, we are entitled to call that person an SPA [...]. An SPA is a username devoted to writing up one narrow subject. It's a username's contribution history that shows whether or not the username is an SPA. Some SPAs add worthwhile material, some are merely disruptive, some add worthwhile material and are also disruptive.
As for your request that this little discussion should be deleted, I think that the request was well intended but should be declined. It should instead be archived.
Perhaps you could give an example of something worthwhile that an SPA added (or a good deletion by an SPA) and that MastCell was wrong to revert. We can discuss this calmly. -- Hoary (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


I'm talking (or writing) about the principle of saying "Everything that I disagree with can be discarded". But, according to Shell this is now a matter firmly in the Cabal's hands, so Ordinary Users must bow and shiver, in awe -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that its perfectly acceptable for you to assume bad faith and make claims that you know the reasoning behind MastCell's edit and you're sure that it was less than honorably intended and there's a cabal, oh and the Cabal doesn't like something which you've failed to define and removed it because they disagree, but at the same time, MastCell isn't allowed to follow consensus because that's somehow assuming bad faith? I see. I've fallen into an alternate reality again, haven't I? Shell babelfish 13:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It is a surprisingly common experience to be lectured about WP:AGF by someone who simultaneously imputes the most malicious possible interpretation to my actions, and I don't think further rebuttal down that line would be productive. There is an extensive history on this article of a string of single-purpose meatpuppet accounts with conflicts of interest attempting to whitewash or downplay this school's issues with accreditation. This is a violation of the letter and spirit of multiple Wikipedia policies, not to mention an ArbCom decision. Instead of attacking the small handful of admins willing to address these abuses of the encyclopedia, why not join the discussion about the article's content? I'm not the final word on it, and I'm actually not the final word on SPA's either. I'm one editor, with no vested interest in these pages other than having them conform to Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies. I'm much more likely to be convinced by a cogent policy-based content argument than by poorly-fleshed-out accusations. I don't discard the former, but I do tend to discard the latter. MastCell Talk 16:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Permanent full protection?

Given the problems this article has, would anyone disagree with permanent full protection and a notice on how to get your changes incorporated (in lieu of flagged revisions). I know it's not the wiki way, but the alternative is having lots of good editors spending a lot of time babysitting this relatively unimportant article. henrik•talk 08:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So many experienced editors are watching this now, something tells me this is going to settle down kinda fast. Let's wait a bit. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The arbitration case was 2 years ago, and this article is and has been problematic since. I am doubtful things will settle down that easily, but I wouldn't mind giving it some time - hopefully I'll be proven wrong. henrik•talk 16:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Permanent full-protection is a last resort, and I don't see that we've tried and failed lesser methods first. It is trivially easy to identify each successive slew of single-purpose meatpuppets, and would be trivially easy to restrict them per the ArbCom decision, except that no one has been watching the page and actually administrating it since JzG has been gone. The article just needs to be on peoples' watchlists, and admins need to take an active role. I've been aware of this article for some time, but had been letting JzG do the hard work. It's a pain - every administrative action gets wikilawyered to death - but if the group of admins and editors currently commenting are willing to stick with it and actively enforce the ArbCom restrictions, then I don't think full protection would be necessary. I'd suggest, as a starting point, restricting the endless slew of meatpuppets to the talk page only. Then they can make their points, some of which are reasonable, and those points can be filtered through the larger community of editors who don't have blatant conflicts of interest. MastCell Talk 16:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Mastcell could you point too-lazy-to-look-for-it me to the arbcom ruling on this? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. There used to be a link to it at the top of the talk page, I think, but it's gone now. MastCell Talk 16:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. With that, along with the admins now watching this article I see no reason for protection at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright. I've added an arbcom notice to the top of the talk page again, for future reference. henrik•talk 17:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

IMED information

I am just curious why the article isn't including the IMED listing? Bstone (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what end it serves. It tells us that the population of Senegal was "10,284,929 (2001 data)" (thus betraying a schoolchild's awe of "statistics"), and it gives various other odds and sods, e.g. the phone number of the British arm. Is it that merely being listed on the site is significant? But this page tells us that "FAIMER is not an accrediting agency", so it's unclear what the significance is of there being an entry for an institution. The same page does say that the accrediting agency in Britain is the GMC. Here's GMC's list of "UK medical schools - Quality Assurance results"; St Chris does not appear, and sticking "diop" in the GMC's search box brings nothing. Back to the FAIMER page: it lists no accrediting organization for Senegal. -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
That looks like a directory listing - why would that be important to the article? Shell babelfish 01:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, an IMED listing means that the school has a legal and official charter to issue the Doctor of Medicine degree. In the US, you cannot sit for the licensing exam (USMLE) unless your school is listed with IMED. And there are schools which aren't. IMED is a directory but it means the school has some legality/charter. Bstone (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly, being listed only requires that the school be recognized by the appropriate agency in Senegal[28]. It would probably be better to find a secondary source that discusses this information in context rather than draw conclusions from a primary source. Shell babelfish 04:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuing the same logic of Shell, if this primary sourced directory information is not worthy of inclusion in the article, then perhaps the other primary sourced directories should be removed as well? (e.g. The GMC and state licensing board directories which "draw conclusions from a primary source."). Just applying parallel logic to the entire article. Totallyconfused (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good point actually, I was wondering about some of the sources myself. There's actually references to state law being used as sources in the last paragraph and that really seems like its reaching. Shell

babelfish 15:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comment Shell. Since the IMED/FAIMER/WHO directory information was included in the article without any interpretation or quotes from those websites, perhaps the state directory information should follow the same pattern, so that the article can continue to be fixed up to standard. Any comments on this wording - "In the United States, SCIMD-COM is not approved in Alabama,[12] Maine,[14] Oregon,[15] and Texas.[16]" Applicants are considered on a case-by-case basis in Indiana[13]." Totallyconfused (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Since no comments here, I'm guessing this was probably a straight forward, non-controversial edit, and updated the article as noted above. Totallyconfused (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This edit was reverted [29] without any discussion on this talk page before or after the revert. Shell mentioned above, some flaws with that paragraph. Anything in particular wrong with my edit or any suggestions on how that paragraph can be improved per Shell's comment above? Totallyconfused (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not manage to find this discussion prior to reverting your edit. I think the reason no one commented on your July 8 proposal is that it was overlooked because it was buried in the middle of older discussions. The text "In the United States, SCIMD-COM is not approved in Alabama, Maine, Oregon, and Texas" and "Applicants will be considered for licensure on a "case by case" basis in Indiana" is an inaccurate and erroneous representation of the information from the cited sources. No medical schools in the UK or Senegal are "approved" by any of those states. (U.S. states do not "approve" foreign medical schools.) Furthermore, the Indiana source does not specifically state that SCIMDCOM grads will be considered for licensure on a case by case basis; rather, it identifies it as one of a handful of "Questionable Foreign Medical Schools" about which it says "The following foreign medical schools are considered questionable by the Board and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. A personal appearance may be requested if you attended one of the following." I reverted the changes in the interest of accuracy. --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
As for Shell's comment about "state law being used as sources," all I can say is that those sources are not state laws. Rather, they are state government online publications about the states' findings regarding certain educational institutions. --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Correction: Oops, I see there were some links to state laws among the references. Those links served no purpose that I can discern, so I deleted them. --Orlady (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
While the IMED listing may indeed be a primary source it is important as it verifies that this school has some sort of legal charter to exist. It's not accreditation but it is, in essence, verification that the school exists. If you look at many other international medical school articles, like St._George's_University and American University of the Caribbean, you'll see that they also have IMED listings which are in the article. Thus, I advocate for its inclusion. Bstone (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this FAIMER page tells us that The medical schools listed in IMED are recognized by the appropriate government agencies in the countries where the schools are located. So listing on this site does indeed seem noteworthy. If there are no objections, let's readd it to the article in a few hours. -- Hoary 15:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

JzG, an editor and admin, has removed this section in his blanket revert. This is clearly against the discussion and consensus located in this section. Might anyone have any ideas on how to proceed with this? Bstone (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I just re-read this section based on your comments in a later section and honestly, now I'm even more confused. I only see you and Hoary agreeing at the end. I disagreed, twice with two different points that were never addressed and the two other editors that commented here were talking about a different subject. That's a pretty loose interpretation of having a consensus to include the material. Just for the record - again, I disagree and do not believe this material should be included in any of the formats mentioned so far and certainly not until we stop trying to make inferences by gluing together a few pages from a primary source. Shell babelfish 16:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Shell, the IMED website here states very clearly, "The International Medical Education Directory (IMED) provides an accurate and up-to-date resource of information about international medical schools that are recognized by the appropriate government agency in the countries where the medical schools are located." (emphasis mine). They are not a primary source, their information is verifiable and it's reliable. What could possibly be wrong with it? Bstone (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Even if that is accepted, that would provide a secondary source for the acceptance of this school in Senegal, but not for the UK. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Bstone, as you say, the IMED website here states very clearly, "The International Medical Education Directory (IMED) provides an accurate and up-to-date resource of information about international medical schools that are recognized by the appropriate government agency in the countries where the medical schools are located." For a college in Luton, England, as I have said before, the appropriate government agency is not, can not and never will be anyone or anything in Senegal! The IMED entry you quote refers solely to the premises in Senegal. It makes no reference to the UK institution. The address of the medical school in IMED is "POINT E RUE 3 PROLONGEE X BOULEVARD DE L'EST, DAKAR, SENEGAL", which last time I looked was not in Luton, England. 15:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please restore the IMED listing per consensus achieved in this section. Bstone (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

But there is no consensus to include that material. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
agree that there's NO CONSENSUS 15:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the IMED source is independent, I suspect the information comes directly from the school with a pretty minimal level of fact-checking - that was certainly what FAIMER implied when I asked them last year. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
JzG, I have to remind you about WP:OR. Do you have any independent, verifiable sources which indicate that IMED is a controversial source? Afterall, IMED is an international medical and education organization. I am curious to know how you can document IMED not being independent and thus not included this or any other encyclopedic article. I am ever so curious to hear your thoughts and opinions so do reply soon. Bstone (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
IMED isn't an international organization, it's a directory/database. FAIMER is an international organization that is trying to improve international medical training, but the directory they maintain is just that, a directory. On [30], they say they get information from the countries' various Ministries of Health or equivalent, but it doesn't say if or where they do any checking beyond that. IMED therefore can't be used as much more than confirmation that Senegal says SCIMDCoM is recognized by Senegal. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The real sources are not tertiary directory entries like IMED. What do the BBC, the Guardian say this is? Whatever they say, we say too. I don't see the BBC saying anything much about Senegal, except that the Senegalese spokesman they got hold of didn't support the claims made by the organisation at that time. The story is quite short, and quite simple, and all we need is here and here. And if you want any more, this lets you quote the GMC verbatim, if you want to. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:OR applies neither to Talk page discussion nor to evaluation of sources per WP:RS. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure but we cannot exclude a reference on the basis of an conversation that we cannot verify or hunches that the source is not independent. I have some time tomorrow and will further into the nature of the IMED. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It's the other way round. The onus is on those seeking to include content, to justify and achieve consensus for its inclusion. Anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter. I would not object to a link to the database being used to support some fact available i the database (i.e. as a reference), but saying that it is listed in the database is original research and a diversion - we don't say that it's in Yellow Pages, after all. FAIMER accept stuff pretty much at face value, they do not state that listing is any indication of quality. The institution wants the IMED listing in there because it confers halo effect, but it's just a directory. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) JzG, you write that you believe that IMED gets their information directly from the schools themselves and, thus, this makes it not independent and reliable. Quoting directly from IMED's website,

A medical school is listed in IMED after FAIMER receives confirmation from the Ministry of Health or other appropriate agency that the medical school is recognized by the Ministry or other agency. FAIMER also updates the International Medical Education Directory as information about medical schools is received from Ministries of Health or other appropriate agencies. [31]

Thus, I am having a great difficult understanding why you believe the way you do when it's clearly an impossibility. The med school saying they are legal would be a primary source. The governmental agency saying they consider the med school legal would be a secondary source. IMED's listing about the med school, after conducting an analysis, would be a tertiary source. Please respond when you conveniently can. Bstone (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The IMED site doesn't say anything about FAIMER "conducting an analysis" -- the quote you list above says pretty much that they repeat what the country reports. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Analysis was my own language, however it's immaterial to the issue at hand. IMED is a tertiary source of information for determining if a medical school has the appropriate governmental approval and charter to operate as a medical school. Surely we can agree on this? If not, then please explain exactly why IMED is not reliable. Bstone (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Secondary source -- IMED is recording whether the local MoH-equivalent "recognizes" the medical school. Primary source is the Ministry of Health, secondary source is IMED. BTW, the IMED page says nothing about accreditation. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
So then, please tell me what a tertiary source would be? By your logic, this being reported in a newspaper would also be secondary source as newspaper only report what is reported to them. If they contacted the MoH and the MoH said, "yes, they are a legal med school", then that being reported in a newspaper (by your logic) would only qualify as a secondary source. So, please, indulge me- how can this ever be reported as a tertiary source? I wait for your reply. Bstone (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, there's nothing wrong with secondary sources! Please look at Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. An example of a tertiary source would be Britannica or Wikipedia. Secondary sources are preferred to both primary and tertiary sources. Perhaps you are thinking of "third-party source", (a common confusion that nearly everybody on Wikipedia seems to have), for which IMED would certainly qualify -- in other words, FAIMER's IMED directory is a third-party secondary source. For Wikipedia, that's better than a tertiary source.
I'm not disputing IMED's reliability here -- if it's included in the article, I just want the article to be precise about what IMED is saying, and not to draw inferences from it, for that is original research. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it looks like we both agree now. IMED is a third-party, secondary source. It's reliable and useful. So why not include a simple blurb in the article saying, "St Chrisropher Iba Mar Diop is listen in FAIMER's IMED directory< referece>"? Bstone (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that sentence going in -- going much beyond that would be a problem with me. I don't think we're near consensus in this forum, though -- we as editors need to hear from the other above, at least. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I am glad that we agree on this simple blurb. You do realize that this is the second time such a discussion has taken place and where the editors agreed that this listing should be included with the article. JzG, however, went ahead and blanket reverted the article to exclude the IMED listing and is now citing his own original research to indicate that IMED is not independent nor reliable. Bstone (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not helping things to have this discussion in two or three threads simultaneously and to make an {{editprotected}} request when it's clear there is no consensus. Let's centralize this and relax a bit. MastCell Talk 23:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
MastCell, relax? Huh? ArglebargleIV and I just came to a conclusion and agreement, so I believe the climax is quite over and we're very well relaxed. If you'd like to move this to the IMED section above I am fine with it. MastCell, what is your opinion on the matter? Eager to hear from you. Bstone (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I don't think we have consensus yet, merely because Bstone and I agree on a minimalistic sentence -- and this discussion should be reopened in the section with the editprotected request. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Argle, I agree with you. We must solicit the opinions of other editors, as well, and possibly ask for a 3O. However, I am glad we agree that IMED is a third-party, secondary source. Bstone (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not, however, properly independent, it accepts claims at face value. It is reported to list some Senegalese schools which are by common agreement diploma mills. An entry in the directory is no different fomr a phone book entry, it has no obvious bar to inclusion. And it is used by the institution to obscure its lack of accreditation. So: yes, it's a secondary source, but it is not independent, not reliable in the context it's being used (implying legitimacy) and not actually relevant. We are nto under any obligation to help substandard institutions to defend their markets. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
JzG, we will have to agree to disagree. If you really think that this international medical and education organization is not independent then you have a right to think such a thing. However, the US Government requires anyone seeking a medical license in the US to have their school listed by this directory. The Yellow Pages does not verify if their listings have the appropriate governmental licenses to operate as a business. IMED, on the other hand, does check to see that all medical schools listed have the governmental charter and legality. So, JzG, can you show any sources which indicate that IMED is not to be trusted? Perhaps a government report, news article or anything else? For, until you can, it's plainly obvious that IMED is a reliable, independent, verifiable source of information. It's not the Yellow Pages in any way, shape or form. Bstone (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You are missing the point, and I have to say that by now this appears deliberate. I contacted FAIMER last year and asked them their source of information, they said it was the school. They said that they do only minimal fact-checking. And even then I am not disputing that IMED is usable as a source for facts, what I'm saying is that stating that it is listed in IMED is merely stating that it is listed in a directory. It's also in the phone book, but we don't mention that. There is a world of difference between using $SOURCE as a source and stating that something is listed in $SOURCE, as the St. Chris mob want us to do, in hope of conferring halo effect from the legitimate entries in $SOURCE. The one thing upon which all reliable non-trivial independent sources are agreed, is that this place is sub-standard. Anything they want us to do to obscure that, is a problem. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
My feeling is, and has been, in line with Guy's on the content issue, though lacking his experience with the article and OTRS I'm not willing to comment on motivations. Basically, Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. If people want to search IMED, or credit reports, or liquidation history, or any other directory, then great - the Web makes it easy. We don't need to recapitulate that info when no independent secondary source has seen fit to do so. If the BBC mentions that the company was liquidated, or that it's listed in IMED, then I have no problem. If we just feel like picking out which directories are most relevant in our opinion and citing them here, then I feel we're intruding in a way that violates the spirit of WP:NOR. We have some independent, reliable secondary sources - let's just use them and move on. MastCell Talk 16:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
JzG, like I said, we will have to agree to disagree. By saying you supposedly contacted FAIMER and did your own research, as you know, is absolutely unacceptable as part of the process for determining if this is a reliable source. The only source of information about their process is from their own website, which says

The International Medical Education Directory (IMED) provides an accurate and up-to-date resource of information about international medical schools that are recognized by the appropriate government agency in the countries where the medical schools are located. The agency responsible for this recognition in most countries is the Ministry of Health. Medical schools that are recognized by the appropriate agencies in their respective countries are listed in the International Medical Education Directory.[32]

Unless you have some other source, other than your own WP:OR to indicate that this international medical and educational organization is unacceptable and not independent then I just have to say I am unable to accept your assertion. Thus, we will have to agree to disagree. Lastly, JzG, you have not made three personal comments about me on these talk pages. Please, JzG, comment about the content, not the editor. Please and thank you. Bstone (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point. No one is arguing about whether FAIMER is a "reliable source". The discussion is about whether a listing in this particular directory is relevant, noteworthy, or belongs in an encyclopedia article. It's also a matter of whether we should mine and parse primary sources to "balance" or "counteract" material from undisputably reliable independent secondary sources. We shouldn't. MastCell Talk 17:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>There certainly isn't consensus here, and I'm beginning to rethink whether I agree that a simple sentence about IMED should be in there, unless the sentence contined a description of what inclusion in IMED represents (i.e., not that much). IF the sentence is there to puff up the college in the face of the other referenced material questioning it's legitimacy, then an explanation needs to be included with the sentence. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

On other med school articles there are some which say (roughly) "xx school is listed in FAIMER's IMED directory, which indicates it has been approved by the appropriate governmental agency". This can be modified to indicate that the government agency is in Senegal, not the UK. Also, a controversy section is very appropriate for this article and I would help contribute to it. Bstone (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


I have asked for a WP:3O regarding this issue. Bstone (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have removed this 3O request from WP:3O page: the dispute here involves more than two editors. Sorry folks, but if you need substantial extra input, I suggest that you do an RfC instead. Nsk92 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Asking that the 3O tag be added to the top of the article, per the discussion in this section. Bstone (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not done: 'cuz there are already more than three opinions here. WP:3O states it's for disputes between two editors. I second the suggestion for an RfC, though. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Bstone, would youi please stop forum shopping. There are numeorus experienced editors here, and most of them are telling you things you don't want to hear, but that does not mean you can go out looking until you find someone who will agree with you and then you can pretend it's consensus. Your previous "consensus" relied on sockpuppets of a returning banned user, which is not a good sign. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
JzG, what in the world are you talking about? Do you honestly want me to believe that asking for a third opinion about the IMED issue is "forum shopping"? Do you honestly expect me to believe that no other editor on Wikipedia is allowed to have an opinion and comment on this issue? JzG, you are lashing out at me and it's making me increasing uncomfortable. This seems to be a habit of yours and I will ask you kindly, sir, please stop. Bstone (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If IMED lists the information from FAIMER and "The medical schools listed in IMED are recognized by the appropriate government agencies in the countries where the schools are located.", meaning FAIMER gets it's information from the appropriate government agency for that country with regard to the school it would certianly be a secondary source, not primary. Considering it's a secondary source I don't see what the problem is. Since it's a secondary source, and it is a reliable organization, the information from IMED meets WP:RS and WP:V and that's all that is required for inclusion in the article.

I guess if you guys can't work this out it can always go go Arbcom since it would appear to be an issue of policy and application on Wikipedia whether WP:RS and WP:V directory listings are an acceptable part of article content or not. One way or another it will have a major impact on a number of wikipedia articles.67.177.155.250 (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

More discussion below in the RFC section. TypeBoots (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

On accreditation system in the U.K

Sorry to come to this debate late. I have not digested all that is discussed above but I do think that there are some other links and references related to accreditation in the UK system of higher education that are relevant here and maybe they should be included in the article in some way. The official UK government list of accredited institutions of higher education is available at:[33]. The accreditation system in the UK is two-teired. The top teir consists of the so-called "Recognized Bodies" (see the list of the here[34]). There are institutions of higher education that are actually authorized to grant college level degrees. The second, lower tier, consists of the so-called "Listed Bodies" (see the list of them here[35]). These institutions are not authorized to grant degrees but they are authorized to offer courses that can be accepted for credit by degree-granting institutions. As far as I can see, St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine is not present on either of the two lists. A quote from the above site (U.K. Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills):"Awarding bodies not on our list of Recognised Bodies will not be awarding recognised UK degrees." Nsk92 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nsk92 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nsk, I agree with you. St Chris is not accredited in the UK. I don't think that much has been at issue in this discussion. St Chris is a branch of a medical school located in Senegal. American schools do this as well. The IMED information clearly indicates that the university has a satellite in Luton, England and it's somewhat clear that St Chris has not attempted to ask for UK accreditation. Bstone (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This is really a bit WP:ORish. It covers the same ground as the GMC / BBC material, but the BBC and GMC is explicit (i.e. specifically mentions the place) rather than implicit (fails to list it). It's been on and off a number of directories over the months, it seems tat it has a habit of reapplying under a slightly different spelling or spacing of the name and then someone complains and it gets removed again. If we do decide to go into detail about the supposed Senegalese parent institution, the GMC does list that as not acceptable: [36], as well as listing the Luton one of course [37]. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    It is not WP:OR to take information from a third-party, secondary source and include it, with a reference, in an article. I am very agreeable to include in the article that while listed in IMED, this school is not accredited and subject to make concerns for licensing, graduation, etc. Regarding the rest of your claims about spacing, spelling, etc- IMED gets their information from the appropriate governmental agency. If that agency is indicating that there is a legit name change then there is nothing wrong with that. School do happen to change names. Bstone (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wealth of information removed

I know I'll be tagged an SPA and my comments probably disregarded, but I've been reading this article for a while now and wanted to comment. It might be worthwhile to consider an SPA opinion so that the disruption could cease. Comparing this version [38] to this version, [39], a wealth of information was removed, information that was in a NPOV and sourced. The only information that remains in the current mastcell version is one that follows a certain point of view, not a NPOV, and it almost reads like an attack page. Perhaps if the wealth of information was not removed from the former version, SPAs would not try to edit the article. Simoncuristor has a point, in that anyone (SPA or not) that adds information not consistent with the current version is banned and their edits are reverted. Yes, plenty of non-SPAs have tried to add information similar to the former version, and eventually gave up, when their edits were reverted. Why not just leave the wealth of referenced information from the former version in the article, and let the readers decide, rather than POV-pushing. Bstone is probably familiar with this topic, since a similar situation occurred with Caribbean Medical University in which s/he advocated for fairness in the article, not just to read like an attack page. Totallyconfused (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this FAIMER page tells us that The medical schools listed in IMED are recognized by the appropriate government agencies in the countries where the schools are located. So listing on this site does indeed seem noteworthy. If there are no objections, let's readd it to the article in a few hours. -- Hoary (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm tired of who-said-what-about-whom. Let's instead discuss material that MastCell deleted but perhaps should not have deleted. How about the following gobbet?
The college is listed in The Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research ([[FAIMER]]) International Medical Education Directory ([[IMED]]) database of medical schools with contact addresses in Dakar, Senegal; Luton, UK; and [[McDonough, Georgia|McDonough]], [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], [[United States|USA]].<ref name="IMED" /> It is listed as such based on its accreditation by the Senegalese Ministry of Education through its issuing of a charter in February 2000<ref>[http://www.stchris.edu/charter.htm Senegalese Charter of SCIMD from stchris.edu]</ref>, which was reaffirmed in April 2006 after a reorganization of the school.<ref name="letter">[http://www.stchris.edu/charter.htm# Senegalese recognition letter by Minister of Education]</ref> The college is also listed by the [[World Health Organization]] in the updated 7th edition of the [[World Directory of Medical Schools]].<ref>http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/WDMS/WDMS_Updates_131201.pdf</ref>
Unfortunately it's late and I'm sleepy, so I'm not going to chase up those references. You others are welcome to do so. However, I do notice one thing: that its accreditation by the Senegalese Ministry of Education is sourced to the institution itself, and not, say, to the Senegalese Ministry of Education. Further, I note that the FAIMER Directory of Organizations that Recognize/Accredit Medical Schools lists no organization for Senegal. (Interestingly, it also lists no organization for France or Germany.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of avoiding another tedious round of game-playing, how about this: if Totallyconfused (talk · contribs) can confine himself to the one account and reasonably phrased content-based argument and persuasion on the talk page, rather than edit-warring on the article, we can ignore his block evasion and obvious threat ("if you listened to my accounts, I'd stop being disruptive").

I think the above passage is inappropriate for the following reasons: it is primarily a listing of various directories in which SC appears, without meaningful context on what that inclusion signifies. It is sourced largely to the SC webpage, which should not be used to verify these items. The overall effect is confusing, unencyclopedic, and possibly misleading, in that it serves to camoflague the notable, secondary-reliable-sourced, relevant lack of meaningful accreditation in some US states and the UK. MastCell Talk 16:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Even better: in the interest of avoiding another tedious round, how about putting aside any question of who Totallyconfused (or anyone else) might be or of what his or her motives or interest might be, and consider the content. So how about this tentative rewrite:
The college is listed in The Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research ([[FAIMER]]) International Medical Education Directory ([[IMED]]) database of medical schools with contact addresses in Dakar, Senegal; Luton, UK; and [[McDonough, Georgia|McDonough]], [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], [[United States|USA]].<ref name="IMED" /> It is listed as such based on its recognition by the Senegalese Ministry of Education. The college is also listed by the [[World Health Organization]] in the updated 7th edition of the [[World Directory of Medical Schools]].<ref>http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/WDMS/WDMS_Updates_131201.pdf</ref>
The lack of meaningful accreditation in some US states and the UK should be added to this; but for now, let's consider what the deleted passage itself says. FAIMER lists no accrediting organization for Senegal but does imply by its listing that the organization is recognized by Senegal; thus "accreditation" seems an overstatement but "recognition" seems right. None of this is sourced to the school itself; if what can only be sourced to the school is important, it may stay, IFF the text says something like according to the school (the reader should not have to examine a footnote in order to see that the claim is one made by the school). I have not yet looked in the WDMS PDF. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with inclusion your second version into the article. It removes the self-referenced information and basically just says facts that are referenced. Totallyconfused (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Glad you like it. But let's not rush. MastCell, what do you think? (NB this is not a replacement for material about lack of meaningful accreditation, merely an addition to it.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at both of those directory listings. It possibly would be valid to state that (1) the institution in Senegal was listed in both directories as of specified dates and (2) that the IMED directory also includes contact addresses in other places.
However, stating that the IMED listing is "based on its recognition by the Senegalese Ministry of Education" looks like original research -- although the IMED information page says that listings are based on information received from "Ministries of Health or other appropriate agencies," there is nothing to indicate either (1) what agency supplied the information about this institution or (2) that supplying the information was evidence of "recognition."
Regarding the 7th edition of the World Directory of Medical Schools, the school is not actually listed in that directory. Rather, it is listed in an online update to the directory (issued in December 2001), where it is stated "Instruction began on 25 February 2000 at: St Christopher's College of Medicine, Dakar."
Although both organizations state that there is some quality control over their directory contents, it's apparent that there is little meaningful verification. Thus, directory listings such as these do not appear to have much information value beyond "it probably exists." --Orlady (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I suppose my fundamental concern is that we're trying to parse and read between the lines of primary sources with this passage. Look at the number of gaps that we're trying to fill in with speculation. I'm also not sure why we need to mention its listing in various directories; we don't generally do this for medical schools, I think (though I could be wrong). That said, I'm not going to stand in the way of this if Hoary thinks it's reasonable - I'd only agree with Orlady's point that we should remove "based on its recognition by the Senegalese Ministry of Education" as not entirely clear from the sources (since they're primary, we should be exceptionally careful about filling in blanks). My 2 cents. MastCell Talk 02:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Visas

The former version of this article [40] included a section on student visas, that appears up to date. Any comments on restoring this information? "SCIMD is listed in the UK Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills (DIUS) Register of Education and Training Providers. [5]. "The purpose of the existing Register for Education and Training Providers is to assist the immigration authorities to take decisions about applications for student visas." [6] "The Home Office will only grant student visas to people intending to study at an institution on the Register."[7] and "applying to a college on the Register does not automatically mean you will be granted a student visa. This is just one of the criteria the Home Office considers in assessing visa applications." Also, "the Register does not quality assure the services offered by providers."[8][9] [10][11]" Totallyconfused (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, this seems like an indiscriminate collection of information lacking context and comprehensibility. Can we accurately and concisely summarize the above? It seems to indicate that someone studying at SC could potentially be considered for a student visa, but not necessarily, and it has no bearing on the school's accrediation or lack thereof. If so, is this really relevant? MastCell Talk 18:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree this could be shortened and summarized in a sentence or two. How is something like this? "SCIMD is listed in the UK Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills (DIUS) Register of Education and Training Providers, which is a directory to assist in decisions about student visas." About the relevance - Considering this is an article about an educational establishment, I would say that discussing student visas is far more worthwhile than credit reports. I still don't see the relevance of including information about the company credit reports, and can't find such information in other schools' articles. Are there any objections to removing that sentence? Totallyconfused (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Information about the availability of visas to attend a school is frequently inserted into articles about unaccredited schools by contributors attempting to demonstrate that the schools are legitimate. The information is routinely deleted by other contributors. This information is not particularly relevant to any specific institution. Furthermore, the government agencies that determine eligibility for visas typically seem to be only minimally interested (at most) in the educational merits of the institutions that visa applicants propose to attend. --Orlady (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to Orlady's view on the visa issue. Re: the credit reports, I tend to agree with Totallyconfused. If these are just primary sources, then they probably have no place here. If the liquidation/receivership has been covered in the press or other independent secondary sources, then it might be notable. See, for example, Allegheny University of the Health Sciences: here, the school's bankruptcy is covered, but the coverage is sourced to Science and the American College of Physicians, not to credit reports. MastCell Talk 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
What MastCell wrote seems reasonable - not restoring the paragraph on visas, and removing the sentence on the credit reports. Any objections? Totallyconfused (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The very start

The article starts rather mysteriously. After link stripping: the place is identified as a medical training establishment in Luton, England. Details are somewhat obscure but it appears to be a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD)[...].

Why "X is identified as a Y" rather than plain "X is a Y"? And, as FAIMER is pretty straightforward in what little it says, why "X appears to be a Y" rather than plain "X is a Y"? And which obscure details should be borne in mind here? -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"X is a Y" leaves you open to charges of defamation (you are stating it as a fact); "X is identified as a Y" (with a source) simply says that you are acknowledging the identification, without actually adopting it. The word-war over this article (and the power of someone being able to get a retraction of a negative comment) ought to indicate that the "identified as" is a safer mode until a definitive judgement on "Y-ness" has been made -- Simon Cursitor (talk)
Indeed, but I find it hard to imagine that the charge of being a medical training establishment could be libelous. Of certain other outfits, is identified as a degree mill, yes. But a medical training establishment? Unless perhaps it were illegal to run a [locally] non-accredited medical school; but as far as I know it isn't. -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Truth be told, I can see how someone might see that as snarky if they wanted it called a medical school. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Per the comments and suggestions above, how is this wording? - "St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (SCIMD-COM) is a branch campus in Luton, England. The main campus is located in Dakar, Senegal which is a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN).[33]" Totallyconfused (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The current version is good, balanced and I believe it should be kept or only mildly modified. Bstone (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The first line of the article is phrased totally wrong. The parent medical college is Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD) in Dakar, Senegal, not SCIMD. If you want it to be accurate it should read:

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (SCIMD-COM) is medical education establishment in Luton, England. operating as a satellite campus of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD) which is a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) located in Dakar, Senegal.[26]

Uponleft (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For Orlady

Thanks for fixing up that first paragraph. Regarding the company report, there is an active corporation for the college that was removed with your edit, and I was just curious why it was removed? It's company record 06355453, Incorporated 29/08/2007, Status Active. Totallyconfused (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops! That removal was totally accidental. My intent was to restore the text information and place the myriad links in inline references. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I was curious if you think it is better to group the company report text information and external links together, since they are referring to the same thing? Actually, is company report information routinely included in articles for educational establishments? I can't seem to find it in other articles? Totallyconfused (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Orlady, thanks for continuing to help to fix this article.

Notability of Credit Reports

The credit rating reports are not the only source for the information about this school being in liquidation. The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization states: "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." --Orlady (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Is that sentence considered "significant coverage" per the WP:N guidelines?Totallyconfused (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: the credit reports, I tend to agree with Totallyconfused. If these are just primary sources, then they probably have no place here. If the liquidation/receivership has been covered in the press or other independent secondary sources, then it might be notable. See, for example, Allegheny University of the Health Sciences: here, the school's bankruptcy is covered, but the coverage is sourced to Science and the American College of Physicians, not to credit reports. MastCell Talk 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph

The paragraph talking about the UK and GMC seems riddled with original research, synthesis, and interpretation from primary sources. I agree that it's important to mention the GMC list, but that paragraph needs some work. Any comments? Totallyconfused (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That paragraph cite six different sources, the first two of which are citations to articles in respectable news media outlets. I don't see any original research, synthesis, or interpretation from primary sources. --Orlady (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Senegal accreditation, Info Box, Category

1. Both BBC articles state that the school is accredited through Senegal, and the third article states "accredited by overseas institutions". So, the school type in the info box, and school category should not be "unaccredited" since it does have accreditation somewhere as noted by three secondary sources.
There is only one BBC article; I guess you are referring to the Guardian article and the BBC article. I don't know of a third article. The entire paragraph is about the flap over the institution's status in the UK. I don't see how the school's status in Senegal changes the validity of the statement about the school's status in the UK. --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I probably should have put #1 in a separate section. It does not effect the above paragraph. It was mentioned to suggest edits to the articles' infobox and main category. Since a few secondary sources noted its accreditation in Senegal, it's not really fair to put "unaccredited" in the infobox and main category, since sources note it's accredited. Totallyconfused (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Simplify Paragraph

2. "the school lacks accreditation in the UK" is original research or synthesis based on interpretation of the references. I'm not arguing whether it's an accurate statement or not, just saying that statement does not comply with WP guidelines as far as I can tell.
That wording seems to have been an attempt to provide a concise summary of the complicated situation described in the article. Perhaps a more detailed description of the situation should be provided. --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
3. "It achieved prominence" Again interpretation or original research.
Would you prefer to see this say "It received media attention"? --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
4. These two sentences appear identical in wording. "the publication of a list of schools deemed unacceptable for registration, including St. Christopher.[5] The GMC website was subsequently amended to include a list of schools deemed unacceptable for registration, including St Christopher by name as unacceptable"
I don't have access to reference 5, GMC Today, so I can't guess at what the original author of the first sentence intended to say here. --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps better wording would be - "In November 2005, BBC coverage highlighted the school as an example of a loophole allowing essentially unregulated medical schools to operate in the UK.[3] This led to an investigation by the General Medical Council (GMC),[4] resulting in the withdrawal of registration of at least one doctor.; and "at the present time, the GMC is not registering graduates who hold primary medical qualifications obtained from" SCIMD-COM. [34]
Totallyconfused (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see justification for such a thorough-going rewording of this paragraph. I have not dissected your words, but I see the potential for several issues with them. You objected to "achieved prominence"; others could legitimately object to terms such as "highlighted," "loophole" and "essentially unregulated." Also, the statement "at the present time" is problematic -- see [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Chronological items}}. --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not go for simplicity instead of legalese? The last sentence could read: "This led to an investigation by the General Medical Council (GMC). As a result of the investigation, the GMC withdrew the registration of at least one doctor, and ceased registering graduates of SCIMD-COM." MastCell Talk 17:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I support simplicity. Go with MC's version. Bstone (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I updated the article with MastCell's simplified version, while also removing wording that Orlady mentioned may have issues . Totallyconfused (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoosh! Too many changes too fast... I haven't studied this thoroughly, but a quick skim indicated that the edit in the name of "simplification" had introduced some distortions and errors. I reverted the edit pending more discussion. --Orlady (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Orlady, three of us thought the simplified version was the best. And you reverted it after only a "quick skim"? Please cease editing this article until you can get on board with consensus and fully informed editing. Bstone (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
My quick skim of the edits led me to believe that Totallyconfused's changes had gone beyond the consensus discussion here. Obviously, I don't care about this institution nearly enough to be qualified to monitor the article. (Actually, I don't care about it all....) I am removing this article from my watchlist. --Orlady (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
That's a great pity. I haven't looked at this article recently, partly because I've been too busy to do so and partly because I've been reassured by the sight of certain familiar names, yours among them. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Orlady is an excellent and scrupulous editor. She may have been too hasty here, just as virtually every editor is too hasty somewhere. I suggest that she is pretty well informed, and hope that she returns, and with no sense of obligation to agree to any "consensus" when it isn't yet a consensus just because it's a "consensus". -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is my take on what the UK licensing paragraph should look like:

The General Medical Council (GMC) of the UK does not allow graduates of SCIMD to apply for registration nor does it recognize the qualification for the purposes of sitting the Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board exam. Reporting by the BBC in 2005 led to an investigation of SCIMD-COM by the General Medical Council (GMC). As a result of that investigation the GMC withdrew the registration of at least one doctor and ceased registering graduates of SCIMD-COM.

Uponleft (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph shouldn't say "The school lacks accreditation in the United Kingdom (UK)" as the GMC does not accredit foreign medical college nor their branch campuses. It isn't possible to lack something that can't be obained in the first place, it's just logical. Uponleft (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so. I lack fur, feathers, wings, etc.
How about Like any non-British medical college, the school lacks accreditation in Britain? -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated Infobox

I updated the infobox, the only information I added was the current deans name. I can't imagine that would be considered controversial, so hopefully people won't have a problem with it. Uponleft (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

References

I updated the formatting in the references section so they will use small text. No reason to have a refernces list that is longer than the article. Hopefully no one will have a problem with this. Uponleft (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive

I archived all the sections on this page that haven't been commented on in at least a week. It was difficult to find the sections that were still being actively discussed amongst the ones that were inactive. Uponleft (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement of Intent

I think the three of you that are actively editing this article are doing great work, and I just want to assist in that. I promise no monkey business (regardless, with so many people watching I couldn't even if I wanted to). If the three of you guys think that my assitance from here on out is disruptive then have MastCell ban me from editing in this area and I won't put up a fight. I also apologize to Mastcell with regard to my characterizations of his previous actions, I thought you had some kind of agenda here, but it's obvious you are only interested in trying to make this a balanced article. Uponleft (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sectioning

I sectioned the article. It is difficult to read when the text is just one big lump of text with no division. Uponleft (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I bulleted the United States section, reading where one states regulation stopped and one began was difficult in paragraph form. Uponleft (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

JzG

Admin JzG tried to add a large section of information to the article that was already agreed upon here as inappropriate because it was all primary sources. Can someone please ask him to come here and discuss any edits, particularly when they run counter to a consensus that has been reached? Uponleft (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

SPAs blocked

I've blocked the current crop of disruptive single purpose accounts per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. I'm sure this is not a new experience for Uponleft. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Orlady

Orlady, I am very disappointed and very concerned about your editing habits on this article. Plainly put, many of us are going discussing this article line by line and yet you have come and done a blanket revert. Why? This is the second time in several days that you have come and done blanket reverts- both against consensus. Again, why? Bstone (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  • This article has been a problem ever since it was started by the school's representative as an advert. The school uses the directory listings to obscure its lack of accreditation, but they are just directories and not of any relevance (you might just as well say it's in the Yellow Pages). There is also the issue of location: all the secondary source coverage is in respect of Luton. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, JzG, I don't much like your revert with. I am going to revert it to this version, as that is a version in which we have a great deal of consensus for and is as neutral as possible. Bstone (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Please don't keep reverting. The reasons are as stated above: the sources are about the place in Luton, not Dakar; and inclusion in directories is used by the school to obscure its lack of accreditation. It would be better if you did not give the appearance of colluding with their long-term attempts at whitewashing this article. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • JzG, you need to go back and review NPOV. The article as it has been reverted by you is highly POV and not neutral in any way. I will refrain from reverting your highly unencyclopedic revert as I self limit myself. Amazing how we spend all this time, going line by line, gaining consensus, and JzG comes along, starts banning editors and then reverting the article. Bstone (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, no I don't. The article is as it was for some months until my back was turned and the banned users returned with their whitewashing. Presence in directories that also contain legitimate schools is one of the techniques fraudulent "universities" use to obscure their lack of accreditation. Since you have less experience with dealing with these places - both on wiki and in OTRS - I can quite see why you would not realise why they are so determined to include directory listings, but I'm afraid you've been duped by the whitewashers. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

← Bstone, the thing about consensus is that it's fragile. Anyhow, I've consistently expressed unease with the level of incomprehensible detail on directory listings, visas, etc that had been stuffed into this article from primary sources. My unease was based on the concerns that Guy articulates above - that overwhelming the article with unreadable and uninterpretable primary-source directory listings obscures the notable, relevant material from reliable secondary sources, which should be our focus. I agree with Guy as far as that goes - the accreditation story should be summed up in the terms that the BBC and other reliable sources have used. People can search IMED or other directories themselves - Wikipedia doesn't need to recapitulate them, and shouldn't. The same goes for the credit-agency reports, for that matter. MastCell Talk 18:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


Where is this place?

While the article is (very properly) locked, here's a simple question for Bstone and JzG. Is the article about an institution in Senegal or an institution in Britain, and why? And is it correctly titled? -- Hoary (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a university in Senegal with a branch campus in England. This isn't unlike US schools which have branch medical campuses around the world. I really don't see the difference. Bstone (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Now let's see what JzG thinks, and why. -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I take the liberty of recycling the following message from its original place of posting, the bizarrely titled section immediately below. -- Hoary (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not an article about a school, it's an article about a business in the UK which set up as a private medical school and was subject of an investigation by the BBC which led the GMC to change its rules to make such schools inadmissible for UK medical students; they also struck off at least one doctor with a degree from this place. That's what it's known for. In the UK, medical schools are attached to teaching hospitals. This place is not in the same town as any teaching hospitals and has no known ties with any teaching hospitals. It is completely unlike any legitimate British medical school, but it uses a British address for halo effect. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.
I quote from the article: Details are somewhat obscure but it appears to be a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD) which is a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal. The relevant IMED page says next to nothing about the place, but I think does clearly imply that the place in Luton is a satellite of the place in Dakar. Do you have any reason to think that this is mistaken? Or what other reason is there for not simplifying the sentence above so that it reads It is a satellite[...]? -- Hoary (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

what in the name of heaven?!?

this is an article about a school! How can t be so controversial that its locked without ending and the the athat the leaeds to a freaky ArbCom that is very long and multiple complaints to WP:ANI!?!?! Smith Jones (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not an article about a school, it's an article about a business in the UK which set up as a private medical school and was subject of an investigation by the BBC which led the GMC to change its rules to make such schools inadmissible for UK medical students; they also struck off at least one doctor with a degree from this place. That's what it's known for. In the UK, medical schools are attached to teaching hospitals. This place is not in the same town as any teaching hospitals and has no known ties with any teaching hospitals. It is completely unlike any legitimate British medical school, but it uses a British address for halo effect. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
JzG, it's clear from the above that you are not coming to edit the article with true neutrality. You has a bias against them. Some sort of ax to grind. This is not the first med school article I have edited but it's certainly the most dramatic. JzG, despite your bias, I am concerned why you have blanket reverted parts of this this article which very clearly had consensus. See the IMED section above in which many editors discussed, debated and finally came to consensus. I am quite literally at the edge of my seat waiting for your response. So, what do you say? Bstone (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Bstone, I understand that you're bothered by the revert, but how about we try making this about article content and avoid speculating on the motives of other editors? I wouldn't call the discussions above consensus; several of the non-SPA editors disagreed with the inclusion of the IMED note and other directory listing information the SPAs wanted to put in yet again. I even asked for better sourcing for the statements they were trying to make since it certainly seemed a lot was being inferred from a primary source and that doesn't seem to have happened. Its nice to reach a consensus quickly, but when that means ignoring the view of some editors to placate the more noisy ones, I don't think you're going to get an outcome that is really best for the article. Shell babelfish 16:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Shell, thanks for chiming in, however I don't think you're quite fully informed. If you read the full IMED section above you'll see that early on there was some concern, debate and then we came to consensus that it should be included. IMED isn't just being listed in the Yellow Pages. Any any every medical school that has the minimal level of legitimacy and legality must be in IMED. IMED verifies that the school has a legal charter to operate and grant the Doctor of Medicine degree. For purposes of licensure, any school which is not in IMED is unlikely to have their graduates be allowed to sit for licensing exams- most notably the USMLE. JzG blanket reverted this section, despite discussion and consensus, and still has not given an explanation on this talk page why. He did use an edit summary when blanking it, but that is not part of the discussion- it's called reverting. Maybe JzG himself can comment here? Bstone (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking at the same talk page (I assume) and guess I'm just not seeing the same thing. Several points were made against including the information that, frankly, were never addressed. Essentially what you're saying is based on your knowledge of IMED or gluing together several of its pages, you assume that IMED is asserting that this school has a legal charter - the problem there is that IMED only appears to verify certain information in the home country (Senegal in this case), so other listed information, such as the additional addresses, really aren't worthwhile beyond simple contact information. The concern I had (and still have) is that we're stretching this listing to make a claim of legitimacy and I don't think that's an appropriate use of the source. I still believe that if more is to be said about the parent school in Senegal, its legitimacy and other information, that reliable secondary sources need to be located. Shell babelfish 08:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Soo , you dont like the sSChool we so we have goten to the poitn htat we involed so much administrative action including a full-protecT??? Really, it hink we can calm down, maybe take a short 22 or three hour wekebreak, then come back with a cooler head and an eye towards consensus wrather tahn suffer. Smith Jones (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Still waiting for JzG's reasoning why he removed the IMED section. It has been a few days since his blanket revert and I shall have to assume he refuses to discuss his edits if this silence persists. Bstone (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe he has a cold or something. The sky is not falling; be patient; withdraw from the edge of your seat. -- Hoary (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Since he has not been responding to several requests here, I will assume he has continued with his wikibreak. Bstone (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I answered that point at least three times in various places, you appear to have a problem with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
JzG, comment about the content, not the editor. This isn't the first time you'd had a problem like this. Just a gentle reminder. Bstone (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Stop being hypocritical and stop evading the point. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could title your next thread more informatively, and go easy on the exclamation points. -- Hoary (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this section heading is a little, er...we'll just leave it with the er. Bstone (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tuppence

I think both bstone and JsG make some good points. Here's a couple of quick bits of feedback from me;

  • I too am unconvinced of the need for the companies house information (see above) - I think it should be removed for now.
  • I think a section title 'Controversy with Accreditation' (or somesuch) would be sensible to detail the various specific details of how this institution is treated internationally - presence on the various 'Questionable Foreign Medical Schools' lists seems notable, interesting and relevant, and to my mind could be presented alongside the FAIMER info. etc.

finally - I strongly suspect that a solid wiki consensus isn't the hardest thing in the world to achieve here, because despite perhaps setting off on a slightly adversarial path, I think most editors agree on most of the article content... let's sort this article out! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  • The Companies House information is quite singular. I am not aware of any other medical school in the UK which has been forcibly wound up in recent years. To be fair, this claims to be the only private medical school in the UK so is probably the only one which could be subject to a winding-up order. I don't think "controversy with accreditation" is necessary, since the sources show that the school is known only for being the subject of investigations by the BBC and GMC, leading to a change in the rules on foreign-registered medical schools. That is its claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I don't think a separate section is needed. To me, the liquidation info is interesting, but I'm not entirely comfortable with including it on Wikipedia, since it relies heavily on a primary source (the credit agency reports). If the BBC or other secondary sources covered the school's financial status, that would be one thing, but this is a bit different. MastCell Talk 17:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with this. Using primary sources which describe this medical school's financial situation is hardly worth putting in an encyclopedic article. However, there are secondary sources which describe the graduates of this school as being fully licensed physician after completing residencies in medicine. Bstone (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Which sources are these? This was not my reading either of the summary of the BBC programme or of the US news reporting. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
A few examples of St Chris student becoming fully licensed physicians, here (see Dr. Philip Sinato,) and here. I am looking for the news article which describes St Chris graduates as being licensed in Georgia despite the concerns, tho it is in my history. I will dig it up and find it. Bstone (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
If you favour going into the ghastly detail and start adding all the "but, in spite of it all, X *was* allowed to practice" and "but Y's qualifications were eventually recognised" stuff, that's not substantially different to mentioning the Companies House records. Investigative reporting as PM says below. Stick to the big (BBC, GMC) picture in bold colours. And let's be cautious in how we describe the relationship, if any, between this organisation and the one in Senegal, because that's far from clear. Short and to the point is best. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I broadly agree that the article gets better the shorter it is - the original versions had substantial amounts of special pleading and really did a very poor job of explaining how this place is unique in Britain. As far as I am aware, and according to the BBC's investigative segment, it aimed to become the first accredited private medical school in the UK, a goal in which it failed rather spectacularly. The facts as established from reliable independent sources are that it is in Luton, and that the place is sufficiently substandard that it prompted an investigation and a change of policy from the GMC, as well as warning listings from those US states that habitually warn about substandard education providers. It also appears to have been subject to a compulsory winding-up order, which is a non-trivial event in the life of any company. I don't know of any properly independent sources for anything else. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

<- I take Guy's points about the central notability being related to the BBC and GMC - so the section title may be largely redundant - my intention was to allow that section to go into detail on not just the GMC position, but the issues in various US states too.

The companies house information still falls the wrong side of 'original research' for me - it's absolutely textbook investigative reporting to be honest, which is both interesting and relevant - but not appropriate in this article, per our policies, in my view - I think consensus is forming a little bit around this perspective too, but time will tell....

If we can keep dialogue going here, perhaps the next step is to either request page protection be lifted, or to start dropping suggested drafts in here? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like some or all of the information about the US situations to be restored. Some of the "lists" maintained by states are just lists, but others are, in effect, reports of the state's findings regarding specific schools; these should be reflected in the article. Also, I found a news article about Arkansas' re-evaluation of foreign medical schools, in which it was reported that one Luton graduate was in a residency in Arkansas, but the state medical board had balked on granting him a license.
Also, it would be nice to restore the article to some categories. I don't think there's any quarrel about the relevance of Category:Schools of medicine in England and I believe that a strong case can be made for inclusion in Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning. (Even if there is an accredited school in Senegal, the operation in Luton is clearly not accredited.) --Orlady (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice for the article to include some sourced information on the various different names that this outfit has used. This might exist in one of the U.S. state lists. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Is the IMED listing in the "IMED" talk section relevant to the article? Bstone (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Bstone, I asked you to stop forum-shopping. The fact that you don't like the answer you keep getting is not an invitation to keep finding new people to ask until one of them says yes. Inclusion in a directory proves nothing b ut is used by this sub-standard institution to obscure its lack of accreditation. Your single minded pursuit of the agenda of the banned St. Chris users is becoming disruptive. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
JzG, please cease with your attempted chilling effect. I asked for a 3O which was rejected due to more than 2 editors. However I was told to ask for an RfC. I did exactly that. Right now I see no clear consensus to either include or exclude the IMED listing. Thus, it is absolutely appropriate to ask for comment as this is an issue which we have been debating and discussing for several days, without resolution. If you have an issue with me following policy then please report it to ANI. As you as an involved admin and blocking from you would be absolutely against policy. Bstone (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Please stop being hypocritical as well as stop forum-shopping. And by that I include IRC. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
JzG, for the third time, please comment on the content and not on the editor. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Bstone, for the third time, don't be a hypocrite. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • IMED is a primary source, providing no information beyond the fact of inclusion - there is no interpretation or context for the reader, who may be left with the inherent implication that the college has achieved official recognition or approval (in some form). The secondary sources (BBC, Guardian) have provided an interpretation - one which paints a very different picture. Hence, inclusion of the IMED listing could give a misleading or confusing impression as to the status of the college, and I cannot see any benefit to offset that. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What SheffieldSteel said. If adding trivia and directory entries results in the article in readers being left with a different impression than that presented in the BBC/Guardian stuff, the only substantial material there is on the organisation, that would be a failure of NPOV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering the IMED information is positive and the BBC/Guardian information is negative that would appear to be neutral to me by providing both sides of the issue. Providing only one set of information would appear to be violating NPOV. 67.177.155.250 (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC) —sockpuppet of blocked agenda account
    • Please consider logging in. Nothing personal, but we've had some minor issues with sockpuppetry and vote-stacking on this page.

      To address your comment: no, it is reductive and fundamentally flawed to say that (poorly-sourced) positive claim + (well-sourced) negative claim = NPOV. NPOV doesn't mean that we balance everything "negative" by finding something "positive" to say. It means that we accurately and proportionately reflect what reliable sources have said. In this case, that could probably be characterized as generally "negative", but the proper response is not to dig around primary sources looking for something vaguely "positive" with which to counteract the BBC report. MastCell Talk 22:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  • As much as it pains me -:), I have to agree with Guy here. There are issues with fact-checking at IMED but, more importantly, trying to derive some sort of accreditation information from an IMED listing in this case would be too indirect, confusing and potentially misleading. The parent university is located in Senegal, the college itself is located in England, so extrapolating what if anything the IMED listing implies about the accreditation issue (and in which country?) would be too speculative, since the listing itself does not say anything directly on this point. I think that a source which addresses the issue more directly is required here. Thus WP:OR tells us: "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research". So I don't think an IMED listing can be used as a reference regarding accreditation. However, I do think it may be OK to add the IMED listing as an external link to the article, with no references to or mentions of this listing in the article itself. Nsk92 (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Nsk92, thank you for your thoughts. One thing, however, which I think you may be slightly mistaken on. No one here is claiming that IMED is an accreditation service. Nor am I, or I think anyone else, claiming that by being listed with IMED means the school is somehow accredited by some government or agency. What IMED lists, however, is a directory of medical schools that have been granted a legal charter by their government to operate as a medical school. For reference, I'd like to point you to the charter of another school. You'll notice that the government official specifically stated that the charter is not accreditation, but rather a legal right to operate. Without the IMED listing there would be little to no independent, third-party way to determine if a school was operating legally or not. IMED provides this information by contacting the Ministry of Health (or equivalent). Thus, IMED information is vital to establishing the legal basis of a school. I wonder if this would possibly influence your opinion? Bstone (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but no, not really. The problem is that the phrase that have been granted a legal charter by their government to operate as a medical school is too indirect for my taste, as applied to this particular situation. First, there is the fact-checking issue. I think that Guy has a point here: IMED lists schools from lots of different countries, with widely varying legal codes. It strains the credibility a bit to imagine that IMED people really do a careful job of checking the legal status of school accreditations in so many different jurisdictions. Much more likely they get the information directly from the schools and list it on their website. The key issue for me, however, is that in this case we are talking about a medical school in England whose parent university is in Senegal. What does the phrase "granted a legal charter by their government to operate as a medical school" mean in a situation like this? Which government and to operate where? In this case the information is just too indirect for my comfort and making an inference from this data would violate WP:OR, in my opinion (even if one accepts IMED as an impeccably reliable source). I believe that a more direct reference regarding accreditation is necessary in a situation like this. As I said, however, I do not see a problem with adding the IMED listing as an External Link, with no direct reference to it in the text. There is some other useful info in the link and the readers will be free to make up their own minds about what if anything the listing in IMED implies. Nsk92 (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Nsk92, you state that you also feel that IMED is getting information directly from the school's websites. All I can do is again quote from IMED's website,

    A medical school is listed in IMED after FAIMER receives confirmation from the Ministry of Health or other appropriate agency that the medical school is recognized by the Ministry or other agency. FAIMER also updates the International Medical Education Directory as information about medical schools is received from Ministries of Health or other appropriate agencies. [41]

  • Do you by chance have any proof, other than your own concerns, that IMED is not doing what is plainly written on their website? Doing such a thing, you must realize, would be a major breech of the public trust and cast into doubt the entire system of certifying and licensing international medical graduates. The whole and entire purpose of IMED is to make sure international medical schools are approved by their governments and I believe them when they say they get their information only from governments, not from school websites. If it's true that they get information only from school websites then why does the Caribbean Medical University not have an IMED listing? Bstone (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I admit that on the fact-checking issue I was just expressing my general feeling and it is not backed up by any hard facts. However, as I said, in this case, because the school is in one country and the parent university is in another, the main issue for me is the indirect nature of any inference regarding what an IMED listing might mean regarding accreditation. Nsk92 (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that during evaluation of a source we should stickly to the facts, not how we feel or what we conjecture may be the case. A lot of what is being said on this talk page are peoples feelings and opinions with little supporting evidence, which really doesn't seem like an appropriate method of evaluating anything for inclusion in an encyclopedic article.

As I said above, IMED meets both WP:V and WP:RS according to Wikipedia standards set forth in the policy and guideline respectively. What are the guidelines or policies that appear to prevent the inclusion of the IMED listing in this article? If we evaluate the issue against established policy, and not how we personally feel about it we should be able to reach a dispassionate and appropriate conclusion. If policies or guidelines appear to conflict then it can go to a higher power (I guess arbcom? Someone probably knows better than I about this) for a decision on how to resolve it (as a neutral body) since how these policies apply will have a significant impact on a number of articles in the educational catagory since a significant number of them contain directory entries or listing of one type or another. TypeBoots (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC) —sockpuppet of blocked agenda account; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Uponleft

As I explained above at length, my main problem is not with reliability of IMED as a source but with the indirect nature of any inference regarding the accreditation issue that an IMED listing might imply in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
As long as quoted text and factual information is used with no WP:synthesis or speculation I don't see the problem. TypeBoots (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
But that is exactly the issue here. As Bstone noted, IMED itself writes the following regarding its own info: a directory of medical schools that have been granted a legal charter by their government to operate as a medical school. In this case the parent university is on one country and the medical school is in another. So what does the above quote imply regarding the accreditation issue in this case? To be honest, I have no clue. Which government and in operating which country? In this case it is really unclear. IMO, it is a textbook case of the kind of indirect inference that WP:OR prohibits. We need a more direct reference here that addresses the accreditation issue explicitly. Nsk92 (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
IMED has nothing to do with accreditation. IMED lists the UK address along with the Senegal information, under the Senegal listing. I guess I don't see what the problem is? Why does it matter where the college's campus is located, as long as IMED lists the information? These days some colleges don't even have campuses, they exist strictly in the electronic aether, so they don't technically "exist" anywhere. If the IMED listing didn't have the UK address I can see excluding it, but it is listed. TypeBoots (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
If you look up the previous threads on this page, particularly the thread Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine#IMED information, you will see that the IMED listing was brough up by Bstone specifically as a reference for accreditation. That was the reason this RfC was started by him in the first place. As I noted above, I have no problem with adding the IMED listing as an EL (exactly for the reasons you mentioned, since there is other practically useful info there). The dispute is about using IMED as a reference regarding accreditation. Nsk92 (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Nsk92, where are you getting this from? I never said that IMED can or should be used to indicate accreditation. And I will say it again: Having a listing in IMED does not necessarily mean that a school is accredited by any accreditation body. I simply do not know why you keep stating that I am equating an IMED listing with accreditation when I have done exactly not that. A listing in IMED only means that a school has a legal charter from it's government to operate as a school of medicine. This much IMED has verified and goes on record of saying is true and factual. And I am on record saying that I agree with IMED and nothing more. Bstone (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I definetely disagree with anyone that wants to state IMED can be used as an accreditation source. It is a medical directory listing created using information collected from a relevant govermental organization, but it is not accreditation of any kind. TypeBoots (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC) —sockpuppet of blocked agenda account; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Uponleft
Then we are probably on the same page regarding the main issue in dispute. Probably the header of the RfC ought to be amended to explain more clearly what the dispute is about. In fairness to Bstone, he did present a reasoned and well-presented argument for using the IMED listing as a reference for accreditation info (you can look up his arguments above, both in the RfC thread and in the preceding threads). Actually, to be more precise, he used the phrase "granted a legal charter by their government to operate as a medical school". (Sorry, I should have made it clear in my previous responses to you.) This is not the same as accreditation but in the end amounts to more or less the same thing with similar WP:OR issues (which government and to operate where?). Nsk92 (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, mentioning "a legal charter" would be inappropriate as IMED says nothing about that. If it's to be put into the article I think one appropriate way to phrase it would be:

  • St. Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine is listed in the IMED medical directory. IMED lists "medical schools that are recognized by the appropriate agencies in their respective countries"

All facts or quoted material, no synthesis, no conjecture. TypeBoots (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC) —sockpuppet of blocked agenda account; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Uponleft

  • I think this has been discussed to death already, but it is nice to see some outside opinions. Without repeating myself too much here, using the listing in IMED to assert any kind of legitimacy is reaching, beyond that, there is little more here than "x is listed in the phone book". Find secondary sources to make the assertions you want. Shell babelfish 05:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
No, its not really - its a self-maintained database of information. Generally, secondary sources are one step away from the actual action so someone who wrote about the IMED database or referenced it in an article or other media would be a secondary source, the database itself would not. Shell babelfish 04:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. Bstone (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Subpage?

Is it possible to start a fresh subpage for this IMED issue? Each editor involved could state succinctly (without "feelings" and opinions) the facts, policies, and guidelines they believe should be applied to this source. The current discussion above is almost impossible to follow with paragraph after paragraph of text with various indents/"undents" (whatever those are) at various places and times. TypeBoots (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC) —Sockpuppet of blocked agenda account; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Uponleft.

Questionable Wording

After the IMED issue is resolved there is some question regarding the use of hyperbole and synthesis throughout the article, which is not in line with the relevant Wikipedia guideline and policy of WP:style and WP:SYN. The bits that appear to be inappropriate are:

  • "Details are somewhat obscure" in the second sentence of the first paragraph (Unnecessary hyperbole, synthesis)
  • "and achieved prominence when" in the first sentence of the second paragraph (Unnecessary hyperbole)
  • "of a loophole allowing essentially" in the second sentence of the second paragraph (Synthesis)
  • "by name as unacceptable" (Redundant, poor style [name already mentioned directly before this bit])

TypeBoots (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC) —Sockpuppet of blocked agenda account; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Uponleft.

World Health Organization - World Directory of Medical Schools

This is related to the issue involving IMED since it is also a medical school directory listing which is used as a reference by a number of countries for registration as a medical practitioner. TypeBoots (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the WDMS 7th edition, it says in the introduction:

  • "The lists of names and addresses were compiled from data received from, or confirmed by, Member States."

The country of Senegal is listed as a Member State [42]

TypeBoots (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC) —Sockpuppet of blocked agenda account; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Uponleft.

Questioning Methods of Collection & Verification

I noticed above some editors are calling into question the methods that IMED uses to collect it's information. We can't conjecture outside of what is listed on the IMED page as to their verification and collection methods. As quoted above from the IMED site, they collect the information directly from the relevant govermental agency. We have no choice but to accept that at face value since FAIMER is accepted under WP:RS and WP:V. If we can't accept what FAIMER/IMED says at face value that open up a whole can of worms. For example, the GMC and US State references don't even mention their source, collection, and verification procedures for the information on their sites, as such one could assign them a lower value concerning WP:RS than IMED.TypeBoots (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC) —Sockpuppet of blocked agenda account; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Uponleft.

I've blocked TypeBoots indef as a clear reincarnation of the repeat socks that like to call this article home - he even went so far as to point out he'd edited the article before (above 3 sections) even though this account has only been active since the protection. If there's any objections or concerns, please let me know. Shell babelfish 05:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Score one for the duck test, though no amount of obviousness is apparently going to prevent wikilawyering from each new incarnation. MastCell Talk 19:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

IMED and Credit redux...

the threads above are somewhat split, so I'll just go 'head and make it worse by starting a new one! - Actually, it might be useful to sort of 'reboot' and go over the arguments nice 'n slow....

I've re-read the above, and reiterate my position that the credit references represent a sort of investigative reporting which is inappropraite here (per WP:OR if we insist on talking policy...). I don't accept that the credit ref.s are somehow intrinsically linked to the notability of the subject, and would prefer them to be removed. (as a quiet 'little extra' I also don't think they really communicate much the way they've been included thus far... it always seemed a bit clumsy to me...)

With regard to the IMED thing, it's a tricky one... trickier than p'raps the debate here has recognised thus far. Part of the problem relates to implication - I'm not sure that saying "The college is listed by the Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER) in its International Medical Education Directory (IMED) database of medical schools " in the second paragraph is appropriate, but equally would be quite happy with the detail of the IMED registration being present in some form...

Is now a good time to talk about some ground rules for article editing, and asking for protection to be lifted? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I am siding with PM here. The article reads like an investigate reporting blurb. The beginning of the article reads, "Details are somewhat obscure but it appears to be..." That reeks of WP:OR and investigative reporting, both of which are inappropriate for this project. As far as IMED, while I am convinced it is appropriate for the article, I would settle for it being listed in the External Links. Bstone (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there's some serious wording cleanup needed in a few places, most notably the "Details are somewhat obscure" part that Bstone pointed out, unless of course there's a source actually saying that, in which case, it might help to attribute it. I think though that you're kind of missing the fact that even in the RfC, you're really getting a lot of viewpoints that the IMED material isn't suitable for the way you're trying to use it. I know that's frustrating and you're trying to find ways to balance the article away from the negative piece that it is, maybe the best way to do that is to try to find information about the mother school so that the information about the satellite school in England that didn't work out ends up as only part of the whole instead of taking up the entire article? I haven't been very lucky in finding many references to the school at all beyond the mess it got in to that's already covered in the article -- any other thoughts on what we could do to flesh out the article? Shell babelfish 07:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not completely sure that fleshing out it actually the best thing for it (yet!) - what do you think of this draft? - I reckon it's time for unprotection and the usual wiki spit and polish! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the current version is still better than the proposed revised draft. Although I like the crispness of your thoroughgoing rewrite, unfortunately it introduces some new problems. Without getting into the substantive issues of content (which are the real focus of discussion here), and without thinking very hard, I see the following issues:
  • "a training establishment" - what kind of training?
  • "It is connected to the Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD) which is a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN)." - Do we actually know that? The only source cited is the IMED listing, which has limitations as a source.
  • "highlighted the college as an exploiting a loophole" - I think that a word or two got omitted in the cut and paste process...
  • "The Senegalese, British, and American addresses of the college are listed..." - Which Senegalese, British, and American addresses would those be? (This wording implies earlier discussion of these addresses.) Which meanings of "Senegalese", "British", and "American" are you referring to? (I know the answer, but Wikipedia needs to be less ambiguous than this.)
Better to keep the current version than to fool around with this kind of rewording, IMO. --Orlady (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


What Shell said. The point of stating that it's listed appears to be to "balance" the criticism, because the criticism is all we have in reliable independent sources. But that is a real-world problem, and we're not here to fix real-world problems. The only articles on medical schools in Wikipedia which mention IMED listings appear to be places which are equally problematic or obscure. I simply don't think it's appropriate to state that something is listed in a directory, especially since the directory by the admission of its compilers takes any form of local licensing at face value; it is a directory, not an accreditation system. I'm told there are degree mills in the Seychelles which have been listed in IMED, and form my correspondence with FAIMER re their mechanisms for fact checking this would be entirely consistent, a lax regulatory regime in the Seychelles is not their problem, as they see it. IMED is an acceptable source, for example as a source for the name of the place having changed, but the fact of listing is not something that should be included per WP:UNDUE. There are around thirty legitimate medical schools in the UK, and not one of those mentions (as far a s I can see) the fact that they are listed in IMED. Take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/International Medical Education Directory. Either the place is legit, in which case inclusion in the directory is wholly remarkable, or it's sub-standard, as the independent sources say, in which case inclusion is misleading. Incidentally, most of the problem comes from the fact that it's presenting itself as a UK school but under Senegalese accreditation. People who go to a UK medical school are entitled to expect a UK-standard education, which is a very high standard in the field of medicine, and US employers who see a British institution might be inclined to assume that is the case. It is just possible that this is being cynically exploited by the place. I know there are some doctors in the US who graduated from SCIMD. That does not change the picture - they may have graduated before 2005 (indeed, they probably did, if they are in practice), and they may only have completed a BMed and then moved on to further education elsewhere. Or it may just be lax credential checking, as with the tenured professor who was found to have bought her PhD from a diploma mill. We should be wary of drawing novel conclusions from the existence or otherwise of individuals in post. What the reliable indpendent sources tell us is that this is a place which is notable, pretty much exclusively, for having caused the GMC to change its rules and strike off a doctor. That is a pretty weighty matter, and we'd need some very solid independent secondary sources reporting value judgments to go against that. An article in the professional journals stating that this is a valid institution would be relevant in context, a directory entry which says that the parent institution apparently meets Sengalese licensing requirements is not. Apart from anything else, you study for an English degree in England, not a Senegalese one. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Harrumph.... An edit has been made to the article that adds IMED information. I disagree with the new wording that says "The school is listed by IMED [43] as a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal; the IMED also confirms that the Senegalese Ministry of Health has given the school a legal charter to operate." I fail to see where the IMED listing confirms the existence of a legal charter in Senegal or identifies the Senegalese ministry that might have granted such a charter. My personal preference would be to restore the sentence that stated that it was listed in IMED with 3 addresses: "The college is listed by the Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER) in its International Medical Education Directory (IMED) database of medical schools with contact addresses in Dakar, Senegal; Luton, UK; and McDonough, Georgia, USA." Furthermore, (1) note that IMED is not the listing entity but a database, so it is erroneous to say "listed by IMED", and (2) it would be nice to replace the inline link with the more proper citation that was in the article earlier (to wit: <ref name=IMED>[http://imed.ecfmg.org/details.asp?country=820&school=&currpage=1&cname=SENEGAL&city=&region=AF&rname=Africa&mcode=820020&psize=25 IMED listing]</ref>). --Orlady (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Orlady. I also think that the actions by User:DragonflySixtyseven have been very inappropriate here. He stated in his edit summary that "okay, I've had some extensive conversations over IRC with BStone and JzG, and I *think* this is satisfactory to both parties." Talking it over on IRC with a couple of the users is NOT how consensus is achieved on Wikipedia. There are other users involved in the dispute and in any event there should be an actual record of the discussion that everybody should be able to look at. It is particularly unacceptably that DS67 did it here, in the case of a fully protected article, where his edit cannot be easily reverted. Nsk92 (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me also comment on the substance of DS67's last edit and why I think that the version he produced is unacceptable. The current text reads:"The school is listed by IMED as a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal; the IMED also confirms that the Senegalese Ministry of Health has given the school a legal charter to operate." The first part (up to IMED confirms) is pefectly fine and unobjectionable. The second part, however, "the IMED also confirms that the Senegalese Ministry of Health has given the school a legal charter to operate." is an unacceptable WP:OR violation, as I have explained in my RfC comments above on this page. For one thing, it is not clear what "the school" means here (the parent college in Senegal? or the medical school in England). Is this sentence supposed to imply that the government of Senegal has given the medical school in question a legal charter to operate in England? Such an implication would be very misleading and is not directly supported by the source cited. WP:OR says: "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research". That is exactly the case here. IMED does not say anything, re legal charters etc, about the tricky and nonstandard situation of a parent institution in one country and the child institution in another. We need a direct, explicit and unambiguous reference for something like this. Nsk92 (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
For DS67's benefit, I'll repost here a potion of my previous post from above (sorry to the others). The problem is that the phrase that have been granted a legal charter by their government to operate as a medical school is too indirect for my taste, as applied to this particular situation. The key issue for me is that in this case we are talking about a medical school in England whose parent university is in Senegal. What does the phrase "granted a legal charter by their government to operate as a medical school" mean in a situation like this? Which government and to operate where? In this case the information is just too indirect for my comfort and making an inference from this data would violate WP:OR, in my opinion (even if one accepts IMED as an impeccably reliable source). Nsk92 (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
My concern is even more fundamental. I cannot be sure from the IMED listing whether any government has granted the school a legal charter. The listing implies that the government of Senegal must have chartered it, but since the IMED directory of recognizing/accrediting organizations does not identify a Senegalese entity with authority for medical schools, I really have no idea what the listing of a Senegalese medical school signifies. Furthermore, the IMED listing by itself does not demonstrate to me that the Luton campus is a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD); it merely lists Luton as one of the school's alternate "contact addresses." --Orlady (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. We have no idea what if any system Senegal has for accrediting/granting legal charter/whatever, its schools. For all we know, Senegal may not have any such system at all and IMED is silent on this issue. Nsk92 (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
You know, I was looking over DS67's edits and realized that I've been a complete idiot. The article makes a point of referring to the college in Senegal as EM-SCIMD while the one in England is SCIMD-COM. I know, probably not news to most of you, but I was mistakenly under the impression that the article was about the school in Senegal, but talked about the English branch because of its infamous run in with the GMC - but that's not it at all; this article is just about the English School. So I guess my question now has to be, why is it that we're discussing whether or not to include a database listing of the Senegal school here instead of on its own article? And if we are really talking about including information on the Senegal school on the article, why - what relevance does it have? Since this is about two separate institutions with two separate sets of rules in the countries they are in, two separate accrediting bodies etc - what would the point be of giving people information on the wrong school? *smacks forehead* Sorry guys, I can't believe I was missing that point the whole time. Shell babelfish 05:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A pox on all your houses

Okay. That said, how can we fix this to make everyone happy?

I acknowledge that the institution looks pretty damn scummy, but it is apparently not wholly and completely worthless. DS (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it is possibly to make everyone happy here. I think it'd be best to revert to the previois version, before your edits, until a clear and verifiable consensus is achieved. Speaking for myself, I would be happy if the first part of the sentence in question "The school is listed by IMED as a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal" was retained, and the second part, the IMED also confirms that the Senegalese Ministry of Health has given the school a legal charter to operate was deleted. Thus the essential verifiable information would be given and the readers would be free to make their own inferences re legal charter etc. Nsk92 (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, for starters it would be useful to remember that not everyone who has edited this article or engaged in this discussion is a SPA or motivated by POV. Several of us have kept this page on our watchlists in the interest of trying to maintain an neutrally written article based on reliable sources. It's difficult to continue to care when we not only get verbal abuse from SPAs, but see our input ignored because it is bundled up with SPA edits and trashed, or because we are not privy to "consensus" developed via nonstandard channels. Like Nsk92, I think it might be best to revert to the version that existed when full protection was applied. --Orlady (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
here's how it went down. DS (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Please restore the version of 16:25, 13 July 2008. --Orlady (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Orlady's suggestion. Nsk92 (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
DragonflySixtyseven appears to have decided he will not self-revert [44]. Shell babelfish 04:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I know its frustrating getting thrown a curveball in mid-discussion, but DragonflySixtyseven was just trying to help resolve an editing dispute. I'm sure he's surprised it went sideways like it did (I know I would have been). I imagine he thought he was talking to the major people involved (remember there's been a couple ANI's mentioning JzG and BStone in regards to the article) and working out a solution everyone could be happy with. Obviously since the ANI and the RfC, a few more people have become involved in the discussion and things have been progressing; I wish BStone or JzG would have thought to mention that so DragonflySixtyseven didn't get blind sided when he stepped in. But regardless, to use the tired cliche, articles don't have a time limit. I'm not personally in favor of the wording either, but that's something we can keep working on here and reach a consensus on the issue. Hopefully then it'll be nothing to unprotect the article, make a few changes and go on editing as usual. Shell babelfish 04:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am taking a break from editing this article or participating in the talk page. I might be back but am detaching for now. Bstone (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have posted an AN/I notice Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents asking that a previously uninvolved admin revert DS's edits. Nsk92 (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nsk92. I feel like you, I, and several other users have become "collateral damage" in a collision of some very large egos (we and our work got dumped into a blender, chopped up, and discarded). I "only" had 18 edits to this article, beginning in May 2008, so I guess I should have known that I am a Johnny-come-lately nonentity whose contributions are irrelevant and whose opinions don't count. I rather liked this version (including my addition of the new sourced information related to the school's status in Arkansas), but all of my attempts to improve the article got bundled up with SPA edits and discarded. At this point, I fear that only a self-interested SPA could possibly be motivated to care. --Orlady (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in the spirit of compromise with Bstone's position, I would probably prefer to keep the 1-st half of DS's edit and to remove the legal charter thing. If we simply have the statement "St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (SCIMD-COM) is identified as a medical training establishment in Luton, England. The school is listed by IMED[45] as a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal". I think that would be a perfectly correct and verifiable statement and the readers will be free to draw their own conclusions from it. I do think the opening papargraph should make it clear that the main subject of the article is the medical school in England (and not the university in Senegal). Nsk92 (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I see that JzG has just modified[46] DS's edit exactly in the way I suggested, by removing the WP:OR part about legal charter and keeping the first half of the sentence. I am fairly happy with his revision. Nsk92 (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, a bit of boldness which I think is forgivable under the circumstances, being boldness on Dragonfly's part - bold right back at ya, man :-) Overall, the article is improved, so everyone should be happy. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Current version

I have a few concerns with the current version. Here's one:

  • The second sentence says "The school is listed as a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal." That fails to indicate where or by whom it is "listed" (the answer to those questions is by FAIMER and in IMED}. Furthermore, as I have pointed out earlier, the IMED listing does not say that the Luton campus is a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD); it merely lists Luton as one of the Dakar school's alternate "contact addresses."
    To resolve these issues, I propose the following replacement:
The institution represents itself as a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal. It is listed by the Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER) in its International Medical Education Directory (IMED) database of medical schools with contact addresses in Dakar, Senegal; Luton, UK; and McDonough, Georgia, USA. REF=IMED listing

--Orlady (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

    • I must admit that I am now more confused than before about what the main definition (and the title of the article should be). Looking at the colleges's website, http://www.stchris.edu/, one sees there a single name, "St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine" and two campuses, one in Dakar and another in Luton. So perhaps the title of the article should be changed to something like, "St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine, Luton Campus". The IMED listing actually gives the Dakar address as the "School address" and states in the footnote below that "The medical college is affiliated with University El Hadj Ibrahima Niasse. Prior to 2006, diplomas were awarded by St. Christopher's College of Medicine rather than by the university." It sounds like now all the Mar Diop diplomas (in Dakar and Luton) are actually issued by the University El Hadj Ibrahima Niasse. So maybe something like that would work:
  • The wording that Nsk92 provided above works for me. Please do not replace the names with abbreviations; I am afraid that the use of unexplained abbreviations has the effect of obfuscating. Also note that the MOS says that the first usage in an article should be the full version of the term. --Orlady (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I too dislike the long unfamiliar abbreviations. With some thought it should not be necessary to use them. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 03:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Fine by me either way. I was thinking about ways of making the paragraph a bit shorter for reasons of clarity, but it might be better to be on the safe side here...Nsk92 (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I do have another suggestion that is probably going to be more controversial. Looking at the school's website, I see that they have a page dealing explicitly with the accreditation/legal charter/whatever issue, at http://stchris.edu/charter.htm They specifically state there that the Senegal government issued the school a charter to award MD degrees and that the Senegal government recognizes the degrees awarded by both of the school's campuses. There is a letter there from Senegal's minister of education regarding this, a French original and an Enlgish translation. I think it would be appropriate to mention this in the article, using the college's website as a primary source and making it clear that the information is taken from that website. E.g. something like this: "On its website the school states that the government of Senegal issued the school a charter to award Doctor of Medicine degrees. The school also states there that the degrees awarded at both Dakar and Luton campuses of the school are recognized by the government of Senegal [48]." This is certainly relevant and verifiable info; as long as it is made explicit and clear that the source is the college's website, I don't see a problem with including such a sentence. Nsk92 (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I would see this claim as being problematic, given the doubt cast on earlier tales of Senegalese letters of approval and recognition by the BBC. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
But we would not be saying here that the school's claims re charter are true, just that they are in fact made by the school. One could mention the BBC story and the doubts it raised in the following sentence. Nsk92 (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection

How is it that JzG, a very involved editor, just protected the article? This is absolutely against policy. If he felt that the article needed protection due to IP or sock disruption then there is an appropriate mechanism for that. However he should and must not, as an involved party, abuse his admin power in such a manner. So, JzG, what say you? Bstone (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This idea that an admin in "involved" because he/she is exercising admin duties, is erroneous to say the least. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
He semi-protected it. An old IP which has socked abusively and had named accounts blocked in the past is again editing the page. I suppose he could just have blocked the IP instead, but I don't see a major issue here. If you'd like, I will re-semiprotected the page under my name - unless I'm "involved" too. MastCell Talk 05:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Pretty lame. Whenever an admin does their *job* they get attacked for admin abuse. Talk about a thankless job. JBsupreme (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Bstone, you might seriously want to consider retracting your statement. Shell babelfish 05:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
... or at least not cross-posting it to AN/I. MastCell Talk 05:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of abbreviations

Would anyone object to the removal of the abbreviations SCIMD-COM, EM-SCIMD, and SCCM from the article? These abbreviations once established are not used elsewhere in the article and serve merely to clutter up the lead section. I don't propose to remove abbreviations such as IMED and UEIN which are used more than once. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. Bstone (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please go ahead, they look to me like relics of an old edit war over credibility or something. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

IMED listing revisited

The school as described in the article is NOT listed in IMED. IMED lists a School in Senegal.

IMED also states "The International Medical Education Directory (IMED) is a free web-based resource for accurate and up-to-date information about international medical schools that are recognized by the appropriate government agency in the countries in which they are located."

The school as described is physically located in the UK and is not accredited in the UK, also it is not listed under the UK in IMED. I do not believe that ist is appropriate for Wikipedia to state that the school is listed in IMED when the school is not listed in IMED - the only school listed in IMED under iba mar diop is at "POINT E RUE 3 PROLONGEE X BOULEVARD DE L'EST, DAKAR, SENEGAL"

Clearly it is not for us to police the IMED listings, but we should ensure that inaccuracies within those listings are not propagated into wikipedia. I believe that there is a risk that people may read the wikipedia article (listed in IMED) alongside the IMED statement (quoted above) as implying UK accreditation of the UK school.

If the article wishes to claim that the school is IMED listed, then it should be about the school listed in IMED, which is not necessarily the same as the school featured in the non IMED website linked to in the IMED entry.

Denis McMahon DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've unprotected the talk page; it's been protected for a long time, and it's just a talk page. WP:SEMI currently states that an article and talk page should not both be semi-protected, but I think that's a relatively recent addition. It may be time to unprotect the article as well, but since that's more of a gray area and I have edited the article in the past, I'd prefer to leave that decision and action to another admin. MastCell Talk 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
JzG, whom I consulted on his talk page, gave me some background and expressed extreme pessimism. I'm leaving it there. Thanks for unprotecting the talk page. If there's more jiggery-pokery I'll be watching and I'll have it protected again. --TS 02:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Older article on SCCOM

Not sure if this can be included, but I did dig up this article [49] and this sad case this. Basket of Puppies 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The first link is so old it isn't really relevant any more and the second link really seems peripheral to the content of the article, at least to me. TigerLillyCat (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Edits

Under "Type", in the info box it says "Private medical training establishment (not accredited)" since it is now accredited by the ASIC the "(not accredited)" at the end should be removed

In the sentence "The GMC website was subsequently amended to include a list of schools deemed unacceptable for registration, including St Christopher by name." the "by name" part should be dropped, just "including St. Christopher" should be sufficient.

Since I can never remember my password nor my account name I can't make these edits. 99.185.96.217 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha, I remembered it after all! But I still don't have enough edits to make changes to the article. Can someone please make the edits I suggested? TigerLillyCat (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I have enough edits now I took care of it. TigerLillyCat (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Henrik - Attempt to add redundant summary to the beginning of the article

This article is so short it does not need to have information in the body of the article restated at the beginning of the article, it's ridiculous. Also, from looking in the articles talk page history, this has been discussed before and the consensus was that this kind of summary should not be included at the beginning of this article due to its length. TigerLillyCat (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my lack of good faith, but you're obviously another incarnation of the single purpose accounts which has plagued this article for years. I have little interest in getting into a shouting match with you. As this article is relatively little watched, I will handle enforcement of the arbcom provisions - should you feel this is inappropriate, feel free to invite a wider community discussion at the appropriate noticeboard. henrik•talk 15:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Lede discussion

Since there appears to be a debate as to the lede, I thought it best to open a discussion here. I hope that the differing points of view can input their ideal lede here and then we can come to a compromise. Basket of Puppies 15:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, in nearly every other article this is good advice. I would however invite you to look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. The task of enforcing these arbcom provisions from a nearly endless parade of accounts were taken up by User:JzG for a long time, but I don't that the entire burden should fall upon him. As can be seen from the talk history, various other noticeboard discussions, and the arbcom case, discussing with these accounts is not productive. henrik•talk 15:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, "This article is so short it does not need to have information in the body of the article restated at the beginning of the article, it's ridiculous. Also, from looking in the articles talk page history, this has been discussed before and the consensus was that this kind of summary should not be included at the beginning of this article due to its length".

However, Henrik is assuming bad faith and is apparently only interested in pushing his POV rather than discussing this issue, particularly in the context that this has been discussed before with his input and it was decided by consensus that a lead summary for such a short article is inappropriate and unnecessarily redundant. It's obvious from reading the archives of this talk page that Henrik has a vested interest in this article and is determined to push his version, even going as far as asserting ARBCOM against others in order to get what he wants regardless of the fact that he is an involved admin with a history of editing this article. TigerLillyCat (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a common misconception that an administrator becomes "involved" when trying to enforce site policy on a problematic article. That is not the case. You are of course free to complain about my behavior, but a better place to do so is here - that will allow impartial users and administrators to review the case. henrik•talk 16:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi, folks. Let me just try to sum up the debate. It seems to me that you both agree on the first few lines in the lede, that states:

    St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine is a medical training establishment in Luton, England. The school is listed[1] in the International Medical Education Directory (IMED) as a college within the University El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse of Dakar, Senegal.

    The crux of the issue is the following two versions of this

    After an exposé in the BBC, the General Medical Council included St Christopher on the list of schools deemed unacceptable for registration in the UK. Several US states have done likewise, for example Texas includes the school on the list of "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas".

    versus

    According to the IMED listing, the college was formerly named St. Christopher's College of Medicine, and diplomas prior to 2006 were awarded under that name rather than by the university.

    Am I correct in assuming this is the basis of the dispute? Basket of Puppies 01:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is ridiculous to include a summary in the lead-in for an article that is barely two paragraphs. Anyone can easily see this. TigerLillyCat (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of a lede is to make a concise summary of the entire article that can stand on its own. So information regarding the previous name of St Christopher is entirely relevant but also the information about licensure is also. With this in mind I'd like to suggest a compromise, that would include both. How about

Prior to 2006 the school name was St Christopher's College of Medicine. Degrees from this school have been listed as unacceptable by some governmental authorities in the US and UK.

I hope this may represent a compromise that is acceptable and factual to all involved. How does this sound? Basket of Puppies 03:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable compromise. How about this:

According to the IMED listing, the college was formerly named St. Christopher's College of Medicine, and diplomas prior to 2006 were awarded under that name rather than by the university. Degrees from this medical college have been listed as unacceptable by some governmental authorities in the US and UK.

This contains all the relevant information. Of course, this is all a waste of time if Henrik isn't willing to be reasonable. TigerLillyCat (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no specific objections to the latest rounds of edits. Note that I will take a dim view of edits which amount to slowly diffusing the exceptional nature of the non-accreditation out of the article (I note how recent changes have substituted "medical college" for "school" or "establishment"). Until relevant authorities consider this, for lack of better terms, a normal medical school, neither should Wikipedia. henrik•talk 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Henrik, I believe we are all on the same page now. Thanks for joining in on the discussion! Basket of Puppies 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Henrik's assessment. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. TigerLillyCat (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Updated Infobox

I updated the infobox to include more information. I figured I'd mention it here because I'm sure someone is bound to have a problem with it. TigerLillyCat (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed Indiana From List In Main Article

Indiana has changed the process it uses for approved/disapproved medical schools and no longer maintains an independent list of foreign medical schools. I removed Indiana from the list in the main article since it no longer maintains or uses the list mentioned. You can see the new page regarding their approved/disapproved requirements here:

http://www.in.gov/pla/2799.htm

TigerLillyCat (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit Maine Entry In United States List

Even thought St. Christopher's is on the state of Maine's "Unaccredited Post-Secondary Educational Institutions", according to the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation, Board of Licensure in Medicine, Rules and Regulations for Physician Licensing:

"3. ACCEPTANCE OF UNACCREDITED MEDICAL SCHOOL

A. For the purposes of qualification for a license to practice medicine or surgery in the State of Maine, an acceptable unaccredited medical school must be listed in the current edition of the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates ImeD List of Medical Schools. An acceptable accredited medical school is defined in Statute.

B. Completion of the Fifth Pathway Medical education program."

http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/02/373/373c001.doc

As such I have edited the entry for Maine to reflect this. TigerLillyCat (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That's novel synthesis isn't it? I have reverted your changes, so those matters can be examined by other editors and discussed further. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It don't see how this is synthesis of any kind, it's black and white according to the law. I am reverting to the version with Indiana removed because that is concrete, they no longer use nor maintain that list as well as the list having been completely removed from their state government website. I have provided a link to the Indiana state government page supporting the edit I have made, what do you have to present that substantiates your position? TigerLillyCat (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit war or it is likely you will be blocked. You have been bold, you have been reverted and we are now discussing the situation. I am confused by your statements - according to what you have said

Indiana lists the school on the list of "Questionable Foreign Medical Schools" and applications for licensure from graduates will be considered on a "case by case" basis is still materially correct - so why would we want to remove it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not correct. The list no longer exists and the list they are currently using does not list St. Christopher Iba Mar Diop as a "Questionable Foreign Medical School". Did you even bother to visit the link I provided? You are the one edit warring by pushing a version of the article that is no longer accurate and does not reflect the current state of licensing in Indiana. I have provided a link to the Indiana state government page supporting the edit I have made, what do you have to present that substantiates your position? TigerLillyCat (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Indiana adopted the California system and their site states that If a medical school is not listed on the recognized school list, the medical school is either unrecognized or disapproved. The education and training received at an unrecognized or disapproved medical school is not acceptable for licensure in California. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly a number of other states seems to have adopted the california system, I will check (over the next few days) every state in the US and try and make sure we have a full and complete list. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
There may be something to the claim that the list is no longer valid as these lists describe unaccredited medical schools. However, St Christopher's is now accredited by a legitimate and UK Government recognized accreditation body. However, this is only very recent and we all know how speedy the government can be with updating things. For now it's a big question mark for me. Basket of Puppies 16:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't get carried away with that - they are accredited according to a specific set of standards to do with course provision and standards, the accreditation body was set up to stop bogus colleges existing for immigration purposes, they take no stance on or care if the medical qualifications are actually any good - they have no remit for that. That's an entirely different matter which they have nothing to do with and is still controlled with the GMC who say that the medical qualifications are no good. For *medical* purposes, they are still on the naughty list in the UK. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
That's very interesting. So as a college they are accredited, but as a medical college they are still not in good shape. It's very subtle but I understand. However it is a good first step. Basket of Puppies 16:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a complex back-story to that accreditation agency - broadly, the UK was suffering from a number of bogus colleges where students were registered to courses that didn't exist and so on simply to get student visas. The agency's role is to ensure that those colleges do exist and that some form of basic standards are meet. They could be teaching then NVQ gardening for all that agency cares, they have no power at all to make any judgement about it's qualifications from a medical standpoint. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Address

I've noticed that the school listing in IMED as well as the contact page gives a Senegalese address. It is also listed under Senegal in the WDMS listing. Perhaps the primary listing should be the Senegal address, with note of a Luton extension? henrik•talk 17:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if that's what the IMED/WMDS listing is for, it should be at least noted. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Accredited or not

In hopes of staving off another edit war, I am opening this conversation in hopes of obtaining consensus. I see that JzG has listed the school as unaccredited. Other editors, myself included have removed the "unaccredited" statement due to the school obtaining university accreditation by a recognized UK-based accreditation service. So, ideally JzG and all other parties will chime in here and we'll be able to find consensus. Thanks! Basket of Puppies 16:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  • First, have you read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher? You need to understand the external agenda at work here. Second, the GMC is the regulatory body for medical training in the UK, and the GMC does not recognise this place. The GMC does recognise every accredited medical school in the UK. Tis is not an accredited medical school (in the sense of academic accreditation), ASIC functions primarily as a gatekeeper to prevent bogus students from coming to the UK with the intent to seek asylum or remain without leave. Its points system replaces the old DfES Register of Providers; if you read [50] you will see that they have as a secondary aim offering foreign students some kind of measure of quality, and is really aimed at colleges. A medical degree does not come form a college in the UK, it comes (I believe exclusively, though we have some quaint old institutions around) from a university medical school. UK universities are registered and accredited by the Department for Education and Skills, not by ASIC. This company is trying to represent itself as a British medical school but is not one. See also the US states and other sources which explicitly identify this as sub-standard. Nothing has actually changed, other than that they are getting slightly better at gaming the system on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Guy, I made sure to read the ArbCom case. This is why I am making sure to discuss the issues here and seek consensus for all major edits. I see that the ASIC is a UK Government recognized accreditation service. I also have read on the ASIC website that they claim to ensure that the course of study is up to par and that the school is real and legit. I can really only base my thoughts upon these two facts, especially in the absence of other documentation that would indicate that the ASIC is not doing its job the right way. In the ASIC "About Us" section they specifically indicate that they audit and investigate courses, instruction, the delivery of the courses and instruction, etc. That seems to me to be the hallmark of an accreditation service. Does this make sense? Basket of Puppies 17:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm with JzG: ASIC does not accredit medical schools. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Not saying I am not of JzG's opinion, just trying to fully explore and get a firm grasp on the issues. Basket of Puppies 17:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand, you're not the first good-faith editor to get roped in by the St Chris mob (and it's always good to have a reality check anyway). The Tier 4 system is explained here: [51]. ASIC is about ensuring that people don't set up bogus colleges to bring "students" in who will then skip their visas. So ASIC verifies that the place exists, has some kind of actual educational provision going on and passes certain other basic tests. It's a long way from the extensive and thorough accreditation of universities in the UK (though with places like Thames Valley University offering BsC degrees in pseudosciences that is open to some slight question these days). The thing to focus on here is what changed, and why. The edit request was made by a banned user, now indef-blocked, so at the most basic level all I am doing is rolling back per WP:RBI. But actually this is part of a long-standing campaign by St Chris (and every other unaccredited school in the world, frankly, see Bircham International University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for another example) to obscure the lack of any recognisable accreditation. What academic accreditation means is: will my degree be recognised? Here we have an institution which is claiming accreditation in the UK but whose degrees are explicitly not recognised in the UK, and are also listed as unacceptable by several US states (this being a large part of their target market). You have to ask yourself, if you want a Senegalese medical degree, why would you study in England, with its much higher costs? The answer has to be in the detail of the BBC investigation, which found that a number of places (including British teaching hospitals) had not looked beyond the location and had taken at face value the claim that this was an English medical degree. It's not. It's an explicitly sub-standard Senegalese medical degree. There is no way that a body for assessing foreign-owned colleges for likelihood of student visa violations could ever trump the judgment of the GMC on this. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Footnote: I did not make significant changes, what I did was to compare the current version with the last version before any edits made or requested by the banned user, and reverted two changes: the infobox, and removal of one cited US state that lists the place as unacceptable. everything else had already been reverted, I think. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


I basically agree with Guy regarding the accreditation in the UK issue. My understanding is that ASIC accreditation is basically for student visa purposes, not for recognizing the degrees or courses offered by a particular school. For the latter, St Christopher does not appear on the list of either "Recognized" (authorized to grant degrees) or "Listed" (authorized to offer courses that may be counted towards degrees by other universities for credit transfer purposes), maintained by the UK government:[52]


However, the issue of listing Indiana as a place where St Christophers degrees are "unlicenseable" appears to be different to me. It is true that Indiana has decided to use California's Approved/Disapproved lists, but it would seem that the way in which Indiana uses those lists is different. The Indiana procedure is explained in detail here[53], in the minutes of the May 2008 meeting of the Indiana Medical Licencing Board. The key portion of the procedured adopted at that meeting reads:

"1. Review the Board's Approved/Disapproved Foreign Medical School list when considering an application that lists a foreign medical school.

2. Review the Medical Board of California International Medical Schools Disapproved and Recognized school lists. California has expended the time resources and expense to review the schools placed on these lists and has the credibility within the medical licensing board community. California's standards for foreign medical schools will need to be approved by the Board as equivalent to those of LCME and satisfy the Indiana Administrative Code requirements. If a school appears on CA's disapproved list; they will be disapproved in Indiana. Unless already listed on the Indiana Approved/Disapproved Foreign MedicalSchool list, any school recognized by California will be deemed as approved by the Board if they also meet the requirements of section 3.

3. Review the IMED FAIMER list. The Federation of State Medical Boardsrecognized the IMED FAIMER list for acceptance of foreign medical schools.IMED FAIMER is associated with the Educational Commission for ForeignMedical Graduates (ECFMG). IMED FAIMER stands for International MedicalEducation Director / Foundation for Advancement of International MedicalEducation and Research.IMED FAIMER provides an accurate and up-to-date resource of informationregarding international medical schools that are recognized by the appropriategovernment agency in the countries where the medical schools are located. Amedical school is listed in IMED after FAIMER receives confirmation from the Ministry of Health or other appropriate agency that the medical school is recognized by such group.1. If a school appears on the IMED FAIMER list and they have a valid indefinitely ECFMG certificate the school will be considered as having evidence towards receiving approval in Indiana.

4. Any application that lists a foreign medical school that is not already addressed by sections 1-3 shall result in the personal appearance by the applicant in which the applicant will be required to provide information to the Board's satisfaction that complies with the requirement of 844 IAC 4-4.5-3(b)."

All this is pretty confusing, but my understanding is that subsequent to adoption of these procedures, Indiana has eliminated its own Approved/Disapproved lists and said that it will use the California lists instead. Mar Diop does not appear on the California Approved/Disapproved lists. So it would seem to me that paragraph 4 of the above procedure would apply in Indiana to degrees from Mar Diop, meaning that licencing decisions in Indiana for such degrees are to be made on a case-by-case basis. That is not the same as "unlicenseable", the term currently used in the article in relation to Indiana. I may be incorrect in interpreting the Indiana decision, but given its rather obscure form, I think it is better to omit explicit mention of Indiana from the article on WP:OR grounds. Kinoq (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I think I now understand, at least a bit better. While the school may have a formal accreditation, the medical aspect is not accredited. The GMC specifically lists this school is not acceptable. This, I believe, is the appropriate way to refer to the school. It reminds me of a local law school that is accredited by the regional group but not by the bar association. Thus their degrees are valid, but their graduates cannot obtain law licenses. Basket of Puppies 03:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually it does not have a formal accreditation in the sense of academic accreditation, the term accreditation has been used carelessly IMO (and that may even be intentional); it's approved as a venue for overseas students to study and thus gain student visas, but this does nto confer any academic status on the qualifications it offers in any area. ASIC expresses a pious hope that its process might offer some kind of quality guide to students, but that's about the end of it. As to the Indiana issue I have no real opinion, I was just rolling back the edits of the banned user per WP:RBI. I'm not a fan of laundry lists anyway, it's probably better to state that various US states have listed St Christopher as sub-standard. Some will have them on an internal list so if you ask they will say no but they don't publish it on the web (Oregon, for example, is much more up front about what is accepted or not than most states). As it stands the laundry list implies that the degrees will be accepted in other states, I do not believe that is a valid inference, so a switch to prose may well be an improvement. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Guy, while I believe you that the ASIC might not be the greatest academic accreditation service, your own take on it would be WP:OR. Their website indicates they ensure quality of education and they are UK recognized. Do you have any sources that might indicate the ASIC is less than up to snuff? Basket of Puppies 13:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Err, I think you are missing the point. What ASIC does is limited to verifying some basic facts (that an institution exists, that it does offer courses, etc) for the purposes of student visa processing. That is not academic accreditation, as the term is traditionally understood. Such accreditation in the UK is performed by different governmental entities and the procedure is explained at[54]. Kinoq (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Kinoq, I do not necessarily disagree with you, however the ASIC website says that they do quality assurance for instruction and courses. I don't see how we can describe them any differently in absence of reliable sources that indicate otherwise. Basket of Puppies 14:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
You just need to read carefully ASIC's own explanation of its role and functions[55] as a service dealing with international colleges in the UK for student visa purposes. In that context it does perform some minimal quality control checks, again of a very basic kind. Checking that the lights are on and that the courses are offered, so that a student visa would not be fake, is not what is usually understood by the term academic accreditation. Kinoq (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
But they still unaccredited as a medical school - your stance is like concentrated on investors in people and saying "well they have an investors in people certificate, so we can say that are an accredited medical school" - it's misleading and untrue. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Cameron, please see above where I very clearly and very specifically say that the medical school is not accredited by the UK-based GMC. I likened it to a local law school that is regionally accredited to grant law degrees, but these law degrees are worthless as the bar association does not recognize them. They are a legal degree granter, but just not of an accepted degree. I don't see how I am misleading anyone. Can you tell me how? Also, I'd like to point people to the ASIC's "Accreditation Handbook" on page 9 which says

ASIC accreditation gives reassurance to potential international (overseas) students, their parents and education representatives that the operation of their chosen college conforms with relevant United Kingdom laws and offers genuine courses, which are delivered to appropriate standards with acceptable quality, and which lead to recognised qualifications.

This seems rather clear to me that the ASIC indicates they provide academic accreditation and assurance that the school is indeed legit. Again, I realize the GMC does not recognize them, but we cannot claim they are unaccredited as a college. Basket of Puppies 15:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Basket of puppies is 100% correct in her assertion. The rest of you are being intentionally intellectually dishonest. 99.185.96.217 (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  • As a banned user you are not entitled to venture an opinion here. ASIC do not accredit institutions, they merely act as gatekeepers for the immigration department. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
That's funny, as the same should be said to you considering you were told to stay away from articles where you are inappropriately involved after the latest arbcom involving the consistent abuse of your administrative capabilities. 99.185.96.217 (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, argumentum ad hominem and a bald-faced lie to boot. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

In this page, ASIC says "In response to this proposal QISAN together with a number of professional practitioners [...] have established an embryo accrediting body, namely ASIC" (my emphasis). So they don't even call themselves an accrediting body; instead they call themselves the embryo thereof. (Incidentally, QISAN is a commercial company.) The impression that ASIC's website gives to me is: "We perform what we call accreditation and hope that you'll take it and us seriously." In general, is ASIC "accreditation" taken seriously? I don't claim to know. Is ASIC "accreditation" of medical schools taken seriously? Clearly it isn't: for that, people (or anyway people in the know) go to the GMC. Ergo, "accreditation" of this school by ASIC can be ignored. -- Hoary (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Christ, we're not going round this loop again are we? In the UK it is illegal to offer a qualification that is or might seem to be UK degree unless the awarding body is recognised by the Secretary of State, a Royal Charter or Act of Parliament to grant degrees. St Christopher has no such recognition. It is listed by the GMC as unacceptable. Weaselling to try to obscure this is not even close to an acceptable way of fixing the fact that it is not a legitimate school as far as the UK is concerned, which is rather significant given that it is based in the UK. If you want a Senegalese medical degree then you don't study in the UK with all its attendant costs. It's iffy, as all the independent sources say, the way to fix it is to gain accreditation from the Secretary of State, they choose instead to come up with ever more inventive ways of pretending to be accredited, which merely reinforces the suspicion that it's a scam. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm rather troubled by this 11:35, 20 March comment of yours, JzG, given its positioning on the page. Is the "Weaselling to try to obscure [unacceptability]" something that you think the school is doing, or that I am doing (in my comment of 15:41, 19 March), or what? (If it's me who's weaseling, please explain.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.unesco.org/iau/onlinedatabases/list_data/s-nw.html#Senegal
  2. ^ http://www.asic.org.uk/Documents/Bogus%20Universities.pdf
  3. ^ http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:trw2izwh99cJ:www.asic.org.uk/Documents/Bogus%2520Universities.pdf+bogus+site:asic.org.uk&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
  4. ^ Alabama Board of Medical Examiners. "Medical Education Requirements". Retrieved 2006-08-27.
  5. ^ "Medical Licensing Board of Indiana" (PDF).
  6. ^ Maine Higher Education. "Unaccredited Schools" (PDF). UnaccreditedSchools-042706.pdf. p. 48. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx
  8. ^ Oregon State Law Chapter 348
  9. ^ Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas". Retrieved 2007-05-05.
  10. ^ Texas Code 61.302
  11. ^ Alabama Board of Medical Examiners. "Medical Education Requirements". Retrieved 2006-08-27.
  12. ^ "Medical Licensing Board of Indiana" (PDF).
  13. ^ Maine Higher Education. "Unaccredited Schools" (PDF). UnaccreditedSchools-042706.pdf. p. 48. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)
  14. ^ http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx
  15. ^ Oregon State Law Chapter 348
  16. ^ Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas". Retrieved 2007-05-05.
  17. ^ Texas Code 61.302
  18. ^ http://www.sgu.edu/website/sguwebsite.nsf/som/global-scholars.html
  19. ^ Alabama Board of Medical Examiners. "Medical Education Requirements". Retrieved 2006-08-27.
  20. ^ "Medical Licensing Board of Indiana" (PDF).
  21. ^ Maine Higher Education. "Unaccredited Schools" (PDF). UnaccreditedSchools-042706.pdf. p. 48. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)
  22. ^ http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx
  23. ^ Oregon State Law Chapter 348
  24. ^ Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas". Retrieved 2007-05-05.
  25. ^ Texas Code 61.302
  26. ^ a b c IMED listing
  27. ^ Senegalese Charter of SCIMD from scimd.com
  28. ^ Senegalese recognition letter by Minister of Education
  29. ^ Cite error: The named reference scimd hx was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  30. ^ http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/WDMS/WDMS_Updates_131201.pdf
  31. ^ List of organisations about which ASIC suggest students undertake detailed research before embarking on a programme of study
  32. ^ http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/WDMS/WDMS_Updates_131201.pdf
  33. ^ http://imed.ecfmg.org/details.asp?country=820&school=&currpage=1&cname=SENEGAL&city=&region=AF&rname=Africa&mcode=820020&psize=25
  34. ^ http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/registration_applications/join_the_register/acceptable_primary_medical_qualification.asp#2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine/Archive_4&oldid=1086326274"