Jump to content

Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andrew73 (talk | contribs) at 19:41, 24 August 2007 (→‎Repetitious material about Luton). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Archive
Archive Index
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2
  3. Archive 3 - 2007

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [1]. Leuko 04:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You tell me, you were the one that was complaining about it being so difficult. BritishDad 05:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


New York

I removed New York as a state not recognizing St. Christopher, since the New York website [2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh, that info is not usually published, that I know of. Buzybeez 19:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
That disclaimer sounds about right, I don't think there is any problem with it. Buzybeez 18:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think it's ok as is. no need for deletion. Buzybeez 20:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing in NY

Per [3], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The modification you made makes the current wording the most accurate, to date. thanks Buzybeez 20:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thank you for your alphabetizing. Leuko 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
And I am not sure why the WP:RS is being misquoted... Perhaps to hide the truth... Leuko 15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

UNESCO

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

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

Redundancy

I think this statement is redundant, as the succeeding paragraph outlines in detail, ad nauseam, with references, where degrees are not acceptable, etc. No need to belabor the point and mention it repeatedly in different words. This should probably be removed- "As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine#Accreditation_and_Licensing Buzybeez 18:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Curriculum

I noticed other wikipedia articles for foreign medical schools make note of the medical curriculum. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George's_University In effort to parallel articles within the same general category of foreign medical schools, the curriculum for this school should be added. I can go ahead and work on it, if there are no ojections? Buzybeez 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GMC

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

I've reverted the edits regarding the suspension of all UK squatter medical colleges as not being relevant. Per [5], SCIMD is the only UK medical college specifically mentioned for "The GMC is not satisfied about the status of the schools' programmes in the UK with respect to the schools' recognition by the government nor is it assured that the schools' are subject to adequate quality assurance arrangements." I also removed the statement that prior to 2005, SCIMD degrees were accepted by the GMC, as no WP:RS was provided. Leuko 23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Leuko, you are joking, right? In order for something to be suspended, it needs to be recognized in the first instance. Can your driver's license be suspended if you don't have one? Surely you knew that, maybe you were just messing with me? Anyway, I found a web archive letter that confirms SC degrees were acceptable,http://web.archive.org/web/20040707212317/www.stchris.edu/files/gmc_recognition.pdf just like I originally posted on the article, which you reverted. Also, regarding the general suspension of all UK based private medical schools, that is of paramount importance, as it appears to be some sort of policy change. This GMC website http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/join_the_register/registration/uk_based_medical_colleges.asp lists 10 schools in which the GMC "does not register graduates who have been awarded primary medical qualifications in such circumstances nor does it give any entitlement to book or sit the PLAB test." I will go ahead and update the article accordingly. Buzybeez 14:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case you are unaware, per WP:V, you need to cite WP:RS to include information in WP. Otherwise, it can be challenged and removed as WP:OR. Now that you have sourced your claims, it can stay in. Leuko 15:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
Never mind, I see the addition of ECFMG, and it looks fine. Leuko 16:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Repetitious material about Luton

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

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

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

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

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

Buzybeez 15:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually I am not so sure that is a WP:RS. First of all it is hosted on the school's website, so it may not be reliable, as it is not independent. Secondly, and more importantly, this letter was addressed to the GMC, who stated SCIMD was unaccredited and banned graduates from licensure in the UK. This leads me to doubt the veracity and validity of claims made in the letter as the actions of the GMC indicate, they did not find it acceptable either. We should probably look for an independent WP:RS indicating that the Luton campus is recognized before adding it into the article, or if we can't find one, I guess we'd have to insert the Minister's statement with the above caveats mentioned. Leuko 19:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...what is one reasonable person's "synthesis" may be another person's "fact." Personally, I don't have a problem with the statement the Luton campus is a "satellite" (albeit de facto main) campus of the SCIMD. To insist on a hard copy version stating this seems a bit much, since this is what's stated/implied on the SCIMD page and in reality (given that there are real, living students on the Luton site as seen on the BBC program). I agree with Leuko though that the Luton campus is not an idependently recognized entity in and of itself. On the other hand, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the recognition of the Senegal "main" site is sort of an umbrella statement that would also include the Luton site. Andrew73
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine&oldid=153409129"