Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine/Archive 1

message: Minor edits. If you disagree with me on this, feel free to revert it. Spike 09:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Random Historical Material

message: I disagree with you, therefore have re-instituted my previous edits.  The information I have added is 1) applicable to St. Christopher's SOM, and 2) verifiable/truthful.
Just because the information doesn't put SCIMD-COM in a good light, doesn't mean it's inaccurate or vandalism.  Prospective students have a right to know this information so they do not go to SCIMD-COM expecting to become a practicing physician in England.
Also note that the incorporation papers show that the new incarnation of SCIMD-COM started in 2005, not 2000.  SCCM started in 2000, but that entity doesn't exist anymore. Leuko 18:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although you may think it’s applicable, the way you added it was inappropriate. It disrupted the style and nature of the article. You are welcome to add content and provide a reference at the bottom of the page, not disrupt its format and stick it wherever you feel it is appropriate. As it stands now, you are not even a registered user. Register and we can continue this discussion, but I will not correspond further with someone that won't even register an account and be held to the acceptable standards of wikipedia. Spike 17:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I disagree 

message: My only other issue is that technically, a school with this exact name didn't exist in 2000, and it only was incorporated in 2005.  Perhaps there needs to be a page on the former SCCM explaining what happened there, with a link from this page? Leuko 18:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to the Gov. of Senegal and the updated IMED/FAIMER listing, we are the same school, just a new name. An article for the former name of the school (SCCM) is being worked on at the moment, once something decent can be put up your participation would be welcome. Spike 18:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Issue

message: If anyone wants to participate in the discussion, please do so in a constructive manner. Make a new topic, or participate in one that is already being discussed. Don't just stick what you want to say where you feel like it. Spike 01:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try waiting until people have a chance to respond instead of just editing continuously.Spike 01:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper Discussion

message: --Azskeptic 02:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the Eggman is involved, it is sure to turn into an ugly mess.
 
I can understand why you are deleting the second unsigned comment, but you have no reason to delete the first one. If you keep it up I will bring it before the wikiadmin and you will be slapped with a 3RR violation. Spike 05:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why it is important to show the reality of this issue. 

message: Just so everyone knows, I keep a close eye on this article and its talk page. I am going to make a concerted effort to actively report any registered users that violate the Wikipedia 3RR policy concerning this article or it’s talk page. Spike 21:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too will report any user that through his AOL proxy sock-puppets continues to violate the WP:3RR or protected page policies. Leuko 21:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR Violations

message: I also removed the reference to the "reorganization" of SCIMD in 2006. No reference or proof was provided as required by WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Spike 09:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And with my last edit, I didn't use that word.  The text simply pointed out that prior to 2006, degrees were issued from SCCM (now a non-existant entity), but now are issued from the University.  This is verified in the Notes section at the bottom of the IMED entry. Leuko 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: IMHO, my edit used pretty much the same phraseology as the IMED notes section. Leuko 17:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup, looks the same.  If you are ok with it, then I am ok with it. Leuko 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: Spike, any truth to student reports that the school's administrator is out and the school is being taken over by a former student and middle east investors?  --Azskeptic 23:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes in Administration

message: You are wrong regarding the ECFMG. The ECFMG does provide certification of IMG's and this certification does allow one to practice medicine and one cannot practice without it as an IMG. Spike 16:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct - ECFMG certification allows one to apply for a medical license in one of the states of the US.  However, the state medical license is the document which allows one to practice medicine in that state.  Just having an ECFMG certification means nothing -- if one tries to practice medicine with just that, one would be arrested for "Practicing Medicine without a (state) license." Leuko 16:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, but "license to practice medicine" to me means a full, unrestricted license, not a training license where one needs orders co-signed by an attending.  I am fine with the phrase as is, however, I think we need to add the caveats you just mentioned above to the end of that sentence in the article. Leuko 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, so I don't think the phrase is appropriate in this article as is since it is very misleading and inaccurate in most cases.  For 99% of physicians, having ECFMG certification does not equal being licensed to practice medicine independently.  I suggest either 1) removing "as well as receive certification that allows them to practice medicine," or replacing it with "as well as receive certification which is the first step in becoming a licensed physician."  Leuko 21:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, sounds good.  However, I don't think either of us can make the edit without violating WP:3RR, so I guess it will have to wait.  (Unless consensus edits don't count as edit warring?)  Though, now that I think about it, ECFMG certification isn't the first step in becoming a licensed physician - passing USMLE Step I is. :-) Leuko 21:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How about BLS/ACLS? :-) Ok, I'll see how I can incorporate that phraseology. Leuko 21:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the edit, but I don't like the grammar.  Anybody have any better suggestions? Leuko 21:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ECFMG Certification

message: The only other issue to resolve is "recognized by the ECFMG."  Perhaps "allowed to sit the USMLE by the ECFMG" would be better?  Also, considering at one time SCCM graduates were banned from taking the USMLE by the ECFMG, a citation proving the current state of affairs would be in order? Leuko 14:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly my point - that's why I didn't put it in, and am requesting verification from a factual source that ECFMG applications from SCCM-IMD are no longer "on hold." Leuko 15:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove we were ever on hold in the first place. Spike 21:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't you just say that the school's applications were on hold 2 lines up?  Does that count as proof? :-) Leuko 22:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ECFMG Status

message: :Also, it appears that the date the school was founded is wrong.  According to the BBC article Azskeptic posted above, Senegal only recognized SCIMD-COM in 2003, not 2000.  Leuko 17:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, IMED does list 2000 as the starting date, but also states "Prior to 2006, diplomas are awarded from St. Christopher's College of Medicine rather than the university."  To me this means that SCIMD-COM didn't exist until 2006.  Perhaps this should be a footnote on the starting date, since really it was a different entity that was awarding degrees at that time.  Too bad there isn't a copy of the charter lying around somewhere to verify the dates with.  Also, I think the BBC is a fine source of information.  Under journalistic ethics, they must verify their information before publishing, otherwise they face charges of libel. Leuko 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought this issue was resolved, but I guess not.  Please discuss any changes here before reverting. Thanks. Leuko 06:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Founding

message: I've committed an edit modifying the claim that a SCIMD degree will lead to automatic licensibility in all of the US states, documented with references.  I have a feeling the disuputed tag might be going back up. Leuko 14:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Licensibility in the US

message: Contact the State of Oregon http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda    They have attempted to verify the claims you make and have been unable to do so through US govt. agencies directly to Senegal govt. agencies.  Is that a valid US gov. agency?    --Azskeptic 02:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Status in Oregon

message: Since the GMC is no longer registering graduates, who are are also no longer allowed to sit the PLAB, are 3rd/4th year student hospital rotations in the UK still a possibility?  If so, at which ones?  Also, I've searched in vain for information on which hospitals students do ACGME approved clinicals in the US.  I've requested a citation for this claim if anyone can fin it.  Thanks.  Leuko 17:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, students are still rotating in the UK. Regarding where clinicals are done, these are internal college documents and are not available to the general public. I have removed the CN from that sentence. Spike 09:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the claim that students rotate in NHS/ACGME hospitals is not verifiable with any publicly available sources, I've removed that half of the sentence in accordance with WP:V. Leuko 06:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hospital Affiliations

message: And you didn't like the formatting with the footnotes? I thought it made it look cleaner, and more like a factual article. Leuko 16:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one voiced a different opinion, I've used footnotes for the FAIMER/IMED and WHO links to promote a unity of style within the article. Leuko 17:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Formatting

message: I have archived all the material on this talk page that is not an active topic. Spike 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've also managed to archive some active topics. Leuko 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How about the three topics currently on the talk page (with pretty much the same headings?) i.e. the ECFMG status, the date which SCCM dissolved and SC-IMD was reborn, and the status in Oregon. Leuko 17:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: I disagree with the changes you have made to the format of the page. Why are you removing entries from the table on the right side of the page? It is meant to be a "quick facts" box, so it doesn't matter if it contains data that is also present in the main body of the article. Spike 16:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but the data presented has a bit more history and is a bit more complicated than something which lends itself to a "quick facts" box.  That's why I feel it more appropriate to flesh out these "facts" with the associated caveats in the text.  Also Luton is mentioned (and linked multiple times.  Is that really necessary? Leuko 17:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Then I suggest we go with the 2000/2006 for the date, as we have had for some time, to clear up some of the ambuiguity since SC-IMD did not exist as a named entity in 2000. Leuko 17:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, then we should probably remove it until we can come up with a consensus, or until someone can prove that SC-IMD existed in 2000. Leuko 17:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am fine with the current edit that states in the text that prior to 2006, degrees were awarded by SCCM, and not SC-IMD (since it did not exist.)  However, I still don't think that the 2000 in the info box should be there - it is rather misleadeding.  If the article was about SCCM, then it would be fine, but SC-IMD as a named entity did not exist in 2000.  Sure, it's just a name (and possibly admin) change, but I believe wikipedia should be as accurate as possible.  Leuko 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree it is a minor point, but I just want to make sure that the information presented is as accurate and non-confusing as possible.  Like I said before, I have put in a RfC, so we'll see if any other editors stop by to add their third-party opinion on the matter.  Leuko 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, it's not admins -- just other users (editors).  Leuko 21:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I thought the point was to generate a community consensus on the issue.  I don't think there is any authoritarian "final decision."  I guess we could take it to the arbitration committee, but I don't think we are there yet.  Let's see what kind of 3rd party input the RfC generates first.  Leuko 22:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The format of the box is fine - the information presented is not 100% accurate though. Leuko 15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well moreover discuss the relevance and need for this addition to this article.  Why post it on there? 
My opinion is that it is really not needed and unless there is a dire need of this information to be shown, as will be seen by the posts here.... it don't think it is needed. It's like posting published results of housing reports in a town on here or putting published journal articles of health concerns in large habitus individuals articles like long-term genital malformations and lack of LGI tract cleanliness, especially rectoanal portion... IT is just not needed.... it could be relevant but not needed.--Vtak 17:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: I've heard that rumors that legal action is being started against wikipedia as a result of this article for the following reasons:
1- the SCIMD sheild being used on this article is a copyrighted image that they refuse to remove even at the request of the holder of the copyright hence they are in violation of copyright laws.
2- Wikipedia and the users involved in editing this page, are being added to one (if not more) of the lawsuits due to the constant slander of the students and SCIMD in attempts to hurt the current and future student body?
--> any comments from the posters on the above and the fact that letters from the lawyers for the school, copyright holder, and one of the lawsuits have been ignored repeatedly?
just curious 
Azrealist 11:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, why would or should anyone care about rumors or random unsubstantiated threats from anyone on the internet? The apparent copyright status of the image is documented on the image page; anyone is welcome to comment about it there, but nobody has done so, or use any of the other mechanisms to resolve copyright concerns about media files. You should read WP:THREAT before continuing down this line of discussion. DMacks 16:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry for jumping at you...I think I've been reading on-line ranters too long, and completely misread your intent. DMacks 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Has anyone heard any rumors that SCIMD sued several editors, had its claims dismissed immediately, and was forced to pay damages as a result of bringing a facially unmeritorious lawsuit?  If anyone has heard any such rumors, do they have any comment?  TheronJ 21:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I love how americans commit a crime or violate some law and then hide behind or claim freedom and the right to do so as a result of one of the amendments.Azrealist 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you honestly saying that pointing out that someone did not break the law is not a valid response to accusations of breaking the law? Might want to brush up either on the legalities of the situation (Wikipedia is hosted in Florida, all it's data is in florida, ergo the only law that matters is the US national and Florida state laws) or maybe the English language, if you meant something else with your statement. -Mask  00:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Action Against Wikipedia