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

message: I say, just delete this article. St Chris is always on a rollercoaster ride: good sometimes, bad sometimes. You should be aware there are a number of licenced graduates practicing in the US. DrGladwin 19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a mechanism in WP for deleting articles, which includes a specific process and rules. Deletion, in general, would require proof of lack of notability or a problem with the article's sourcing or neutrality that cannot be repaired. Given that we have many reliable published sources referring to the article's subject, lack of notability would be very hard to prove. Lack of neutrality or proper sourcing has to first be debated on the Talk page, and as of now there is no such valid argument for either. Note that to delete an article, the bar is set fairly high - there has to consensus for the deletion. If no consensus is reached, the article stays by default. Also, votes of single-issue advocates may be discounted in such a process. Crum375 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Proto - is it possible for you to find out the status of the office protection?  Is the Office actively attending to the article? Because, it almost appears as if this article has been frozen and ignored.    I can not see how purposely leaving outdated and inaccurate information in the article is a good thing, it is probably only making matters worse, article loses validity.  Might as well just delete the article then.
:Administrators have already weighed in here, and said (essentially) it's out of their hands, so repeatedly adding tags (regardless of how appropriate or inappropriate the specific tag might be) to get their attention just wastes everyone's time. DMacks 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I am an admin, and here is the response: It is out of our hands. Only someone from the Office can unprotect the page. Prodego talk 01:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: Yes, thank you for your help with regard to this rather frustrating matter. 67.177.149.119 18:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And nothing will be done until I have a chance to review why it was office protected in the first place.  You may continue to request changes via the talk page.  Cary Bass demandez 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Office Protection

message: Can anyone delete the image or remove the link to the image that is listed as being the crest for the college at the top of the article? That is not the crest the school uses, it is misleading and should not be a part of this article. 67.177.149.119 15:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed from page.  Cary Bass demandez 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete Image/Remove Image Link Associated With This Page

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

message: SCIMD-COM is listed and recognized by DfES, under both its former and current name.  See http://www.dfes.gov.uk/providersregister/search.cfm?browse=1
Click S and on page 20 and 27 you will see their listing.   This information should be added to the article.   Sparklingsun
:'IMPORTANT: The Register does not quality assure or accredit in any way the learning provision of any registered providers. Registration does not imply quality standards and should not be used in marketing.'  209.139.208.178 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of precedent for not mentioning directory entries where they might give a misleading impression of official approval. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have just been informed by DfES that the entry has been removed. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still seems to be showing up for me, but maybe the database isn't updated yet.  In any case, it should not be added due to the reasons mentioned by JzG and .178: it means absolutely nothing, and even the DfES states that it shouldn't be used for marketing (which would be its purpose on WP).  Leuko 02:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

message: Oregon appears to have revised their summary of the college.  Mainpage article needs to be revised accordingly  http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html
Great Britain ceased accepting its degrees, March, 2006. No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006. Price, Waterhouse has taken over the entity's records (UK/Senegal) and students who want to get information must contact PWC. The phone number is +44-771113725. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.28.180.30 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, someone needs to take care of this. Any admin's out there? They really need to remove the office protection from this page so it can be more freely updated. Office protection is only supposed to be short term according to its own page here on wikipedia, why has it now been used for months? Someone from the wikipedia offices needs to review this. 67.177.149.119 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: It still hasn't been taken care of. Is any admin. going to do this or are they really falling down on the job? 67.177.149.119 13:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's the rush?  I have over ten thousand articles on my watchlist.  You need to add  for edits to protected articles. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Er, it looks to me as if the article already says this under "United States". Guy (Help!) 10:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: I agree with the above. 67.177.149.119 18:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What it said then really doesn't matter, the page still exists and has changed. The article needs to be updated to reflect what it says now. 67.177.149.119 03:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oregon

message: ===Oregon===
3. The entire first paragraph of the "United States" section either needs to be removed or rewritten as the information quoted is no longer an accurate reflection of the website it references and quotes.
Disagree: At the time the source was quoted, (which is specified by the date in the reference) that's what it said.  Currently, SCIMD is listed as having a Belize campus, so I am not sure if anything has changed here. Leuko 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what it used to say, the paragraph needs to be rewritten to reflect what it says now or it should be removed since the information is inaccurate, misleading, and not representative of what the State of Oregon currently lists. 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a compromise?  It looks like the information of being announced as a branch campus of MUA-Belize is accurate, since the page still lists Belize as a location for SCIMD.  And instead of currently, how about "the ownership of the school was previously disputed."  This seems to be the most accurate. Leuko 23:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, web.archive.org stopped archiving the page before the current reference date, but here are a couple of archived references: , and .  The first is interesting as it says: "***Suspended by the British medical licensing authority, November 2005.*** ***Senegal denies its degree-granting authority*** ODA has no evidence that this is an accredited or otherwise acceptable provider of postsecondary education meeting Oregon standards. Note: "St Christopher's Medical school (aka) St Christopher's Medical College based in Luton is not recognised by the UK authorities as a degree course provider nor does it satisfy the criteria for degree awarding..." UK Higher Education Governance office, 2004." Leuko 04:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, we have confirmation from Texas and the UK. Leuko 04:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see any pages listed or referenced here that rebut the warning on the top of the Oregon page. If you want to include other information on those pages then including this warning about the accuracy of the information is appropriate. People should be away that the information being used in this article may be inaccurate according to the ODA itself. 67.177.149.119 04:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that was only that version of the page.  And the fact that the school is on at least two other lists stating the the degree is invalid/illegal to use seems to indicate that the warning did not apply to that listing.  The current version of the pages does not have that notice, and states "No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006."  Leuko 04:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

text: But there are still online copies available. You just have to pay $2.95 to view the article now. - 12.158.190.38 03:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's hard to WP:AGF with evidence to the contrary.  In any case, the article is easily verifiable.  Search for the article's title here.  You can verify that the article is in the newspaper's archive database.  If you wish to read the article, you must pay $2.95.  I will not pay that for you. Leuko 03:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

text: You are correct - tense changed.  Leuko 00:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed changes

message: 3. The entire first paragraph of the "United States" section either needs to be removed or rewritten as the information quoted is no longer an accurate reflection of the website it references and quotes.
Disagree: At the time the source was quoted, (which is specified by the date in the reference) that's what it said.  Currently, SCIMD is listed as having a Belize campus, so I am not sure if anything has changed here. Leuko 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what it used to say, the paragraph needs to be rewritten to reflect what it says now or it should be removed since the information is inaccurate, misleading, and not representative of what the State of Oregon currently lists. 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a compromise?  It looks like the information of being announced as a branch campus of MUA-Belize is accurate, since the page still lists Belize as a location for SCIMD.  And instead of currently, how about "the ownership of the school was previously disputed."  This seems to be the most accurate. Leuko 23:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, web.archive.org stopped archiving the page before the current reference date, but here are a couple of archived references: , and .  The first is interesting as it says: "***Suspended by the British medical licensing authority, November 2005.*** ***Senegal denies its degree-granting authority*** ODA has no evidence that this is an accredited or otherwise acceptable provider of postsecondary education meeting Oregon standards. Note: "St Christopher's Medical school (aka) St Christopher's Medical College based in Luton is not recognised by the UK authorities as a degree course provider nor does it satisfy the criteria for degree awarding..." UK Higher Education Governance office, 2004." Leuko 04:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, we have confirmation from Texas and the UK. Leuko 04:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see any pages listed or referenced here that rebut the warning on the top of the Oregon page. If you want to include other information on those pages then including this warning about the accuracy of the information is appropriate. People should be away that the information being used in this article may be inaccurate according to the ODA itself. 67.177.149.119 04:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that was only that version of the page.  And the fact that the school is on at least two other lists stating the the degree is invalid/illegal to use seems to indicate that the warning did not apply to that listing.  The current version of the pages does not have that notice, and states "No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006."  Leuko 04:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 9. The article needs to be removed from the "Unaccredited Institutions of Higher Learning" Category since no references have been made which demonstrate that this article discusses an "Unaccredited Institution of Higher Learning". Furthermore, references contained in the article actually demonstrate that it is accredited in Senegal, such as reference 2 (IMED), which only lists accredited institutions of medical education. Also, the last sentence links to an official document from the government of Senegal which shows that the school is recognized. Therefore the entire second paragraph at the begining of the article is inappropriate and contradictory.
.  No evidence has been presented that this school is accredited, and plenty of evidence has been presented to the contrary. The target market is clearly British and US students, and it is not accredited in either country. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category Listing

message: 10. As mentioned above, this should be included in the article:
Students of the college seeking entry into the United Kingdom by way of student visas are eligible through the DfES. The college is listed in the Register of Providers by the U.K. Department for Education and Skills for such purposes
Reference: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/providersregister/search.cfm
You have to use the search engine and search for Iba Mar Diop, with the way the database is constructed it's impossible to link to the schools entry directly.  67.177.149.119 19:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per above what? 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DfES

message: 1. In the info box on the right hand side under "Established" it says "2000/2006". The "2006" part should be removed since the reference link that was used to justify its addition is no longer valid.
Disagree per this source. Leuko 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This just appears to be some random site. Why should this site be considered a valid reference? For all we know this is some personal website. 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, maybe because it says: "Copyright © 2007 St. Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. All rights reserved." Seems to be the official homepage of the school. Leuko 22:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, my WP:AGF is dangling by a buckytube here. DMacks 22:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 2. The second paragraph of the article should be deleted in it's entirety since there are no references for the statements made and the one reference provided for the last sentence is no longer valid.
Disagree: Reference is now here, and there has been no evidence presented toward the contrary. Leuko 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same as above, why should the site that is provided as a new reference be considered valid? It could just be someones personal page. 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above.  22:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Paragraph

message: 4. This line:
"The State of Texas has similarly placed SCCM on their list of "Substandard or Fraudulent Institutions" and notes that attempting to use the degree to obtain a medical license is a Class B Misdemeanor.[14]"
located in the 3rd paragraph of the United States section needs to be removed as the link that it quotes and references is no longer valid.
Disagree: Possibly a temporary server hiccup. Luckily google cache still has a copy:   Leuko 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if the material was removed from the website should a cached copy of old material still be considered to be the stance that is endorsed by the state of TX? Unless the state issues a statement saying that they still endorse this material it should be removed from the article. 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, just because somebody isn't still publishing something on his own dime doesn't mean it wasn't said or that it is clearly no-longer-true. There's no evidence that the information was removed because it was woefully out-of-date, incorrect, or superceded by some other statement that contradicts [whatever specific part we're interested in using for this cite], so it's still the "last statement by [whomever] about [whatever]". But let's moot this whole issue: the webpage appears to have been simply relocated to here. DMacks 22:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Endorse updating the reference to the new webaddress per DMacks. Leuko 22:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Texas

message: 5. This line:
"The Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners in New Jersey has stated graduates of the school "would likely not be accepted at any three-year medical residency program at a New Jersey hospital, a prerequisite to becoming a full-fledged doctor in this state" because New Jersey law requires that students spend the first two years of their medical education studying in the location where the school is chartered.[15]"
located in the 3rd paragraph of the United States section needs to be removed as the link that it quotes and references is no longer valid.
Disagree: The quoted source is a newspaper.  Go look up the hard copy if you want.  Just because the online version is no longer accessible without paying a fee, doesn't mean it is no longer valid. Leuko 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to demonstrate that a hard copy exists. Unless it can be proven to exist in another format that is available offline it should be removed from the page. 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're kidding right?  Prove that a newspaper exists?  This is getting ridiculous and bordering on disruptive edits. Leuko 22:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: But there are still online copies available. You just have to pay $2.95 to view the article now. - 12.158.190.38 03:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's hard to WP:AGF with evidence to the contrary.  In any case, the article is easily verifiable.  Search for the article's title here.  You can verify that the article is in the newspaper's archive database.  If you wish to read the article, you must pay $2.95.  I will not pay that for you. Leuko 03:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Jersey

message: 6. The entire section titled "Media Coverage" need to be removed as the link it referneces is no longer valid.
Disagree: Again, just because the online version linked out of convience is no longer available, doesn't mean that it wasn't said on a real news show.  You may get the tape from the BBC archives if you want. Leuko 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, feel free to demonstrate that a hard copy exists. Unless it can be proven to exist in another format that is available offline it should be removed from the page. 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, just because a TV episode is not currently online doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Feel free to contact the BBC for a transcript/video tape if you are not convinced the information is valid. Leuko 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 7. The section "External Links" need to be removed as the link it references is no longer valid.
Disagree: Looks like it has changed to . Leuko 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, why should this site be considered a valid replacement reference? This could just be someones personal site for all any of us knows. 67.177.149.119 22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the whole "Copyright © 2007 St. Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. All rights reserved." seems to kind of refute that theory. Leuko 22:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And mine. Leuko 03:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: 8. In the references section, references 1, 3, 14, 15, and 17 need to be removed as they are no longer valid external links.
:Information does not need to be removed simply because a link has changed or gone inactive. That's why the citations state when they were accessed. Someone could go through and replace them with links to archive.org, though. - 12.158.190.38 19:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That really doesn't make any sense. Information included in Wikipedia articles has to be verifiable, if it can't be verified it shouldn't be included. If someone wants to dig around and include archive links, more power to them, but unless someone wants to do that it should just be removed. 67.177.149.119 19:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead" - 12.158.190.38 19:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, you'll notice that the link you provided only talks about the reference links placement in the reference section, not about it's place or content within the article. If people want to retain the link in the reference section, that's fine, but the material it cites should be removed from the article since it is not verifiable, which is mentioned right on the edit page itself "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". 67.177.149.119 20:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a pretty inconsistent reading of that...why should a citation be kept but not any information that it supports? DMacks 21:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the link says to keep references that are dead in the references section. I assume it's meant so that they can be replaced at a later date if a valid archive is found. But the rules regarding actual article content are very clear, material contained in the body of the article must be verifiable and the material I listed above cannot be verified with the references provided. 67.177.149.119 22:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time they were referenced they could be verified, hence the date accessed in the references. Leuko 22:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it doesn't. Someone could have easily said they were able to be accessed at that time when they never were. The fact that someone listed that they could be accessed really means nothing. They can't be access now so they are unverifiable. 67.177.149.119 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Making semi-protected for now. Please let me know if problems occur and require full protection again. FloNight 20:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Hope not, Leuko 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: The second sentence and third sentences should read:
This restricts graduates of SCIMD-COM from registration as licensed physicians and from taking the Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board (PLAB) examination. Currently, the suspension is still in force.
Unless I can't read, this is already what it says.  Leuko 23:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct - tense changed.  Leuko 00:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: United Kingdom' Subsection

message: This section should really be titled "Programs" as American English is the style, grammar, and spelling used throughout the page.
The first paragraph in this section should read:
SCIMD-COM offers two English-language curricula: a four-year curriculum for students who have previously completed all pre-medical requirements and a six-year curriculum for students that have not. There is also a five-year curriculum that is conducted in French at the main medical campus in Dakar, Senegal.
 Leuko 23:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Programmes

message: Please change the text from Official College Website to Unofficial College Website or Information College Website as the site that is linked is owned by Mr. Firoz Shaikh and he is no longer employed by SCIMD-COM as noted in the article and on the webpage itself and thus is no longer official.
Thanks. 67.177.149.119 21:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the Whois, the domain now belongs to Dr. Sow, who claims to be the new administrator, and is registered to the new Atlanta address noted in the references cited about the firing of Mr. Shaikh.  Leuko 23:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: The first paragraphs need some rephrasing, the way it is currently phrased is somewhat misleading. In order to be more accurate it should read something like:
St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (SCIMD-COM) is a branch campus of the medical college Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD) located in Luton, England (30 miles north of London). The main medical college and it's branch campus operate under the umbrella of the Universite El Hadj Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal. The branch campus operated under the name St. Christopher's College of Medicine from 2000-2006. Degrees are current issued under the authority of the parent university through SCIMD-COM.
SCIMD-COM is not accredited by any recognized body of medical accreditation. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions. As of April 2006 it claims recognition locally by the Ministry of Education in Senegal.
I seems more clear to me the way it is written now.  Leuko 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, it is much more clear in the phrasing above. 67.177.149.119 00:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, since we disagree, we'll wait for a consensus to develop with the input of other editors. Leuko 01:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly, SCIMD-COM is a branch campus of EM-SCIMD, it is a three level relationship between the three entities. I don't understand what about UEIN being the parent university isn't clear. It's like any other University that multiple colleges within it (the medical college with its branch campus is not the only college under the University).  67.177.149.119 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Now" is fine with me, it is more clear than "currently" 67.177.149.119 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The authority to issue degrees is that of the University, and that authority is exercised through the college. It's not different than the setup at an American university (University of Whatever through the College of Whatever issues a Doctorate of Whatever) 67.177.149.119 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's fine with me. 67.177.149.119 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The last sentence should read:
Graduates are also not eligible to be licensed in the state of Kansas as state regulations require medical schools to be in operation for a minimum of 15 years.
 Minor grammatical change. Leuko 23:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't mark things as done when they are not. If you disagree with the change discuss it but don't say it is done when it's not. I think the grammar above it more clear than the current phrasing that is used. The current phrasing is awkward and uses an inappropriate comma that breaks the flow of the sentence. 67.177.149.119 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the page's history, you'll see I did make the change, I just missed two words.  My apologies.  Please WP:AGF. Leuko 00:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The sentence breaking comma is still there regardless of reloading the page. 67.177.149.119 00:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the comma is gramatically ok, makes sense with a pause.  Leuko 01:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree, I guess we will have to get more input to come to a decision 67.177.149.119 03:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Insertion of "the state of" for Kansas: let's be consistent about this usage in the whole US section. How about wikilinking each state-name and add an intro sentence like "Different states have specific rules for accepting or recognizing medical degrees". That way the extra "state of" wording is never needed (I think it's wordy, and not needed regardless). DMacks 05:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The comma is allowable but not needed. I'd say remove it. However, "because" might be a better choice for the conjunction word. We're really talking cause-and-effect here, don't want to give any hint of an implied "ever since" (the state regs did not change and suddenly render the degrees unrecognized). DMacks 06:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: United States Subsection

message: This statement, since taken out of context, is factually incorrect. 
The Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners in New Jersey has stated graduates of the school "would likely not be accepted at any three-year medical residency program at a New Jersey hospital, a prerequisite to becoming a full-fledged doctor in this state"   
A doctor does not need to do a 3 year residency in NJ to be a full-fledged licensed doctor in NJ. The doctor just has to complete an approved residency program anywhere in the U.S.   That's the problem with taken random statements out of context. Buzybeez 17:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually can't find the source of that above statement.  But I agree with Buzybeez that you definitely don't need to do your residency in NJ in order to be licensed to practice medicine in NJ.  Andrew73 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick google search for the quote finds a copy of what seems like the same article here. The quote (actually, looks like a summary statement, not a quote) we're talking about could be in the literal and more limitted situation of becoming a doctor via this state's residency system (vs. being a doctor, having gone through residency in some other state), and therefore the "a prerequisite…" clause is not needed and only adds confusion. However, other statements in the article suggest that perhaps the state would not recognize a doctor who had gone through residency in another state either (a separate non-acceptance issue from being accepted into NJ residency). DMacks 19:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Without seeing the NJ laws firsthand, I don'think NJ's requirements are as strongly worded as the California situation which explicitly lists the medical schools that it recognizes.  On the other hand, I imagine that there is a sizable proportion of people who practice in NJ who have not done their residency in NJ, making Wikipedia's discussion about NJ sort of inaccurate.  Andrew73 19:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the full article DMacks, now it makes more sense.  That information was the journalist's summary of what someone told him.  Is second/third hand info allowed in wiki articles?  Also, the way it is written implies it was a direct quote, which now we know is not the case.  In my opinion that quote/statement should be removed. Buzybeez 19:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I've reverted the edits regarding the suspension of all UK squatter medical colleges as not being relevant. Per , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GMC

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Since no objections, I will go ahead and update the article accordingly Buzybeez 14:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: UNESCO

message: 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)
replies: text: It is part of the  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Redundancy