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

message: Per , 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)
thread_title: Licensing in NY

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: California

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Programs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: California

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Programs

message: The recent additions to the statement regarding Kansas are a bit misleading: "A curriculum of not less than 32 months (4 academic years) in a medical program recognized as an acceptable educational program for physicians by the appropriate civil authorities of the country in which the school is located."  The way it is currently written makes it seem like SCIMD grads are eligible for licensure in Kansas, which is not the case, since the school has only been in operation for 8 years.  Leuko 21:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may be confusing Kansas and NY, as that quote seems to be from NY.  Not sure which part is misleading? There is a statement in the kansas discussion that says "SCIMD has been in operation for 8 years." Buzybeez 21:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, my cut and paste wasn't working, and I missed it.  The actual confusing statement is: "an applicant may still be eligible for a license if the school has not been disapproved and has been in operation (date instruction started) for not less than 15 years."  I know the statement that the school has been in operation for 8 years is in there, but to make a statement only to negate it with the next sentence is confusing. Leuko 21:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is the truth, quoted verbatim from Kansas med board website. Not sure what you want to do? Leave the quote and remove the next sentence? Buzybeez 21:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would be even more confusing.  We don't have to quote directly, we could paraphrase into more grammatically correct English... Leuko 22:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm kind of skeptical about the 15 years existence clause, even though this is what it says in the website.  There are certainly LCME medical schools in the U.S. that are <15 years of existence (e.g. Florida State University College of Medicine, founded in 2000).  I imagine that their graduates would be accepted in Kansas.  Andrew73 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A discussion of where graduates of a school can not be licensed due to various laws is rather pertinent and appropriate to the article, IMHO. We can leave the quote, but I will try and update the following sentence to make it more clear. Leuko 20:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I was just trying to make it flow more smoothly, but I've re-edited to make it synthesis free. Leuko 20:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kansas 

message: Fine job in recruiting your friends with similar points of view as you to revert the progress that was made this past month.  It will be very interesting to see how fair you are in reinserting information.  My conscious is clear in knowing I only added factual information in a NPOV.  In the future, if the school were ever to decide to seek legal remedies for the misrepresentations in the article, at least I know I can live with each and every post I have ever made in efforts to provide an article written in a NPOV.   Have fun "running amok" as you have accused me of doing. Buzybeez 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is now protected so that all edits must be discussed on the talk page, and only consensus edits will be preformed by an admin.  I can't make any edits either.  I did not "recruit my friends with similar points of view" to the article, I merely asked a couple of administrators who had edited the article in the past to offer their opinion on it.  And please see WP:NLT regarding your legal threats. Leuko 15:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leuko, you have yet to surprise me.  Looking at your contributions, you only re-added information that serve to advance your position (selectively EXCLUDING facts that are written in a NPOV).  Then, you requested full protection so no further edits could be made.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=154189756 Very interesting. Actions speak louder than words... Buzybeez 15:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that is not true.  I've re-added the curriculum/clinical rotations section, which is written in an NPOV.  I don't know what position you are referring to - my only aim is to have this be the most accurate article possible.  I did not even request full protection, I just merely pointed out to the admin that while he tagged the article with a full-protect tag, it was actually only semi-protected.  It was actually the admin who decided the article needing to be protected.  This is standard practice to stop protracted edit wars as have been occurring on this article. Leuko 16:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: "but those problematic editors do not seem to be involved any more." I beg to differ - I would consider editors making legal threats to be problematic. Leuko 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leuko, I merely said in the future "IF the school seeks legal remedies..."  I never said "I was going to seek legal remedies"  Big difference.  Buzybeez 19:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though being associated with the school makes those one in the same. Leuko 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, let's back up.  First of all, Hi JzG, nice to meet you and welcome to this Talk page discussion.  As I have never personally attacked you for anything, I think accusing me of "screwing" with the article was a bit of a harsh and unwarrented attack on me.  Next, is the purpose of this article to list ALL factual and verifiable information about the school (whether positive or negative), and let the facts speak for themselves? Or is the purpose to only include selective information that serves to advance a position?  Once that premise is determine, we can know how best to proceed. Thanks. Buzybeez 17:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Work, Leuko

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

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

message: Fully protecting the article seems a bit heavy-handed, and then relying on a third party to make these edits seems asking a bit much.  I think the article should be de-protected.  Andrew73 20:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As there have been continuous edit wars on this article over the last week, Full Protection is appropriate per the Protection Policy.  As has been mention before, this article has spent 90% of its time under some kind of protection (including WP:OFFICE for 9 months) due to continuous disputes. Leuko 20:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we can ask the people who have been editing this page in the past week or so (I can count three as the main number of participants) to behave themselves!  Andrew73 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, it hasn't worked previously. :-) Leuko 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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: . Leuko 04:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: It appears that there is a new SPA after the downgrading to semi-protect... Leuko 12:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: Just a quick note, if you both believe that Canada should be removed "since it doesn't say anything specific to SCIMD."  Then California, NY, and Kansas discussions should also be removed since those don't say anything specific to SCIMD either.  Just presenting both sides of the argument here.... Buzybeez 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we know that SCIMD is not on California's approved list and not eligible in NY and Kansas because of the very clear requirements.  These are cited facts, not conjecture. Leuko 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Buzybeez does have a point, as what the article is stating about NY is sort of generic (in the same way that Canada's statement is generic).  The section as it stands should comment specifically about SCIMD.  Otherwise, you could include generic statements from every state in the Union and then make extrapolations as to how it applies to SCIMD.  Andrew73 19:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But we know that California has a listed of approved medical schools, and the fact that SCIMD is not on it is relevant, IMHO. Similarly with NY, the citation states that the school must be located in the country of charter, which SCIMD is not.  Also, the school has not been open long enough to meet Kansas' standards. Leuko 19:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Andrew.  I have no objections to removing Canada if the other "generic" summaries are also removed.   California has lists, but since SCIMD is on neither list, so nothing specific is mentioned about SCIMD it and results in a generic extrapolation.  Kansas actually has a disapproved list and SCIMD is not on it.  So that would mean removal of Canada, California, Kansas, and NY.  Consensus? Buzybeez 19:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The absence of SCIMD on the California list is worth including, since this seems pretty definitive.  However, the NY statement does appear to involve some extrapolation (albeit true).  Furthermore, the section could probably fit better if it were wworded differently so that it doesn't appear that states are listed on an ad hoc basis, e.g. it could be reworded along the lines of:  "Some states require that students attend..."  In any event, I did go to the NY page listed in the reference , and couldn't find specific mention of the chartering issue. Andrew73 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We can change the wording, what exactly did you have in mind.  As far as the reference, "A curriculum of not less than 32 months (4 academic years) in a medical program recognized as an acceptable educational program for physicians by the appropriate civil authorities of the country in which the school is located" is under section B, paragraph 2. Leuko 20:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess first we should come to a consensus on whether only states with lists should be included in the article? Buzybeez 21:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the Admin's opinion on this? Buzybeez 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The statement, "In addition, SCIMD-COM's Luton campus is not listed in the Register of Education and Training Providers published by the British Department for Children, Schools and Families, meaning that students will not be granted student visas for study at the Luton campus by the UK Home Office."  Is this actually true?  There doesn't appear to be a shortage of foreign students at Luton.  Andrew73 19:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it used to be listed, but I can't find it anymore... So it must have been removed as a result of "Failure of continuing compliance with the criteria may lead to removal from the Register."  Perhaps the Home Office is unaware of this, or I don't know how SCIMD students are getting visas, because as you say they must almost all be foreign. Leuko 19:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, from my understanding, when the college relieved certain representatives of their duties (as discussed in the programs section), they appear to have changed locations for the luton campus and US administrative offices.  With the change of addresses/contacts, they have to re-do paperwork with DfES, from my understanding.  As they have been on DfES for years already, even after the GMC suspension, I think this is more of temporary administrative thing, rather than a non-recognition.   Leuko, by you adding them not having DfES now, then by default you will be agreeing to mentioning them having the listing recognition when/if it is reinstated (which is likely to be reinstated).  Is that what you wish to do? Just wondering?  Buzybeez 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the listing would be based on a WP:RS, so how could I object?  If it is not a derecognition, and the school is re-listed, I will support the addition of this information with the added information that this only makes students eligible for student visas, and is not a recognition/accreditation/or any other measure of the quality of education at the school, as stated on the DfES website. Leuko 20:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Because it would have been advertising, which is not permissible per the DfES.  Per the previous discussion, it appeared that the DfES was in the process of being removed. As I said before, the inability for student visas could hardly be advertising. Leuko 21:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leuko, the bottom line of the point I am trying to make is that advocating not including DFES when the school is listed, but then advocating to include DFES when the school is not listed, appears to me like a double standard, like an editor who is trying to advance a position and seeking the best of both worlds.  The premise that including DFES when the school is listed will appear like positive advertising, will lead to the conclusion that including DFES when the school is not listed is negative advertising.  So, with that said, it appears only fair that DFES is included in the article regardless of the school status, or DFES is not included at all.   I will advocate for all or none.  If you insist on leaving it in the article now, then when/if the school is listed again, it will have to be mentioned (especially to update the reader on a change of status). Since you included it now, I personally won't revert it, but I'm just saying the precendence you are setting. So it's up to you I suppose... Buzybeez 14:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I said before, it would be fine to include it when (and if) the school is re-listed again, as long as the disclaimers that it is not a licensing/accreditation agency are included as required by the DfES and only relates to the visa status as it does currently. Leuko 20:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the information removed as "synthesis" (even though it was not) with information quoted from the DfES website.  And I thought we decided adding the quality assurance disclaimer was unnecessary.  We could leave it, but it looks rather silly, since we are discussing the ability to obtain a student visa, not the quality of the school. Leuko 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, WP:KETTLE, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:COI, and WP:CIVIL.  Why don't we discuss the article, rather than make baseless personal attacks? Leuko 14:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I've added SCIMD's listing on AISC's list of bogus universities back in.  It can be verified through GoogleCache's html version of the pdf.  Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead" which states that these references should not be removed. Leuko 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the creators of such a list are not hosting that list, then it raises some concern.  I don't believe it should be included in the article if the creators of the list are not even included it on their webpage, since we don't know their reason for removing it. When/if they rehost that information, might be a better time to include it in the article, in my opinion. Buzybeez 14:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is that they did host it, and like you said, we don't know why it was removed.  Could be just a technical error.  Per the WP policy above, it needs to stay unless the AISC issues a statement that the listing was in error. Leuko 14:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't waste time arguing whether it should stay or not.  However, it should be noted that they don't currently host such a list and the information contained herein is from google cache, so as to not mislead the reader.  Buzybeez 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, WP:KETTLE - it takes two to perpetrate an edit war. Leuko 14:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: Thanks Leuko, much better than google cache. Buzybeez 16:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  I have changed it back to the original wording, which is taken from here. Leuko 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, I think the current wording is more appropriate.  I've referenced the web page where the wording is from to make the source clearer. Leuko 14:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AISC List of Bogus Universities 

message: Since those 2 paragraphs were referring to the same thing, there was a consensus to consolodate them.  This was the last known version that received consensus, as such, it should probably be added back to the article.
:The college's programs award the Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree through the authority of UEIN. The Dakar, Senegal campus is currently listed in The Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER) International Medical Education Directory (IMED) database of medical schools. It is listed as such based on its recognition by the Senegalese Ministry of Education[2] through its issuing of a charter in February 2000[3], and again reaffirmed in April 2006 (after a reorganization of the school)[4][1]. Of note, the Luton, UK location in and of itself is not listed as being recognized as an independent entity in the UK.[5]. SCIMD-COM's Dakar location is also listed by the World Health Organization in the updated 7th edition of the World Directory of Medical Schools.[6] However, the Office of Degree Authorization in Oregon listed the former name of SCIMD and stated that "No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006."[7] SCIMD-COM is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body and neither the college, nor the parent university, is listed in UNESCO's database of accredited institutions.[8] As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions. Buzybeez 19:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again I think this illustrates my point, that it can be somewhat clumsy (and confusing) asking a third party who is unaware of the content to make the edits.  Andrew73 14:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now that the page is unprotected, we should probably work on consensus.  IMHO, we need to include that neither IMED nor WHO are accrediting agencies. Leuko 17:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd and 3rd paragraphs

message: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher, accounts which focus primarily or exclusively on this article and advance an agenda may be restrained for disruptive editing.  meets the criteria for a single-purpose account, as virtually all of his/her edits of substance have dealt with this article. There's evidence of disruptiveness in the form of edit-warring. Therefore, in accordance with the ArbCom decision, I'm placing  on 1RR probation, as a half-measure rather than an outright block or ban. Buzybeez may revert once in a 24-hour period on this article, with a revert being defined broadly as undoing any recent edit in full or in part. Talk page discussion is highly encouraged; if in doubt over whether something is a 2nd revert or not, take it to the talk page. Violating the 1RR limitation will result in a warning; if not self-reverted, it will result in a block. MastCell Talk 23:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is the case, perhaps the protection on the article could be changed to semi-protected.  Andrew73 23:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I was not the one who initiated the edit war, it appears I'm the only one receiving the warning. But, that's fine by me, I can accept it. Buzybeez 21:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1RR for [[User:Buzybeez]] 

message: Given the clumsiness of requesting edits to a protected page, and the 1RR that is in place per the terms of the prior ArbCom ruling, I'm going to go ahead and try unprotecting the page. Please avoid edit-warring and try to reach consensus for changes here on the talk page before implementing them. MastCell Talk 16:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Andrew73 17:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks MastCell. Buzybeez 17:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: Since the majority of this talk page was just bickering, any objections to archiving most of it and starting fresh, so that we can all reach a consensus on these issues and move on to other articles? Buzybeez 18:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just thinking the same thing, I'll start working on it. Leuko 18:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  We could probably also archive # 6 and 7, in my opinion, as those are already resolved or being discussed elsewhere.  Buzybeez 17:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived #6, since it was your thread per your request.  As for 7 (Shorter article), I thought that was the current article improvement drive - to make it more compact, so I left it in for now. Leuko 18:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive Talk

message: If people are interested in making the article shorter, the material in the curriculum section is pretty redundant, as it pretty much applies to any medical school.  (See for example the articles about Johns Hopkins or Mayo Medical School; these articles do not describe their curriculum).  What would be worth including is where the Luton students do their clinical clerkships (e.g. England, US, maybe even Senegal?).  Andrew73 21:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there really isn't anything notable about the curriculum, so it could be removed in the interests of making the article shorter.  The location of clinical clerkships used to be present in the article (stating US, UK and Senegal), but was removed for lack of WP:RS indicating hospital locations. Leuko 21:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other offshore medical schools had their curriculum added,see  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George's_University#Medical_curriculum. Hence the reason I think it was also added to this article. Actually, that school also has a student government section which could theoretically be added to this article also, since they are listed by various student groups such as AMSA http://www.amsa.org/intl/listfor.cfmBuzybeez 16:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we were trying to make the article shorter, not longer.  I don't see adding information about the student government as useful to the article. Leuko 16:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curriculum 

message: The UNESCO list is simply a "List of universities of the world" and does not claim to be any indication of accreditation status. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But isn't "being provided by national authorities and other competent bodies" a defacto indication of accreditation? Leuko 14:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's not in the Unesco list, but is in FAIMER's IMED. It's in a WHO update dated 2001, but the WHO list doesn't appear to have been updated at all since then, and although I can find references to a new database service being operated by the University of Copenhagen on behalf of the WHO that is due to start in 2007, I can't actually find the database server. I choose to interpret the ambiguous data as neutrally as possible, and that means that I can't determine whether the college is accredited or not! What I don't choose to do is state that the college either is or is not accredited when the matter is clearly in doubt. Incidentally, the State of Oregon has it's own definition of accredited, so you can only use Oregon's determination of the accreditation status to assert accreditation or otherwise in the context in which that definition applies, i.e. Oregon State Law! DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Issue resolved. Archive it? 67.52.248.146 (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[UNESCO]]/[[International Association of Universities]] List of Universities of the World 

message: These states do not mention SCIMD specifically and represents OR research.  Previously, other information that did not mention SCIMD specifically was removed (Canada and USMLE eligibility for example).  As such, these states should probably be removed to ensure no double standard of OR is being applied to this article. Buzybeez 15:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed ad nauseum in the archives.  No reason to bring it up again and again. Leuko 17:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there's every reason to discuss it. There are 5 states (Alabama, Indiana, Maine, Oregon and Texas) which do not recognise qualifications from SCIMD-COM / EM-SCIMD / UEIN for the purpose of licensing of physicians. These 5 cases are sufficient to establish that qualifications from those establishments may not be accepted by US states. It would be a needless padding of this and other similar articles to include discussion of the licensing requirements for physicians of all states and countries in every such article, and thus it follows that only such states and countries that specifically refer to the institution concerned should be included in the article for any such institution. It may be beneficial to have a single article that gave an overview of the licensing requirements for physicians on a global basis, possibly structured along the lines of this, that could be wikilinked as "Main article" under the section "Licensing" for any medical school. It would then be possible to include information such as "Kantuckois does not accept any qualification granted following a course of internet based study", "Califansork rejects qualifications that are deemed unacceptable by any other medical licensing authority" or "Fritalaria only accepts qualifications from institutions that teach in Fritalarian" in that general article, and hence make the information available to anyone seeking it, without needlessly padding a multitude of other articles with duplicated comments based on references that don't actually refer directly to the article subject. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The fact that the school is not on the list of CA's recognized medical schools when Saddam Hussein University is, is pertinent and should be mentioned in the article.  New York and NJ's statements that the medical school must be located in the country in which it is chartered is also pertinent.  As there is no other medical school in the world that is not chartered where it is located, moving this information to another article wouldn't make much sense, since it wouldn't apply to any other school. Leuko 15:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What has the presence of SHU on the CA list got to do with whether the absence of SCIMD from that list is relevant to this article? Is your argument that "SCIMD does not appear on a list that includes SHU?" There are 5 good references which clearly demonstrate that "some US States do not accept qualifications issued by SCIMD-COM for the purpose of licensing of physicians" by, in each case, naming the school as unacceptable to a specific state. Additional references that do not specifically refer to the school are extraneous padding, and publishing two references such as "state x requires schools to have been in existence for n years" and "school y has been in existence for m years" requires that a conclusion is made from those 2 references. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: === United States ===
*Alabama includes "St. Christopher's College, Dakar, Senegal" in a list of "Colleges of Medicine or Schools of Medicine [which] are not approved by the Board for applicants for certificates of qualification pursuant to the authority of [Alabama State Law]"
*Indiana "St. Christopher’s (Senegal)" is on the list of "Questionable Foreign Medical Schools" and applications for licensure from graduates will be considered on a "case by case" basis.
*Maine has added "St. Christopher's College of Medicine" (SCCM, the former name of SCIMD-COM) "Senegal, UK" to their state's list of "Unaccredited Post-Secondary Educational Institutions".
*Oregon Office of Degree Authorization lists "St Christopher's College of Medicine, Senegal, UK, Belize" on the list of "degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)."http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspxOregon State Law Chapter 348
*Texas has placed SCCM (Senegal; United Kingdom) on their list of "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas" as defined by Texas Code 61.302(11).Texas Code 61.302
Buzybeez 15:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: === United States ===
*Alabama includes "St. Christopher's College, Dakar, Senegal" in a list of "Colleges of Medicine or Schools of Medicine [which] are not approved by the Board for applicants for certificates of qualification pursuant to the authority of [Alabama State Law]"
*Indiana "St. Christopher’s (Senegal)" is on the list of "Questionable Foreign Medical Schools" and applications for licensure from graduates will be considered on a "case by case" basis.
*Maine has added "St. Christopher's College of Medicine" (SCCM, the former name of SCIMD-COM) "Senegal, UK" to their state's list of "Unaccredited Post-Secondary Educational Institutions".
*Oregon Office of Degree Authorization lists "St Christopher's College of Medicine, Senegal, UK, Belize" on the list of "degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)."http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspxOregon State Law Chapter 348
*Texas has placed SCCM (Senegal; United Kingdom) on their list of "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas" as defined by Texas Code 61.302(11).Texas Code 61.302
Thanks. Buzybeez 15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: since there is still some opposition to this edit. Tra (Talk) 22:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Issue resolved. Archive it? 67.52.248.146 (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: California, Kansas, New York

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

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

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

message: It appears they just created a new corporation, so I updated and corrected what was posted.  But, mentioning the corporate dynamics of an educational facility appears to be rather generic information, and not really pertinent to the academics of the college. I don't see the corporate structure of any other college (regardless of their accreditation status) included in their articles. Buzybeez 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The CompaniesHouse database does not list any new corporation, so I reverted your deletion of WP:RS.  While it is not pertinent to the accreditation of the academic programs of the college, it is pertinent to the article, as it seems to indicate that this school is no longer operating. Leuko 02:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, looked like the same URL, and listing a link with over 2 million results really isn't helpful.  I've moved this information into the infobox, as that's where it seems more appropriate. Leuko 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  Glad this didn't turn into a huge debate again! :)  Although, not sure how relavent/accurate it is to put "2007" for the "establishment" infobox since the coporate structure and dynamics change all the time and don't really have any bearing on the "establishment" of the college.  You personally know the college was established long before 2007, as you've been editing this page since mid-2006? Buzybeez 15:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have been established before 2007, but it appears that it has been re-established at other addresses/with other owners multiple times since then. Leuko 15:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, it does have some bearing, as the school seems to be changing its location, name and owners, hence re-establishing it itself.  This has been covered in the 2000/2006 discussions in the archives, and consensus was that both dates were relevant and appropriate to include in the article, and including 2007 is just a logical extension of that. I'll take a look at the other articles and modify accordingly, if necessary. Leuko 18:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have 3 listings at companies house - St Christopher School of Medicine is dissolved, SCIMD-COM is active but up for dissolution, and IMD-COM is active. I also found several other UK addresses associated with the college, either through companies house listings, the current stchris.edu website or archives of it. Also, I'm curious about the scimd.com website - that seems to have sprung up as a copy of the UEIN site, then the stchris.edu site, and disappeared again - although the whois records seem to tie it to stchris.edu, and the admin and tech contacts for stchris.edu are emails at scimd.com DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 20:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Corporation Information

message: This read like an attack page. A large amount of the information given was surplus, and I have removed it. The facts are still stated, and anyone who wants the detail can follow the references. As has been said previously, the article can be a lot shorter. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 18:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the large scale deletion of citations from WP:RS as lacking consensus - probably should discuss here first. Leuko 02:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I took great care to ensure all references remained intact. The section fails NPOV. Removing all the extraneous text which appears to exist only to disparage the qualification granted by the college improves the neutrality of the article. It's quite apparent that this and similar articles relating to other similar establishments are the subject of edit wars between those who see wikipedia as a "consumer watchdog" platform, and those who wish to promote these establishments as genuine seats of learning. I am not interested in your edit wars, but those wars damage WP when they lead to articles of questionable neutrality. WP:SOAPBOX, if you want to lead a campaign against what you perceive as a diploma mill then you need to find a more appropriate platform, this is an encyclopedia, and as such is not the place for the publishing of personal opinions, be it mine, yours, or the chief medical officer of some state in the USA. Facebook, myspace, livejournal et al are that way. -----> DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV only requires that opposing viewpoints be given equal treatment.  In the case of SCIMD, there is only one viewpoint, that the school is unaccredited, and the citations are included from WP:RS.  WP:NPOV does not require that negative information needs to be whitewashed. Leuko 03:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoewever, it does need to be presented in a neutral manner, avoiding any bias in the text used in the article, and avoiding the use of weasel words. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead" Leuko 02:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cite was suspect - it was effectively self published even if it was ever valid. There's no reference to the media visit anywhere on the relevant media organisations' website. Not verifiable!. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the clip and can verify it. I am sure if you call up the BBC and request a transcript you could verify it as well. Leuko 03:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that you claim to have "seen it" does not qualify under accepted Wikipedia policy as reliable MDToBe 18:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then order a copy of the transcript or video from the BBC.  Easy enough to verify. Leuko 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope - obtaining visas is a separate issue. EEA residents have no requirement for visas. The DfCSF listing does not speak to accreditation, it is an immigration tool. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "We take very seriously any allegations we receive about a possible bogus college on the Register. In every case, the Home Office or appropriate Government agency is asked to investigate the allegations. If the investigation upholds the allegations, then that college is removed from the Register; a number of colleges have been removed from the Register following complaints" -- from the DfES website.  Since SCIMD was removed from the register, it must have been due to it being bogus. Leuko 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't double indent, it's almost as annoying as idiots who comment without indenting at all. Unless you can show that SCIMD was removed from the DfES/DfCSF register for a specific reason (there are many reasons that an institution may be removed) you can not draw any inference from the removal of the institution from the register. For example, if it was originally on the register as SCCM, it is possible that removal was automatic when SCCM Ltd was dissolved, which appears to have but may not have been due to failing to file annual paperwork at companies house. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accreditation, licensing, visas, media coverage 

message: The info box needs to updated with the correct information. Dr. Charles Sow is the US Dean, not the UK dean. Dr. Rawlani is the UK dean. MDToBe 18:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So Fix It! DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: S/he can't - s/he has been indefblocked. Leuko 14:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When/if that information is clarified on the school's website, then the info box can be updated. thanks. Buzybeez 15:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Info Box - Needs Correction

message: The ASIC list is described by ASIC as:
"a list of organisations which have been brought to our attention offering degrees and we suggest you undertake detailed research before embarking on a programme of study."
The word "bogus" does not appear in the title of the list, it is incorrect to present the list as a list of "bogus" establishments.
The use of "bogus" on the ASIC Choosing a College page can not in any way be extended to infer anything about the contents of the list. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is important to check that they are not offering bogus qualifications" is basically quoted directly in the article from the website.  The article does not say that the school is bogus, just that the qualifications offered need further investigation to ensure that they are not. The former reference link is from a previously posted copy of the list which used the terms "List of Bogus Universities," but the text was changed to comply with the ASIC's new PC-ness. Leuko 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase that you quote does not refer to the ASIC list of colleges. Trying to suggest it does is misrepresenting ASIC. I suggest you go back and read the reference again. No, the text was changed to include a non neutral weasel word supporting your soapbox position that does not actually appear in the list at all, I have  again changed it to accurately reflect ASIC's position. The ASIC list makes no reference whatsoever to the word bogus. The ASIC guidance uses the word "bogus", but NOT in connection with the list of establishments, it uses the word "bogus" when referring to the need to ensure that a college is not a bogus establishment, however that statement does not apply to the list of colleges. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 12:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked through the reference and it does say "bogus qualifications."  I added some quotation marks to reflect this in the article.  Andrew73 12:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two references - the ASIC guidelines on "choosing a college" and the "list of establishments ...". The guidelines for choosing a college state that certain characteristics of an institution should be checked to ensure that a college is not offering bogus qualifications, and then lists such characteristics. The use of the word "bogus" in connection with a list of characteristics that can be used to verify the pedigree of an educational establishment does not imply that a separate list of establishments that ASIC suggests be investigated prior to study are all bogus, and can not be used to suggest that any specific establishment in that list is bogus. Note also that the ASIC list of accredited colleges for foreign students does not include any institutions at all, not even such notable UK establishments as Oxford, Cambridge, University of London, the LSE etc. This makes ASIC look like a dubious source, indeed it appears to conflict with several US State boards that explicitly recognise several such UK institutions. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ASIC is recognized by the Home Office as one of three official accrediting agencies for the purposes of issues student visas, so that would make it a WP:RS. The words are quoted directly from the website where the list of institutions is located, and states that one must verify that the institution is not offering bogus qualifications, not that the institution itself is bogus.  In any case, it is appearing that consensus is leaning towards including it. Leuko 14:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if the words are on the website or not. You can not represent the inclusion of any institution in a list as meaning anything other than the stated purpose of the list, and the ASIC list does not state "These institutions may offer bogus qualifactions", it states "These institutions are ones that you should check out before signing up for a course". DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 06:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but your definition of "relevant and pertinent" often means "the most negatively phrased text that I can find to refer to the provenance of qualifications issued by the institution" even when the actual wording that you wish to quote is not actually stated in a manner that is directly applicable to the institution concerned. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 06:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Bogus" in connection with ASIC listing 

message: In the absence of any RS proving that the college's parent University that issues the degree (UEIN) is not duly accredited by the Senagalese government, it is inappropriate to state that the qualification is unaccredited. It may not be recognised by various authorities, but the leap from that to unaccredited is not supported by any of the sources quoted. The only authority for the accreditation of a member college of a Senagalese University is the Senegalese education authorities. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the numerous US state governments who state that it is unaccredited (hence being on lists of unaccredited schools) after investigations? I would think those are WP:RS. Leuko 02:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: US State governments are not the accreditation authorities for a University in Senegal. That the Senegal education authorities submitted the college information to FAIMER's IMED suggests that the Senegal education authorities consider the college to be genuine within the requirements of their education system. The article is not about the Senegalese education system. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 12:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps a reasonable solution would be to say that it's "not known to be accredited."  I don't see any evidence of it being explicitly accredited, however.  Andrew73 12:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is "not known to be unaccredited" either. It is impossible to make any statement about the accreditation without reference to the Senegalese authorities. We have two different international databases, both of which rely on the government of each country to submit information - FAIMER/IMED and UNESCO/IAU. FAIMER/IMED lists the college, UNESCO/IAU doesn't. The listing in FAIMER/IMED implies that the Senegalese government submitted the college details to FAIMER/IMED. The absence of the listing in UNESCO/IAU implies that that the Senegalese government didn't submit the college details to UNESCO/IAU. Unless we know what the reasons were in each of those cases, we can not draw any inference or conclusion from the existence or non existence of either UEIN or SCIMD-COM in either list, regardless of what any other so called authority says. To do so is WP:OR DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been previously mentioned, multiple official state agencies have determined the college to be "unaccredited" or "fraudulent." Therefore it is not WP:OR to say so, all we need to do is cite those sources. Leuko 14:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those state agencies are irrelevant in the absence of any statement from the senegalese authorities. There are two databases that appear to have received input from the Senegalese authorities. It is appropriate to quote those two databases. It is not appropriate to draw any conclusions from either the inclusion in FAIMER/IMED or the non inclusion in UNESCO/IAU. However, the only authority for accreditation of UEIN/SCIMD-COM is the appropriate Senegalese government department, and unless you can show directly that they either (a) do or (b) do not recognise the college, you can not state that it is either accredited or unaccredited. If you wish to state that the college's accreditation state is uncertain, you must do so in a completely neutral manner. US state agencies are not authorities for education matters in Senegal. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those state agencies are most definitely not irrelevant and are authorities on the validity of degrees, as they have conducted independent investigations of the school and its accreditation status and have found it to be unaccredited.  I would venture to say that statements from Sengalese authorities are more irrelevant, as the school is not located in Senegal, but in the UK. Leuko 14:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Senegal is the authority under which the School claims it's charter. The school presents documents from the Senegalese authorities to support this claim. The Senegalese government is the relevant authority for the accreditation of the college. If the college claimed to be accredited by the UK government, then the UK Government would be the relevant authority. If the college claimed to be accredited by the State of Oregon, then the State of Oregon would be the relevant authority. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: State agencies are authorities on the validity of the degree within the state. The GMC is the authority for the validity of any MD degree within the UK. Neither State agencies in the USA nor the UK GMC is are authorites for the accreditation of Senegalese educational establishments. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not a Sengalese educational establishment - it's located in the UK, which makes the GMC's view on the subject very relevant. Leuko 17:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The GMCs view is wholly appropriate to licensing, but the GMC is not in any case the accreditation authority for UK medical schools. The relevant accreditation authority is the nation state under whose auspices the qualification is awarded, which in this case is Senegal. I do note that Senegal does not have an accreditation authority listed in FAIMER/IMED, however I choose not to read anything into that. There is insufficient RS to state with any certainty that the school either is or is not accredited, in which case we can only report the facts that are pertinent to accreditation. The situation is quite clear, if the degree is issued under the auspices of a Senegalese institution, then the Senegalese Government is the accreditation authority, and hence the opinion of the UK GMC on the suitability of the qualifications concerned for the purposes of licensing of physicians can only speak to the licensing of physicians, and not the accreditation status. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why can't Senegal accredit a qualification issued by a Senegalese University through study at a college in the UK? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 06:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Leuko, I'd have to agree with DMcMPO11AAUK.  I would imagine that Senegal can accredit SCIMD since it's chartered out of Senegal.  Now whether or not an accreditation by Senegal is seen as meaningful (or recognized by US licensing authorities) is a separate issue.  Andrew73 14:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR - Accreditation 

message: UK companies house search results include dynamically generated paths which are subject to periodic housekeeping. Therefore, quoting such links is pointless, it is better to link to the main search page and state the index searched and the search term used. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, they always worked for me, but whatever makes it easier for people to verify the refs... Leuko 03:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UK companies house links that you generate won't work for other people. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The incorporation dates of the company may not relate directly to the activities of the school, but the company information may tell you a lot about the management of the school. I'm surprised, for example, that the management at a reputable school would choose to let the existing company lapse and form a new one instead of filing the paperwork and undergoing a simple name change. Moreover, were I the cynical type, I'd wonder if the company was doing this to avoid transfer of liabilities from the existing company to the new one, and that might make me suspect fraud of some sort. Mind you, I'd also expect a reputable school to keep their website up to date. SCIMD-COM might not be a diploma mill, but I'm beginning to get the feeling that despite ISO accreditation (note to self, cross check that) it's not exactly offering MD degrees of the same class as Oxford University/John Radcliffe or Cambridge University/Addenbrookes, or even such recently established schools as Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't seem to be able to find SCIMD-COM on the BSI ISO 9001 database search (see SCIMD-COM website ISO 9001:2000 announcement). The database may be overly sensitive about the case / spelling of company name, suggestions anyone? Or a certificate number? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Companies House References 

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

message: Just wondering why reference to the WHO listing was removed? Since other lists are included in the article, this one might as well stay also. Buzybeez 15:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a listing for a college in Dakar, Senegal, not a college in Luton. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: W.H.O.

message: I request that the article be reverted back to this version, as it has been the consensus version for a long period of time, and further edits should be discussed on the talk page first in order to determine a new consensus (if any). The current version deletes a lot of WP:RS and other blanking without consensus. Leuko 18:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, in so far as the Oregon reference allegedly speaks to the accreditation of the college, Oregon State has its own definition of accreditation, and therefore the reference can only speak to accreditation as defined by the State of Oregon. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: On reflection, this sits better in licensing/uk immediately after the UK GMC item, as it addresses the action taken by the GMC in respect of degrees issued by the college.
*Choosing A College is general guidance from ASIC and does not mention the college.
As you can see by actually checking the references, with the exception of the BBC item, there is no significant coverage of the subject and their removal detracts very little from the overall article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 19:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can determine, the school is not claiming accreditation or recognition by the UK Health or Education authorities, and therefore I would not expect IMED to list it under the UK. If the school was claiming to be accredited by the UK Government then it's exclusion from the UK listing in IMED would be significant. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed before.  The schools are listed according to their chartering country, despite having subcampuses elsewhere.  Compare to SGU in greneda that has a branch campus in the UKhttp://www.sgu.edu/website/sguwebsite.nsf/som/global-scholars.html.  IMED does not list SGU under the UK either.  And the facilities SGU uses is not a medical school and that facility is not listed in IMED. Expecting SGU or SCIMD to be listed in IMED in the UK is not appropriate, thus their lack of UK/IMED listing should not be used to mislead the reader.Buzybeez 15:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it has been discussed before, where it was determined that SGU's program is not comparable to SCIMD at all. As a medical school whose programs are entirely located in the UK, one would expect that they are accredited in the UK.  Readers are going to assume that, and that is simply not the case.  Leaving them to their assumptions is misleading the reader, not specifying the facts. Leuko 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In both cases, a satellite institution is physically located in a host country other than the country of the parent institution, and IMED lists the parent institution in the parent's country. I don't how the fact the two cases are handled in the same way by IMED is an argument for specifically mentioning the fact that IMED doesn't list them in the host country. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: My apology, the GMC actually appears to refer to this institution in two places, I do not see any merit in including both links when one is sufficient - and the article contains the link to the GMC page with the list titled "Primary medical qualifications not accepted by the GMC" containing "St Christopher's College, Senegal" DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went back and looked again, the better reference for licensing/UK when discussing SCIMD-COM is indeed the one at Private UK based medical colleges and not Primary medical qualifications not accepted by the GMC. The latter should be used in the licensing/UK section of any article about EM-SCIMD in Dakar, Senegal. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  They both explicitly mention SCIMD. Leuko 16:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No they do not. One referring to Schools in the UK mentions SCCM Luton, which I can accept as being the fore-runner of SCIMD-COM at Luton, and that one is appropriate to an article about the college in Luton. The other one, referring to overseas (from a UK perspective) medical schools, discusses SCCM, Dakar, Senegal, and is a reference to the forerunner of EM-SCIMD, not SCIMD-COM. SCIMD-COM is specifically rejected by the GMC of the UK on the basis that it is a private UK based college with a qualification awarded by a foreign institution (UEIN). EM-SCIMD is a different college, and its qualifications are rejected under a different rationale by the GMC. The article is about SCIMD-COM (which incidentally may be preparing to rename itself Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine, see information from companies house at User:DMcMPO11AAUK/scimd-com) and not EM-SCIMD. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Because one GMC page addresses qualifications obtained by study at SCIMD-COM in Luton, UK, and the other addresses qualifications obtained by study at EM-SCIMD in Dakar, Senegal. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The list stands on it's own accord, is referenced separately, and described by it's own title. Furthermore, the phrase "bogus qualifications" which has previously been included in the article based on this specific reference is used, in the reference, not in connection with the link to the list of colleges but instead with general advice about choosing a college. To use this reference to justify the use of the phrase "bogus qualifications" in the article is a disingenuous misrepresentation of the reference DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a misrepresentation at all - the list is a subsection of the webpage, and the comments on that page obviously apply to the schools on the list. Leuko 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain how you read "When checking on a college to undertake your studies you should check that they are genuine and fully accredited. It is important to check that they are not offering bogus qualifications. Some tips to help check these colleges out are shown below" followed by a list of characteristics of diploma mills in such a way as to be able to apply the phrase "colleges issuing bogus qualifications" to a separate list of colleges entitled "Below is a list of organisations which have been brought to our attention offering degrees and we suggest you undertake detailed research before embarking on a programme of study" DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: IMED clearly indicates an address in Senegal. The information in IMED is collected from the Senegalese Government. Do you wish to assert that (a) IMED has included data for Senegal that it did not receive from the Senegalese Government; or (b) that the Senegalese Government provided incorrect information to IMED? The Oregon listing states of "St. Christopher's College of Medicine" that "No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006", however the Senegalese institutions are "Ecole Medicine St. Christopher Iba Mar Diop" and "Universite Elhadji Ibrahim Niasse", hence the Oregon statement is not incompatible with the existence of a duly recognised and accredited UEIN or EM-SCIMD. Additionally, the State of Oregon has it's own definition of "accreditation", hence any finding that an institution that is physically located outside of Oregon is "not accredited" by Oregon is not incompatible with that institution being duly accredited by the relevant authority for the jurisdiction in which the institution is located. To use this reference to speak to the accreditation of the uk college is a disingenuous misrepresentation of the reference - note however that I fully accept the use of this reference elsewhere in the article in respect of whether Oregon accepts qualifications issued by the college for licensing of physicians. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assert that the Sengalese gov't provided false information to IMED regarding the existence of EM-SCIMD/UIEN in exchange for payment, and when Oregon investigated, they found no evidence that these schools existed. Leuko 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Oregon's investigation involved looking for "St. Christopher's College of Medicine" in the Dakar phone directory. That might explain why they didn't find it as well. Do you have an affidavit from an Oregon state employee who has visited the published Dakar addresses of either UEIN or EM-SCIMD to state that the institutions do not exist? I can't find "St. Christopher's College of Medicine" listed in the Dakar directory in my local library. An assumption of corruption in a foreign government department is not a solid basis for stating anything in WP. I find it easier to believe in an incompetent directory search by a minimum-wage employee in an office in Oregon. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Try the statement "Degrees conferred by SCIMD-COM are not accepted for the licensing of physicians in some jurisdictions." and I'll happily agree. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In respect of Oregon, the fact that a qualification does not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1) does not make use of that qualification inherently illegal, but it does disqualify that qualification from being used for certain purposes. Oregon permits the use of such qualifications generally provided every location that the qualification is presented carries a suitable disclaimer, see ORS 348.609(2)(a). In respect of Texas, Texas Penal Code Title 7 Chapter 32 Section 52(b)(2)(B) defines the specific uses of a qualification that falls within the definition given in the Texas Educational Code Title 3 Chapter 61 Section 302(11) that are illegal in Texas. It is clear when the minutiae of the relevant statutes are examined that the use of such qualifications and titles is actually "illegal for certain purposes", and so a more accurate statement might be that "As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted by statute in some jurisdictions." DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Visa concerns are not connected to the accreditation of the college. It's a totally different issue. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so?  Leuko 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: visa concerns address the legitimacy of the entrant, not the legitimacy of the destination. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: per "this template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request."  If the edit you are requesting is controversial I won't make the change unless a consensus in support exists first.  Please make sure anything you propose includes no original research or personal opinion and is cited to reliable sources. Feel free to replace the template when you have finished your request. Thanks,  ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 12:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: #FAIMER's IMED list for UK makes no mention of the college. - Which is exactly why it is pertinent - the school is located in the UK, however it is not recognized by the UK as a medical school.
::As far as I can determine, the school is not claiming accreditation or recognition by the UK Health or Education authorities, and therefore I would not expect IMED to list it under the UK. If the school was claiming to be accredited by the UK Government then it's exclusion from the UK listing in IMED would be significant. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed before.  The schools are listed according to their chartering country, despite having subcampuses elsewhere.  Compare to SGU in greneda that has a branch campus in the UKhttp://www.sgu.edu/website/sguwebsite.nsf/som/global-scholars.html.  IMED does not list SGU under the UK either.  And the facilities SGU uses is not a medical school and that facility is not listed in IMED. Expecting SGU or SCIMD to be listed in IMED in the UK is not appropriate, thus their lack of UK/IMED listing should not be used to mislead the reader.Buzybeez 15:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it has been discussed before, where it was determined that SGU's program is not comparable to SCIMD at all. As a medical school whose programs are entirely located in the UK, one would expect that they are accredited in the UK.  Readers are going to assume that, and that is simply not the case.  Leaving them to their assumptions is misleading the reader, not specifying the facts. Leuko 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In both cases, a satellite institution is physically located in a host country other than the country of the parent institution, and IMED lists the parent institution in the parent's country. I don't how the fact the two cases are handled in the same way by IMED is an argument for specifically mentioning the fact that IMED doesn't list them in the host country. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: My apology, the GMC actually appears to refer to this institution in two places, I do not see any merit in including both links when one is sufficient - and the article contains the link to the GMC page with the list titled "Primary medical qualifications not accepted by the GMC" containing "St Christopher's College, Senegal" DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went back and looked again, the better reference for licensing/UK when discussing SCIMD-COM is indeed the one at Private UK based medical colleges and not Primary medical qualifications not accepted by the GMC. The latter should be used in the licensing/UK section of any article about EM-SCIMD in Dakar, Senegal. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  They both explicitly mention SCIMD. Leuko 16:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No they do not. One referring to Schools in the UK mentions SCCM Luton, which I can accept as being the fore-runner of SCIMD-COM at Luton, and that one is appropriate to an article about the college in Luton. The other one, referring to overseas (from a UK perspective) medical schools, discusses SCCM, Dakar, Senegal, and is a reference to the forerunner of EM-SCIMD, not SCIMD-COM. SCIMD-COM is specifically rejected by the GMC of the UK on the basis that it is a private UK based college with a qualification awarded by a foreign institution (UEIN). EM-SCIMD is a different college, and its qualifications are rejected under a different rationale by the GMC. The article is about SCIMD-COM (which incidentally may be preparing to rename itself Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine, see information from companies house at User:DMcMPO11AAUK/scimd-com) and not EM-SCIMD. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Because one GMC page addresses qualifications obtained by study at SCIMD-COM in Luton, UK, and the other addresses qualifications obtained by study at EM-SCIMD in Dakar, Senegal. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The list stands on it's own accord, is referenced separately, and described by it's own title. Furthermore, the phrase "bogus qualifications" which has previously been included in the article based on this specific reference is used, in the reference, not in connection with the link to the list of colleges but instead with general advice about choosing a college. To use this reference to justify the use of the phrase "bogus qualifications" in the article is a disingenuous misrepresentation of the reference DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a misrepresentation at all - the list is a subsection of the webpage, and the comments on that page obviously apply to the schools on the list. Leuko 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain how you read "When checking on a college to undertake your studies you should check that they are genuine and fully accredited. It is important to check that they are not offering bogus qualifications. Some tips to help check these colleges out are shown below" followed by a list of characteristics of diploma mills in such a way as to be able to apply the phrase "colleges issuing bogus qualifications" to a separate list of colleges entitled "Below is a list of organisations which have been brought to our attention offering degrees and we suggest you undertake detailed research before embarking on a programme of study" DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: IMED clearly indicates an address in Senegal. The information in IMED is collected from the Senegalese Government. Do you wish to assert that (a) IMED has included data for Senegal that it did not receive from the Senegalese Government; or (b) that the Senegalese Government provided incorrect information to IMED? The Oregon listing states of "St. Christopher's College of Medicine" that "No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006", however the Senegalese institutions are "Ecole Medicine St. Christopher Iba Mar Diop" and "Universite Elhadji Ibrahim Niasse", hence the Oregon statement is not incompatible with the existence of a duly recognised and accredited UEIN or EM-SCIMD. Additionally, the State of Oregon has it's own definition of "accreditation", hence any finding that an institution that is physically located outside of Oregon is "not accredited" by Oregon is not incompatible with that institution being duly accredited by the relevant authority for the jurisdiction in which the institution is located. To use this reference to speak to the accreditation of the uk college is a disingenuous misrepresentation of the reference - note however that I fully accept the use of this reference elsewhere in the article in respect of whether Oregon accepts qualifications issued by the college for licensing of physicians. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assert that the Sengalese gov't provided false information to IMED regarding the existence of EM-SCIMD/UIEN in exchange for payment, and when Oregon investigated, they found no evidence that these schools existed. Leuko 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Oregon's investigation involved looking for "St. Christopher's College of Medicine" in the Dakar phone directory. That might explain why they didn't find it as well. Do you have an affidavit from an Oregon state employee who has visited the published Dakar addresses of either UEIN or EM-SCIMD to state that the institutions do not exist? I can't find "St. Christopher's College of Medicine" listed in the Dakar directory in my local library. An assumption of corruption in a foreign government department is not a solid basis for stating anything in WP. I find it easier to believe in an incompetent directory search by a minimum-wage employee in an office in Oregon. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Try the statement "Degrees conferred by SCIMD-COM are not accepted for the licensing of physicians in some jurisdictions." and I'll happily agree. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In respect of Oregon, the fact that a qualification does not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1) does not make use of that qualification inherently illegal, but it does disqualify that qualification from being used for certain purposes. Oregon permits the use of such qualifications generally provided every location that the qualification is presented carries a suitable disclaimer, see ORS 348.609(2)(a). In respect of Texas, Texas Penal Code Title 7 Chapter 32 Section 52(b)(2)(B) defines the specific uses of a qualification that falls within the definition given in the Texas Educational Code Title 3 Chapter 61 Section 302(11) that are illegal in Texas. It is clear when the minutiae of the relevant statutes are examined that the use of such qualifications and titles is actually "illegal for certain purposes", and so a more accurate statement might be that "As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted by statute in some jurisdictions." DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Visa concerns are not connected to the accreditation of the college. It's a totally different issue. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so?  Leuko 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: visa concerns address the legitimacy of the entrant, not the legitimacy of the destination. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: per "this template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request."  If the edit you are requesting is controversial I won't make the change unless a consensus in support exists first.  Please make sure anything you propose includes no original research or personal opinion and is cited to reliable sources. Feel free to replace the template when you have finished your request. Thanks,  ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 12:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some comments

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

message: Only 5 of the 9 States of the USA mentioned in the article actually mention the college or an institution that might refer to the college in the references given. These are Alabama, Indiana, Maine, Oregon and Texas. The basis of including 4 other US states in the article (California, Kansas, New York and New Jersey) seems to be either 
*the combination of the medical licensing requirements of those states with other facts stated in the article to draw the conclusion that the school is not approved by those states (which fails the test of WP:OR), or 
*an assumption that any institution that is not listed as approved in states that publish lists of approved establishments has specifically been unapproved, when the absence of an institution in a listing of approved establishments may instead mean that the institution concerned has never been the subject of an application that might lead to either approval or disapproval in the state concerned.
I believe that in either case, the inclusion of the extra 4 references to US states that do not explicitly mention the article subject does not significantly add to the article, that the 5 US state references that actually list the institution are sufficient to establish that students may find that the degrees it issues may be of little value in seeking employment or practising medicine in the USA, and that the inclusion of this information only serves to promote the negative tone which the article takes about the subject, failing the test of WP:NPOV. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 12:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing / United States 

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

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

message: I have gone through the article more closely and I found some more things I believe need to be updated:
===3)===
Remove the "2007" from the info box. The business registration information in the UK has nothing to do with the "establish"ed date of the college.-StrongPassword (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tra (Talk) 17:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits 3 and 4

message: Remove the "2007" from the info box. The business registration information in the UK has nothing to do with the "establish"ed date of the college.-StrongPassword (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3)

message: In the paragraph above and in the UK section under Accreditation, Licensing and Visas after currently it says (october 2007), I think the (October 2007) should be dropped and just use currently. If the status changes in the future then further information can be added to the article at that time.-StrongPassword (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tra (Talk) 17:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4)

message: ===5)===
Under Programs and Curriculum the last sentence should read: "The college's programs award the Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree through the authority of EM-SCIMD"-StrongPassword (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there has been ample time for anyone to disagree. Can these changes please be made to the article? StrongPassword (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits 5-7

message: Under Programs and Curriculum the last sentence should read: "The college's programs award the Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree through the authority of EM-SCIMD"-StrongPassword (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 5)

message: Under Media Coverage the second section should say "noting that no private medical college has ever been given full accreditation in the UK"-StrongPassword (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 6)

message: The opening paragraph has the wrong relationship for the medical college in relation to the University and it's parent medical college. It should say: "St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (SCIMD-COM) is a branch campus located in Luton, England. The parent medical college is Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD) which is a college within the Universite El Hadj Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal."
-StrongPassword (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there has been ample time for anyone to disagree. Can these changes please be made to the article? StrongPassword (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 7)

message: I think everything on the talk page can be archived except the discussion for edits 3-7.  All the other stuff has been resolved and/or not actively discussed for a while. Buzybeez (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that. StrongPassword (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no objections, and issues resolved, it can probably be archived now. Buzybeez (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: Do you want to discuss this JzG or do you just want to edit war about it? StrongPassword (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that BBC and General Medical Council calls degrees from this school "worthless" and the history behind the school seems to be the most notable aspect and should be given a prominent placement in the article. This version you revert to seems to be heavily slanted in favor of the school by not including that information. henrik•talk 12:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's my view as well.  The US has many unaccredited universities, the UK has almost none.  It is a singular claim, and the fact that the GMC has specifically named this as the cause of a change of policy makes it even more so. I just noticed it's full, not semi protected; I made a couple of edits to fix refs (duplicated and a moved web page) and added one link to the GMC page on foreign schools, since this does not change the sense of the article I think that should be uncontroversial. Here's the diff: . Guy (Help!) 13:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of Changes

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

message: Are things going to get discussed here, or are people just going to continue edit warring that results in the protection status of the article being changed every few weeks after the edit storm? StrongPassword (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, each state has banned St. Christopher's under different criteria. It is relevant to list each individually and the reasoning given for the ban. StrongPassword (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: StrongPassword is the only one who disagreed with this edit, and he has appearantly been banned.  Since there have been no other objections for about 2 months, I'll go ahead and revise per above. Buzybeez (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: * http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1039562.stm
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7175730.stm
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7175733.stm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of tangential relevance 

message: Reference 4 in the article (to http://www.gmc-uk.org/publications/gmc_today/gmctoday0707.pdf) can't be found at the linked location. —Wookipedian (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  and ASIC is not even listed as a recognized accreditation body.  I vote for its removal. What do you think wookipedian? Buzybeez (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I would agree. By the criteria applied to this article it shouldn't be listed. 204.39.194.5 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

message: I checked the ASIC website and they don't have any list like the article suggests, so I will remove that sentence.Buzybeez (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since ASIC does not have any list on their website that I could find, and even if they did, ASIC is not listed here , I request that this sentence be removed  "The Accreditation Service for International Colleges (ASIC), a private UK-based accrediting agency, has included SCIMD-COM on their list of organizations which the ASIC suggest students undertake detailed research before embarking on a program of study.[10]" Buzybeez (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing edit protected. Buzybeez (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ASIC

message: there was a recent edit to the article suggesting its in liquidation. however, this information from companies house shows it is still active http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/4a8eb145cf7076d41a002b848642ec37/compdetails Truth101101 (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this http://www.ukdata.com/creditreports/companySearch.form?page=1
or do a search for "Iba mar diop" and you'll see they have an active corporation. Also, the address for the "iba mar diop" corporation matches the address for the college in imed and on the stchris.edu website.  The corporation you listed is in liquidation, but it's not a current one for the college. They appear to be operation through the "iba mar diop" corporation.  I'll update the article accordingly. Thanks. Buzybeez (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * Update: see http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/e83dcba43b793cba6f2851b427573b70/compdetails , http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ed4bebbd02c7d8a352f5768a6aab070c/compdetails and http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/998160cacd3eb8e868e5e56141ecb796/compdetails which looks to me like a game of dodge-the-creditors.  They've never actually filed a proper set of accounts, the only set they ever filed appears to be summary accounts under the small companies exemption.  I have to say that this is looking more and more like a scam to me. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: company report

message: I have changed the visa section to reflect the fact that the DFES has re-listed SCIMD making its studnets eligible for student visas. Please search  Considering this, it is plainly obvious that a UK campus remains so I have also changed the word "was" to "is in luton" in the first paragraph.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevemackey (talk • contribs) 20:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *That rhetoric is a combination of WP:SYN, WP:OR, and WP:OWN expressed by an editor who is currently be analyzed for a massive amount of controversial edits and posts  Given the validity of the governmental source clearly listing the college, the inaccuracy of the current wording in the article, and that three editors agree to this update, I will go ahead and update the article. Buzybeez (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  changes made 

message: Is this institution now defunct?  The comments about liquidation in lead paragrah seem to imply this.  Perhaps this could be better clarified in the article.  Andrew73 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well the use of "was" in the first sentence implies that this institution no longer functions.  Andrew73 (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you'll see, I pruned it. But now the third company has vanished, and the liquidation of the second is stated to be compulsory (with tax returns listed as overdue).  I suspect they may be candidates for http://www.fuckedcompany.com Guy (Help!) 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. The third ref should be outside the full stop, consistent with the first, seventh and eighth. You need a full stop before the fourth, fifth and sixth. "Website" should not be capitalized. The article could probably also do with one of those all-but-uselessly-uninformative-yet-better-than-nothing lock icons to show why the likes of me can't edit it. 86.44.23.66 (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Defunct?

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

message: In light of yet another influx of single-purpose agenda accounts, the following single-purpose accounts are subject to restriction (1 revert/24 hours) under the terms of this Arbitration Committee remedy:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
Logged at the Arbitration Committee page. MastCell Talk 05:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong. The arbitration committee never said anything about 1 revert/24 hours. You are just making that up. In addition the remedy only applies to "disruptive edits" none of these edits was disruptive. Thus the remedy does not apply. Uponleft (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you prefer to be banned from the page as the remedy explicitly stipulates? Using a handful of agenda accounts to remove sourced information and bias the article is disruptive, and it's occurred often enough that the Arbitration Committee has provided for streamlined handling. I thought that 1RR/24 hours was more generous. MastCell Talk 05:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Hello, I would like to know why the following information was removed from the article, and which WP policy it violated that would make it wrong to include this verifiable information?
#AMSA
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine&diff=222286294&oldid=222285987#Student_Groups_.26_Associations
#VISAS
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine&diff=222286294&oldid=222285987#Visas
#IMED/WHO
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine&diff=222286294&oldid=222285987#Accreditation
Bluestrawz (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of verifiable information

message: Is this institution notable enough to warrant an article? See WP:ORG ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure. We shouldn't be afraid of the size of the wikipedia. 189.30.126.89 (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SCHOOL. This university easily passes the notability test. Bstone (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:SCHOOL is not yet a guideline, and in any case, I do not see evidence of "significant coverage in secondary sources." Most of the sources here are primary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm neutral on that subject. Much of the (reliable) sourcing is either to the BBC piece, where it's mentioned as an example of the phenomenon of unaccredited schools, or via its inclusion on a number of governmental lists of unaccredited institutions. The deletionist in me tends to agree with jossi. Plus, I'm just tired of seeing round after round of wikilawyering SPA's come through, but that's just me. MastCell Talk 21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: Given the problems this article has, would anyone disagree with permanent full protection and a notice on how to get your changes incorporated (in lieu of flagged revisions). I know it's not the wiki way, but the alternative is having lots of good editors spending a lot of time babysitting this relatively unimportant article. henrik•talk 08:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So many experienced editors are watching this now, something tells me this is going to settle down kinda fast. Let's wait a bit. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The arbitration case was 2 years ago, and this article is and has been problematic since. I am doubtful things will settle down that easily, but I wouldn't mind giving it some time - hopefully I'll be proven wrong. henrik•talk 16:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Permanent full-protection is a last resort, and I don't see that we've tried and failed lesser methods first. It is trivially easy to identify each successive slew of single-purpose meatpuppets, and would be trivially easy to restrict them per the ArbCom decision, except that no one has been watching the page and actually administrating it since JzG has been gone. The article just needs to be on peoples' watchlists, and admins need to take an active role. I've been aware of this article for some time, but had been letting JzG do the hard work. It's a pain - every administrative action gets wikilawyered to death - but if the group of admins and editors currently commenting are willing to stick with it and actively enforce the ArbCom restrictions, then I don't think full protection would be necessary. I'd suggest, as a starting point, restricting the endless slew of meatpuppets to the talk page only. Then they can make their points, some of which are reasonable, and those points can be filtered through the larger community of editors who don't have blatant conflicts of interest. MastCell Talk 16:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Mastcell could you point too-lazy-to-look-for-it me to the arbcom ruling on this? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. There used to be a link to it at the top of the talk page, I think, but it's gone now. MastCell Talk 16:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. With that, along with the admins now watching this article I see no reason for protection at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright. I've added an arbcom notice to the top of the talk page again, for future reference. henrik•talk 17:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permanent full protection? 

message: Sorry to come to this debate late. I have not digested all that is discussed above but I do think that there are some other links and references related to accreditation in the UK system of higher education that are relevant here and maybe they should be included in the article in some way. The official UK government list of accredited institutions of higher education is available at:. The accreditation system in the UK is two-teired. The top teir consists of the so-called "Recognized Bodies" (see the list of the here). There are institutions of higher education that are actually authorized to grant college level degrees. The second, lower tier, consists of the so-called "Listed Bodies" (see the list of them here). These institutions are not authorized to grant degrees but they are authorized to offer courses that can be accepted for credit by degree-granting institutions. As far as I can see, St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine is not present on either of the two lists.  A quote from the above site (U.K. Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills):"Awarding bodies not on our list of Recognised Bodies will not be awarding recognised UK degrees." Nsk92 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nsk, I agree with you. St Chris is not accredited in the UK. I don't think that much has been at issue in this discussion. St Chris is a branch of a medical school located in Senegal. American schools do this as well. The IMED information clearly indicates that the university has a satellite in Luton, England and it's somewhat clear that St Chris has not attempted to ask for UK accreditation. Bstone (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: On accreditation system in the U.K

message: The former version of this article  included a section on student visas, that appears up to date.  Any comments on restoring this information?  "SCIMD is listed in the UK Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills (DIUS) Register of Education and Training Providers. [5]. "The purpose of the existing Register for Education and Training Providers is to assist the immigration authorities to take decisions about applications for student visas." [6] "The Home Office will only grant student visas to people intending to study at an institution on the Register."[7] and "applying to a college on the Register does not automatically mean you will be granted a student visa. This is just one of the criteria the Home Office considers in assessing visa applications." Also, "the Register does not quality assure the services offered by providers."[8][9] [10][11]" Totallyconfused (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this seems like an indiscriminate collection of information lacking context and comprehensibility. Can we accurately and concisely summarize the above? It seems to indicate that someone studying at SC could potentially be considered for a student visa, but not necessarily, and it has no bearing on the school's accrediation or lack thereof. If so, is this really relevant? MastCell Talk 18:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this could be shortened and summarized in a sentence or two.  How is something like this?  "SCIMD is listed in the UK Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills (DIUS) Register of Education and Training Providers, which is a directory to assist in decisions about student visas."  About the relevance - Considering this is an article about an educational establishment, I would say that discussing student visas is far more worthwhile than credit reports.  I still don't see the relevance of including information about the company credit reports, and can't find such information in other schools' articles.  Are there any objections to removing that sentence? Totallyconfused (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Information about the availability of visas to attend a school is frequently inserted into articles about unaccredited schools by contributors attempting to demonstrate that the schools are legitimate. The information is routinely deleted by other contributors. This information is not particularly relevant to any specific institution. Furthermore, the government agencies that determine eligibility for visas typically seem to be only minimally interested (at most) in the educational merits of the institutions that visa applicants propose to attend. --Orlady (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to Orlady's view on the visa issue. Re: the credit reports, I tend to agree with Totallyconfused. If these are just primary sources, then they probably have no place here. If the liquidation/receivership has been covered in the press or other independent secondary sources, then it might be notable. See, for example, Allegheny University of the Health Sciences: here, the school's bankruptcy is covered, but the coverage is sourced to Science and the American College of Physicians, not to credit reports. MastCell Talk 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What MastCell wrote seems reasonable - not restoring the paragraph on visas, and removing the sentence on  the credit reports. Any objections? Totallyconfused (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Visas

message: ::*Are company reports routinely included in articles about educational establishments? I can't seem to find it in other articles? Totallyconfused (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The credit rating reports are not the only source for the information about this school being in liquidation. The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization states: "Great Britain ceased accepting its degrees, March, 2006. No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006. Price, Waterhouse has taken over the entity's records (UK/Senegal) and students who want to get information must contact PWC. The phone number is +44-771113725." --Orlady (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that sentence considered "significant coverage" per the WP:N guidelines?Totallyconfused (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of Credit Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: Orlady, I am very disappointed and very concerned about your editing habits on this article. Plainly put, many of us are going discussing this article line by line and yet you have come and done a blanket revert. Why? This is the second time in several days that you have come and done blanket reverts- both against consensus. Again, why? Bstone (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Please don't keep reverting.  The reasons are as stated above: the sources are about the place in Luton, not Dakar; and inclusion in directories is used by the school to obscure its lack of accreditation. It would be better if you did not give the appearance of colluding with their long-term attempts at whitewashing this article. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Um, no I don't.  The article is as it was for some months until my back was turned and the banned users returned with their whitewashing.  Presence in directories that also contain legitimate schools is one of the techniques fraudulent "universities" use to obscure their lack of accreditation.  Since you have less experience with dealing with these places - both on wiki and in OTRS - I can quite see why you would not realise why they are so determined to include directory listings, but I'm afraid you've been duped by the whitewashers.  Guy (Help!) 20:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Orlady 

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

text: Agreed, this section heading is a little, er...we'll just leave it with the er. Bstone (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what in the name of heaven?!? 

message: I think both bstone and JsG make some good points. Here's a couple of quick bits of feedback from me;
:* I too am unconvinced of the need for the companies house information (see above) - I think it should be removed for now.
:* I think a section title 'Controversy with Accreditation' (or somesuch) would be sensible to detail the various specific details of how this institution is treated internationally - presence on the various 'Questionable Foreign Medical Schools' lists seems notable, interesting and relevant, and to my mind could be presented alongside the FAIMER info. etc.
finally - I strongly suspect that a solid wiki consensus isn't the hardest thing in the world to achieve here, because despite perhaps setting off on a slightly adversarial path, I think most editors agree on most of the article content... let's sort this article out! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which sources are these? This was not my reading either of the summary of the BBC programme or of the US news reporting. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 22:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A few examples of St Chris student becoming fully licensed physicians, here (see Dr. Philip Sinato,) and here. I am looking for the news article which describes St Chris graduates as being licensed in Georgia despite the concerns, tho it is in my history. I will dig it up and find it. Bstone (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you favour going into the ghastly detail and start adding all the "but, in spite of it all, X *was* allowed to practice" and "but Y's qualifications were eventually recognised" stuff, that's not substantially different to mentioning the Companies House records. Investigative reporting as PM says below. Stick to the big (BBC, GMC) picture in bold colours. And let's be cautious in how we describe the relationship, if any, between this organisation and the one in Senegal, because that's far from clear. Short and to the point is best. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 10:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I broadly agree that the article gets better the shorter it is - the original versions had substantial amounts of special pleading and really did a very poor job of explaining how this place is unique in Britain.  As far as I am aware, and according to the BBC's investigative segment, it aimed to become the first accredited private medical school in the UK, a goal in which it failed rather spectacularly.  The facts as established from reliable independent sources are that it is in Luton, and that the place is sufficiently substandard that it prompted an investigation and a change of policy from the GMC, as well as warning listings from those US states that habitually warn about substandard education providers.  It also appears to have been subject to a compulsory winding-up order, which is a non-trivial event in the life of any company.  I don't know of any properly independent sources for anything else.  Guy (Help!) 08:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

text: It would be nice for the article to include some sourced information on the various different names that this outfit has used. This might exist in one of the U.S. state lists. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuppence 

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

message: After the IMED issue is resolved there is some question regarding the use of hyperbole and synthesis throughout the article, which is not in line with the relevant Wikipedia guideline and policy of WP:style and WP:SYN. The bits that appear to be inappropriate are:
*"Details are somewhat obscure" in the second sentence of the first paragraph (Unnecessary hyperbole, synthesis)
*"and achieved prominence when" in the first sentence of the second paragraph (Unnecessary hyperbole)
*"of a loophole allowing essentially" in the second sentence of the second paragraph (Synthesis)
*"by name as unacceptable" (Redundant, poor style [name already mentioned directly before this bit])
TypeBoots (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable Wording

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

message: I noticed above some editors are calling into question the methods that IMED uses to collect it's information. We can't conjecture outside of what is listed on the IMED page as to their verification and collection methods. As quoted above from the IMED site, they collect the information directly from the relevant govermental agency. We have no choice but to accept that at face value since FAIMER is accepted under WP:RS and WP:V. If we can't accept what FAIMER/IMED says at face value that open up a whole can of worms. For example, the GMC and US State references don't even mention their source, collection, and verification procedures for the information on their sites, as such one could assign them a lower value concerning WP:RS than IMED.TypeBoots (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've blocked TypeBoots indef as a clear reincarnation of the repeat socks that like to call this article home - he even went so far as to point out he'd edited the article before (above 3 sections) even though this account has only been active since the protection.  If there's any objections or concerns, please let me know. Shell   babelfish 05:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Score one for the duck test, though no amount of obviousness is apparently going to prevent wikilawyering from each new incarnation. MastCell Talk 19:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Questioning Methods of Collection & Verification

message: Okay. That said, how can we fix this to make everyone happy?
I acknowledge that the institution looks pretty damn scummy, but it is apparently not wholly and completely worthless. DS (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it is possibly to make everyone happy here. I think it'd be best to revert to the previois version, before your edits, until a clear and verifiable consensus is achieved. Speaking for myself, I would be happy if the first part of the sentence in question "The school is listed by IMED  as a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal" was retained, and the second part, the IMED also confirms that the Senegalese Ministry of Health has given the school a legal charter to operate was deleted. Thus the essential verifiable information would be given and the readers would be free to make their own inferences re legal charter etc. Nsk92 (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for starters it would be useful to remember that not everyone who has edited this article or engaged in this discussion is a SPA or motivated by POV. Several of us have kept this page on our watchlists in the interest of trying to maintain an neutrally written article based on reliable sources. It's difficult to continue to care when we not only get verbal abuse from SPAs, but see our input ignored because it is bundled up with SPA edits and trashed, or because we are not privy to "consensus" developed via nonstandard channels. Like Nsk92, I think it might be best to revert to the version that existed when full protection was applied. --Orlady (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: here's how it went down. DS (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please restore the version of 16:25, 13 July 2008. --Orlady (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I concur with Orlady's suggestion. Nsk92 (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DragonflySixtyseven appears to have decided he will not self-revert . Shell   babelfish 04:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, in the spirit of compromise with Bstone's position, I would probably prefer to keep the 1-st half of DS's edit and to remove the legal charter thing. If we simply have the statement "St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (SCIMD-COM) is identified as a medical training establishment in Luton, England. The school is listed by IMED as a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal". I think that would be a perfectly correct and verifiable statement and the readers will be free to draw their own conclusions from it. I do think the opening papargraph should make it clear that the main subject of the article is the medical school in England (and not the university in Senegal). Nsk92 (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that JzG has just modified DS's edit exactly in the way I suggested, by removing the WP:OR part about legal charter and keeping the first half of the sentence. I am fairly happy with his revision. Nsk92 (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A pox on all your houses 

message: I have a few concerns with the current version. Here's one:
*The second sentence says "The school is listed as a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal." That fails to indicate where or by whom it is "listed" (the answer to those questions is by FAIMER and in IMED}. Furthermore, as I have pointed out earlier, the IMED listing does not say that the Luton campus is a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD); it merely lists Luton as one of the Dakar school's alternate "contact addresses." To resolve these issues, I propose the following replacement:  
::The institution represents itself as a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal. It is listed by the Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER) in its International Medical Education Directory (IMED) database of medical schools with contact addresses in Dakar, Senegal; Luton, UK; and McDonough, Georgia, USA. REF=IMED listing
--Orlady (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Clumsy, but not easy to think of another way round it. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Whoa that's a mouthful, but I don't see any easier way to explain the situation either. Shell   babelfish 00:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: **At least, some of the long names here could probably be given by an abberviation and a wikilink. E.g. "The Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research in its IMED database of medical schools lists ..." Nsk92 (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *The wording that Nsk92 provided above works for me. Please do not replace the names with abbreviations; I am afraid that the use of unexplained abbreviations has the effect of obfuscating. Also note that the MOS says that the first usage in an article should be the full version of the term. --Orlady (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I too dislike the long unfamiliar abbreviations. With some thought it should not be necessary to use them.  SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 03:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Fine by me either way. I was thinking about ways of making the paragraph a bit shorter for reasons of clarity, but it might be better to be on the safe side here...Nsk92 (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I would see this claim as being problematic, given the doubt cast on earlier tales of Senegalese letters of approval and recognition by the BBC. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But we would not be saying here that the school's claims re charter are true, just that they are in fact made by the school. One could mention the BBC story and the doubts it raised in the following sentence. Nsk92 (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current version 

message: Would anyone object to the removal of the abbreviations SCIMD-COM, EM-SCIMD, and SCCM from the article? These abbreviations once established are not used elsewhere in the article and serve merely to clutter up the lead section. I don't propose to remove abbreviations such as IMED and UEIN which are used more than once.  SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. Bstone (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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

message: The school as described in the article is NOT listed in IMED. IMED lists a School in Senegal.
IMED also states "The International Medical Education Directory (IMED) is a free web-based resource for accurate and up-to-date information about international medical schools that are recognized by the appropriate government agency in the countries in which they are located."
The school as described is physically located in the UK and is not accredited in the UK, also it is not listed under the UK in IMED. I do not believe that ist is appropriate for Wikipedia to state that the school is listed in IMED when the school is not listed in IMED - the only school listed in IMED under iba mar diop is at "POINT E RUE 3 PROLONGEE X BOULEVARD DE L'EST, DAKAR, SENEGAL"
Clearly it is not for us to police the IMED listings, but we should ensure that inaccuracies within those listings are not propagated into wikipedia. I believe that there is a risk that people may read the wikipedia article (listed in IMED) alongside the IMED statement (quoted above) as implying UK accreditation of the UK school.
If the article wishes to claim that the school is IMED listed, then it should be about the school listed in IMED, which is not necessarily the same as the school featured in the non IMED website linked to in the IMED entry.
Denis McMahon DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMED listing revisited 

message: Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments?  We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unprotected the talk page; it's been protected for a long time, and it's just a talk page. WP:SEMI currently states that an article and talk page should not both be semi-protected, but I think that's a relatively recent addition. It may be time to unprotect the article as well, but since that's more of a gray area and I have edited the article in the past, I'd prefer to leave that decision and action to another admin. MastCell Talk 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  JzG, whom I consulted on his talk page, gave me some background and expressed extreme pessimism.  I'm leaving it there.  Thanks for unprotecting the talk page.  If there's more jiggery-pokery I'll be watching and I'll have it protected again. --TS 02:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotection?

message: Not sure if this can be included, but I did dig up this article  and this sad case this. Basket of Puppies 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first link is so old it isn't really relevant any more and the second link really seems peripheral to the content of the article, at least to me. TigerLillyCat (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older article on SCCOM 

message: Under "Type", in the info box it says "Private medical training establishment (not accredited)" since it is now accredited by the ASIC the "(not accredited)" at the end should be removed
In the sentence "The GMC website was subsequently amended to include a list of schools deemed unacceptable for registration, including St Christopher by name." the "by name" part should be dropped, just "including St. Christopher" should be sufficient.
Since I can never remember my password nor my account name I can't make these edits. 99.185.96.217 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I have enough edits now I took care of it. TigerLillyCat (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Edits 

message: This article is so short it does not need to have information in the body of the article restated at the beginning of the article, it's ridiculous. Also, from looking in the articles talk page history, this has been discussed before and the consensus was that this kind of summary should not be included at the beginning of this article due to its length. TigerLillyCat (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon my lack of good faith, but you're obviously another incarnation of the single purpose accounts which has plagued this article for years. I have little interest in getting into a shouting match with you. As this article is relatively little watched, I will handle enforcement of the arbcom provisions - should you feel this is inappropriate, feel free to invite a wider community discussion at the appropriate noticeboard. henrik•talk 15:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henrik - Attempt to add redundant summary to the beginning of the article 

message: Since there appears to be a debate as to the lede, I thought it best to open a discussion here. I hope that the differing points of view can input their ideal lede here and then we can come to a compromise. Basket of Puppies 15:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, in nearly every other article this is good advice. I would however invite you to look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. The task of enforcing these arbcom provisions from a nearly endless parade of accounts were taken up by User:JzG for a long time, but I don't that the entire burden should fall upon him. As can be seen from the talk history, various other noticeboard discussions, and the arbcom case, discussing with these accounts is not productive. henrik•talk 15:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

text: It is a common misconception that an administrator becomes "involved" when trying to enforce site policy on a problematic article. That is not the case. You are of course free to complain about my behavior, but a better place to do so is here - that will allow impartial users and administrators to review the case. henrik•talk 16:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

text: The point of a lede is to make a concise summary of the entire article that can stand on its own. So information regarding the previous name of St Christopher is entirely relevant but also the information about licensure is also. With this in mind I'd like to suggest a compromise, that would include both. How about Prior to 2006 the school name was St Christopher's College of Medicine. Degrees from this school have been listed as unacceptable by some governmental authorities in the US and UK. I hope this may represent a compromise that is acceptable and factual to all involved. How does this sound? Basket of Puppies 03:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

text:  I agree with Henrik's assessment. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede discussion 

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

message: Indiana has changed the process it uses for approved/disapproved medical schools and no longer maintains an independent list of foreign medical schools. I removed Indiana from the list in the main article since it no longer maintains or uses the list mentioned. You can see the new page regarding their approved/disapproved requirements here:
http://www.in.gov/pla/2799.htm
TigerLillyCat (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Indiana From List In Main Article 

message: Even thought St. Christopher's is on the state of Maine's "Unaccredited Post-Secondary Educational Institutions", according to the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation, Board of Licensure in Medicine, Rules and Regulations for Physician Licensing:
"3.	ACCEPTANCE OF UNACCREDITED MEDICAL SCHOOL
A.	For the purposes of qualification for a license to practice medicine or surgery in the State of Maine, an acceptable unaccredited medical school must be listed in the current edition of the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates ImeD List of Medical Schools. An acceptable accredited medical school is defined in Statute.
B.	Completion of the Fifth Pathway Medical education program."
http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/02/373/373c001.doc
As such I have edited the entry for Maine to reflect this. TigerLillyCat (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not edit war or it is likely you will be blocked. You have been bold, you have been reverted and we are now discussing the situation. I am confused by your statements - according to what you have said
Indiana lists the school on the list of "Questionable Foreign Medical Schools" and applications for licensure from graduates will be considered on a "case by case" basis is still materially correct - so why would we want to remove it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interestingly a number of other states seems to have adopted the california system, I will check (over the next few days) every state in the US and try and make sure we have a full and complete list. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be something to the claim that the list is no longer valid as these lists describe unaccredited medical schools. However, St Christopher's is now accredited by a legitimate and UK Government recognized accreditation body. However, this is only very recent and we all know how speedy the government can be with updating things. For now it's a big question mark for me. Basket of Puppies 16:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  Don't get carried away with that - they are accredited according to a specific set of standards to do with course provision and standards, the accreditation body was set up to stop bogus colleges existing for immigration purposes, they take no stance on or care if the medical qualifications are actually any good - they have no remit for that. That's an entirely different matter which they have nothing to do with and is still controlled with the GMC who say that the medical qualifications are no good. For *medical* purposes, they are still on the naughty list in the UK. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very interesting. So as a college they are accredited, but as a medical college they are still not in good shape. It's very subtle but I understand. However it is a good first step. Basket of Puppies 16:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a complex back-story to that accreditation agency - broadly, the UK was suffering from a number of bogus colleges where students were registered to courses that didn't exist and so on simply to get student visas. The agency's role is to ensure that those colleges do exist and that some form of basic standards are meet. They could be teaching then NVQ gardening for all that agency cares, they have no power at all to make any judgement about it's qualifications from a medical standpoint. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Maine Entry In United States List 

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

message: In hopes of staving off another edit war, I am opening this conversation in hopes of obtaining consensus. I see that JzG has listed the school as unaccredited. Other editors, myself included have removed the "unaccredited" statement due to the school obtaining university accreditation by a recognized UK-based accreditation service. So, ideally JzG and all other parties will chime in here and we'll be able to find consensus. Thanks! Basket of Puppies 16:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with JzG: ASIC does not accredit medical schools. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not saying I am not of JzG's opinion, just trying to fully explore and get a firm grasp on the issues. Basket of Puppies 17:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand, you're not the first good-faith editor to get roped in by the St Chris mob (and it's always good to have a reality check anyway).  The Tier 4 system is explained here: .  ASIC is about ensuring that people don't set up bogus colleges to bring "students" in who will then skip their visas.  So ASIC verifies that the place exists, has some kind of actual educational provision going on and passes certain other basic tests.  It's a long way from the extensive and thorough accreditation of universities in the UK (though with places like Thames Valley University offering BsC degrees in pseudosciences that is open to some slight question these days).  The thing to focus on here is what changed, and why.  The edit request was made by a banned user, now indef-blocked, so at the most basic level all I am doing is rolling back per WP:RBI.  But actually this is part of a long-standing campaign by St Chris (and every other unaccredited school in the world, frankly, see  for another example) to obscure the lack of any recognisable accreditation.  What academic accreditation means is: will my degree be recognised?  Here we have an institution which is claiming accreditation in the UK but whose degrees are explicitly not recognised in the UK, and are also listed as unacceptable by several US states (this being a large part of their target market).  You have to ask yourself, if you want a Senegalese medical degree, why would you study in England, with its much higher costs?  The answer has to be in the detail of the BBC investigation, which found that a number of places (including British teaching hospitals) had not looked beyond the location and had taken at face value the claim that this was an English medical degree.  It's not.  It's an explicitly sub-standard Senegalese medical degree.  There is no way that a body for assessing foreign-owned colleges for likelihood of student visa violations could ever trump the judgment of the GMC on this. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Footnote: I did not make significant changes, what I did was to compare the current version with the last version before any edits made or requested by the banned user, and reverted two changes: the infobox, and removal of one cited US state that lists the place as unacceptable.  everything else had already been reverted, I think. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

text: * Actually it does not have a formal accreditation in the sense of academic accreditation, the term accreditation has been used carelessly IMO (and that may even be intentional); it's approved as a venue for overseas students to study and thus gain student visas, but this does nto confer any academic status on the qualifications it offers in any area.  ASIC expresses a pious hope that its process might offer some kind of quality guide to students, but that's about the end of it.  As to the Indiana issue I have no real opinion, I was just rolling back the edits of the banned user per WP:RBI. I'm not a fan of laundry lists anyway, it's probably better to state that various US states have listed St Christopher as sub-standard.  Some will have them on an internal list so if you ask they will say no but they don't publish it on the web (Oregon, for example, is much more up front about what is accepted or not than most states). As it stands the laundry list implies that the degrees will be accepted in other states, I do not believe that is a valid inference, so a switch to prose may well be an improvement. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Guy, while I believe you that the ASIC might not be the greatest academic accreditation service, your own take on it would be WP:OR. Their website indicates they ensure quality of education and they are UK recognized. Do you have any sources that might indicate the ASIC is less than up to snuff? Basket of Puppies 13:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, I think you are missing the point. What ASIC does is limited to verifying some basic facts (that an institution exists, that it does offer courses, etc) for the purposes of student visa processing. That is not academic accreditation, as the term is traditionally understood. Such accreditation in the UK is performed by different governmental entities and the procedure is explained at. Kinoq (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinoq, I do not necessarily disagree with you, however the ASIC website says that they do quality assurance for instruction and courses. I don't see how we can describe them any differently in absence of reliable sources that indicate otherwise. Basket of Puppies 14:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You just need to read carefully ASIC's own explanation of its role and functions as a service dealing with international colleges in the UK for student visa purposes. In that context it does perform some minimal quality control checks, again of a very basic kind. Checking that the lights are on and that the courses are offered, so that a student visa would not be fake, is not what is usually understood by the term academic accreditation. Kinoq (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  But they still unaccredited as a medical school - your stance is like concentrated on investors in people and saying "well they have an investors in people certificate, so we can say that are an accredited medical school" - it's misleading and untrue. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cameron, please see above where I very clearly and very specifically say that the medical school is not accredited by the UK-based GMC. I likened it to a local law school that is regionally accredited to grant law degrees, but these law degrees are worthless as the bar association does not recognize them. They are a legal degree granter, but just not of an accepted degree. I don't see how I am misleading anyone. Can you tell me how? Also, I'd like to point people to the ASIC's "Accreditation Handbook" on page 9 which says ASIC accreditation gives reassurance to potential international (overseas) students, their parents and education representatives that the operation of their chosen college conforms with relevant United Kingdom laws and offers genuine courses, which are delivered to appropriate standards with acceptable quality, and which lead to recognised qualifications.This seems rather clear to me that the ASIC indicates they provide academic accreditation and assurance that the school is indeed legit. Again, I realize the GMC does not recognize them, but we cannot claim they are unaccredited as a college. Basket of Puppies 15:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

text: That's funny, as the same should be said to you considering you were told to stay away from articles where you are inappropriately involved after the latest arbcom involving the consistent abuse of your administrative capabilities. 99.185.96.217 (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, argumentum ad hominem and a bald-faced lie to boot. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

text: * The school, {{user:Paraleluni]] and his legion of imaginary friends. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accredited or not