Talk:St. George's University

message: @PhilKukielski (good faith) edits were posted to two paragraphs in history section and were tagged as 'correcting inaccuracies'. No citations were provided. Edits have been tagged as 'citation needed' and may be deleted if no citation is provided. In other terms, if we claim there are inaccuracies we need to provide sources to support it.MedGME (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: "...corrected inaccuracies in the previous version"

message: This article needs some work.  It needs to be properly cleaned up, info needs to be added, and the section on popular culture probably belongs on a different page.  PaddyM 06:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Bstone 19:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is also wrong to say that the coup against the Gairy government in 1979 led to Operation Urgent Fury in 1983.  It was the subsequent intra-New JEWEL Movement coup removing the Bishop government that led to the U.S. invasion.  75.216.136.125 (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Work

message: :Image:Logo-header.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 07:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Logo-header.gif

message: I believe this part of the History section is completely inappropriate for the article. It's written like a propaganda piece (students kissing the ground, etc) and it's just not appropriate for this article. It cites no sources, either. I am removing it. Please discuss here is you have a different opinion. Bstone 21:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-added the section b/c it is legitimate and it is true.  I have posted on the editors talk page to help add source and I am looking for them myself.  Give it a day or so for us to fix it.  Cheers, PaddyM 21:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PaddyM, you added a section which has no references, sources, may be a synthesis of information and you're asking for it to remain? You will of course understand that I have added the appropriate templates. This section is not appropriate for this article as it is currently written and really should be immediately removed. Bstone 21:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition, the article "Getting Back to Normal" which has been used as a source for the SGU student who communicate via amateur radio has references to SGU students but nothing about such a radio station. As such, I am removing it as placing it with . If I simply missed this then my apologies, but I did not see any mention of it. Bstone 22:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong and misleading?  It is a direct quote from the article regarding the administration's viewpoint at the time.  You can't simply re-write what you want to read and then hope that no one notices.  Additionally, the second reference you removed talks about a "ham" radio operator on one of the pages, so I have re-inserted that reference into the paragraph.  Instead of completely disregarding the information posted, perhaps you could contribute to bettering the article.  Cheers, PaddyM 23:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PaddyM, I suggest you rethink this method. Both of the sources which I remove do not support your claims. Is the first claim an actual direct quote? I didn't see it in the article and, yes, I did read the article. Perhaps you can post it here. The quote which I presented here directly states that the US Gov't sent in forces because of political violence, first, and to protect SGU students, second. The second one, about the amateur radio station, simply doesn't talk about such a station. Perhaps you can present the direct quote here. That would be helpful. Lastly, this section simply isn't appropriate. It's too lengthy, contains synthesis and isn't appropriate for a medical school article. Perhaps one sentence or so about SGU students being evacuated during the invasion is proper. Lastly, your note in the article history is a bit derogatory. I ask you to please maintain civility and avoid all personal attacks. Thank you! Bstone 00:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the history section to conform to an appropriate, non-synthesized version. Please discuss any possible changes here. Bstone 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is simple, non-synthesized and represents events portrayed on the sources.  It is a simple collection of a part of the history of SGU and belongs in the article.  Your continued insistance on removing and white-washing a simple of the history of the school is confusing at best and disruptive at worst.  Cheers, PaddyM 08:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PaddyM, I will have to ask you to please refrain from adding in inappropriate and extraneous information into an article about a medical school. The invasion of Grenada is merely a blip on the radar of this school. The way which I phrased the section represents a concise presentation. The way which you have phrased it lacks coherency, is poorly written and simply lacks relevance. Please do not simply delete content from an article. Rather, please discuss it here. I will be reverting your edits as they are inappropriate for this article. Bstone 08:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should review exactly who is deleting information and who is adding information, with reliable sources, which accurately discusses the history of the invasion.  It is highly relevant to the history of the school.  The original phrasing reflects accurate accounts of the invasion and should not be unilaterally deleted.  I don't see why you are stalking my edits, but perhaps you should realize you are editing against current consensus and try to add verified content instead of removing verifable content.  Cheers, PaddyM 08:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PaddyM, since it is clear that we are in a dispute about this content, what do you suggest? We can either continue reverting each other's revisions with silly notes or we can discuss and compromise. I maintain that adding sentences about the Prime Minister and his cabinet being shot in immaterial to this article. Additionally, the ham radio part might be sourced but it's not relevant to this article. I do believe that there should be a concise description about this event but the current presentation belongs not on this article but rather on the article about the invasion of Grenada. I look forward to your speedy response and compromise. Sincerely, Bstone 16:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm afraid I disagree.  An invasion and complete evacuation of 600 American students is hardly "a blip on the radar of the school".  It represents a major intervention on part of the US government and it also illustrates the apparent danger of the students of the school.  Wikipedia is not paper and there is no real limit to the amount of information that can be accurately recorded for each article.  The information is verifiable and true, and yet you want to remove it b/c it's supposedly irrelevant.  I'm afraid I have trouble understanding your position, as the 1983 invasion of Grenada was a major world event and took place with the ostensible reason to save the medical students.  If that doesn't qualify as relevant history, what else does?  Cheers, PaddyM 17:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PaddyM, are you indicating to me that you are unwilling to discuss compromise? I am very disheartened by this. For the sake of sanity I shall cease editing this part of the article. However, history will record that I attempted to compromise and discuss while you did not. Your version of this section clearly violates WP:IINFO and WP:BATTLE. Good day. Bstone 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still having trouble understanding your problem with this article.  Just placing templates without explanation does not give other editors help when editing the "problems" you see.  I have removed the essay and wikify template as they are neither needed nor accurate for this article.  Your continued harassment of other editors is confusing at best and disruptive at worst.  The "History" section has clear statements, is supported by verifiable sources, and is immensely relevant to the subject of the article.  Cheers, PaddyM 13:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) (EhJJ), thank you so much for chiming in on this. I was just about to give up as I did not want to be party to an edit war with PaddyM, but now I will take a more active roll in editing the history section again. Your analysis of the situation on Grenada is very accurate and in line with some of the fact checking that I did earlier on this talk page. If you look at the history of the article you will notice that at one point I edited the history section to read as:
In October 1983 US troops were sent into Grenada in order to protect the lives of the 700 US citizens who were students at St George's from political unrest and violence.
with using Less Strategic Now, Grenada Is to Lose American Embassy and 
Jonetown. I believe this is the most concise and (up until now) the most factual way to present this piece of history. At this point I can hope that with another editor indicating how the sources do not support this section in it's current form will be enough to convince PaddyM to engage in discuss and compromise. Bstone 17:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Roregan, I am not married to the idea that the troops were sent in to protect the lives of the SGU students. Two of the sources seem to indicate that the troops did indeed protect them and one of those two states it was the primary reason they were sent, but I have a suspicion that's not true. Indeed, I think an examination of many other sources would be prudent. I think that in the meantime we should consider removing the history section until we can reach consensus on how to appropriately phrase it. Thoughts? Bstone 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it really excessive to remove a section which has disputed citations? We must remember that this section is live and people are viewing it under the assumption that it is entirely accurate. As such it may be prudent to remove it, post it here and have us work on it until it can reach consensus and be appropriate. I won't move it, however, unless there is consensus for this proposal of mine. Bstone 19:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invasion of Grenada

message: The current version of this article  has several claims which are inaccurate. These include:
*"and the island had been placed under a 24-hour shoot-to-kill curfew", which, although partially accurate (the country was under a 4 day curfew) was not under a "no questions asked, shoot to kill anyone one in sight". Rather, "Anyone who seeks to demonstrate or disturb the peace will be shot." Based on the proclamation by interim leader General Hudson Austin . Although schools were closed, essential services were still running. Additionally, the source (a conversation between a press secretary and a talk show host) is a) not an independent source, and b) even if it was, does not mention anything about a shoot-to-kill curfew. In fact, he claims that although there were no locals in the streets, there were American student freely walking around.
*"during the days of the curfew, the only information coming out of Grenada was from a ham radio operated by a St. George’s student". Also, not supported by the citation. Rather, the citations says that there was miscommunication during the invasion of Grenada. "The glaring lack of advance intelligence about Grenada and the haste with which the military was ordered to mount the invasion showed in the fact that the U.S. forces, as it turns out, were unaware that the medical students were located on two campuses, True Blue and Grand Anse, some four miles apart. The soldiers reached 130 True Blue students early on the invasion day. But it was not until 30 hours later, during which time a student ham-radio operator on Grand Anse kept listeners throughout the hemisphere informed that his campus was still cut off from U.S. forces, that Army Rangers finally rescued the 224 students there." You are saying that this amateur radio operator was the only source of information, but that is not necessarily true.
I am not an expert on the invasion of Grenada, but I do know when claims are in excess of the supporting evidence. Please feel free to add additional citations if you can find them, otherwise I will change the text to what can actually be substantiated based on the references provided. (EhJJ) 16:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) (EhJJ), thank you so much for chiming in on this. I was just about to give up as I did not want to be party to an edit war with PaddyM, but now I will take a more active roll in editing the history section again. Your analysis of the situation on Grenada is very accurate and in line with some of the fact checking that I did earlier on this talk page. If you look at the history of the article you will notice that at one point I edited the history section to read as:
In October 1983 US troops were sent into Grenada in order to protect the lives of the 700 US citizens who were students at St George's from political unrest and violence.
with using Less Strategic Now, Grenada Is to Lose American Embassy and 
Jonetown. I believe this is the most concise and (up until now) the most factual way to present this piece of history. At this point I can hope that with another editor indicating how the sources do not support this section in it's current form will be enough to convince PaddyM to engage in discuss and compromise. Bstone 17:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Roregan, I am not married to the idea that the troops were sent in to protect the lives of the SGU students. Two of the sources seem to indicate that the troops did indeed protect them and one of those two states it was the primary reason they were sent, but I have a suspicion that's not true. Indeed, I think an examination of many other sources would be prudent. I think that in the meantime we should consider removing the history section until we can reach consensus on how to appropriately phrase it. Thoughts? Bstone 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it really excessive to remove a section which has disputed citations? We must remember that this section is live and people are viewing it under the assumption that it is entirely accurate. As such it may be prudent to remove it, post it here and have us work on it until it can reach consensus and be appropriate. I won't move it, however, unless there is consensus for this proposal of mine. Bstone 19:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citecheck

message: I looked all over the site and was not able to find the cost of attending. Can someone give me a break down or rough idea of tuition, fees, books, living expenses etc.. ?
Machn (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuition 

message: This entire text reads like a prospectus or an advertisement, not an encyclopaedia article.  Can anyone explain or justify why this university justifies an entry of this kind? Gordoncph (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No question that its not a very well-written article, but it definitely is notable and deserves inclusion.  Go to work on it...  Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopaedia article? 

message: I removed the term "British West Indies" and replaced it with "West Indies". Colonialism is over and Grenada is independent. We are not British any more than the Americans are British.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.48.203.174 (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making the change.  Although it should be noted that Grenada is most certainly more British, as it is still a member of the Commonwealth Realm, making the current British Queen its official head of state.  Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: British

message: Many of the references used in this article have nothing to do with this university other than being located in Grenada.  Will begin clean-up.  OccamzRazor (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant and inappropriate references 

message: Most of the article did not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines so I deleted it.
*Content in Wikipedia articles must come with citations to published sources. I removed content without citations. See WP:V.
*The citations cannot be to self-published sources provided by the subject of the article, per WP:SPS and WP:PROMOTIONAL.
*Citations should not be to WP:PRIMARY sources, like government accreditation records. If it is worth mentioning that the university is accredited, then secondary sources will publish these facts.
Any comments? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just deleted most content