Talk:Compliance training

message: This page was created by someone with no other edits or anything else to his/her credit, and absolutely nothing links to it.  What do you want to bet it's someone at a company that provides "compliance training"?  This article is also completely US-centric, as if this topic doesn't exist outside the USA.  I don't really see any reason for the entire "history" section.  Let's consider this for deletion -- I'll put this on my watchlist and come back in a few days.   Accounting4Taste 23:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article history, you're right about the article's creator. I concur that the article's current form is just the original ad-copy with the specific company-name removed, and is highly US-centric. Not sure how valid the article is even in its limited scope...could be WP:OR by synthesis...are any of the refs valid secondary-sources per WP:RS? DMacks 06:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree with your suggestion that this is original research by synthesis.  I suggest also that references that are put in to buoy up original research don't have much validity, especially since they are not provided in an on-line form and are not properly wikified.  It has weasel words more suited to a brochure than a Wikipedia article.  I'm willing to admit that the first paragraph has some small validity, thinking of it in terms of someone trying to find out what is meant by this phrase, but the remainder of this just makes me angry that someone is trying to use Wikipedia to bolster their enterprise by giving it spurious authority.  The whole article has an underlying POV that is insidious -- assuming that "compliance training" is necessary and then talking about it as if it was a fait accompli.   I propose removing everything except the first paragraph and, if the original editor wants to come back and turn this into a proper Wikipedia article with a perspective broader than the United States and no POV or weasel words, doing all the work to link it backwards with other articles, they'll be welcome to.  I'm going to leave this up for a while to see if anyone else has any comments, then return.  Accounting4Taste 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article seems to be based on the Code of Conduct. While the Code can be a standard for all compliance training, there is so much more involved - Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) training to protect researchers and the animals they use for teaching, testing, and research; the Institutional Review Board (IRB) training that ensures that humans (and their information) is protected; Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) training that covers radiation, biosafety, bloodborne pathogens, hazardous waste, shipping dangerous goods; Effort Reporting, and others. 
The IACUC and IRB training is regulated by not only the Federal government in the U.S., but also state and local laws. Internationally, human research guidelines evolved from atrocities such as the Holocaust and are still in place. 
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) can be very vague as to what must be covered, but there are training organizations many universities and colleges invovled in research use. Those are the Collaborative IRB Training Initiative (CITI)CITI from the University of Miami and John Hopkins as well as NIH. 
OSHA also offers some courses online as well.
Hopefully this helps.
fdillardFdillard (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compliance Training