Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Past editing of this article was the subject of a Request for Arbitration, now closed.

Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Senegalese recognition date

The letter copy appearing on the SCIMD Web Site is dated April 2006 and also refers back to a date of December 2005. Hence the year in the article needs to be corrected. Crum375 12:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify my point above: the reproduced letter from the government on the SCIMD Web Site is dated April 3, 2006. The December 2005 date is when, according to the letter, the institution self certified. From the translation on the Web Page:

"The academic authorities of Saint Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine the Director and the Dean assures permanent control of the academic and the administration to which they have agreed upon and signed on December 13, 2005 after the General Medical Council GMC had removed all privileges."

So for accuracy sake, I think the date should be April 2006, not December 2005. Thanks (and sorry for the confusion). Crum375 12:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem, my bad. I think the new wording is slightly clearer. Guy 12:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, looks fine to me now. BTW, not that I think it's critical, but the recognition, according to the letter, is by the 'government of Senegal', not the ministry of education, although the letter is signed by the minister of education. Crum375 13:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IMED question

I have an IMED question.

  1. IMED apparently seeks to identify "international medical schools that are recognized by the appropriate government agency in the countries where the medical schools are located."[1].
  2. IMED lists St. Christopher as being licensed by Senegal and located in Dakar, right?[2]
  3. The St. Christopher discussed on this page is located in Luton, England, right?

I'm confused. Is the Luton school listed in IMED, as the article currently claims, or just the Dakar school? TheronJ 14:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. I can see only the Dakar address listed as the "school address". I wonder if someone who is familiar with IMED can shed more light? Crum375 17:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I actually asked IMED this same question. As far as they are concerned it is a Senegalese institution and therefore included on the basis of the Senegalese Government's acceptance. I think if the campus was in Senegal we would simply not be having these arguments. Guy 17:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Do they mean to include only the school at the Dakar address they specify on their page under "school address", or are they saying the school can be physically located anywhere on earth? Crum375 17:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The campus in luton is a satellite campus of the main campus in senegal. Thus it is a senegalese school with a campus that operates in the UK. The luton campus is chartered through senegal and its graduates have the same recognition in senegal as anyone who graduated from the main campus in senegal. As far as i know the luton campus never claimed to be giving out UK degrees? Rather simply giving students the option to study in the UK through a senegalese school. Correct me if i'm wrong.Azrealist 20:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but that is just an opinion of an anonymous person. My question was about the official position of IMED. If you are aware of a reliable and verifiable source that could help us establish what their official position would be for a government in country X approving a school in country Y (where X and Y are on different continents, if that matters), then that would be useful. Also I would be interested to know if IMED list country X and a 'school address' specifically inside country X (only), does that cover a 'satellite school' of country X located in country Y (on a different continent), not mentioned in their listing. Crum375 21:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is what IMED say in their Web site:

"The International Medical Education Directory (IMED) provides an accurate and up-to-date resource of information about international medical schools that are recognized by the appropriate government agency in the countries where the medical schools are located. The agency responsible for this recognition in most countries is the Ministry of Health. "

(Note that the emphasis is mine.) It seems to me that the emphasized words can only mean the school must be located in the same country as the approving government. I see no allowance for 'satellite schools' outside the country, and the 'school address' in the case of this particular record is located in Dakar, Senegal. Does anyone have any other reliable information about this issue? Crum375 21:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of the above point is exactly why SCIMD is being evaluated and site visited by the GMC and other accreditation organizations as we speak. I'm not sure if you're aware that this isn't an overnight process and seeing how government agencies actually deal with more than one issue this wont be resolved tomorrow or next week. SCIMD has already been visited since the ECFMG re-instatement by various organizations for inspections and are still open for buisness, so i'm guessing that they haven't found anything grossly wrong and run them out of the country.Azrealist 23:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstand my point. I am trying for the moment to take a step back from the SCIMD recognition issue and focus specifically on the IMED policy issue, per the title of this section. My self answered question was if anyone knows the official policy of ECFMG/IMED regarding their listing of schools. From their own Web page that I quoted above, it is clear to me that their policy is to only list schools inside the country of the recognizing government. This would exclude, as far as I can tell, any satellite schools whose address is in a different country (or even continent as here) from the recognizing government. The points you make, unless I am missing something, are not addressing this ECFMG/IMED policy, as stated on their Web page. This, for me seems to be a fundamental issue, independent of the SCIMD status. Crum375 00:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstand IMED... their point is that they "provide an accurate and up-to-date resource of information about international medical schools that are recognized by the appropriate government agency in the countries where the medical schools are located" - SC is located in Dakar, Senegal and they have the right to educate their students wherever they want, provided it is not in violation of local law where they choose (as it would be in the US, but is not in the UK)Gabrielwerder 15:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the current language on the ECFMG/IMED site, which I quoted above is very clear and unequivocal:

"The International Medical Education Directory (IMED) provides an accurate and up-to-date resource of information about international medical schools that are recognized by the appropriate government agency in the countries where the medical schools are located. The agency responsible for this recognition in most countries is the Ministry of Health. "(emphasis added by me)

They list the schools that are recognized by their government in the countries where the medical schools are located. They list an address for the school to show where the school is located. In the case in point of IMED, the address they list is in Dakar, Senegal and the approval is by the government of Senegal. I do not see anywhere on their site an allowance for the school location to be anywhere but at the address and in the country noted. If the school moved, that record would have to be updated. If IMED intended to include a satellite location in a different country or continent, it would have to be stated explicitly, because right now the clear meaning to me is that the school is in Dakar, Senegal. Any other interpretation of this clear statement would be WP:OR. Crum375 18:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deleting edits?

just looked at the history on this page and its nice to see Crum375 deleting the contributions or discusion put in by other user (on october 4th). Nice work and way to keep the discussion going and impartial. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to work by having everyone contribute and discuss things... guess not. Azrealist 09:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct about WP working "by having everyone contribute and discuss things". But there are also rules such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NLT that must be followed to allow for a productive discussion. If anyone (currently only registered users) wants to objectively and calmly discuss the article, while carefully adhering to WP's rules, they are more than welcome to do so. Crum375 13:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just delete it

I say, just delete this article. St Chris is always on a rollercoaster ride: good sometimes, bad sometimes. You should be aware there are a number of licenced graduates practicing in the US. DrGladwin 19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a mechanism in WP for deleting articles, which includes a specific process and rules. Deletion, in general, would require proof of lack of notability or a problem with the article's sourcing or neutrality that cannot be repaired. Given that we have many reliable published sources referring to the article's subject, lack of notability would be very hard to prove. Lack of neutrality or proper sourcing has to first be debated on the Talk page, and as of now there is no such valid argument for either. Note that to delete an article, the bar is set fairly high - there has to consensus for the deletion. If no consensus is reached, the article stays by default. Also, votes of single-issue advocates may be discounted in such a process. Crum375 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears this article lacks neutrality that can not be repaired. The college could have suffered irreprable harm because of it. Simple research proves that the college has some obvious recognitions that are important for licensing in America and it's not even included in the article. Prime examples: ECFMG, IMED, WHO. Most states require any or all of those things to issue a graduate a license, which the college has, yet it's not listed in the article's licensing section? Why? lack of neutrality and biased POV? Those 3 things are important for medical boards but not important for wiki. go figure —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.139.22.9 (talk • contribs) 16:01, January 9, 2007 (UTC).

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

Quite frankly, Crum375, I don't have the time, nor the vested interest in debating these issues. I was just presenting facts. After reviewing the history of this page, it appears that the Wiki admin have a biased emotional involvment in this article due to personal insults, hence the reason the article lacks neutrality.

Facts (e.g.: ECFMG, IMED, WHO) that are valid, critical and instrumental to issuing someone a medical license in america are not listed in the article. Why? Quite frankly, I only see negative propoganda in the article.

Another example, only negative media reports are in the article, while a simple google search would show the college is written about in India Daily and New Medicine magazines. They write about the college in a positive light and it was not included in this wiki article. Why? Biased and lack of neutrality.

My vote is for deletion of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.139.22.9 (talk)

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

[edit] International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

Please add this to the article mainpage:

November 17, 2006

Luton campus of SCIMD gains ISO 9001: 2000 certification which shows the college meets all the requirements of an internationally recognized quality management system. http://stchrisimd.com/news.htm#iso http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/introduction/index.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DandyWalker (talk • contribs). — DandyWalker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I would prefer a reference from a neutral and reliable source for this. Crum375 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should not be added as there are no WP:RS to verify it (the school's website doesn't count), just as I can't add that the judge in the NJ civil case ruled against the school and placed its assets into receivership, because I don't have any WP:RS to verify that. Leuko 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree that ISO 9001 certification is notable. The ISO 9000 series certification is a quality management standard, not academic acceditation. Whether or not the school has documented business procedures just isn't that notable -- as far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't track ISO 9000 series certification for any other organization. TheronJ 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree. I think it's a fairly easy process for an organization to get ISO certification, and it has nothing to do, to the best of my knowledge, with academic qualifications or accreditation. Crum375 21:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Crum & Leuko, I can understand that you would want this information from a neutral and reliable source before including it in the article. That is reasonable. Does ISO have an online directory of those they certify? or do you have any suggestions on how to obtain confirmation?

Theron, while ISO may not for accademic accreditation, it is still worth mentioning in the article. I would tend to think certification of a "quality management standard" by an internationally recognized organization would seem relavent. DandyWalker

I agree with TheronJ here. I think that since getting ISO certification is basically a matter of preparing some paperwork and paying money, it is non-notable for an academic institution. Since it has nothing to do with academic accreditation or qualifications, it would even be confusing to some readers, who could misconstrue its significance. If we get a reliable and neutral secondary source who mentions it (e.g. newpaper article discussing the institution), then it would be includable, IMO, but just searching ISO's online records (assuming they were available) would not merit inclusion, IMO. Crum375 13:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
ISO 9001 (while a Good Thing) is no more notable (in the UK) than IiP. Or having a website. Rich Farmbrough, 23:31 3 December 2006 (GMT).
This is clearly not notable. "ISO 9000 does not guarantee the compliance (and therefore the quality) of end products and services; rather, it certifies that consistent business processes are being applied." Grouse 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting ISO certification is not so easy as posted in this discussion. It's insulting to ISO to describe their certification as nothing more than "paperwork and paying a fee." Among other things, it required more than one on-site evaluation and careful review of policies and procedures.

[edit] Department for Education and Skills (DfES)

SCIMD-COM is listed and recognized by DfES, under both its former and current name. See http://www.dfes.gov.uk/providersregister/search.cfm?browse=1 Click S and on page 20 and 27 you will see their listing. This information should be added to the article. Sparklingsun

'IMPORTANT: The Register does not quality assure or accredit in any way the learning provision of any registered providers. Registration does not imply quality standards and should not be used in marketing.' [3] 209.139.208.178 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Plenty of precedent for not mentioning directory entries where they might give a misleading impression of official approval. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have just been informed by DfES that the entry has been removed. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It still seems to be showing up for me, but maybe the database isn't updated yet. In any case, it should not be added due to the reasons mentioned by JzG and .178: it means absolutely nothing, and even the DfES states that it shouldn't be used for marketing (which would be its purpose on WP). Leuko 02:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The entry is present. Just click the link above, click "Search The Register" on the left hand side, under "Search By Provider Name" enter Iba Mar, click Go, and the entry will pop up. Is that really all that difficult to do? 67.177.149.119 21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The SCIMD-COM listing was added and is valid. The SCCM listing was removed because it was outdated and no longer accurate. The college reorganized and was renamed to honour its founder. It also moved into larger facilities. New name and new address..hence the reason SCIMD-COM listing was added and SCCM was removed. Very Simple. This occurred several months ago.

  • Nope. I mailed them, they immediately removed it. Nothing to do with address changes, everything to do with it being bogus. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon

Oregon appears to have revised their summary of the college. Mainpage article needs to be revised accordingly http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html Great Britain ceased accepting its degrees, March, 2006. No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006. Price, Waterhouse has taken over the entity's records (UK/Senegal) and students who want to get information must contact PWC. The phone number is +44-771113725. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.28.180.30 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, someone needs to take care of this. Any admin's out there? They really need to remove the office protection from this page so it can be more freely updated. Office protection is only supposed to be short term according to its own page here on wikipedia, why has it now been used for months? Someone from the wikipedia offices needs to review this. 67.177.149.119 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Wiki Admin? Anyone going to update the article or remove office protection so others can update it? User:DandyWalker

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

It still hasn't been updated to reflect the new information on the Oregon page. 67.177.149.119 18:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It still hasn't been taken care of. Is any admin. going to do this or are they really falling down on the job? 67.177.149.119 13:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
What's the rush? I have over ten thousand articles on my watchlist. You need to add {{editprotected}} for edits to protected articles. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Er, it looks to me as if the article already says this under "United States". Guy (Help!) 10:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Guy, the article says this in an outdated and different version. If you read Oregon's current version closely, it omitted the last couple of lines referring to Medical University of America and ownership. {{editprotected}} User:DandyWalker

It still hasn't been updated. I think we need another admin. on this since this one doesn't appear to know what he is doing. 67.177.149.119 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The article does not accurately quote Oregon's entry for the college. Article needs correcting. Compare http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html very closely with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine#United_States User:DandyWalker {{edit protected}}

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

[edit] Office Protection

Proto - is it possible for you to find out the status of the office protection? Is the Office actively attending to the article? Because, it almost appears as if this article has been frozen and ignored. I can not see how purposely leaving outdated and inaccurate information in the article is a good thing, it is probably only making matters worse, article loses validity. Might as well just delete the article then.

Administrators have already weighed in here, and said (essentially) it's out of their hands, so repeatedly adding tags (regardless of how appropriate or inappropriate the specific tag might be) to get their attention just wastes everyone's time. DMacks 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, let an admin reply. 67.177.149.119 14:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am an admin, and here is the response: It is out of our hands. Only someone from the Office can unprotect the page. Prodego talk 01:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We know that removing office protection is out of the admin's hands. The question was what is the status of office protection. This article either needs to be deleted or to be updated. I've clicked 3 links referenced in the article that gives either page not found or redirect.

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

Thanks Prodego for this information. I have tried to email Mr. Wales but the emails get returned undeliverable. Any advice?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/_/Talk%7ESt_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine_f363.html"