Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archive Index
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2
  3. Archive 3 - 2007
  4. Archive 4 - 2007 #2


Contents

[edit] Discussion of Changes

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)

  • For someoen whose edits are not disruptive, you sure seem to do a lot of edit warring. I wonder, are you a single-purpose account or a sockpuppet? Either way the arbcom enforcement applies. You may not disrupt this article, as you have been doing. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You are the one that started edit warring with me. As an involved editor you need to recuse yourself from any kind of arbitration enforcement and leave it up to someone else to handle on the Arbitration Enforcement board. Do you want to try and hash this out or just be a bully? StrongPassword (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

On topic, what about the edits I made don't you agree with? You duplicated information that is already present. You included two incidents of synthesis. And a publication belongs in the media section, not the lead of the article. I don't see why all of that is so unreasonable. StrongPassword (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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)
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: [1]. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Article Lead/Media Section

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)

  • The media section enlarges on the lead. The lead contains the most significant facts about the place, which includes the fact that it caused the GMC to change its policy on satellite campuses and create a list of unapproved schools and strike off a doctor, which is as far as I can tell a unique set of attributes for any institution in the UK. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

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)

  • Ok, I'll start. I think the Licensing section should be revised to this version [2] as it has just removed the duplicative wording. Just say the college is listed by X, X, X states; instead of stating individually that X state lists Y college, X state lists Y college, X state lists Y college. Buzybeez (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

I disagree with this proposed edit. 204.39.194.5 (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Of tangential relevance


[edit] Unresolved reference links

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)

And references 6 and 7 seem to be to the same location — they should be consolidated into a single reference. —Wookipedian (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And reference 9 (to http://www.asic.org.uk/Documents/Universities.pdf) also seems to be a dead link. —Wookipedian (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

and ASIC is not even listed as a recognized accreditation body[3]. I vote for its removal. What do you think wookipedian? Buzybeez (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 [4] (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)

[edit] ASIC

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)

Since ASIC does not have any list on their website that I could find, and even if they did, ASIC is not listed here [5], 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)
Removing edit protected. Buzybeez (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I checked ASIC website, and count not find any such list. Since there has been no comments or objections to this discussion for about one month, I have removed reference to it in the article. Buzybeez (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] company report

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)

Your link doesn't work but the link I provided does and shows the school in liquidation. Azskeptic (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

  • Not for us to judge which is which. Report that a place with this singular name is listed as in liquidation, and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Another odd fact: US address is listed as 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue McDonough, GA 30253, but Google Earth says there is no such place. McDonough appears to be a one-horse town with no such street. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] changes made

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 [6] 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)

  • Reverted. Being in a directory does not imply currency of data, and being in the directory does not actually affect the status of the place in any meaningful way, especially given the multiple reports of insolvency. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, you are knowingly violating Wikipedia policy. The entry can be clearly seen right here, at the bottom of the page. As a government site it is accepted as a Reliable Source and it is easily Verifiable, which is all that is required to be included in any Wikepedia article. If you don't reverse your reversion I will take it to the Administrator Noticeboard so that another admin. can correct what you have done. 82.220.2.75 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Um, no, I am knowingly upholding policy. SCIMD has been on and of that register several times, each time it's added with some variant spelling there seems to be a complaint and it's taken off again. We don't know how current the data is, and it's not actually relevant anyway. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 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 [7] 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)

I totally agree with Buzzybeez, Stevemackety, and the anon above concerning what needs to be done with regard to this article. JzG needs to step back. Shentek (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • To me, this is prima facie evidence that the school is listed in the registry. If you have a reference for the contrary, you'd better share it with us. The bottom line is that it makes no sense for the article to say an exact opposite of what the referenced page says. (A case could be made for removing the paragraph altogether.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • They've been on and off the register several times - they keep registering with slightly different spellings, and when they are reported to DFES, they seem to be deleted again. But in any case it's largely irrelevant since the "registration" is really only being used to obscure the fact that the institution is, according to every reliable source, sub-standard. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Fine. Now the key point: find a reliable reference for that. We do seem to have valid references for the school to be sub-standard, and perhaps even facing bankruptcy. Now what reference do you have for it being currently off the list? (At the moment it is included in the online list.) "I know" is not a valid reference. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Um, Mike? I have an email from DFES confirming that they removed the entry first time round. I'm just waiting for a response from them about the new entry. But I have pruned the article to what is verifiable from secondary sources, whihc I suspect makes the whole thing moot. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defunct?

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)

  • I think they are playing dodge-the-creditor, but I don't really know. There is a profound lack of independent sources for anything much beyond the fact that it was found to be sub-standard. Perhaps it's time to take a hatchet to it. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the use of "was" in the first sentence implies that this institution no longer functions. Andrew73 (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Done. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)