Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine/Archive 1

Random Historical Material
Minor edits. If you disagree with me on this, feel free to revert it. Spike 09:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverted inappropriate edits Spikey 02:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree
I disagree with you, therefore have re-instituted my previous edits. The information I have added is 1) applicable to St. Christopher's SOM, and 2) verifiable/truthful.

Just because the information doesn't put SCIMD-COM in a good light, doesn't mean it's inaccurate or vandalism. Prospective students have a right to know this information so they do not go to SCIMD-COM expecting to become a practicing physician in England.

Also note that the incorporation papers show that the new incarnation of SCIMD-COM started in 2005, not 2000. SCCM started in 2000, but that entity doesn't exist anymore. Leuko 18:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Although you may think it’s applicable, the way you added it was inappropriate. It disrupted the style and nature of the article. You are welcome to add content and provide a reference at the bottom of the page, not disrupt its format and stick it wherever you feel it is appropriate. As it stands now, you are not even a registered user. Register and we can continue this discussion, but I will not correspond further with someone that won't even register an account and be held to the acceptable standards of wikipedia. Spike 17:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so where do you feel it would be appropriate to add the content? Leuko 18:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, it is perfectly acceptable. I am just as interested in the truth as everyone else but it must be written to WP standards and in a NPOV. Thank you for doing this. Spike 17:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Just looking to add the most current and accurate content to Wikipedia. Glad it looks better stylistically too.

Well, I don't know who edited it last, since they are anon, but neither of us can do anything about it since we have already been 3RRed. Spike 18:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Other Issue
My only other issue is that technically, a school with this exact name didn't exist in 2000, and it only was incorporated in 2005. Perhaps there needs to be a page on the former SCCM explaining what happened there, with a link from this page? Leuko 18:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, according to the Gov. of Senegal and the updated IMED/FAIMER listing, we are the same school, just a new name. An article for the former name of the school (SCCM) is being worked on at the moment, once something decent can be put up your participation would be welcome. Spike 18:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy Dispute
Use this section to dispute the accuracy of this article, as well as the constant vandalism of reverts removing verified facts.
 * You should discuss before editing. Also you should become a registered user and sign your entries if you want to actually have a serious discussion since using an IP linked to a proxy isn't going to give you much of a leg to stand on. You'll also notice that the patrol bot believes your entries are vandalism. Spike 00:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, looks like there are a bunch anonymous users behind proxies vandalizing this page on both sides of the issues. Really, I don't see how adding factual information can be considered vandalism, where removing it is not, but that's another story.

I wish dispute the accuracy of the following statements:

1) That graduating from SCIMD-COM will make one eligible for a license in the UK.

Quote:

"The following medical schools are currently listed in the WHO directory based on its recognition by the government of the relevant country. However, the GMC is not satisfied about the status of the schools' programmes in the UK with respect to the schools' recognition by the government nor is it assured that the schools' are subject to adequate quality assurance arrangements. At the present time, the GMC is not registering graduates who hold primary medical qualifications obtained from the medical schools listed below. Moreover, g raduates from these schools are not permitted to make a booking or to take the Professional Linguistic Assessment Board (PLAB) test.

St Christopher's College of Medicine Dakar, Senegal "

Further quote:

"The following schools claim that the course of study undertaken substantially or wholly in the UK leads to a Primary Medical Qualification awarded by an overseas University. The GMC does not register graduates who have been awarded primary medical qualifications in such circumstances nor does it give any entitlement to book or sit the PLAB test.

The list below contains institutions that we are currently aware of - it may not be exhaustive. Therefore the GMC accepts no liability for the reliance placed on these institutions or for any action or decision taken.

St. Christopher's College of Medicine, Luton"

Sources: http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/how_to_register/registration/uk_based_medical_colleges.asp http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/how_to_register/registration/acceptable_primary_medical_qualifications.asp#3

I believe it essential to include these verifiable facts in the article. Leuko 01:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense & Edits
Your first statement is nonsense. No where on this article does it say "That graduating from SCIMD-COM will make one eligible for a license in the UK." I don't disagree with the edit you made previously, but someone else undid it. Spike 02:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The original article did list the UK, and one of the anonymous proxy users added it back in to the following sentence:


 * "All programs award the Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree through the authority of UEIN, allowing graduates to apply for licensure to practice medicine in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Senegal, and many other countries."


 * Revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine&oldid=62103799


 * So if we are all agreeing, why is the article locked? :-) Leuko 02:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the article as I am reading it right now in its protected state says:

"All programs award the Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree through the authority of UEIN, allowing graduates to apply for licensure to practice medicine in the United States, Canada, Senegal, and many other countries."

It doesn't say UK. Someone most likely reverted it hard to an old edit in the revision you quoted.

I don't have a problem with the way you did the previous edit, but an anon reverted it, and then it was put back, then more anon edits were done, and the article was becoming a nasty mess. Someone must have seen what a disaster things were becoming going back and forth and asked an admin to clamp the article in order to give all parties, registered and anon, a "cooling down" period in line with Protected Page policy. Spike 02:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Proper Discussion
If anyone wants to participate in the discussion, please do so in a constructive manner. Make a new topic, or participate in one that is already being discussed. Don't just stick what you want to say where you feel like it. Spike 01:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Try waiting until people have a chance to respond instead of just editing continuously.Spike 01:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Why it is important to show the reality of this issue.
--Azskeptic 02:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)this is serious stuff. take a look at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4410020.stm?ls


 * Now that the Eggman is involved, it is sure to turn into an ugly mess.

I can understand why you are deleting the second unsigned comment, but you have no reason to delete the first one. If you keep it up I will bring it before the wikiadmin and you will be slapped with a 3RR violation. Spike 05:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR Violations
Just so everyone knows, I keep a close eye on this article and its talk page. I am going to make a concerted effort to actively report any registered users that violate the Wikipedia 3RR policy concerning this article or it’s talk page. Spike 21:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I too will report any user that through his AOL proxy sock-puppets continues to violate the WP:3RR or protected page policies. Leuko 21:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty hard to report a user if they are using an AOL proxy and don't sign in, hence the problem with AOL vandals on Wikipedia. Spike 03:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization
I also removed the reference to the "reorganization" of SCIMD in 2006. No reference or proof was provided as required by WP:V and Reliable_sources. Spike 09:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

But it's listed right in IMED/FAIMER, which I cited, and you removed again. Leuko 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see "reorganization" mentioned anywhere on the IMED entry. Spike 17:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And with my last edit, I didn't use that word. The text simply pointed out that prior to 2006, degrees were issued from SCCM (now a non-existant entity), but now are issued from the University.  This is verified in the Notes section at the bottom of the IMED entry. Leuko 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add it back as long as the text is an accurate reflection of the IMED webpage. Spike 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO, my edit used pretty much the same phraseology as the IMED notes section. Leuko 17:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did a revert due to vandalism, and then I realized that you added a section in during that so I put it back in regarding the years the campus was established. Does is reflect what you had put in? Spike 20:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, looks the same. If you are ok with it, then I am ok with it. Leuko 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Spike 21:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes in Administration
Spike, any truth to student reports that the school's administrator is out and the school is being taken over by a former student and middle east investors? --Azskeptic 23:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

no I didn't hear that...last i heard an American Senator from the Southwest had got some investors to join in this venture. Where did u hear that Askeptic?--Vtak 00:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

2 different students called me today with basically the same story. Who knows...is F. out as administrator?--Azskeptic 01:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this as it has nothing to do with the article. Please take it somewhere else. Spike 01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If the administration changes is it correct to post the change on the description of the school? This directly affects readers of the page. --130.13.1.64 02:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone can find a source that meets WP:V and Reliable_sources which discusses an administrative change at SCIMD, I would welcome it. Until such a time, it is nothing more than idle gossip and nonsense, and thus has no place in an encyclopedic entry. Spike 05:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ECFMG Certification
You are wrong regarding the ECFMG. The ECFMG does provide certification of IMG's and this certification does allow one to practice medicine and one cannot practice without it as an IMG. Spike 16:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct - ECFMG certification allows one to apply for a medical license in one of the states of the US. However, the state medical license is the document which allows one to practice medicine in that state.  Just having an ECFMG certification means nothing -- if one tries to practice medicine with just that, one would be arrested for "Practicing Medicine without a (state) license." Leuko 16:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. One can practice medicine as a trainee, as a resident/intern, in the armed forces, in federal facilities, or in certain specialized programs with ECFMG certification and without a state lic. of any kind. Spike 17:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, but "license to practice medicine" to me means a full, unrestricted license, not a training license where one needs orders co-signed by an attending. I am fine with the phrase as is, however, I think we need to add the caveats you just mentioned above to the end of that sentence in the article. Leuko 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate. If someone wants to include it on another article about the ECFMG on wikipedia, that's fine, but this isn't the appropriate place to discuss all the minutia related to the ECFMG. This is an article about the medical college, not the ECFMG and its various processes. Spike 20:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I don't think the phrase is appropriate in this article as is since it is very misleading and inaccurate in most cases. For 99% of physicians, having ECFMG certification does not equal being licensed to practice medicine independently.  I suggest either 1) removing "as well as receive certification that allows them to practice medicine," or replacing it with "as well as receive certification which is the first step in becoming a licensed physician."  Leuko 21:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your second suggestion for phrasing is fine with me. Spike 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, sounds good. However, I don't think either of us can make the edit without violating WP:3RR, so I guess it will have to wait.  (Unless consensus edits don't count as edit warring?)  Though, now that I think about it, ECFMG certification isn't the first step in becoming a licensed physician - passing USMLE Step I is. :-) Leuko 21:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think if it's done in consensus it's okay. Well, it's the first certification in the process to practice medicine. Spike 21:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about BLS/ACLS? :-) Ok, I'll see how I can incorporate that phraseology. Leuko 21:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made the edit, but I don't like the grammar. Anybody have any better suggestions? Leuko 21:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I altered the grammar so it reflects the second statement you made above as a suggestion for phrasing. I think your original suggestion was fine. There's no need to get so hypertechnical. We don't want it to get to the point where people who don't know much about the process are unable to understand/read the article. Spike 22:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed link to material that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. If you want to discuss something start a new topic on the talk page, don't just stick random conversations into currently ongoing discussions, it's disruptive and inappropriate. Spike 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

GMC status
The links and quotes listed on this talk page no longer exist on the GMC site. No other facts have been disputed for this article so I am removing the disputed tag from the article. Spike 03:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The links just moved - the position of the GMC has not changed. I have updated the article with the information and current links as we agreed previously.

I tried to visit the link you listed as a reference for the GMC info., but it just gives me a 404. Are you sure it exists? I will give it 24 hours and if it doesn't work by then I am going to revert the page to my last edit. Spike 15:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I can't connect at all to the GMC website right now (time-out error, not 404). Looks like their server is down for the time-being, so hold off on the edit until their server starts responding again.  Yes, I am sure it exists, that why I added it. :-)


 * Since you are disputing the validity of my link, and there are still some unverified facts that need straightening out, I'm going to put the Disputed banner back up until these issues are resolved. Leuko 17:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am informed by the UK govt. that SCIMD is not a recognized school. What is your take on that? Is SCIMD recognized by the UK govt and do you have proof of that?--Azskeptic 02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the GMC page is down we can't say one way or the other can we? Spike 03:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Its back up http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/join_the_register/registration/acceptable_primary_medical_qualification.asp#3--Azskeptic 12:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Since there are no more facts under dispute I removed the "disputed" tag from the article.Spike 13:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you contact the Department of Education in the UK to verify SCIMD's current status in the UK. I would be happy to give you contact info if you would like it. --Azskeptic 02:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ECFMG Status
The only other issue to resolve is "recognized by the ECFMG." Perhaps "allowed to sit the USMLE by the ECFMG" would be better? Also, considering at one time SCCM graduates were banned from taking the USMLE by the ECFMG, a citation proving the current state of affairs would be in order? Leuko 14:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We were never banned, out applications were just on hold. The ECFMG's own words. Unless you can provide verifiable links, don't put it in. This is an enyclopedic entry so anything posted has to be factual. Spike 15:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point - that's why I didn't put it in, and am requesting verification from a factual source that ECFMG applications from SCCM-IMD are no longer "on hold." Leuko 15:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove we were ever on hold in the first place. Spike 21:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't you just say that the school's applications were on hold 2 lines up? Does that count as proof? :-) Leuko 22:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Date of Founding

 * Also, it appears that the date the school was founded is wrong. According to the BBC article Azskeptic posted above, Senegal only recognized SCIMD-COM in 2003, not 2000.  Leuko 17:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The BBC is not an appropriate source for an encyclopedic entry, especially when IMED and the WHO World Directory of Medical Schools both list us as starting in 2000. You really can't dispute this as it has been verified by IMED. Feel free to contact IMED and verify it for yourself. Spike 18:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * True, IMED does list 2000 as the starting date, but also states "Prior to 2006, diplomas are awarded from St. Christopher's College of Medicine rather than the university." To me this means that SCIMD-COM didn't exist until 2006.  Perhaps this should be a footnote on the starting date, since really it was a different entity that was awarding degrees at that time.  Too bad there isn't a copy of the charter lying around somewhere to verify the dates with.  Also, I think the BBC is a fine source of information.  Under journalistic ethics, they must verify their information before publishing, otherwise they face charges of libel. Leuko 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

He said, she said isn't valid. Also you have no proof that anything in that news article was verified. You need to provide a link to a credible source (gov. agency, etc...) to dispute something. SCIMD-COM is just the new name of the UK branch campus, the main campus is the same since 2000. IMED/WHO-WDMS say 2000, it's 2000, unless you can come up with 2 or more national/international agencies that disagree. Spike 02:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made an edit which removes the disambiguity regarding the starting date/former names of the college, so I guess removing the disputed tag is fine for now. Leuko 14:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought this issue was resolved, but I guess not. Please discuss any changes here before reverting. Thanks. Leuko 06:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Licensibility in the US
I've committed an edit modifying the claim that a SCIMD degree will lead to automatic licensibility in all of the US states, documented with references. I have a feeling the disuputed tag might be going back up. Leuko 14:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Status in Oregon
Contact the State of Oregon http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda   They have attempted to verify the claims you make and have been unable to do so through US govt. agencies directly to Senegal govt. agencies. Is that a valid US gov. agency? --Azskeptic 02:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not, it's a state agency. That page is rife with errors, and you yourself have a hand in what is put there so it's not an impartial or accurate source of information. IMED has updated the entry just recently and has verified everything. US Gov. agency trumps state gov. agency where you are involved. Spike 02:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hospital Affiliations
Since the GMC is no longer registering graduates, who are are also no longer allowed to sit the PLAB, are 3rd/4th year student hospital rotations in the UK still a possibility? If so, at which ones? Also, I've searched in vain for information on which hospitals students do ACGME approved clinicals in the US. I've requested a citation for this claim if anyone can fin it. Thanks. Leuko 17:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, students are still rotating in the UK. Regarding where clinicals are done, these are internal college documents and are not available to the general public. I have removed the CN from that sentence. Spike 09:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the claim that students rotate in NHS/ACGME hospitals is not verifiable with any publicly available sources, I've removed that half of the sentence in accordance with WP:V. Leuko 06:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Formatting
And you didn't like the formatting with the footnotes? I thought it made it look cleaner, and more like a factual article. Leuko 16:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since no one voiced a different opinion, I've used footnotes for the FAIMER/IMED and WHO links to promote a unity of style within the article. Leuko 17:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive
I have archived all the material on this talk page that is not an active topic. Spike 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You've also managed to archive some active topics. Leuko 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Such as? It would help if you mentioned which topics were archived that you felt were still active. Spike 16:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about the three topics currently on the talk page (with pretty much the same headings?) i.e. the ECFMG status, the date which SCCM dissolved and SC-IMD was reborn, and the status in Oregon. Leuko 17:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The current matters are slightly different than the ones that were being discussed before. There really isn't any point to putting the archived material back on this page. If anyone needs to reference it during the current discussion it's still there and easily copied or linked. Spike 17:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, pretty much the same issues. Archiving just makes it harder for someone not familar with the issues to get the full picture and weigh in. Leuko 17:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Unless you want to ask the wikipedia admin. to weigh-in, but it seems like a big waste of their time. Spike 17:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do that again, unless there is a consensus that the topics are no longer disputed, otherwise things will get very fragmented. Leuko 17:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link that was here since it was put into the archive with the previous conversations and is not appropriate for the discussion that is currently taking place. Spike 16:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Format
I disagree with the changes you have made to the format of the page. Why are you removing entries from the table on the right side of the page? It is meant to be a "quick facts" box, so it doesn't matter if it contains data that is also present in the main body of the article. Spike 16:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but the data presented has a bit more history and is a bit more complicated than something which lends itself to a "quick facts" box. That's why I feel it more appropriate to flesh out these "facts" with the associated caveats in the text.  Also Luton is mentioned (and linked multiple times.  Is that really necessary? Leuko 17:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary, but that can be said of many of the "quick facts" boxes on Wikipedia. Any elaboration on the data in the "quick facts" box can be made in the main article. Since it has been a part of this article for some time (and thus the status quo) and it is a matter of style, unless you can demonstrate a compelling reason to remove the content, it should remain.Spike 17:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then I suggest we go with the 2000/2006 for the date, as we have had for some time, to clear up some of the ambuiguity since SC-IMD did not exist as a named entity in 2000. Leuko 17:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, 2000/2006 is confusing for a "quick facts" box. The explination can be made in the main text, as I said above. Spike 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, then we should probably remove it until we can come up with a consensus, or until someone can prove that SC-IMD existed in 2000. Leuko 17:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The IMED listing is all that is needed. It shows that we existed in 2000. According to my understanding of wikipedia rules, unless an editor can justify why they want an edit, the original material remains. Feel free to get wikipedia administrative feedback on this but I am going to make sure that it remains as part of the article unless they state otherwise. Spike 20:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am fine with the current edit that states in the text that prior to 2006, degrees were awarded by SCCM, and not SC-IMD (since it did not exist.) However, I still don't think that the 2000 in the info box should be there - it is rather misleadeding.  If the article was about SCCM, then it would be fine, but SC-IMD as a named entity did not exist in 2000.  Sure, it's just a name (and possibly admin) change, but I believe wikipedia should be as accurate as possible.  Leuko 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, we will have to agree to disagree unless you want a wikipedia administrator to arbitrate the situation. For a "quick facts" box it seems perfectly fine. The explination is in the body of the text so no one is being mislead. Spike 21:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it is a minor point, but I just want to make sure that the information presented is as accurate and non-confusing as possible. Like I said before, I have put in a RfC, so we'll see if any other editors stop by to add their third-party opinion on the matter.  Leuko 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we'll just have to wait to see what the admins. say about it. Spike 21:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's not admins -- just other users (editors). Leuko 21:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like that would be much help, we need more of a final decision. Spike 22:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought the point was to generate a community consensus on the issue. I don't think there is any authoritarian "final decision."  I guess we could take it to the arbitration committee, but I don't think we are there yet.  Let's see what kind of 3rd party input the RfC generates first.  Leuko 22:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't fault your logic, hopefully this will be resolved soon. Spike 22:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Spike here, the column should stay the way it is right now...It is more concise and easy to follow and that's how most smaller colleges are setup in Wikipedia. --Vtak 00:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The format of the box is fine - the information presented is not 100% accurate though. Leuko 15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

While you may feel that is true, all the individuals that have commented on this issue disagree with you, thus it will remain as it is, unless others care to comment on this or this goes to the wikiadmin for arbitration. Spike 01:21, 3 August 2006 (UTc)

I don't see anything wrong with the content of the box, please explain and let everyone consider it prior to trying anything drastic with the article again. thanks--Vtak 01:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Explanation is above. Is there anything I can make clearer? SC-IMD did not exist in 2000, SCCM did. Leuko 01:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it did Leuko. The Master College existed formally since 2000. Renaming something as a branch campus or affiliate does not change its master charter. I gather you are learning on the fly here so let me tell you what the courts say: SCIMD existed, either with different names or leadership since 2000.

I tried posting this but was told we need group concensus on it. This is from the UK D&B equivalent site showing that the SC IMD corporation began in 2006

http://www.ukdata.com/company-credit-reports/ST.-CHRISTOPHER-IBA-MAR-DIOP-COLLEGE-OF-MEDICINE-LIMITED.html

anyone opposed to showing that the school was incorporated 2006? --Azskeptic 17:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well moreover discuss the relevance and need for this addition to this article. Why post it on there?

My opinion is that it is really not needed and unless there is a dire need of this information to be shown, as will be seen by the posts here.... it don't think it is needed. It's like posting published results of housing reports in a town on here or putting published journal articles of health concerns in large habitus individuals articles like long-term genital malformations and lack of LGI tract cleanliness, especially rectoanal portion... IT is just not needed.... it could be relevant but not needed.--Vtak 17:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It shows the age of the school to potential students. By the way if concensus is required the present format that is on the page doesn't meet my approval as it doesn't reflect the information that is available from govt. agencies.--Azskeptic 18:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Potential students!!!!! Sir, this is not a place to be advertising a college... this is an online encyclopedia.... I think with that in lightl, this information could definitely not be posted on here as it will advertise the college to potential students.... --Vtak 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with advertising. Students need clear concise correct information to make valid decisions. sanitized pages,like the current one, lack basic facts that are verifiable and available.--Azskeptic 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the formal entity up for debate and discussion was organized in 2000. You know that yourself. Since your personal vendetta is accuracy, why not open up your own WIKI entry to editing so people can put verifiable entries on their about the claims of your affiliation with pedophile groups? Its just as valid since it can be verified. The University itself was formed in 2000, the world health org lists it as 2000. Everything you say to the contrary is not valid, irrelevant, and again, a personal vendetta against the students, faculty, and staff. Get help. Every University has reincorp papers on other colleges all the time. Your claim is invalid and spurious. give it up.

As usual on numerous forums you resort to personal attacks instead of deal with the reality. SC IMD can be verified as being incorporated in 2006 pure and simple. --Azskeptic 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The new business entity was incorp. in 2006, not the school. Learn to tell the difrerence. Spike 19:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Spike is correct..there was NO SCIMD prior to 2006. --Azskeptic 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The school did, the corp didn't, get it straight! Spike 19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The college in the name SCIMD has existed from 2000 in Senegal, however, in 2006, the parent UEIN decided to change the name of the English campus to SCIMD from SCCM... now, for this to occur for business purposes, the college reincorporated into SCIMD... the Senegal charter is a proof provided by the Minister of Education in Senegal which has encompassed the prior and current named college. This is a minute change which has been nothing but a technical happening, using it will misguide individuals is not fair.... IMED listing is a second piece of evidence which shows the SCIMD change from SCCM and says it was formerly called the latter name. If someone is extremely interested in searching and trying to prove this wrong is welcomed to call the Ministry of Education in Senegal and asking them or calling the parent administration at the UEIN or SCIMD-Sen. Now please, misguiding is not an appropriate thing to do on an encyclopedia.. and again, please, this is not a site for advertising and should not be prepared as an advertising tool for prospective students... as indicated a few post above--Vtak 20:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Legal Action Against Wikipedia
I've heard that rumors that legal action is being started against wikipedia as a result of this article for the following reasons:

1- the SCIMD sheild being used on this article is a copyrighted image that they refuse to remove even at the request of the holder of the copyright hence they are in violation of copyright laws.

2- Wikipedia and the users involved in editing this page, are being added to one (if not more) of the lawsuits due to the constant slander of the students and SCIMD in attempts to hurt the current and future student body?

--> any comments from the posters on the above and the fact that letters from the lawyers for the school, copyright holder, and one of the lawsuits have been ignored repeatedly?

just curious

Azrealist 11:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, why would or should anyone care about rumors or random unsubstantiated threats from anyone on the internet? The apparent copyright status of the image is documented on the image page; anyone is welcome to comment about it there, but nobody has done so, or use any of the other mechanisms to resolve copyright concerns about media files. You should read WP:THREAT before continuing down this line of discussion. DMacks 16:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

it is by no means a theat against anyone. I was just curious as i had heard about the legal action being taken, and curious as to why no one else had commented about it or why nothing was done. People are quick to post the negative and not question. I also understand and see that if anyone trys to defend this school or post anything positive their accounts are removed and the conversation erased claiming vandalism or something else obscure, so i'm pretty sure this will be erased and my account and IP will be banned in typical fashion to surpress anything that doesn't conform. Azrealist 12:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for jumping at you...I think I've been reading on-line ranters too long, and completely misread your intent. DMacks 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Has anyone heard any rumors that SCIMD sued several editors, had its claims dismissed immediately, and was forced to pay damages as a result of bringing a facially unmeritorious lawsuit? If anyone has heard any such rumors, do they have any comment?  TheronJ 21:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

More seriously, Azrealist, I don't believe "rumors" of a lawsuit -- have you heard anything involving (1) what court the suit was filed in, (2) who was sued, and (3) what the case number was? If not, I would assume that whoever told you the rumor was probably just some disgruntled person with a connection to SCIMD, trying to discourage editors from posting here. (I'm not questioning your good faith, but I'm betting whoever told you the rumor is an SCIMD apologist . . .) TheronJ 21:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * From what i heard the suit or charges were being started/processed in NJ and Florida concomitantly with the other suits in progress. Sorry but i don't have anymore info than that. If i knew all the facts i wouldn't have asked about it.Azrealist 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I once heard some rumors that a poster on this talkpage did not understand anything about fair use and thought copyright meant that no one could use an image. Care to comment on that Azrealist? - M ask  22:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I love how americans commit a crime or violate some law and then hide behind or claim freedom and the right to do so as a result of one of the amendments.Azrealist 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you honestly saying that pointing out that someone did not break the law is not a valid response to accusations of breaking the law? Might want to brush up either on the legalities of the situation (Wikipedia is hosted in Florida, all it's data is in florida, ergo the only law that matters is the US national and Florida state laws) or maybe the English language, if you meant something else with your statement. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 00:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)