Jump to content

Talk:Caribbean Medical University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Foundation Register

I propose that the text regarding the inclusion of CMU in the Chamber of Commerce's register be removed, since it only has to do with the business side of the operation, and has nothing to do with the academic side of the school. It gives a false impression that this school is actually sanctioned by someone, when the bar of entry is simply paying a fee. Any thoughts? Leuko 02:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no intention on giving impression in this article. That would be unencyclopedic. The fact that the school is registered with the Chamber of Commerce is entirely factual and as such need not be removed. Bstone 04:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Factual does not necessarily mean encyclopedic nor WP:NPOV. The fact is that it is rather irrelevant with regards to accreditation/charter of the school, which is the real measure of the legal right for the school to exist. Those unfamiliar with medical licensing laws may be confused by the inclusion of this less than useful fact. Leuko 12:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Leuko on this issue. Inclusion in the Chamber of Commerce doesn't actually amount to anything. I think we can remove the language without affecting the content of the neutrality of the article. Cheers, PaddyM 13:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The tone of the article is unencyclopedic. It gives the impression that this school is scam, fly by night, etc. As such it is clearly not neutral, thus I am flagging it at such until the article can be rewritten in an objective, neutral manner. Bstone 12:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV does not mean that it is appropriate to whitewash reality. The tone of the article reflect what WP:RS have to say about the school. Leuko 02:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Why exactly are you adding "unaccredited" in front of Type? People can always visit third party websites to find out school status. We're an encyclopedia, not a news agency. DrGladwin 02:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, this is an encyclopedia, a one-stop source for all available information. I don't get the comparison to a news agency. Leuko 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, there is nothing called "unaccredited medical school." The accredition status of CMU (or any medical school) is clearly stated in the Wikipage. Any intelligely perspective medical student can read the article which is written in simple English. If I add "accredited medical school" in front of Russ U's name, that would feel weird, wouldn't it? DrGladwin 18:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The thing is there should be no unaccredited medical school, but there is. As it is the general assumption that all medical schools are accredited there is no need to explicitly specify that. However, when there is a deviation from that assumption, as in the case of unaccredited medical schools such as CMU, it needs to be explicitly specified. I mean technically CMU is not even a medical school, unaccredited or not, since it doesn't even have a charter to operate a medical school. Leuko 19:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. CMU may become accredited one day or another. The process is still ongoing and we have no right to lable it as "unaccredited." I suggest we do a consensus. DrGladwin 18:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That is ridiculous. The school is unaccredited - there is no argument. We aren't enforcing a label, we are simply calling a spade a spade. In the unlikely event that the school becomes accredited, the page will change to reflect that reality. Until then, the information in the page is NPOV and should remain. Cheers, PaddyM 19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Unaccredited according to what standards? American standards? How about the medical standards of Nepal? My point being, we have no right to determine the accreditation status of a foreign medical school. Yes, the school is presently unaccredited but only in a few countries. Trust me, if you have a medical degree from CMU, the Nepalese will accept you, as a physician, with open arms. So, according to the other side of the world, this school is fully accredited. DrGladwin 19:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It is unaccredited according to the standards of Curacao! The government of the country in which CMU is trying to exist does not recognize it's legitimacy to confer medical degrees; therefore, its degree is actually unaccredited in Nepal or wherever else you might want. No student can graduate from CMU with an actual medical degree. Cheers, PaddyM 19:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Do you have any WP:RS to back up your ludicrous statements? CMU does not have a charter to issue MD degrees, it is not listed in the WHO WDMS, so it is no different that claiming to have a degree from a medical school that you set up in your basement or Hollywood Upstairs Medical School. There is no country in the world that accepts physicians who graduate from such schools. Leuko 19:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected. One thing puzzles me though: Why does the CMU article have a completely different tone compared to an article on a medical school with similar conditions - University of Medicine and Health Sciences? DrGladwin 19:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the tone as being different - both just contain cited facts. But in any case, that school appears to be recognized by the local government, as evidenced by the presence of a charter to grant MD degrees... Leuko 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV & Citations

This article reads like a propaganda piece against CMU. In addition, there are all sorts of claims which are not sourced. The article is not at all up to the standards of this wiki project and I have flagged it as such. Bstone 13:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. I am removing the citation needed from the various places you have placed it. How are we supposed to find a source that does not list this university in it's publications. If the school is actually accredited, you must find that source and post it yourself. Otherwise, the article is factually and neutrally correct. Cheers, PaddyM 15:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
PaddyM, you completely misunderstand. If you are claiming that a school which grants a professional degree does not have their degrees recognized then you must source that claim from some governmental of accreditation body which can attest to you assertion that their degrees are not acceptable. Further, while I am certain the State of Oregon has very good policies in place, those policies are limited only to Oregon. As such I will be changing the article to indicate, quite factually and entirely logically, that the degrees are not valid in Oregon but may be accepted elsewhere. Unless, of course, you can provide factual, unbiased information which indicates this is true for other states. Bstone 19:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
No US state or other country will accept a degree from a medical school which is not listed in FAIMER or the WHO WDMS. Therefore, it is unnecessary to list each individual state's laws, as the school can't pass this basic criterion. Leuko 02:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Source? Bstone 06:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Read the sources. This degree is not acceptable in any state. As such, the article reflects a neutral stance on the fact that this school is completely unaccredited by any of the sources we have provided. So, I have removed the POV template since I added the last source. Cheers, PaddyM 16:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The article reads like a propaganda piece against the school. POV is certainly an issue. There is nothing about the make up of the school, philosophy, etc. It launched immediately into the issue of accreditation and nothing more. Replacing the POV tag. Bstone 21:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything else relevant other than the lack of accreditation that you can source from a WP:RS? I don't see the philosophy, curriculum, etc of an unaccredited school being all that encyclopedic. I would request that you remove the POV tag, unless you can show an WP:RS that indicates that the article is factually incorrect or a distortion of reality. I agree that POV/COI were issues in the past, where students/administrators of the school attempted to whitewash the article and replace it with an ad, but that is not represented in the current version, so I fail to see the utility of the npov tag. Leuko 21:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - There is nothing to indicate that the article is anything but neutral. It reads exactly like a newspaper article would read regarding this school. Cheers, PaddyM 02:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. It reads like a propaganda piece. Simply saying it is neutral does not make it to. POV stays until this article can be more neutral in content. Bstone 23:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is your end-game here, Bstone? Would you like us to accredit the school for you? Do you want a comprehensive listing of all the classes and teachers and buildings? Did you think that was common practice? Check Ross University or Southern Illinois University or University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and notice that they don't include the information that you think is appropriate for a completely fly-by-night school. The current version represents simple facts, backed with sources. If you think there is more information about the school that needs to be present, then, by all means, add it and source it, but just b/c you haven't added any new content, doesn't make the article POV. Cheers, PaddyM 01:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The article yields no other information about this school than it's location and 2 paragraphs detailing how it is not accredited. That is not balanced. My end-game: a neutral, balanced article. Thank you. Bstone 06:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Which is a neutral, balanced representations of facts regarding the school available in WP:RS. I don't see how you can say it is not neutral. Leuko 11:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Saying it's so doesn't make it so, Leuko. 1 line of real information followed by 2 paragraphs on how this school is anything but legit strikes of a biased article. Until more neutral content can be added (such as school history, philosophy, etc) then this article keeps the POV tag. This very discussion demonstrates it is POV. Bstone 14:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Just b/c you don't like what is written about the school doesn't change the facts of the matter. The school is unaccredited and its degrees are illegal in the United States. If any of that is untrue or unsourced, then remove it and fix it. But you know those statements to be factual and true. Perhaps you should spend some time reading WP:NOPOV or WP:NPOV and familiarize yourself with the policies contained therein. Your requirement for "balance" doesn't make sense in the context of wikipedia; only that sources can be found to verify facts and that neutrality in regards to opinions are not introduced. This article has no opinion whatsoever - only verified facts. Please cite the areas on the article which offer an opinion on the subject so that they con be removed; otherwise, there is nothing to indicate non-neutrality. Cheers, PaddyM 15:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Continuing to insist that an article which only consists of cited facts, and not opinions, is POV-pushing seems like WP:POINT or WP:COI. WP policies, such as WP:NPOV do not require that the subjects of articles can not include negative information if it is properly sourced from WP:RS, nor do they require that uncited, non-encyclopedic positive information be included. They only require that conflicting verified view points be presented equally. Since there are no WP:RS to indicate that this school is accredited in any way, WP:NPOV does not apply, since there is no verified opposing view point. I again respectfully request that the {{npov}} tag be removed, unless you can actually indicate how WP:NPOV is being violated in a tangible way. I agree with PaddyM's assessment that there is nothing that is non-neutral in the article. Thanks, Leuko 22:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Yes, the facts are sources. Yes, they are verifiable. However they are presented in such a way as to delegitimize and denigrate this school. 1 line of school info followed by 2 entire paragraphs is negative information makes for POV. It stays until the article can be balanced. It is not currently balanced in any way, shape or form. Bstone 03:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Like has been mentioned before, there is no WP policy that requires an article to be "balanced," only that opposing verified opinions are given equal treatment. Since there are no opinions, WP:NPOV does not apply. There is no attempt to delegitimize the school - facts are simply presented. Since there is no reasonable argument of an NPOV violation that has been explained over and over again, and it appears that the {{npov}} tag is being used in an attempt to cast doubt on the validity and accuracy of the article, I am going to remove it per consensus on this talk page. Please feel free to file a WP:RFC if you feel that it is necessary. Leuko

12:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

On the surface and in depth this article is not neutral. It is entirely biased against the school. POV tag stays until this changes. Bstone 04:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Point of View

Debate over whether the facts presented in the article are NPOV or constitute an "unbalanced" view of the subject.

Since it is a "Medical School", I don't think that it is "unbalanced" to make it clear that its graduates may not be able to legally call themselves "Doctors" or ever be able to obtain licensure in the U.S., UK, or Canada. How does the school respond to these criticisms? How do they explain their lack of accreditation? I would suggest including this information to eliminate the perception of bias. Are there any jurisdictions that would honor degrees granted here? For example, are they currently undergoing an accreditation process that, if approved, would apply retroactively to all medical degrees conferred by the university (doubtful, I admit)? Information of this type (if it exists) should definitely be included to balance the article. Otherwise, the "University" appears to be little more than a diploma mill and the article is fair. — DIEGO talk 14:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Diploma mills are typically fly-by-night operations and operate out of someone's home, small office or storage space. This school, however, has an actual campus, real physicians and PhDs as instructors and are in the process of obtaining the needed accreditation in order to have their graduates recognized. I emailed the school asking when they would be listed with FAIMER and they indicated it is less than a month away. As such it is clear they are not a diploma mill. Thus, this article would require a 3/4 rewrite (if not more) possibly within a month's time when they do obtain listing with FAIMER. At that point we would be seeing a very, very different article. Is it really worth all this effort of writing a supposedly encyclopedic article that will possibly have to be rewritten in a few short weeks or is it not a better idea to write a more neutral, balanced article that will require minor-to-moderate edits when their accreditation status changes? Bstone 15:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, the phone number listed for the U.S. office of the school is someone's home, according to reverse directory listings: [1] Therefore, the school seems to meet your definition of a fly-by-night diploma mill. In any case, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and any promises from the school to be listed with FAIMER are only unverifiable WP:COI speculation which would not be appropriate for inclusion into WP. The article must be based on WP:RS which are currently available. If other sources become available in the future, they can be added, but to insist that the fact that the school is currently unaccredited be whitewashed from the article is POV-pushing. Leuko 17:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Leuko, I called the number. They answered "CMU" and when I asked who Charlotte Wolf is I was told she handles admissions for CMU. Google is correct in that this is the number for Ms Wolf. This is hardly sufficient to determine if they are fly-by-night. Their business address in Rosemont, IL is in a very well known business district. Bstone 18:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's try to allow more comments before we attack each and every one for their outside opinions, shall we? Cheers, PaddyM 18:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I never said it was a diploma mill. I said if they are not currently in the process of accreditation and their graduates will never be practicing physicians, then they would be little more than a diploma mill. Little more than a diploma mill is still better than a diploma mill. In this case, the "little more" would consist of actual buildings and faculty. But there is little practical difference between a worthless diploma from a school with buildings and faculty and a worthless diploma from a "fly-by-night" operation. — DIEGO talk 21:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The difference being, DIEGO, is that this school has stated that they are imminently receiving accreditation. I look forward to this as it means their graduates can be licensed as physicians but more directly to us, it will require a 98% rewrite of this article. Thus, I ask the article be more content neutral and balanced in order to not have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. Bstone 04:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "content neutral"? Whitewash the article of anything which is not favorable to the school or its students (if there are any)? Again, WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. The promise of accreditation means nothing both in WP and the real world. If the school should get an IMED listing, there wouldn't be that much to change in the article. I would personally volunteer to do it, as it really wouldn't be that much work. As it stands now, the article contains only neutral and accurate facts. This persistent eventualism of obtaining accreditation/charter/etc. is starting to smack of WP:COI. Leuko 16:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Leuko, in what way do you believe I have a conflict of interest? The fact that I have absolutely no relationship to this school, their parent company or anyone who works for them should indicate that I have no COI. Why is it that you are so quick to accuse? Elsewhere on this talk page, with a very thin veil, you accused me of being somehow connected to the most recent editing to remove "unaccredited" from the InfoBox. I was not involved in that in any way, shape or form. Sir, you are growing more and more uncivil. Bstone 18:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
In my past experience of editing articles concerning themselves with unaccredited medical schools, it has generally been students or school administrators who wish to remove negative information from their school's article even though it is cited from reliable sources. No one else would really have an incentive to do so, and others not involved with the school would like to see the article be as accurate as possible. My apologies if you felt accused, but may I ask then why do you want to whitewash the article if you are not affiliated with the school? Leuko 18:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Leuko, as an experienced Wikipedia editor, I strive for the highest of standards and am uncompromising on articles which lack neutrality or balance. This article is entirely unbalanced and highly within your POV. Other editors and even one admin have found other medical school edits you have made to be highly POV as stated here[[2]] by MikeR. I will continue to work for a balanced, neutral article lacking of any POV issues. Bstone 21:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you did some research, you would find out that User:Mike R is not an administrator [3], not that it matters. Just to reiterate, WP:NPOV states articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). In regards to CMU (and UHSA), there is only one view that is supported by WP:RS - that the school is unaccredited, therefore WP:NPOV does not apply, because you would need two verifiable opposing viewpoints. If you can cite any WP:RS which contradicts the information in the article, please feel free to add it. However, if you can't, the argument that there is a POV violation really doesn't make any sense, and continuing to state such starts to be WP:POINT disruption. As for the assertion that of high article standards of neutrality, how would you characterize these edits [4][5] which introduce personal negative WP:OR opinions into an article which are not supported by WP:RS? Leuko 21:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Bstone, if you can document, from a WP:RS, that the school is currently undergoing the accreditation process (or even a report from a reliable source that CMU said accreditation was imminent), then put it in the article. But until they are accredited, an encyclopedia article has a responsibility to report current information fromm verifiable sources. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it will be extremely easy to update the article if/when CMU gains accreditation. And make no mistake, a school's accreditation status is germane to an encyclopedia article becasue it is usually a direct reflection of educational quality and always a reflection of the perceived value of diplomas granted by the institution. Furthermore, to my understanding (I may be wrong) and IMED (FAIMER) listing is only an indication that a school has been accredited/approved by a governing body in their local jurisdiction. If this is the case, then even if they receive local accreditation, it will still be germane to the article to note that its graduates would not be guaranteed the ability to practice in the U.S., UK, or Canada, especially since CMU is actively recruiting in at least one of those jurisdictions (evidenced by the U.S. contact information above). Also, if the school does not have agreements in place with U.S., UK, or Canadian hospitals to conduct clinical training (the final 2 years of med school), it would be exceedingly difficult for graduates to obtain placement in residency programs, regardless of being legally qualitfied to take the USMLE. I doubt that the majority of prospective medical students in the U.S. would be interested in obtaining an MD that would only allow them to work as GPs in Curacao (and possibly the rest of the Netherlands Antilles). — DIEGO talk 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
In essence, my issue has to do with tone. This article is not neutral due to it's tone. Tone is a majorly important thing. Just look here[[6]]. I believe that the article as it is currently written is not fair in tone, thus it needs to be made more balanced. Bstone 20:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that an unaccredited school not recognized in the United States or any other reputable medical facility in the world is never going to sound good whatever the tone. It sounds bad no matter what. Fact is that just because the facts aren't favorable doesn't make the piece biased. The Pov rating is biased as it gives the wrong impression that the article isn't 100% factual. If you know any thing positive in the face of these facts you're welcome to tell us what it is. But a school that offers you a degree that is recognized nowhere in the US or many other places in the world is tough to make a case for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.84.134 (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

InfoBox Type

In hopes of staving off an edit war between Leuko and myself, I would like to open discussion on the "Type" in the InfoBox. Specifically, Leuko is insistant that the school be referred to as "Unaccredited Medical School". I am under the opinion that accreditation does not matter and, at least, this is made abundantly clear in the article itself. Moreover, if we need to list if a school is accredited or not then should every school be listed not merely as "Medical School" but appending "Accredited" or "Unaccredited" onto it? Bstone 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Listing simply "Medical School" would give the false impression that the school has the authority to grant MD degrees that are worth something, which it currently does not. When using the title of medical school, there is an assumption of accreditation/charter/etc, none of which CMU currently possesses, so that should be made clear. Leuko 17:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It is made abundantly clear from the article itself. The school *is* a medical school, accredited or not. It's status of accreditation has no bearing on the fact that they offer 4 year medical education. Bstone 17:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is no WP:RS to support the statement that any sort of medical education is offered. Without any accreditation or recognition, the institution is not a bona fide medical school. Unaccredited should really stay to promote consistency. Leuko 18:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Leuko, I kindly ask that you do not vandalize the InfoBox. You are only contributing to an edit war which ultimately will end up in mediation. I beg you to think through your edits before clicking save. Because stating "unaccredited" was entered after this discussion began I am removing it and asking that this page be protected from further vandalism. Bstone 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Unaccredited was one of the original statements, so it should belong if we are to protect the page. The school should absolutely be referred to as Unaccredited until it becomes accredited. Accreditation is assumed in the pages of schools which currently hold that distinction.
As far as your earlier claim that the school has a campus and it's own facilities, that is actually false. They currently rent space for the Curacao trade center and any students which attend are actually attending classes at locations that are owned by other schools. There is nothing to indicate that this school actually has any legitimate offerings whatsoever. Mr. Lewkowski has openly admitted that the charter was supposed to be available in March of '07 and then has pushed the date back on each subsequent deadline he has set for himself. Remember that wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the affirmation of being accredited in the near future has been proven false several times. Cheers, PaddyM 19:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
My claims were merely taken from their website, which is so far the only authoritative and real source of information of this school. Be that as it may, if the school becomes FAIMER listed how then will this effect your opinion of it vis-a-vis accreditation? Bstone 19:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The school's website is neither authoritative nor factually accurate. Besides being an obvious WP:COI, and not an independent WP:RS, it contains outright fallacies, such as claiming to be accredited/IMED listed/USMLE eligible when they are not. They also claim to have clinical rotations where the school is not approved or even banned outright. As far as IMED listing, this would be an indication that they have received a charter from their host government and are a legitimate medical school, but this has not happened yet, and may never happen. Leuko 16:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Let it be known that it was not me nor any friends who removed "unaccredited" from the InfoBox. I was shocked to see it removed when I checked a few minutes ago. Since I do not contribute to 3RR or edit wars I don't think it was constructive to remove it until we have come to a conclusion about it. Bstone 15:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, a WP:RFCU might be interesting, but probably unnecessary, as it was probably aWP:SPA which followed me here from another dispute and is intent on just being disruptive. Thank you User:Bstone for not removing it until there is a consensus to do so. Leuko 16:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Leuko, I see that it was you who reverted this change. Of course you realize that you have now made three reverts within 24 hours. Your first revert was 17:22, 2 October 2007, second was 17:46, 2 October 2007 and third was 16:22, 3 October 2007. This only contributes to my request for page protection until we can discuss and agree to how to handle this. In addition, you seem to be making thinly veiled accusations against me by somehow alluding that I may be responsible for the above edit. Sir, I find this is bad taste. Please think before you click save page. Bstone 18:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I really wasn't counting, but to be in violation of WP:3RR, you technically need to make 4 edits in a 24-hour period. However, reverting deletion vandalism of an IP address against consensus is not a violation of WP:3RR. I am sorry that you feel accused, but in fact I thanked you for refraining from perpetuating the edit war. I don't think that is uncivil at all. Finally, I don't think protection is necessary. As long as we can agree to refrain from edit warring, and abide by consensus, we should be fine without protection. Leuko 18:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi Protection Request

I have requested this page be semi-protected until we can discuss and come to a conclusion regarding the InfoBox "type" issue. We are very much in danger of violating WP:3RR Bstone 18:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And with PaddyM's edit as of a few minutes ago, three reverts has been achieved. Bstone 19:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that you are unclear on the policy. Cheers, PaddyM 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I know the policy. While it hasn't been met in the letter of the law it surely has been met in spirit vis-a-vis the 4 reverts done by very few editors of the same opinion. I have requested page protection. Please, everyone, let us discuss this issue and come to a civil conclusion. Bstone 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you may wish to read the protection policy again, as it appears that in fact you are unclear on the policy. It is not vandalism, and semi-protection is inappropriate, as evidenced by the lack of admin action on the WP:RFPP page. Leuko 02:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Leuko, I kindly ask that you read and digest what I write before responding. You have made several thinly veiled statements which can be understood in a variety of negative ways. I ask that we maintain a civil discourse through all of this. You can do that, right?Bstone 22:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I do feel I am remaining relatively civil, but it becomes difficult when you start WP:STALK through my edits, and leave personal attacks and other disparaging comments on other editor's talk pages. Leuko 05:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal - Delete Article

It seems to me that, depending on which of the two factions editing the page you listen to, this article is either an advertisement for a non notable medical school, or it's a warning page about a diploma mill. Wikipedia is neither an advertising forum nor a consumer advice service. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 23:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: The subject of the article has been covered by multiple WP:RS, including an official state list of unaccredited schools, so it appears to be notable enough for a WP article. There are many articles in WP on medical schools with which have accreditation and licensing issues. Examples: St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine, St Matthews University, University of Health Sciences Antigua. Previous AfD's of articles of this type have been closed as keep. Leuko 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Coverage is an article about the school, not it's appearance in a list. From WP:NOTE, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. If the best example of specific coverage that you can give is that it appeared in a list of unaccredited medical schools, then you haven't established notability. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps those other articles should also be proposed for deletion based on the same rationale. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons Leuko stated and I believe this school will soon become accredited (per their own statements) and thus become notable. Bstone 02:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, looks like we agree on something... Though I disagree with the second half of your statement. CMU is already notable for all the coverage it is receiving. The accreditation issue is WP:CRYSTAL, and won't make CMU any more or less notable. Leuko 03:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Heard this all before, Leuko. No need to keep repeating yourself. Bstone 04:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. But it just seems like WP:CRYSTAL isn't sinking in. Leuko 05:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Please drop it, Leuko. Thank you.Bstone 06:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Accreditation as a medical school does not confer notability. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I am curious to know why a university is not notable to have an entry in this encyclopedia. Bstone 20:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Amigoe newspaper article

Leuko, I see that you added a quote from the newspaper Amigoe [7]. Scroll about half way down for the CMU article. This is a very interesting article but I think it has one major issue which may or may not prevent it's inclusion in this article. Specifically, Amigoe writes:

Furthermore, the free internet encyclopedia Wikipedia mentions from five sources (the Federation of State Medical Boards, the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, and the State of Texas Medical Board Rules) that CMU is not acknowlegded, has no licence to establish a business and that certain degrees obtained are therefore invalid in the US.

I believe that it is improper for this wikipedia article to cite an article which bases some or most of it's research from this very entry. While I don't know what the policy is in this case, it seems to me to be much too circular in logic and possibly a conflict of interest for this wikipedia article to cite Amigoe. Please correct me if I am wrong.Bstone 00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the newspaper could have easily verfied this information rather than citing Wikipedia, it is a pretty good indication the the level of journalistic standards (i.e., fact-checking) at Amigoe is not particularly high. I would say this is definitely not a reliable source as far as this article is concerned and should not be referenced. — DIEGO talk 00:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Since it appears to be the daily newspaper in Curacao, while it may not be the New York Times, it is still one of the more reliable sources that we have (especially compared to the school's website). Leuko 02:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You can't use a source that is in part based on the article as a reference for anything that source has quoted the article for. Therefore, if that source has lifted accreditation information from the article, you can not use the source with respect to accreditation issues. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It was being used to cite the newspaper's opinion that the school is a fake (i.e. there is no signs of life in the dorms, the administration is not reachable, etc), not accreditation issues. Leuko 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph

In the interest of discussion for the intro paragraph, I propose that the following sentence be added:

It offers a 4 year course of study leading to the degree of Doctor of Medicine; however, this degree is currently unaccredited.

This is entirely factual, relevant and pertinent to the article. I can see no reason why it should not be included. Comments?Bstone 03:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It should not be included because CMU can not legally issues an MD degree so "leading to the degree of Doctor of Medicine" is misleading and not factual. The disclaimer that the degree is "currently" unaccredited seems like WP:CRYSTAL-ballism, in that there is some expectation that the degree will become accredited when there is no such expectation. Leuko 16:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The legality of accreditation of the degree has absolutely no bearing on the fact that they do, in fact, issue such a degree. In my proposal I clearly write how this degree is unaccredited, so it fits with your desire to make certain that these degrees aren't worth the paper they are written on. Still- it is factual that they award such degrees and it is relevant to this article. I am hoping for more input from other editors. Bstone 17:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I could scribble "Doctor of Medicine" on a napkin, and award it, and it would be the same as CMU awarding an MD degree. I don't see how it is a good thing to be promoting illegal/fraudulent degrees on WP. Leuko 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Leuko, do you agree that this school awards medical degrees? You will have to answer yes as they do. It's factual. It's indisputable. It's verifiable. Their website says their program, "leads to the degree of Medical Doctor (M.D.)"[8]. Even if it's worth the same as your napkin, this is a relevant part of the article. Bstone 00:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it should mention that they award the MD degree (unaccredited), since that is what they (CMU) claim, but it is far from indisputable since they have never actually awarded any degree. Just a minor point. — DIEGO talk 00:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is actually no proof whatsoever that this school awards MD degrees. In fact, in order to be able to bestow a degree at all, the school must be awarded a charter from its parent country - which has not happened. So, it is disputable, unverifiable and completely untrue that they award MDs. They are simply not given that authority from their governing body. That being said, I believe that it should be removed from the opening paragraph. Cheers, PaddyM 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Paddy, anyone can grant a degree. Weather or not the degree is accredited is what counts. It's verifiable by the like above. Saying they award an unaccredited MD is fact. Bstone 00:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It's simply not possible. If you look at the link your provided, you will notice that students spend "6 semesters . . . taught at affiliated hospitals . . . in the U.S." This is not possible for several reasons, not the least being that students cannot sit for Step 1 and, therefore, cannot rotate in the U.S. How could they grant a degree when they can't complete their program? PaddyM 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand what you mean by this. It's possible that they award an MD diploma based on the fact that it says so right on their website. Bstone 01:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
CMU's website has been proven to have gross factual inaccuracies (even claiming clinical rotations in states where they are banned or not approved (i.e. Oregon, Florida)), so it should not be treated as a WP:RS. Leuko 21:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Leuko, I see that you deleted it again with the note "m - consensus on the talk page is to not include this.". Leuko, that is absolutely untrue. So far it's Diego and I saying it should be mentioned and you and PaddyM saying it shouldn't. How is that consensus??? I can only assume that your removal of this is coming closer and closer to vandalism. You are removing it because you don't want it to be there, not because of any WP policy. It you remove it again before actual consensus is reached then I shall report you for vandalism. Bstone 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There's no strong consensus to include it. As far as policy, have you seen WP:V? There is no WP:RS cited that the school awards the MD degree. And as previously stated, no, the school's website doesn't count, as it has been proven that inaccuracies abound there. Leuko 13:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, Leuko, you removed the sentence from the opening paragraph for reasons only known to you. In an attempt to win your argument, I would like to direct you to [[9]]. Your edits in this case are are mystifying. In addition, Leuko, you might want to read over WP:RS again and see where, in bold, it says This page is a guideline, not a policy. The article had the sentence regarding MD being awarded after 4 years before you started this edit war. I will be reverting it one last time, to it's original state. Leuko, it's a good idea to wait until actual consensus is reached before you edit a part of an article which is being debated. Not sure where you got the idea that there was consensus as there clearly is not. Bstone 18:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The page WP:RS is a guideline about which sources can be considered reliable. The general principle that information must be verifiable from a reliable source is policy. If someone disputes an unsourced statement in an article, generally the burden of proof is on those who want to keep it. You must cite a proper source. Friday (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Which was done, in full compliance with WP:V. Friday, I urge you not to make this personable and stick to the issues. Thank you. Bstone 22:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

3PO / RFC

A WP:3PO or WP:RFC that may affect issues of contention in the editing of this article has been proposed in a similar article here: Talk:Medical_University_of_the_Americas_-_Belize#3PO_.2F_RFC. Please go there to comment! DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 22:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Accreditation

If you insist on re-inserting the "http://www.fsmb.org/fcvs_physcvs.html" reference as proof that qualifications from CMU are not accepted in any US state, please state where in that document it says it, quoting the exact text would be useful, as I can see nothing on that page relating directly to CMU. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Since CMU is not listed in IMED, graduates of the school can not take the USMLE or obtain ECFMG certification, thus they are ineligible to be licensed anywhere in the US. Leuko 02:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Combining different statements made by two references to deduce a third assumption is WP:OR. Moreover, I see nothing in the cited reference that pertains to the validity of CMU qualifications in any US state. Please quote in this page the exact text from the reference that you are basing your assertion on. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Leuko, have you actually read the FSMB web-page that you're citing as a reference? Here is the content:

<trimmed>

This web page makes no statement as to the acceptability or otherwise of anything, and does not make any statement that can be interpreted as referring to CMU. Please provide a reference for your statement that "As such, its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions, including all of the United States" referencing this page! DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added references, however regarding the original citation, it states that the following are necessary:
      • United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Steps 1, 2, 3
      • Confirmation of ECFMG Certification (ECFMG Form 286-B)
      • Photocopy of ECFMG Certificate
None of which CMU graduates can obtain, because the school is not listed in IMED. Leuko 03:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't - the page that you're citing is merely a list of documentation that the verification service is able to undertake the verification of - it makes no statements as to licensing requirements anywhere. Specifically the web page does not state anything such as "The following are required for licensing as a physician within the USA" DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Oregon - where a reference redefines a term, such as Oregon's own definition of "accreditation", you should avoid using transposing that term into an article from the reference in such a manner that readers may assume a more common meaning of the word and misinterpret the article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Oregon redefines the term - it looks to be rather common usage to me without any opportunity for misinterpretation. Again though, we should be using the wording of WP:RS not weasel words or other constructed language. Leuko 02:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
From the Oregon reference: "Oregon law (ORS 348.609) defines accreditation to include only those accreditors recognized by the U.S. Department of Education" thus Oregon is using their own definition of "accreditation" per their state law. Therefore, as has already been pointed out to you several times in talk pages relating to other articles, Oregon uses its own definition for accreditation, and Oregon's use of the term accreditation should not be transposed into articles in case readers then misinterpret it to mean accreditation in some other sense. We should avoid introducing terms from sources when the way those sources use such terms is not the same as the common usage. If a report defined "fatal" as "any injury, illness or condition that caused pain, suffering or concern to a person" and then concluded that "100% of ER admissions are fatal", I am sure you would not cite the exact wording of that report without an explanation of the definition of "fatal" as used in that report. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Oregon states that foreign degree suppliers must have accreditation standards the same as US standards. Is this not a common usage? Or what do you envision the common usage of unaccredited to be? Because I don't see the argument that it can be interpreted in any false way. In addition, the school is not recognized nor accredited by its host government, hence unaccredited. As has been pointed out to you on other talk pages, we should be using the terminology used by WP:RS, since they are the experts, we are not. In your example, your definition of fatal is just plain wrong, whereas Oregon's definition of unaccredited is not fallacious, making the comparison disingenuous. Leuko 03:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I envision the common usage of accredited to indicate accreditation by a relevant authority for the jurisdiction under whose educational system a qualification is issued. Oregon has its own definition. If you quote Oregon's use of accredited or words derived from accredited, you need to clarify the meaning of those words in that quote. This is why I would prefer to say "X does not recognise qualifications issued by Y for the purpose of licensing of physicians." It is a neutrally worded, accurate, simple, succinct, and free of any risk of misinterpretation that might be caused by the fact that some jurisdictions have their own definitions of common terms statement of facts. There is no need to add additional negatively worded commentary about any given institution or qualification just because it exists in a reference, and doing so is not editing in a neutral manner. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
So you advocate removing exactly quoted text from a WP:RS because it doesn't show the school in the most positive light? That seems to be POV-pushing. Leuko 04:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I advocate presenting the references in a neutral manner, and in the case of the Oregon reference, that means either accurately paraphrasing the reference, or adding appropriate text from the reference to clarify the meaning of terms used in the reference. An accurate paraphrasing of the Oregon reference is that "Oregon does not recognise qualifications issued by CMU for the licensing of physicians" however if you want to get into exact quoting of the text of the reference, specifically using the word accreditation for which Oregon uses its own definition, then you need to ensure that people reading the quoted information realise that "accredited" as used by Oregon in such a quote may not mean the same as "accredited" is normally accepted to mean in the wider sense. I see that you earlier used the reason "restore exact oregon wording" as a justification for removing text I had added to the article, well you can't have it both ways - if the "exact Oregon wording" is so important, then the statement 'In this context "accreditation" is defined as follows: "Oregon law (ORS 348.609) defines accreditation to include only those accreditors recognized by the U.S. Department of Education."' is appropriate use of exact Oregon wording anywhere that Oregon is quoted as using any word that stems from the root "accredit". I am quite happy with either of the following statements as an indication of Oregon's position on CMU:
Oregon does not recognise qualifications issued by CMU for the licensing of physicians
CMU is listed by Oregon in a list of "degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)".
CMU is listed by Oregon in a list of "unaccredited degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)". In this context "accreditation" is defined as follows: "Oregon law (ORS 348.609) defines accreditation to include only those accreditors recognized by the U.S. Department of Education."
If you incorporate the word "unaccredited" as used by Oregon in the article, you must clarify that when Oregon says "unaccredited", it has a specific meaning as defined in Oregon law. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you added "as defined by Oregon state law" to the Oregon Unaccredited Schools reference due to "ambiguity." What is ambiguous? Can you cite even one WP:RS that the school is accredited, by any definition of the word, by anyone? Leuko 03:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The ambiguity is the fact that Oregon has it's own definition for the word accredited, and hence any quoted use of accredited (or words derived there from) by Oregon needs to be qualified with the fact that Oregon has its own definition of accredited. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
But you agree that the school isn't accredited by anyone? So there's no ambiguity on that point? So what's the use of all the useless qualifying statements and disclaimers if by no definition of the word the school is accredited? Leuko 04:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not discussing whether CMU is accredited or not, I'm discussing the introduction of a term that is redefined in a reference into the article without clarifying the way that the reference concerned redefines the term. The issue here as in many other places is the citing and use of references in an un-encyclopaedic manner. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Directly quoting a WP:RS is using references in an unencylopedic manner? Hmph, that's a new one. Including Oregon's definition of unaccredited is useless fluff, since the school is unaccredited no matter whose definition you use. I've also restored a more appropriate definition from Oregon taken from their WP:RS, since it is more applicable to CMU as a foreign school and more spacially related as it is directly above the list of unaccredited foreign degree suppliers where CMU is listed. Leuko 14:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the actual text of the Oregon definition of accredited from the WP:RS that you cite. It is less verbose than your definition, so it is clearly not useless fluff. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis

I believe that this paragraph:

"As such, its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions, including all of the United States, as graduates are not eligible for ECFMG certification as a result of the school not being listed in IMED. ECFMG certification is required for licensure in the US."

Is an inappropriate synthesis of the non-listing of CMU in FAIMER/IMED with the ECFMG medical credits requirements, also I believe that the FSMB/FCVS reference doesn't actually speak to the credentials required for medical licensing, but rather to the credentials that FSMB/FCVS is able to undertake the verification of, and to use that FSMB/FCVS reference to indicate licensing requirements is inappropriate. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

FCVS is required by a number of states, and accepted by a large majority. [10]. We could reference every state medical board's requirements, but not only would that be less than useful, they would all be essentially the same in the fact that USMLE and ECFMG certification are required for all. Leuko 04:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, you are combining information from IMED and information from ECFMG to draw the conclusion that study at CMU is not recognised by ECFMG, secondly you are quoting the FSMB/FCVS page as if it were an authoritative list of requirements for licensing in all US states, when there is nothing in that reference to suggest that it is. Your paragraph "As such ... licensure in the US" contains nothing but OR and presumption, and misrepresents the references that it uses. What I'm challenging here is the un-encyclopaedic synthesis and misrepresentation of references, not the information that you are attempting to convey. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The information is correct, you just don't like the sources? Can you come up with any better WP:RS which demonstrate the current situation of this school? Leuko 14:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the one including this material in the article. The statement "ECFMG certification is required for licensure in the US" is both flawed and not supported by the reference, the reference does not state "ECFMG certification is required for licensure in the US", the reference is not licensing requirements, it's a list of documents that the FCVS can verify on behalf of members of FSMB. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Saying "as such" is a weasel word and is clearly synthesis. If you cannot directly quote an authoritative organization/entity for your ascertation, then stating "as such" is a conclusion which is synthesized plain and simple. Bstone 17:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid edit war, discuss here

Folks, I can already see another edit war raging. I must beg everyone to please discuss the issues here before we do any more edits. Thank you. Bstone 02:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, let's see how you guys get out of this mess. I have my Step 1 on a few months; see you all later. DrGladwin 04:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

External official site?

Just curious why the official site of this school (and one or two other schools) was removed from the external links? Bstone 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How many places am I going to find this question in? As it says in the edit summary, if the website is in the infobox it doesn't need to be repeated in an external links section. WP:External links#Important points to remember DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I posted it here and your talk page. Thanks so much for so promptly responding. Your answers sounds fine to me. Thanks!! Bstone 03:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to form Consensus ref Lead

This is a record of a consensus discussion. Please do not edit it. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The result of the discussion is to remove the paragraph concerned. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a discussion to form a consensus about the following paragraph in the article. Discussion opens 03:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC) and will close after a minimum of 5 days.

As such, its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions[11], and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions, including all of the United States, as graduates are not eligible for ECFMG certification as a result of the school not being listed in IMED[12]. ECFMG certification is required for licensure in the US.[13]

The use of "As such" and "as a result of" are clear indications of a synthesis draw from references in this paragraph and the prior one, and a further synthesis drawn from references in this paragraph. In addition, the last sentence in the paragraph is not supported by the reference, as the reference does not claim to be or describe a definitive list of requirements for licensing of physicians in the USA. Therefore I propose to delete this paragraph. Please indicate Keep (to retain the paragraph) or Delete (to remove it) in the "Opinion ref Lead" section below, and ensure you sign and date your comment. Anonymous opinions with no edit history will not be counted.

Opinion ref Lead

Please find a reference that supports your assertion, as the quoted one doesn't. Also, I think your statement about the need for ECFMG certification is wrong. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 18:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict)You must be ECFMG certified to take the Step exams [14]. To get ECFMG certified, you must be listed in IMED [15]. It's not original research at all, it is simply connecting the dots. Cheers, PaddyM 18:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, if I can prove to your satisfaction that it is possible to gain licensure as a physician in the USA without ECFMG certification, will you agree that the statement "ECFMG certification is required for licensure in the US" in the lead can be deleted? By the way, "joining the dots" between multiple references to draw a conclusion is synthesis / or. You need to find a single reference that states the fact you wish to present, not present as a conclusion drawn by linking multiple references. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 20:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Go for it. If you have the reference then by all means, use it. Cheers, PaddyM 14:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, if a US citizen who trains at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore does not need ECFMG certification for a license to practice medicine, then ECFMG certification is not a requirement for licensing of a physician in the USA, and the statement "ECFMG certification is required for licensure in the US" is factually wrong, incorrect, false, and a load of baloney. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is an extremely nice point, except that you realize we are talking about a foreign medical school, and not a US medical school.
So, I then propose that the line should say, "ECFMG certification is required for foreign medical graduates to be licensed in the US." You could have easily made that edit yourself in the article if that was your point the whole time. Certification is required for IMG's, and I think you realize that. Cheers, PaddyM 01:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about the statements made in WP articles, their accuracy, and whether the references as listed support them. In this case, it is my assertion that (a) the statement "ecfmg certification is required for medical licensing in the US" is wrong, and (b) that the reference given in support of that statement does not identify itself as being "licensing requirements for physicians in the US". I don't have and can't find a reference to support your suggested edit, and I don't believe that the existing reference supports it either (for reason b), so the statement should be removed until it's been corrected and a suitable supporting reference has been provided by those who wish to include it. The word "foreign" should be used very carefully when making such statements too, as one reader's "foreign" is another reader's "native", and you can not assume that only US nationals will read any given article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to form Consensus ref Oregon Licensing

This is a record of a consensus discussion. Please do not edit it. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The result of the discussion is to replace the current text with the proposed text. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a discussion to form a consensus about replacing the following paragraph in the article. Discussion opens 03:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC) and will close after a minimum of 5 days.

Existing wording:

Qualifications granted by CMU are not accepted for licensing of physicians in all jurisdictions. CMU is listed by Oregon in a list of "unaccredited degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)".[16] Oregon states "the use of degrees issued outside the United States is governed by ORS 348.609(1)(a), which requires that such degrees come from schools with the foreign equivalent of U.S. accreditation."[17]

Proposed wording:

Qualifications granted by CMU are not accepted for licensing of physicians in all jurisdictions, and use of such qualifications and titles they confer may be restricted by law.
  • Oregon includes CMU on a list of "degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)".[18]

Please indicate Keep (to retain the existing wording) or Replace (to replace it with the proposed text) in the "Opinion ref Oregon" section below, and ensure you sign and date your comment. Anonymous opinions with no edit history will not be counted.

Opinion ref Oregon

Current wording does not clarify that the phrase "unaccredited degree suppliers" should be interpreted in accordance with the Oregon definition of accreditation, rather than the more common meaning of the word, which makes the article misleading. The website clearly states that Oregon applies its own definition of accreditation. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 18:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Gov't Charter

As of 9 Nov 2007 CMU has received a charter from the government of the Netherlands Antilles. That is located on their website here. I have checked IMED and they are not yet listed, but perhaps will be very soon. Interestingly, the charter does specifically state that it's not an accreditation but that the degrees are authorized. Bstone 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong (which I might be) but now that CMU has a government charter and is soon to be listed in IMED this means they *can* sit for the USMLE. If this is incorrect then please post here with a source for this. Bstone 04:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

CMU has indeed received a "charter", but that charter is just a declaration that states that CMU had the right to establish their company on the island of Curacao. It states furthermore that this does not mean that the government recognizes nor licenses this company as a medical university. The Antillian law just lacks the authority to do so. FAIMER is the organization in the USA that adds a recognized Medical University to its IMED-list. The government of the Netherlands Antilles does not have the competence, nor the ability, to recognize any university, apart from their own University of the Netherlands Antilles. I am sorry, but that's the way it is. Another thing is, that FAIMER demands from the government of the Netherlands Antilles a declaration that a doctor with a CMU-diploma is authorized to practise his profession on the islands. Well, he is not. He or she might be eligible for practising, but that is up to a medical licensing board and does not give any security. These are the two arguments that the Minister of Education of the Netherlands Antilles had clarify to FAIMER. CMU went to court about this and they lost.talk) 16:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Accreditation

While CMU currently lacks accreditation from an independent, non-governmental organization determining the quality of their medical school education, I think (and please correct me if I am wrong) that the category of unaccredited institutions of higher education is for schools which have neither a government charter nor a private accreditation. A diploma mill would be a good example of this. Thus, I believe that CMU does not belong in this category as they do have a legal charter and a legal right to grant the MD diploma. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Since they are still not listed in IMED, they are still not allowed to sit for the USMLE. I don't think we can take them out of that category until they actually receive some sort of legitimacy. Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Their legitimacy comes from their documented legal right to grant the degree of Doctor of Medicine, per their government charter. I am not surprised they are not yet listed in IMED, but we must remember that IMED is only a listing of schools which have a legal right to grant the MD, but in no way an endorsement of the school itself. Looking forward to your response. Bstone (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"we must remember that IMED is only a listing of schools which have a legal right to grant the MD, but in no way an endorsement of the school itself." Just like you said. If they aren't listed in IMED, they have nothing. Let's wait and see. Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
PaddyM, huh? A listing in IMED is simply like being in a phone book. If you're not in the phone book it doesn't mean you can't be called or have a phone. CMU now has a legal right to issue the MD. Listing in IMED will probably occur soon, but isn't related to their right to grant a degree. Of course, you realize this talk is about accreditation and if CMU should be listed as an unaccredited institute of higher learning. I say no, as they have a gov't charter and are not a diploma mill. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
If they're not listed in IMED, you aren't officially recognized by any governing body. We need to wait until the IMED listing is completed before it is actually recognized. I'm re-adding the category b/c IMED has clearly not received the information as of yet. Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
PaddyM, I am at my wit's end with this. I think we should ask for a third party or formal mediation. Quite simply, PaddyM, IMED does not mean a school is accredited. A listing in IMED should not have anything to do with a school being listed as an accredited institute of higher ed or not. Furthermore, there are several Caribbean schools which only have IMED listings and a gov't charter and are not accredited by anyone but are not listed as such. MUA-Nevis is a good example. I am going to revert your edit as it's reason is not based in anything solid. Please discuss here before continuing with this. Bstone (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Not a University

This institution is not academic, not a university and its "diplomas" not acknowledged anywhere else in the world. A school is not the same as a university. Why not give it a coverage simply for what it is, a diploma mill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.71.97 (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection Request

Protection has been requested for this page due to an IP edit war. Please discuss prior to reverting. Leuko Talk/Contribs 20:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caribbean_Medical_University/Archive_1&oldid=1136592127"