Talk:Medical University of the Americas – Belize

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

Accredited or not?[edit]

I am under the impression that this IS an accredited medical school. It has a charter from it's government and it allowed to grant Doctor of Medicine degrees to it's graduated in accordance with it's government charter and accreditation. Thus, I believe removing "unaccredited" it proper, but clearly stating that it is unaccredited in certain US states. Bstone 06:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texas hasn't investigated this school, while it seems Oregon has. TX simply has that Oregon doesn't approve of the school. How should we describe this? As it currently sits it's not compltely accurate. Bstone 06:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is accurate. Texas has placed the school on its list of fraudulent institutions, and that is what is mentioned in the article. How it got there is really not our concern, just that it is listed. Leuko 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leuko, this article is meant to be an encyclopedic work. Thus, all information must be absolutely correct. The State of TX has *not* investigated this school, while Oregon has. The TX website specifically states that they are only disapproving of it because Oregon does. Thus, it is absolutely correct and undeniable to state something along the lines of "the US State of Oregon has investigated this school and deemed it fraudulent. The US State of Texas does not accept degrees from schools while other US States have the school listed as fraudulent; however, Texas has not conducted an independent investigation into the school." I will be ammending the article to include this information once there is comment from other editors.Bstone 17:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Texas may or may not have conducted an investigation on top of Oregon's investigation - we do not know, and to conjecture either way is WP:OR. I feel we should just stick to the fact that the school is on TX's list of fraudulent schools. Leuko 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leuko, we know this is the case because it says so right on Texas's website. What more is required? Bstone 20:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, Texas may have conducted their own investigation in addition to Oregon's, so to say so definitively would be erroneous. Leuko 21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a list of "fraudulent" schools, it is a list of schools conferring "fraudulent or substandard" degrees within the definition of "fraudulent or substandard" given in Texas Code 61.302(11). Specifically it fails the test of 61.302(11)(C), which is arguably "substandard" rather than "fraudulent", as "fraudulent" is arguably intended to apply to institutions conferring degrees that fail the test of 61.302(11)(A) or 61.302(11)(B) (which refer to institutions that are are operating in violation of law or which are not accredited). In order to avoid detailed analysis and interpretation of the specific wording of Texas State Code, it would perhaps be better to simply state that 'The State of Texas lists the medical school in a list of "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas" as defined by Texas State Code 61.302(11) with a comment of "Oregon reports this entity does not meet its standards for foreign degrees."'
They are accredited. Look here: http://www.moes.gov.bz/BMSCC/universities.htm Bstone 22:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fraudulent?[edit]

The Oregon reference states of the list that includes the institution, "The following list of unaccredited degree suppliers is maintained by ODA for the protection of the citizens of Oregon and their post-secondary schools by identifying those degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)." The Oregon reference also states that "Oregon law (ORS 348.609) defines accreditation to include only those accreditors recognized by the U.S. Department of Education." so any statement that an institute is not accredited made by the State of Oregon may mean that the U.S. Department of Education does not recognise the accreditors. The Texas reference states of the list that includes the institution "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas". The Oregon reference does not use the word "fraudulent". The Texas reference uses the phrase "fraudulent or substandard", but clarifies the phrase with a reference to the wording of Texas Educational Code, Chapter 61, Section 61.302. There is no basis in either reference, or the combination of the two references, for the use of the phrase "unaccredited and fraudulent". Regardless of any other text or phrasing used on the web pages containing those two lists, the inclusion of the institute in the two lists actually means that:

  • The State of Oregon lists the institute in a list of "degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)" with a comment of "Note: Not the same entity as Medical University of the Americas-Nevis, which has been approved by the State of New York."
  • The State of Texas lists the institute in a list of "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas" with a comment of "Oregon reports this entity does not meet its standards for foreign degrees."

Attaching any other meaning to the appearance of the institute in those lists is a mis-representation of the references. Stating that "Both Oregon and Texas have deemed the school to be unaccredited and fraudulent" is clearly incorrect, as that statement is only one quarter correct in that Oregon has deemed the school to be unaccredited within the definition of accredited defined by Oregon State Law. Furthermore, without citing more than two such states, the use of the phrase "it has been disapproved by several US states" lacks sufficient WP:RS, several is commonly interpreted as "more than a few, but not a great number" Chambers Dictionary "several". As "a few" is a plural phrase it can not apply to any quantity less than two, and so the minimum quantity that "several" can apply to is three. I am therefore making the following two changes to the article:

  • Change "several" to "some" (some is an unspecified number) in the statement "disapproved by several states"
  • Remove "Both Oregon[3] and Texas[4] have deemed the school to be unaccredited and fraudulent." and replace it with two separate statements more accurately reflecting the meaning of inclusion of the school in the two State lists.

The second change removes any possibility of the terms "fraudulent" or "unaccredited" as defined by the States of Texas and Oregon respectively being (mis)interpreted by the reader to mean their widely accepted meanings, rather than the narrower meanings defined in the various state's legislation. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information for Oregon and TX seems to be really longwinded and overstated. I think a small summary stating those states don't accept the degrees and links to the relevant websites is more appropriate. Comments? Bstone 06:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is an accurate representation of the references. That is essential. Whether the information is more than is needed to give an accurate and neutral representation of the references I'm not sure, especially in the case of the Texas reference which I see was changed to include the word "fraudulent" again. I have removed the phrase "fraudulent or substandard" from the Texas reference, as I believe that there is no need to include that specific phrase when you immediately follow the phrase by it's definition as used in Texas. I believe that the the persistence of some editors in emphasising and including the most negative wording that they can find amongst references in this and similar articles is indicative of WP:SOAPBOX and a failure to present facts from a WP:NPOV I also note that there is an inconsistency in the 4th part of Texas' definition of "fraudulent or substandard." Read carefully a degree ... conferred outside the United States by an institution that the Coordinating Board determines is not the equivalent of an accredited or authorized degree - the last word in that definition should be institution, or the words "by an institution" should be removed from the phrase. The actual definition in Texas Code 61.302(11) of "Fraudulent or substandard degree" is:
(11) "Fraudulent or substandard degree" means:
(A) a degree conferred by a private postsecondary educational institution or other person that, at the time the degree was conferred, was operating in this state in violation of this subchapter;
(B) if the degree is not approved through the review process described by Section 61.3021, a degree conferred by a private educational institution or other person that, at the time the degree was conferred, was not eligible to receive a certificate of authority under this subchapter and was operating in another state:
(i) in violation of a law regulating the conferral of degrees in that state or in the state in which the degree recipient was residing; or
(ii) without accreditation by a recognized accrediting agency; or
(C) if conferred by a private educational institution or other person not described by Paragraph (A) or (B), including a private educational institution or other person that, at the time the degree was conferred, was not eligible to receive a certificate of authority under this subchapter and was operating outside the United States, a degree that the board, through the review process described by Section 61.3021, determines is not the equivalent of an accredited or authorized degree as described by that section.
see Texas Educational Code. I believe that the use of the word "fraudulent" in the phrase may be intended to apply specifically to degrees that fail the tests of 61.302(11)(A) or 61.302(11)(B), whereas MUA-B appears to fail the test at 61.302(11)(C). DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 12:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing the "Texas" statement to:
The State of Texas lists the medical school in a list of "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas" as defined by Texas State Code 61.302(11) with a comment of "Oregon reports this entity does not meet its standards for foreign degrees."
with a wikilink to Texas, and referencing the state code and the list, as this removes the current excess of verbosity.DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For consistency I've also added a reference for ORS 348 to the Oregon statement. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fraudulent or substandard is the exact wording that Texas uses when describing the degrees offered by institutions on its list. In order to be most consistent with the WP:RS, this is the wording that I feel that we should use. Continued whitewashing and removing phrasing from WP:RS seems to be WP:POV and WP:SOAP-boxing to me. Leuko 02:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the Texas list is "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas", the associated discussion of the meaning of "fraudulent or substandard degree" is simply discussion of the meaning of the phrase. Once again you are picking up on the most negatively worded single phrase you can find in a reference and attempting to apply it outside the scope of it's application in the reference. The reference does not actually state that degrees issued by institutions in the list are "fraudulent or substandard", instead it states that they are "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas". If you can show me where the Texas reference states explicitly "Degrees granted by the institutions in this list are deemed to be fraudulent or substandard" then I will happily allow the comment, but making the statement based on a synthesis of a means b and b means c and c means d is WP:OR and thus not a basis for inclusion of that statement. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 05:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The school issuing the degree is on a list of institutions described by a WP:RS as "fraudulent or substandard." I don't see how it could be any clearer than that. I am putting it back in as a direct quote from a WP:RS. If you would like it removed, I would suggest a WP:RFC or WP:3PO. Leuko 06:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the list is specifically not described by Texas as a list of institutions providing fraudulent or substandard qualifications. In its description of the list, Texas states "Institutions whose qualifications are illegal to use in Texas", it then mentions "fraudulent or substandard qualifications" (as defined by Texas) elsewhere, and lets those people who read the whole document draw their own conclusions about what it means. However, the conclusion that you draw from the wording used is not something that it is valid to transpose to WP. Furthermore, the wording "fraudulent or substandard" is used by Texas as defined by Texas, by using that wording in WP without a full explanation of its meaning as defined by Texas there is a real risk that readers will interpret it as their own understanding of "fraudulent or substandard" which may be different to that in which it is used. I hope you take more care with citing references in any papers you prepare as part of your studies as a medical student. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 11:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference between "Institutions whose qualifications are illegal to use in Texas" and "fraudulent or substandard" is that one is in bold and the other is not. Both are on the same page, and clearly refer to the institutions listed on that page. The fact that the degrees are illegal to use in TX is based on Texas Code 61.302, which uses the phrase "fraudulent or substandard" when referring to these institutions. Wikipedia is not censored, which is what you are doing by censoring material in an effort to protect readers from their own assumptions. This is an encyclopedia, and we should strive to use the most accurate wording possible. In reference to your personal attack, directly quoting a WP:RS, using the exact same wording is the best way to take care in citing references. Leuko 00:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the history and it's once again Leuko who is adding in the most negative misinformation possible (i.e. "fraudulent"). Thanks for being so diligent, DMcMPO11AAUK, in removing these weasel words. Bstone 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quotes from WP:RS are not weasel words. Quite the opposite, in fact. Leuko 02:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leuko, only Texas listed the degree as "fraud or substandard". Orgeon doesn't state that. As such I have changed the article to indicate only TX says this. By putting this in the intro line of the section you give the idea that both states indicate fraud of substandard, but this is not the case. This is an encyclopedic work. Thus, every effort must be made to make sure the facts are truly represented. Please ensure this in the future. Bstone 02:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but Oregon does state "unaccredited". So I'll include that to make sure that the facts are "truly represented." And by citing TX's website, I am unsure of how anyone could be confused, but that's fine if you want to move it to the TX paragraph. Leuko 02:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. I think it's well written in the current format, albeit a bit longwinded. Bstone 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oregon has it's own definition of unaccredited. There is a strong possibility that people seeing the term "unaccredited" in the Oregon reference will not realise that this is a term used specifically in the context of it's definition by Oregon, which means "not recognised as valid qualifications by the state of Oregon". Texas does not state that their list in which the institution appears is one of suppliers of "fraudulent or substandard degrees", that is an inference that is being drawn from the context of that statement in the pre-amble to the list. Regardless of what words each of these states actually uses, what each state means is "these qualifications are not recognised as valid by this state" and negative commentary should not be transposed from those state references to WP that might be interpreted by readers of WP as having a broader meaning. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 11:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is essentially the same argument, see my comments above.

Structure[edit]

I've separated Accreditation from Licensing - the two issues although related are not a single matter, and in this case there seems to be little debate about whether the school is accredited or not - the Belize Government publishes "Medical Universities in Belize" authored by "Belize Medical School Accreditation Committee" which trumps all. However, I recognise that the accreditation regime for medical schools in Belize may be less rigorous than in those countries with a longer tradition of medical education such as the UK, or even countries where such education is less established such as the USA. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 15:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. First comes local accreditation and then comes international recognition. Bstone 17:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words[edit]

Without a doubt, the licensure section contains weasel words and is NPOV by painting the most negative picture possible, especially in the words of the Texas entry. Thus I am tagging this section as having weasel words and being NPOV. Let's discuss here how to make it neutral and remove the weasel words. Bstone 07:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Please demonstrate how the current text uses weasel words per that definition. As far as NPOV goes, I don't see how directly and exactly quoting a WP:RS can be any more neutral. It's not like there's someone's personal opinion in there. Leuko 07:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finding the most negative things to say is not neutral. Indeed it violates the spirit of weasel words. At least one other editor feels this way. Until we can discuss and come to a conclusion please cease is removing the tags. Thank you ahead of time for your cooperation. Bstone 07:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you can't actually demonstrate the use of weasel words? Then continuing to insert the template is disruptive vandalism. I would urge you to please stop disrupting WP. And just because you don't like what a WP:RS has to say, doesn't make it NPOV. Please read WP:NPOV yet again to learn the real definition of the policy, not some made up construct to suit your purposes. Leuko 08:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leuko, why is it that I am not surprised that you once again throw around the vandalism word? It is mystifying why you throw this term around whenever you are in the minority of editors for a particular issue. I urge you to be more civil and stop throwing around your fake vandalism warning. Bstone 08:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I call it like it is. I would urge you to stop revert-warring and abusing the weasel words template since you keep placing it without being able to explain how the guideline is being violated, and utilize further steps in the dispute resolution process, such as WP:RFC. As has been pointed out before, when there are only 3 editors involved with an article there is no minority and certainly no consensus. Leuko 08:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Texas reference very specifically does not state that the list is a "list of institutions whose degrees are fraudulent or substandard". That is an inference you are drawing from wording elsewhere on the web page. WP is not the place for the stating of inferences as if they were fact. As has already been pointed out, Oregon has it's own definition of accreditation, and therefore using the word "unaccredited" in association with the Oregon entry requires a full explanation of that term. In general, where an entity that you are using for a source redefines a word or phrase, you should avoid using that word or phrase without a complete explanation of how it has been defined, to ensure that your audience understands that their normal definitions of those words and phrases used may not apply in the circumstances in which they are quoted. In these cases, you can substitute "not recognised as valid qualifications by the state of Texas" for "fraudulent or substandard", and "not recognised as valid qualifications by the state of Oregon" for "unaccredited". Your persistence in using the most negative phraseology that you can associate with a medical school calls your neutrality into view, and I find your apparent inability to distinguish between accurately quoting a reference and drawing an inference from a reference quite astounding for a medical student. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 11:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an inference - it's right there in black and white, just like "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas." I fail to see the difference between the two phrases, except for bold font. They are both on the same page referring to the same institutions, yet one is acceptable and the other not? Substitution is not valid as you would be inserting your own personal interpretation. The only acceptable course of action is to directly quote the WP:RS exactly. These state licensing boards knew what they were saying when they used these words - they do not need you to censor it for them. And please stop with the personal attacks. Leuko 00:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant fact as far as licensing of physicians is concerned is whether a specific jurisdiction accepts the qualification from a given institution for that purpose. I don't see any dispute over this. The dispute is on how this is reported. Neutral reporting of negative facts means that we avoid using negative constructs just because they're there. If you examine the minutiae of Oregon and Texas law, you will see that in fact these qualifications are not "illegal" in a blanket sense of the word, but that it is instead illegal to use the qualification for certain purposes. This means that the use of qualifications or title are restricted by statute. No-one can throw you in jail for simply possessing a qualification from the cheapest diploma mill. Whilst articles about institutions may not be subject to as strict control as WP:BLP, striving for similar standards of neutrality of reporting is not a bad ideal to aim for. We do not in fact need to include any specific text from any given reference, provided that we accurately paraphrase or summarise the factual content of the reference. We certainly do not need to include buzzwords such as "illegal, fraudulent, bogus, unaccredited" at every opportunity when talking about foreign (for whatever value of foreign suits your taste) medical schools simply because we believe, regardless of the basis of that belief, that they are somehow inferior to the ones at home. In these specific cases, where an institution is identified in a list, you can either paraphrase what the appearance of the institution being in the list means, or you can use the title of the list along with any qualifiers that might be needed to ensure that the reader interprets the terms in the same manner in which the publisher of the list uses them. Moreover, it is also important that you are careful not to pick up on a phrase or term that appears coincidentally with a list and use that phrase or term to refer to the list unless the publisher of the list clearly and explicitly does so. For the Oregon list, the full description of the list as given by the reference is "The following list of unaccredited degree suppliers is maintained by ODA for the protection of the citizens of Oregon and their post-secondary schools by identifying those degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)." If you quote this text in an article, you need to qualify the use of "unaccredited" with "Oregon law (ORS 348.609) defines accreditation to include only those accreditors recognized by the U.S. Department of Education." It is possible to avoid the excess verbosity by paraphrasing thus: "The state of Oregon does not accept qualifications from ''institution'' for the purpose of licensing of physicians." You could add "and places further restrictions on the use of such qualifications and the titles they confer" without compromising the factual accuracy of the neutrality of reporting. The same wording can be used for Texas. By doing this, we have reported the pertinent negative information, the non acceptability of certain qualifications for physician licensing and other purposes accurately, succinctly, and in a neutral manner. As soon as we start using additional words and phrases to add emphasis to the report, we start to lose the neutral reporting that we are striving for. This is especially true if our justification for doing so is "they're in the reference, so we're citing facts / have to use them" - just because something is in the reference is not the touchstone of whether it should be in the article. The touchstone is whether it adds to the article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

I would like to suggest that we apply for mediation to determine if there are problems with how Leuko is presenting the licensure section. Since we have just experienced 3RR violation it would seem proper to get outside perspective. Please comment here if you are agreeable. Bstone 21:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3PO / RFC[edit]

I'm quite happy to open the following issues to WP:3PO or WP:RFC.

  1. The use of "bogus" in relation to institutions in the UK ASIC "organisations which have been brought to [ASIC's] attention offering degrees and [ASIC] suggest you undertake detailed research before embarking on a programme of study" list
  2. The use of the Oregon "degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)" list as a reference to accreditation in an institutions own jurisdiction given Oregon's definition of accreditation as (paraphrasing) "[recognised by Oregon]"
  3. The use of "fraudulent or substandard" in relation to institutions in the Texas "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas" list
  4. The significance of "not being on the approved list for a given US state" and the selective use of such not being listed to infer unsuitability of specific qualifications and medical schools
  5. The selective highlighting of an institution's failure to meet one or more requirements of a given state to assert that qualifications from that institution are not recognised by that state
  6. The selective use of membership of IVIMEDS to introduce negative commentary about accreditation to articles about specific institutions

I believe that these issues may relate to several articles, including but not necessarily limited to MUA-B, SCIMD-COM, UHSA, CMU. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The past 24 hours has been particularly bad for us as editors. We need a third party or mediation. Bstone 22:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a pointer to this section on the talk pages of the other articles identified above. Hopefully everyone involved is intelligent and sensible enough to keep the discussion in one place. Perhaps I should add "please go there to comment" to those pages though. +Done+ DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 22:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As there are more than two people involved, it really needs to be an WP:RFC and not a WP:3PO, but I would gladly have some additional input on the subject. Leuko 00:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding #1, when quoting or referencing a list, the most accurate way to describe it is per the title on the list. The creators of such a list are the authority and they used that title for a reason. Only POV pushers would argue otherwise. Buzybeez 15:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since no external parties seem interested in commenting on this RFC, what's the next step? 67.177.149.119 08:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is in the next section of the discussion, and runs for 30 days. So far there's been one response. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Oct 2007[edit]

Lack of consensus concerning citing and use of references across several similar articles, WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:POV, WP:SOAPBOX.

Note RFC was originally issued as econ, changed to sci, then policy + sci, then policy 28th Oct, then policy + econ + sci 3rd November, guidance at WP:VP now indicates that Policy is not applicable - policy RFCs are for discussing changes to WP policies, not the application of policies to articles, policy removed 6th Nov. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that:

  • Jurisdictions that explicitly state that they do not recognise the qualifications granted by an institution for licensing of physicians may be adequately represented with a statement "[Jurisdiction] does not recognise qualifications from [institution] for the licensing of physicians.", there is no need to introduce additional commentary from the source in a way that might be perceived as simply pushing a point of view.
  • Using two references to support a fact that neither of them states explicitly is interpretation, synthesis, or original research.
  • Accreditation of an academic institution is bestowed by the jurisdiction under whose authority qualifications are granted, and no other jurisdiction is an authority for accreditation of that institution.
  • When a reference redefines a word or phrase which is used in the reference, then an article which quotes that word or phrase from that reference must clarify that the word or phrase as quoted has the specific meaning defined in the reference.
  • We do not need to include every phrase that might be be deemed critical of an institution just because it appears on a reference. This is especially important in the case of weasel words, such as "bogus", "unaccredited", "illegal" or "fraudulent".

Due to my ongoing disagreement with another editor Leuko (talk · contribs) over these issues affecting this and three other articles at present (SCIMD-COM, UHSA, CMU) I'm now seeking input on these issues which, if a suitable consensus of opinion emerges, hopefully both Leuko and myself will be able to accept as binding for the purposes of editing this article, the other three articles mentioned in this paragraph, and any other articles relating to medical schools whose qualifications are considered unsuitable for the purposes of licensing of physicians in one or more jurisdictions. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles that may fall within the scope of this RfC include AGUSOM and SMU. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 23:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that DMcMPO11AAUK holds to. Bstone 15:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the opinions of Bstone and DMcMPO11AAUK, with an additional note regarding #2. Corporation or company establishment should not be assumed to be the same date as the establishment of the university. It is actually original research and synthesis to conclude that universities are established or re-established any time the corporate structure changes. Definitive information in this regard can be obtained from IMED as noted as "year instruction began" Buzybeez 15:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The accreditation and licensing sections in this article presently look okay to me. I agree with DMcMPO11AAUK's first bullet point. I dunno about the rest, as the wording gets a bit complicated for me to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisChiasson (talk • contribs) 10:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main accreditation for any academic institution is the government. If this jurisdiction has made a ruling that it does not recognise the qualifications given by a certain institution, and has given reasons then these reasons certainly need to be noted.Any other governments and institutions that recognise the qualifications may then be listed. As this regards SCIMD-COM, I think that while the Universite El Hadj Ibrahima Niasse may well be accredited (by the government of Senegal), St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine is not (by the government of the UK, via the GMC). This is what is important, and it is important to state why. Other possible recognition can then be listed. Thehalfone 08:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, since SCIMD-COM is just a branch campus and not a separate, self-standing UK educational entity it is covered under the recognition of it's parent university. SCIMD-COM does not need to be recognized by the UK government since it is not a UK educational institution. 67.177.149.119 15:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting RfCs[edit]

It is my understanding of WP:RFC that the type of RfC requested depends on the subject of the article, and the subject of this and the related articles are institutions offering training in exchange for fees, thus commercial organisations. Also, it looks like having multiple RFCs on one talk page breaks the RfC bot, I've added notes and links between the RfC requests so that hopefully people navigating from the RfC lists can find the one they're looking for. I also added the "reason" for the earlier RfC to the talk page text per the RfC guidelines. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've combined the three RfCs into a single Sci RfC, although I still think that it should be an Econ RfC per above. Note that it seems that the RFC Bot can only correctly handle a single RfC template per discussion page at any time, please do not add additional RfC templates. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

undo?[edit]

User:Formerrockstar made a series of non-constructive edits to the page which I believe all should be undone and the page restored to 11:13, 21 October 2007 by DMcMPO11AAUK. I can't figure out how to do so. Help? Bstone 06:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have managed OK. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 06:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up clicking undo for all 4 of his/her edits. Is there an easier way to restore to a specific one? Bstone 06:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a level of indent each time you respond. I use some javascript extras called Twinkle (TW) that integrate into firefox and give better handling of reversions and difference lists. Incidentally, I made some edits in "Licensing" - the basic statement at the head of the section has an extra bit tacked on, I gave a couple of refs that were just URLs their appropriate titles, added a ref for the Texas Penal Code and clarified that the other Texas ref was the Educational code. The change of "Degrees conferred by MUA-B are not accepted for the licensing of physicians in some jurisdictions:" to "Degrees conferred by MUA-B are not accepted for the licensing of physicians in some jurisdictions, and the use of such qualifications and the associated titles may be subject to other restrictions:" can probably be copied to the same position in other similar articles. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the indent. I do it 99.999% of the time. Just tired, so I forgot. I installed Twinkle. It's so cute!! Bstone 08:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just undid 2 more edits by formerrockstar. They just don't seem to be constructive. Please discuss here if anyone believes otherwise. Thanks. Bstone 23:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medical_University_of_the_Americas_–_Belize&oldid=1208959875"