Talk:South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine

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

[Untitled][edit]

The title of this page is misleading. For long time the institute is being using the title South Asian Institute of Technology and MANAGEMENT, but overnight they seems to have change it to South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine! This is just pathetic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imiyuru (talk • contribs) 09:56, October 8, 2011‎

So, you're saying they cannot change their name? Tell that to Ceylon! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --192.248.50.253 (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation[edit]

There seems to be heavy PoV pushing in this article, claiming that SAITM is an Unaccredited institutions of higher education, however the degree awarded by this institute is in the UGC website and declared that it has the legal authority to grant a medical degree by the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka. Cossde (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POV doesn't even begin to describe Samankamal's actions.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Samankamal is obviously cherrypicking sources to push his/her own agenda. And it looks like (s)he has been doing that for a while now. In fact, (s)he was given a ton of warnings on his/her talkpage, which (s)he has since deleted. So, if (s)he were to continue this disruptive behavior, I don't think there's any need to explain yourself when you revert his/her edits in the future. -- ChamithN (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The supreme court of SL is currently hearing the appeal which is filed by SLMC challenging lower court's order on SAITM and Also there is an interim injunction to prevent the implementation of the judgment issued by the Appeal Court. as a result still, SLMC is not accredited any medical degree offered by SAITM (official document published by SLMC).please carefully read above references.Samankamal (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah finally Samankamal speaks !!! First of all the degrees (MBBS and BSc Eng) offered by SAITM has been approved by the University Grants Commission (Sri Lanka), the Appeal Court as confirmed this. Therefore stating that SAITM is unaccredited is incorrect since there are both medical and engineering degrees. The supreme court will rule on the status of registering its MBBS degree holders with the SLMC. The article contains that currently the SLMC doesn't register its graduates. Cossde (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, even BSc Eng offered by SAITM has not been approved by the University Grants Commission (Sri Lanka) it is only approved by the Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education.Accreditation of MBBS is challenged by SLMC and still, the opinion of the supreme court of SL is pending.Samankamal (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I beg to defer since the MBBS and BSc Eng degrees are listed in the UGC website. NaminiGunasena (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand is the the degrees have been proven legal and valid per the Appeal Court. However SLMC's decision to register MBBS graduates is pending a decision in the supreme court. Cossde (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a different note, the way the things are headed, this whole SAITM "Medical qualification" controversy probably deserves an article of its own. -- ChamithN (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*Done- [[1]], I added a few references from multiple different reliable sources. The article will likely be nominated for speedy deletions as I haven't done much to it, but I think the issue is widespread enough with sufficient coverage to warrant notability. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 16:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Their is currently an on going Socketpuppet Investigation into Samalkamal. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please read following official document published by Medical councils (keep in mind that these institutes are reputed accreditation bodies) and get an idea about the accreditation of your so-called medical college in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka[edit]

it is not accredited by the Sri Lanka Medical Council SLMC official document

Where does it SLMC doesn't accredit SAITM? --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 20:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom[edit]

In the United Kingdom, the General Medical Council has listed SAITM as an unaccredited institution GMC official document

This poorly worded, it doesn't represent what the source is saying, also secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 20:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australia[edit]

Australia Medical Council has not added SAITM to its list of Sri Lankan medical faculties that are recognized by them.[2] Samankamal (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section[edit]

I removed the content regarding the multiple murder cases related to former graduates or employees of SAITM, the references cited for material made no controversy regarding some issue with the institute but rather it was related to individual persons involved. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 06:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eng.M.Bandara: Your removal of the entire section is unwarranted. Whilst some of the content related to the actions of SAITM employees before they joined SAITM, others related their actions as employees and therefore should be included in this article. Although Samankamal's actions in this article have been appalling, yours isn't much better. Two wrongs don't make a right.--Obi2canibe (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Obi2canibe. For example, CID confiscating 26 human body parts from SAITM's laboratory as a part of Wasim Thajudeen murder case inevitably drags the institute into the controversy. Also, it's worth noting that the employees involved in the controversy were fired or place on leave after the incident came to light; ergo, the institute is bound to get caught up in the controversy surrounding those employees. Much like how Google is still facing heat over the controversy surrounding the Google memo, even after they fired the employee involved in the incident. -- ChamithN (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi2canibe: You cant make up a controversy if the reference doesn't directly state that. The reference simply states that they were taken to SAITM, your conducting WP:OR in saying that it was controversial. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 17:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eng.M.Bandara: That's a very poor argument for censoring reliably sourced content. If Google "SAITM" and "controversy" you will get 20,000 results. As for the Wasim Thajudeen case, you have selectively picked out one reference to make your point. If anyone reads the other sources they will see the links to SAITM, such as the CID raiding SAITM and confiscating body parts.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi2canibe: I"m not censoring the content, you are purporting the reference to state something when its simply WP:OR. What are you proposing to include? write it here with the references so we can all take look at it.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 19:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eng.M.Bandara: Read the referenced content you removed.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi2canibe:, How about this, "The Criminal Investigations Department (CID) claims that the missing body parts of the murder victim Wasim Thajudeen had been taken to SATIM on the instructions of its Vice-Chancellor Ananda Samarasekara. However, Samarasekara had denied any connection to the incident and maintained he had not committed any offense. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 20:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget about the part where "CID confiscated 26 human body parts from the SAITM laboratory". Since that incident directly links SAITM with the investigation, it shouldn't be left out. -- ChamithN (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to include referenced material from this which directly states SAITM contraversy, I wouldn't oppose that. You cannot state something that is not dirrectly stated in the WP:RS --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 22:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Obi2canibe and ChamithN here.--Chanaka L (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi2canibe: Add the content back in that you feel is not WP:OR --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eng.M.Bandara: As the editor who removed the content, you should re-instate it. It is up to you to identify and justify any WP:OR. A blanket removal is wholly unacceptable.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closure?[edit]

Has the entire school closed? An IP has repeatedly made this claim (initially unsourced, and now based on a source showing that medical faculty was being closed). According to our article the school also offers engineering degrees. It is not evident that the engineering degrees are part of the medical faculty. For what it is worth, the school's web page http://saitm.edu.lk/overview_saitm.htm is still live and it lists four faculties apart from Medicine (Engineerin; ICT and Media; Management and Finance; Pharmacy and Allied Health). Meters (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: The University Grants Commission, which regulates higher education in Sri Lanka, still shows the four degrees awarded by SAITM, including medicine, as being recognised. Can't be 100% certain but it certainly looks like it's still functioning, despite all the schoolboy politics that surrounds its existence.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University (Special Provisions) Act, No. 17 of 2018, Medical faculty of SAITM is closed. 61.245.161.142 (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Asian_Institute_of_Technology_and_Medicine&oldid=1210467809"