Talk:Caribbean Medical University

USMLE Pass Rates

Based on a published by FAIMER, the 6 medical schools in the Netherland Antilles have accomplished a combined Step I first time pass rate of 59.88% from 2000-2009. Unfortunately, CMU isn't likely to reflected in this data, since the school is so new, but it does shed some light on the quality of the educational oversight in that country... even if the school is recognized by the government, it doesn't seem too interested in ensuring adeqaute medical education.... Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 00:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree with the information presented with this study, but unfortunately I doubt it can be used in this article to makle any sense of CMU as a "School".... PaddyM (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Clinical Rotations

Is there any reliable source that we can cite that CMU has clinical rotation agreements? With what hospitals? Are they green-book? Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 00:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. There aren't really listings of where schools do their rotations, except in the school's own manuals. So, anything we list would be directly from CMU itself. In fact, I think we went through this last time - they claimed to have hundreds of students in rotations at green-booked institutions, when in reality they hadn't even had a first year class at that point... PaddyM (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Facts

Your "corrections" to the Wikipage of CMU clearly state your intention towards the school. Your fist statement that CMU is an uncredited school is incorrect. CMU is chartered by the government of Curacao and the government of the Netherlands Antilles. Its listed in the IMED directory, which confirm the recognition of the government bodies. A medical school is added to IMED after FAIMER receives confirmation from the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, or other appropriate agency that the Ministry or agency has recognized that school (source http://www.faimer.org/resources/imed.html).

The forgery has been ruled out by the court order dated November 25, 2009 with the request to rectify the Minister's statement http://www.cmumed.org/resources/pdf/CairbbeanMedical-Landvonnis25-11-09.pdf (page 2). The court order also confirms the issuance of the CMU charter (page 5, paragraph 3.11).

According to Wikipedia, a diploma mill (also known as a degree mill) is an organization that awards academic degrees and diplomas with substandard or no academic study and without recognition by official educational accrediting bodies. CMU is recognized by Ministry of Health and Education of Curacao, ECFMG and Medical Council of Canada's http://www.mcc.ca/en/obtaining_license.shtml. The establishing permit http://www.curacao-chamber.an/info/registry/excerpt.asp?mode=edit&companyid=115795&establishmentnr=0&legalformid=81 clearly states that CMU is a Education and Training(9299), Scientific Education (university)(9271) institution. If you look at the permit you will notice that the president of CMU is the owner of WTC therefore CMU doesn't have to rent any rooms in the complex. You just draw that incorrect conclusion based on what? Do you have CMU's rental agreement?

The fact that Oregon list CMU as not Authorized to Offer Degrees in the State of Oregon http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx doesnt mean that CMU is a diploma mill or unaccredited. Its states that "the list contains degree suppliers that may not now exist, may never have existed, exist only as unregulated businesses, operate under exemptions in state laws or operate with state approval outside Oregon". None of those apply to CMU.

Texas doesn't list CMU as disapproved school and states that "If your school is not on this list you will be required to submit several additional items for review". (source http://www.tmb.state.tx.us/apps/physician_eligibility.php)

New York http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/med/medlic.htm#educ
Education Requirements To satisfy the education requirements for licensure as a physician, you must present evidence of both A and B below.
A. Preprofessional Education: Satisfactory completion of 60 semester hours of college study from a New York State registered program or the equivalent as determined by the New York State Education Department.
B. Professional Education:
2. Graduates of Non-accredited Medical Programs
Satisfactory completion of the following:

• A curriculum of not less than 32 months (4 academic years) in a medical program recognized as an acceptable educational program for physicians by the appropriate civil authorities of the country in which the school is located and receipt of the degree of Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Osteopathy, or the equivalent as determined by the Department. You must complete the final year of medical education at the school that awarded you the degree.
• A satisfactory proficiency examination. Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) certification will satisfy this requirement.

CMU graduates satisfy both requirements (A and B2) since the admission requirements for the MD program is 90 credit hours of college and the program is 4 year long recognized by civil authorities.

Your statement about the U.S. Department of Education's National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation (NCFMEA) not having accredited CMU is incorrect because "The NCFMEA does not review or accredit individual foreign medical schools" (source http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/ncfmea.html#decisions)

There are 50 U.S. states and only CA and FL don't approve foreign medical schools, which is also a case of almost all Caribbean medical schools. All medical schools in the Caribbean have their Wikipages like those that you had edited namely AUA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University_of_Antigua_College_of_Medicine, Windsor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_University_School_of_Medicine or St. Mathew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Matthew's_University. All of them have their history, mission, programs, curriculum, tuition included on their Wikipage. You have removed all this information from our Wikipage and replaced it with your speculations such as likely, dubious, supposedly or unsourced. Your intentions are obviously to badmouth CMU for unknown reason.

Finally you added a tragedy that happed in the student residence, stating the the school was the site of the murder/stabbing of one or CMU students. I wish you will never experience such a tragedy. The residence is located within 5 miles of the campus therefore using it to link a death of a young person to the university is simply unethical.

The school is already aware of your "informative" updates and will take the required course of action. I believe that before that the professionalism of Wikipedia administrators will correct the outcome of your activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrElzbietaKurc (talk • contribs) 06:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have severely trimmed the article to remove a variety of claims that are controversial and do not appear to be adequately sourced. Discussion can continue here. However, note that Wikipedia has a policy against legal threats. Accordingly, I am blocking the user DrElzbietaKurc, who will still be able to communicate on the User talk page. --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Orlady for you quick action. I havent treaten anyone. I have just provided proofs that the information provided by LEUKO was incorrect or misleading. I couldnt belive that one Wikiuser like him can affect the reputation of a university that has been in existance for almost 5 years. I would like to kindly request you to review the page again since the link to amigo is not functional and I have provided 2 verifable proofs that the university is recognized by the government and the accused forgery was rulled out by the court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elialama (talk • contribs)

The assertion of the school's plans to "take the required course of action" is typical wording for a legal threat. Wikipedia cannot allow users to threaten action against its volunteers.
Additionally, your comments indicate the Elialama account violates Wikipedia's policy on use of multiple accounts, as it was created for the purpose of block evasion. If you want to be a productive contributor of Wikipedia content, you need to abide by our policies. --Orlady (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

On the user talk page, you can request to have the block lifted by explaining what you meant by "required course of action" or by agreeing to the deletion of those remarks. --Orlady (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is another medical school on the island http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalon_University_School_of_Medicine with exactly the same credentials as CMU and their page is full of non-objective content therefore I belive each school schould be treat equally. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elialama (talk • contribs)

Corrections

The school is recognized by the Government of Curacao, confirmed by the IMED listing (http://www.faimer.org/resources/imed.html) as "A medical school is added to IMED after FAIMER receives confirmation from the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, or other appropriate agency that the Ministry or agency has recognized that school. FAIMER also updates IMED as new information about medical schools is received from these agencies."

Its also recognized by the Medical Council of Canada (http://www.mcc.ca/en/obtaining_license.shtml) as "Your medical school, the name of the medical degree and the year of your graduation must be listed on the FAIMER International Medical Education Directory to be accepted in Canada."

The Oregon prohibits the use of the degree from CMU as "Schools that are not Authorized to Offer Degrees in the State of Oregon" as specified in the Reference 1. This applies only to Oregon as the school is not approved in Oregon therefore the "unaccredited" has been replaced with "not approved in the state of Oregon" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlewkowski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The state of Oregon only has legal jurisdiction within the state of Oregon, so their website can't provide legal advice on other areas. However, the Oregon information on accreditation status (which is a major basis for their legal determinations) is excellent. --Orlady (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As you stated Oregon has only legal jurisdiction within the state of Oregon. Your personal opinion "escellent" doesn't constitute a verifiable fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlewkowski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

ODA has a long record of acceptance in Wikipedia (and in other media) as a reliable source for matters of accreditation. --Orlady (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

At the same time you edit Avalon University School of Medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalon_University_School_of_Medicine as accredited by ECFMG. CMU is also listed in the ECFMG IMED directory as recognized school therefore there is obviously a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlewkowski (talk • contribs) 16:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

IMED is a listing - it in no way implies accreditation. Representing it as such, similarly as representing that since the school is listed in IMED as being "recognized" by the Medical Council of Canada is disingenuous, and bordering on fraudulent. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 17:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

ODA only applies to the Oregon, not to any other states or countries. It clearly states that "Schools that are not Authorized to Offer Degrees in the State of Oregon, therefore a statement that the school is unaccredited based on the lack of authorization in Oregon is wrong. Regarding Medical Council of Canada, you should read it carefully as it states "1. Confirm that your medical degree is from a recognized medical school. Visit the International Medical Education Directory (IMED), part of the Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research's (FAIMER) website. Your medical school, the name of the medical degree and the year of your graduation must be listed on the FAIMER International Medical Education Directory to be accepted in Canada." (source http://www.mcc.ca/en/obtaining_license.shtml). So please provide verifable proof not your personal opinions as you did before such as "likely, dubious, supposedly". Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view especially Avoid stating opinions as facts. Each of my statement is followed by a source so please respect the Wikipidia policies. "— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlewkowski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, once again IMED/FAIMER is in no way accreditation. Also, being able to get a license from an IMED listed school is in no way an endorsement of the school by the MCC, as you are presenting it. Please provide a WP:RS that the school has been accredited by any recognized agency. Also, I would request you not edit the article directly. As the president of the school, the WP:COI issues are too great. Please discuss any changes on the talk page first. If/when a consensus develops, then the article will be changed. Thank you. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 18:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I stated that the school is listed in the IMED directory which is true confirmed with the IMED website. Its also true that the school is recognized by the Government of Curacao cause only schools recognized by the appropriate government agencies are listed in IMED. Medical Council of Canada recognizes schools that are listed in the IMED directory as previously indicated so I DO PROVIDE the verifiable sources for every statement I make in the article. Please do the same since so far you haven't provided any sources of your statements. I have already provided the proofs of the school's recognitions, permit, charter and listings. I also DO discuss any changes made in the talk page first cause I DO respect the Wikipidias policies and other users inputs. I have even included your statement that the school is not approved in Oregon. All you do is delete everything that was confirmed by the verifiable sources. Thats not the way to reach any consensus. Please don't make accusations of me being a president of the school again without any proof. You are obligated by the Wikipidia policies like me and any other user therefore I request a moderator to review the talks and to make a neutral decision due to the fact that LEUKO without providing any sources, removes content added by other users with verifiable sources,using his personal opinions as facts and misjudges other users.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlewkowski (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC) — Rlewkowski (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please don't insult my intelligence, or make personal attacks. WP has a strong WP:NPA policy prohibiting this. In the original version of the article, your name was prominently displayed as the President of the school. It has since been removed. You have also used the same username on a message board promoting your school, where you are listed as a school official. [1] As far as IMED, the fact that the school is listed is present in the article. However, you have not been able to provide any evidence that the school is accredited by a recognized accrediting agency, as requested. The whole IMED listing is suspect anyways, since it was reported that it was obtained by fraud (will start a new section on this to organize things better.) And what opinions am I adding - everything is properly sourced. Mr. Lewkowski, I am confused by your arguments. I am open to rational discourse, but not personal attacks. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 19:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You obviously do it on your own .Your arguments dont have any logical basis. You are linking a username from one forum to a username of Wikipidia with absolutely NO PROOF. Its a common name so looks like you might by Mr. LEUKOwski as well, right? I have provided all the verifiable sources of credentials of the school, which are exactly the same a most of the schools in the Caribbean. Look which accreditations are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Medicine_and_Health_Sciences. For you the charter is suspicions, the permit, the IMED listing but you should understand that those are just YOUR OPINIONS NOT FACTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.167.7 (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

IMED Fraud

Two new sources in relation to the reported fraudulent IMED listing - One reports the Court denied the request to "rectify the allegations of falsifying declarations." [2] [3] Interesting reading. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 19:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You may use your intelligence and you would notice that the former Minister didnt recognize any of the medical schools in the Netherlands Antilles. There are 7 of them. All the medical schools are in operation so far, are IMED listed. The outcome was reached in the higher court appeal "Even though CMU is considering appealing to a higher court against the judicial decision, the university and the Minister agree on the standpoint that the recognition applies for all seven universities in first instance." but you are ignoring every evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.167.7 (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am ignoring the evidence that the Minister of Education stated that the documents used to get IMED listed were fraudulent? Nope, I didn't ignore that. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 02:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Licensing section

There was a section on licensing in the previous version of the article, but it manage to disappear.

The university is not accredited by or acceptable for licensing in many American states. These include California ("the education and training received at an unrecognized or disapproved medical school is not acceptable for licensure in California."), Oregon (included in a list of "unaccredited degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1))"., Michigan ("a school from which degrees will not be accepted by the Michigan Civil Service Commission to satisfy educational requirements indicated on job specifications") , Maine,, and Texas ("an acceptable medical school" is one "that has not been disapproved by a state physician licensing or education agency.")

I would suggest adding it back. What are people's thoughts? Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 20:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty confusing issue. I had thought that it would be basically put to rest with the sources about fraud from the country, but it all is a little nonsensical. I am in favor of keeping this particular paragraph, as it is neutral, unbiased and pretty representative of what will end up happening in most states when looking at this school. Its tiring as hell with these Caribbean schools and with their over-zealous administrators always causing some kind of problem. Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

My thought is that you should be more productive and less destructive in messing up with every Carib Med School pages. It looks like you are not aware that every school needs the recognition/accreditation from the local Governments in order to operate. I checked your contribs and apparently its your pashion to trash every carib med school in Wiki. Im not sure if the moderators are aware of your "informative" additions but its sad to see how wikipedia is tolerating your personal attacks against established educational institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caribdoc1977 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your argument, of course, is that many of these school are totally unaccredited by their local governments. So, it doesn't matter what we (or Leuko, since you seem to think he is accrediting the schools) think, it matters what the governments and the particular licensing and listing bodies seem to think. Your anger at wikipedia is completely misplaced, you should be angry at the local governments for keeping your school from becoming legit. And then you can direct your anger at the various US licensing bodies which seem to think that your school is also not up to the task of training physicians. Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt LEUKO knows what the term accreditaton means. All the med schools in the Caribbean have already graduates who are licensed physicians in the states whether you like it or now so please stop discrediting legit educational organizations. Cheers,208.54.38.192 (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, some of them haven't been open long enough to produce licensed graduates... And not all the schools in the Caribbean are "legit" (sic)... There are islands with 6 or more medical schools on them. Their USMLE pass rates are <50%. That is the reason for accreditation where an outside, independent agency looks at the quality of the educational program and gives its seal of approval (or not.) Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 06:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Which are not legit? Provide names along with a proof. Thats the problem with your inputs. Those are speculations. You accuse someone without any evidence. This vaiolates WP:OR as its been discussed in the AIN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI. This is irrelevant; the NCFMEA does not accredit individual foreign medical schools at all. You can't pick an arbitrary accrediting body and say that because that particular body hasn't accredited the school, that it isn't accredited at all. aqwfyj (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the debate on what constitutes a valid accrediting agency, if reliable sources haven't mentioned the issue, then I don't see how it can appear in Wikipedia. Yes, Leuko, I understand how it seems "important", but Wikipedia doesn't make judgments based on what seems important or true--we rely on reliable sources to do that for us. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC) I made a reasonable effort to resolve the issue by editing the article as it was for the last 3 years and included the Oregon's lack of approval. Please show intentions to resolve the issue as well.

There are multiple WP:RS that list the school as unaccredited. Therefore, it must remain. Please discuss prior to changing the version which currently has consensus. The fact that there have been no editors to fix the promotional version devoid of any negative facts for the past 3 years is irrelevant, and just shows the WP:COI POV-pushing. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 16:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You stated in the article that "the school is not accredited by or acceptable for licensing in many American states" Thats a lie cause neither medical boards, nor U.S. states accredit medical schools. They just approved them or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlewkowski (talk • contribs) 23:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In regards to Texas (an acceptable medical school" is one "that has not been disapproved by a state physician licensing or education agency.). CMU has not been disapproved by a state physician licensing or education agency therefore removed from the article.

If you bothered to read the other sources, you would understand that indeed, the school meets the criteria for disapproval in Texas. This is is true b/c of the way it is disapproved in Oregon, for one, as well as Michigan, Maine, etc. Those state licensing boards are, in fact, "state physician licensing agencies", which is exactly the burden of proof for Texas. Accordingly, I have re-added the information regarding Texas. Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Prosposed Consensus

As per talk and Talk:Windsor University School of Medicine and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents WP users came to a conclusion that editors may included information about college X is/isnt accredited by A,B,C or approved/unapproved by A,B,C if the school is listed as on the A, B, C organization's list of (un)accredited, un(approved) schools. Otherwise it may violate the WP:Original Research policy to add that information.

2011 stabbing incident section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is currently a dispute as to whether this section should remain in the article, so I'd like some additional input. Should the 2011 stabbing incident section remain in the article?

• Keep. The stabbing took place in a CMU dorm, by a CMU student, against another CMU student and faculty member. I don't think it needs more than one or two sentences, but it is reliably sourced. I am mindful of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but as an example, Virginia Tech has a couple sentences about the Virginia Tech massacre so this isn't without precedent. aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 13:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I'm also mindful of WP:UNDUE and that because the article is so short, an entire section just for this event isn't ideal. At the same time, because there's no "History" section, there really is no other place in the article as it currently exists to put this information. If there was a more comprehensive "History" section, then I'd say these two sentences could just be added there (but in either case I don't think they should be removed.) aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 13:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have just closed the report filed by aqwfyj at WP:ANEW regarding the edit-war about this material. The IP is correct. The material should not be in the article. It is a violation of WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPCRIME. Unless there is a strong consensus by experienced editors that my view is wrong, it cannot be reinserted into the article. If anyone wants to explore the policy considerations further, they are welcome to raise the issue at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure WP:BLPCRIME only applies to those accused of crimes. aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 20:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the policy uses the word "accused" but it means accused, arrested, charged, anything short of a conviction. The policy makes clear that we are not supposed to report that someone has committed a crime unless they've been convicted. In addition to BLPCRIME, the material is of only marginal relevance to the article. Just because a crime occurred on the campus of a university doesn't make it noteworthy in an article about the university. Would we report on every time a crime was committed? I could see criminal activity being reported if the campus was known for having a higher rate of crime than other campuses and that was reported by secondary sources, but the mere fact of a crime is not encyclopedic.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

We're not supposed to report the person's name (or other identifying details). That doesn't mean that we can't comment on the incident. The article as a whole is pretty short, but I don't think 1 sentence would be out of place. Buddy431 (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

First, the policy says nothing about using or not using the name. Second, even if we reported on it without the name, we'd have to source it, and the source has the name. It's kind of an end run around the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2009 IMED listing

I reverted this revision as it seems to be a WP:NOTNEWS and WP:IINFO issue. I can understand that there is a WP:CENSORED argument that could be made, but the details of how the school was listed to IMED isn't particularly encyclopedic in my opinion. aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 21:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

But your edit fails WP:RECENTISM, listing event-specific facts like got recognition on one day in 2007 at the expense of longstanding content like failed to get recognition for at least 2 years, causing what the owner claimed as significant damage to the school, thus pass the effect on subject test from WP:ROC. --Skyfiler (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think WP:RECENTISM plays a role in my edit. The date of IMED listing is notable since IMED is the directory that lists all recognized medical schools, and it's a binary state (in other words, the date before IMED listing, the school isn't recognized.) The information about the dispute with the education minister, as currently written at least, presents a WP:SENSATION issue. I think we should get further input before readding the edit as per WP:BRD. aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 23:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM may not play a role in your edit but your edit fits its description that focus event-specific facts instead of longstanding content, which is something WP:RECENTISM says to avoid. And you seems to contradict yourself. On one hand you said date of IMED listing is notable, on the second hand you remove a source that pushes the date to at least 2009 and prove the IMED listing is important enough that the school's lawyer had to fight with the education minister.

Besides, what kind of recognition was received from the government back on 2007? There is no source to back up that claim. Does the government automatically give accreditation to any new establishments merely by allowing their existence? That sounds like certificate of life, not something that you would find in the definition of accreditation, especially in the academic world.--Skyfiler (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Accreditation section changed to acknowledgement

IMED listing does not imply accreditation as per FAIMER. The Avicenna Directories listing page of CMU says it is not subject to accreditation or a similar process of official recognition. Listing them as the main content under accreditation implies IMED and Avicenna listing are accreditation, thus advances a position that the sources did not say, an example of original research per WP:SYN--Skyfiler (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your changes. You're going to have to find something other than primary sources to support the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that none of the three sources are about accreditation, though. So I've moved the two directory listing to a different section, and the charter document to the history. "Acknowledgement" doesn;t seem like the right term in this case. - Bilby (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not about the sources's credibility, it is about the content's verifiability as no source is used to backup the insertion under the accreditation section header. The footnotes cited directly contradicts to such inclusion, so the article seems to contradict itself.--Skyfiler (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Bilby's edits seem reasonable to me. Do you think the state of the article, at least in this area, is now acceptable?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)