Talk:RCSI-Bahrain

Untitled

This page should be merged with RCSI-MUB

Bahraini Uprising section

Hello everyone, I believe the neutrality of this section needs to be re-checked. It is from a biased point of view, nonetheless, if that is ignored, the sources provided to support the statements are incorrect, they do not support the information posted in the section. Ra.ashtar (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The addition by me (one of my first edits to Wikipedia) was indeed original research. However, there are references now that can be used: [1], [2]. If you would like to expand that section more here are some references: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, do you have any sources for the issue with withdrawing scholarships? Cheers. 142.151.138.250 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Mohammed. Good to speak to you. I would like to request that all biased information relating to the government issues, as well as the conflicts that related RCSI with any media, be completely removed from this page. You have brought all the controversial media talk onto this site in a biased way which is damaging the reputation of RCSI and all the students who work hard to earn a degree from here. Although the information you placed is not wrong, it is still biased and if removed, will prevent people reading worse things about the education system which is undoubtedly exaggerated. Kindly, we students would like to request that you take down this information. We hope you can understand the request and our stance as students regarding this page. Please be aware that if you strongly feel that you refuse to comply, we would like to take this up with the University administration and Bahrain Government including providing your name. We really don't want to escalate it to that level, so please take down this harmful information. Please be aware that we are not threatening you, but this is a consequence to the information remaining there and harming our reputation. We hope we can come to a reasonable compromise. Waiting for your response. (87.237.199.154 (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC))

Hi, students? I'm happy to discuss this with you, however you should really consider withdrawing your legal threat (even if you personally don't consider it a legal threat). Wikipedia has a clear policy against legal threats, please take time to read it: Wikipedia:No legal threats. If you insist on your threat, I'll be taking this to the Administrators Noticeboard. As for the information related to protests, I think it skews the neutrality of the article, not because of its wording (although that can be improved), but rather because of its size (undo weight - except for the lead, which I find balanced). I had expanded this article by nearly a four-fold in June 2013 during which I basically wrote ~90% of what you see currently (the whole article, not just the section you blanked twice). I wanted to make it a five-fold by expanding other sections, but I couldn't find information supported by secondary reliable sources to add. Making a five-fold expansion would have been in my benefit as the article would have been eligible for "Did You Know" section on main page. Nevertheless, the Wikipedia community was gentle enough allow it on the main page[9]. If you have any reliable sources that you want to be used to expand the article, I'm more than willing to use them.

Reliably sourced information cannot be removed just because someone doesn't like them or thinks they are biased or damage their reputation. The article uses reliable sources to support its content such as the BBC, Irish Times and The Independent which you seem to have specifically wanted to remove even after blanking the section you didn't like [10] [11]. If you have a specific concern, you can voice it here, but I assure you that content blanking will almost never happen. I even think that I'm not allowed to outright blank reliably sourced content that I've added, because by writing anything here you are irrevocably releasing them under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. If you are unhappy with my response, you may follow the dispute resolution protocols, including starting a complaint in the neutrality noticeboard. If you want to file a complaint to Wikipedia, you can e-mail the Volunteer Response Team (you can also contact Wikipedia's founder directly -User talk:Jimbo Wales-, but I wouldn't do that). Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Is info about RCSI-Bahrain involvement in the Bahraini uprising relevant to this article?

My answer is yes and the use of the word "controversy" is justified per these sources: [12], [13], [14] and [15]. If anyone wants to remove the information, because he or she thinks it's not relevant, would he or she care to explain why instead of removing sourced content? Keep WP:BRD in mind. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits and blanking

I have just undid a series of edits to the article. The reason is that while some of them were constructive and added good up to date info, they also included blanking and removal of whole sections which were properly sourced and definitely belong to the article. They also included self-promotional material. Constructive editing is welcome, but vandalism and self-promotion is not. Mohamed CJ (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear "Mohamed_CJ", maa090359 of '16, please remove your own personal biased edits from the university's Wikipedia page. You have provided false information regarding the university. Please fact-check by reading the most updated articles on www.rcsi-mub.com, which we have cited, yet have been continuously deleted. Additionally, there was repetitive information in the introduction and a later section, which was removed to create a more concise content. The previous version of the page was grammatically incorrect and written by a non-native English speaker, therefore we improved upon the writing, which you have also unjustifiably reverted. In regards to adding a "Rankings" section and what you describe as "self-promotion," is a false assumption. Referencing multiple other prominent universities' pages ex. Carnegie Mellon University and Cornell University, one can see that these universities include "Rankings and Reputation" sections as well. Using RCSI-Dublin's page as a model comparison, it is best to discuss the university in the manners of an institution itself rather than what has occurred indirectly in the surrounding environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.76.23.105 (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

For example in the introduction it states that the university has been denied Irish Medical Council accreditation with no citation, when the official document verifying accreditation can be found http://medicalcouncil.ie/Education/Career-Stage-Undergraduate/Quality-Assurance/Medical-School-Accreditation/Report-of-Inspection-Bahrain-Dec-2014.pdf. Furthermore, you have listed the incorrect tuition rate for the university, which changes from year to year.

(Moderators: We would like to standardize the Wikipedia pages between the 2 university campuses: RCSI-Dublin and RCSI-Bahrain with the same section headers, which is being prevented by "Mohamed_CJ"'s disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a03:4a80:8:44d:44d:15ad:c563:b8f1 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The article says that it is accredited. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No it does not, as can be seen in the last sentence of the introduction. Also note, the name of this institution is the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) - Bahrain not RCSI-MUB (which was a former name). Source: first sentence of http://www.rcsi-mub.com/about. Also, the Arabic is incorrectly translated. No where on the official university website is this translation approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:4A80:8:43E:43E:F18D:7F26:85EA (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the last sentence talks about people trying to get accreditation denied. It doesn't say it's unaccredited. The first sentence in the lead states that it is "is a constituent university of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland." Which it couldn't be if it wasn't accredited. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Listen Doug, you are unfamiliar with the accreditation system. There are other campuses of the Royal College of Surgeon in Ireland which are not accredited by the Irish Medical Council, ex. RCSI-Perdana. The 4th paragraph of the page is misleading and does not belong in the "introduction." It should be removed completely since this information is not properly cited.

Ok. I didn't know that. You probably don't know that statements in the lead don't need their own citations so long as they are cited in the article, which that clearly is. I did add "The RCSI disagreed and the college was accredited in 2014." Doug Weller talk 15:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@IP It's good that we are now actually talking here instead of just reverting. It's clear that you have the interests of the college at heart, but you're wholly unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. First of all, you have made several legal threats to me (which have been redacted) and outed my real name (also redacted). This is not how to get someone to cooperate with you. If you think I will ever chicken in, then you are mistaken. The real problem as far as I can see is one of assuming bad faith; you think my goal is to damage the reputation of the college, so let me get this straight, that is not my goal. I have no interest in doing so. In fact if you look into the history of the article ([16]), you'll see it was me who wrote most of the prose of article and added the images (even when not counting the Bahraini uprising section). Once we get this bad faith out of the picture and start assuming good faith, we can work on improving the article and making it better.

You might have seen in the discussion I had above (on 14 December 2013) that I openly acknowledged that (emphasis added) "I think [Bahraini uprising section] skews the neutrality of the article, not because of its wording (although that can be improved), but rather because of its size (undo weight - except for the lead, which I find balanced)" and offered to help correct that. We can start work from there.

With regard to your objection that I referred to parts of your edits as promotional, I was referring to my subjective evaluation of the wording of some sentences e.g. (emphasis added) "Its well-integrated, multinational student body from more than 39 countries makes it a truly international institution."

You did make good additions to the article and I was the first to acknowledge that (in edit summary and talk page). However, in the middle of all that blanking, one is forced to undo all changes. You are of course welcome to suggest good improvements to the article or make them yourself after the semi-protection is gone next week or so (I also suggest making a user instead of using IPs from different proxies). But if you insist on reverting, we'll just go nowhere. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Content Reliability

The impartiality of the content presented on this page seems highly questionable. Based on this page’s revision history statistics, one user Mohamed_CJ has written over 80% of the material (JJMC89 re-added 20% from Mohamed_CJ’s original writing). This begs the question—can this be a reliable encyclopaedia when others who attempt to edit the writing are silenced? Some reasonable revisions appears to have been made, but were wholly discarded based upon point of contention to one section of the page. Everyone must be given a fair chance to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.125.128.87 (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)