Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs) at 16:30, 18 January 2006 (→Revert warring: partial agreement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revert warring

All the content added seems covered from the Chronology link; I just did a quick scan, but before removing any further content please check to ensure that it is not sourced. KillerChihuahua 18:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It may well be inline with the CHronology but it's LSHTM's chronology, prepared by LSHTM and entered here by LHSTM, it's as bad as quotig Misplaced Pages in the references. Misplaced Pages is not a PR tool. The lack of warts is worrying.--IanDavies 19:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a school which has existed for over 100 years is considered a fairly accurate source of its own basic chronological information. Is there any specific item which you feel may be inaccurate? KillerChihuahua 19:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Who by? The honest of acedmia doesn't cover it's PR attempts. Any organisation over 100 yeras old will have some skeltons buried in the closet. Mistakes etc.--IanDavies 19:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to improve the article, Googling "London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine" (in quotes) nets 131,000 results. Feel free to investigate. KillerChihuahua 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So you do not wish to address my point then? Do you understand the difference between PR and an Encylopedia?--IanDavies 19:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand the difference. Do you understand the difference between Revert Warring and constructive editing? Do you understand the difference between personal bias and editorial bias? If you feel some of the statements in the article are biased, edit them to a more neutral point of view. If you find inaccurate statements, correct them, citing your sources. Otherwise, AGF, please. KillerChihuahua 20:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The onus is on the original poster to cite references and self reference is no refernce.--IanDavies 21:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(reduce)Its not self-reference; that would be referencing Misplaced Pages. A reference was provided. You don't like it; it is nonetheless valid for this purpose. KillerChihuahua 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No self reference is quoting your own work. In this case the editor has made it clear he works for the subject, is writting on behalf of the subject and is using the subjects own opinion as reference. Using your logic all I have to do is set up a Web site put some content on it, then write a Misplaced Pages article and refernce the other site, and I will have forefilled the refernce criteria for what ever crack pot scheme I wish to publish.--IanDavies 21:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If the reference in question were a personal website or blog it would not meet WP criteria for verifiability. This, however, does. It is the official website of a highly respected university. Again, if you feel any of the information is inaccurate, please correct it, citing your sources. KillerChihuahua 12:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It does not meet WikiPedia criteria at all. The criteria doesn't make expetions based on fame. You clearly don't understand what Misplaced Pages is for or what refernces are for. It not up to me to cite sources it up to LHSTM to provide valid refernces to. Misplaced Pages put's the onus on the Author. Now I suggest you go away and learn what the rules actually are.--IanDavies 14:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. If you do not agree, I suggest you try WP:DR dispute resolution as I have already suggested, or try making an entry on article Rfc. Read WP:V, which clearly states that even personal websites are considered acceptable in rare instances where the author is an expert: Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website. We are not dealing with a personal website here, but rather the official website of an internationally famous and highly respected university. If you feel any details are inaccurate, please correct them and cite your sources.

Further, telling editors with whom you do not agree to "go away" is unlikely to help your case. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 14:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You been telling me to go away. You have reversing the normal criteria. You don't understand the point of refernces do you. You just claiming as it seem correct to you it must be right. There was no external vlidation at all, and that this is comming from an academic institution makes it even worse.--IanDavies 16:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I never told you to go away. KillerChihuahua 16:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You have been trying to get me to leave a set of unsupported claims on here. Unless I can prove they are wrong.--IanDavies 16:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

They are not unsupported. If you feel the reference is inadequate, please enter this on article Rfc or pursue dispute resolution. KillerChihuahua 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you like my opinion?--ghost 15:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about IanDavies or Lhstm, but your input is always welcome so far as I am concerned. Perhaps you can defuse this situation. KillerChihuahua 15:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ian raises a valid concern that we should not allow Misplaced Pages to become a PR front for anything or anyone. It must remain an independent resource for the benefit of readers. KC raises (if I'm not mistaken) a strong point that the editor named LSHTM added solid, valuable content that adds value for the reader. And seemed to attempt to do so in an NPOV manner. We do need to carefully review edits by any such editor to avoid Vanity and maintain NPOV, so Ian's skepticism is appropriate. In essence, you're both right; now how can we channel this into something useful to the reader?

As to the Personal Attacks, it doesn't seem that either of you intended to attack the other. However, (at about the same time) it appears that various comments were interpreted as such. What we say (or write) is, unfortunately, not the same as what others hear. If possible, I'd suggest you forgive each other this misunderstanding and move on. That would be best for the article and the project.--ghost 16:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

On the first point, I concur with everything you've said regarding content, NPOV, reviewing edits, etc. On the second point, I fail to see how the following could be unintentional attacks:

• "spotty little network zits"
• "your acting in a thugish way"
• "you just showing more of you bullying nature here"
• "Yet more of you dishonesty"

KillerChihuahua 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Current programmes

There is little or nothing about current programmes, such as degrees offered, their involvement with the Stop Malaria campaign, etc. History is well and good but the school isn't closed, can we add more on current activities? KillerChihuahua 12:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Here are some sources to get us started:

• http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/11/03/66928.html
• http://www.nimr.or.tz/Pages/projects/ceemi/trainers_visit.html