Talk:London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 Wikipedia in the references. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is for or what refernces are for. It not up to me to cite sources it up to LHSTM to provide valid refernces to. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

reduce indent 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" [1]
• "your acting in a thugish way" [2]
• "you just showing more of you bullying nature here" [3]
• "Yet more of you dishonesty" [4]

KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Where my life experience may differ is that I have been taught, thru painful lessons, that what I happen to mean about a subject I'm discussing is rarely of concern to the other party. What matters to them is what they hear. And those can be two completely separate things. I agree that the debate was/is escalating to the level of personal attacks. What I'm trying to point out is that was not the original intent of either party, and that if it continues the behavior will not benefit the project or either of you.

• shrugs* It happens. I'm sure I ticked off someone on the drive to work today, too. Let it go.

Oh, Ian, you may want to soften your diction. It may be more inflammatory than you intend. LOL, it's hard to negotiate a settlement while the Molotov cocktails are flying...--ghost 17:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll take it on board and use less florid language in future.--IanDavies 19:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

HOLD UP ALL. Oops, sorry for shouting. :) Would you two plus the spook mind if I took a week to look this over, check sources, rewrite the article, etc? I'll create a sandbox article and everyone will be free to point out mistakes, make comments, point out info I might have missed, etc. Deal? Jim62sch 23:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooh! I suggest you accept, regardless of your position on the article and edits. Jim is an outstanding editor: Great railroad strike of 1877, Laurence_Eusden, and Kazimierz Żorawski are three of his articles. Notice all the footnotes. And as he'll be doing it in a Sandbox, you can go over it thoroughly before it is moved into artilce space. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No worries here. Ian, allow me to introduce two solid editors. KC & Jim, I like Ian's insistance on defending the integrety of the project. It bodes well.--ghost 00:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

University ratings

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 00:14, 22 December 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

Here's another great source:

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/5939047/Bug-Central-inside-the-London-School-of-Hygiene-and-Tropical-Medicine.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.45.22 (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Needs significant updating

For one thing, in 2010 the Departments became Faculties, and the entire school's organisation has changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.177.17 (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A few updates needed

I just started as the website editor at LSHTM and wanted to point out that there a few items in the article that need updating.

• The school has a new logo. See here http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/index.html
• The student numbers need updating. This page on our site has a summary of the numbers http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/index.html
• Peter Piot, the university's director, is described as the "dean" in the photo near the bottom of the article

I'm not going to make these changes myself because that might been seen as suspect by the Wikipedia community. I was hoping that an established editor might give this a look and make the changes, if they are considered appropriate. I can provide a higher resolution version of the logo.SteveMather (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You can update the page yourself as long as you follow the rules and refer to secondary, independent sources of information, such as this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/5939047/Bug-Central-inside-the-London-School-of-Hygiene-and-Tropical-Medicine.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.200.196 (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No international "league tables" for schools of public health

Sorry, but whoever keeps adding that LSHTM ranks highly in league tables internationally is just making that up. There are no international rankings of schools of public health. There probably should be, but they do not exist. Please don't make statements like this unless you can provide a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.229.244 (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

John Brian Christopherson

Is John Brian Christopherson worth to be mentioned in the history section? --Stone (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

request for change to page

I would like to add a link to the Research Centres section of the School website.

The source is here: http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/research/centres-groups/

I would like to edit the section with the number of centres and groups.

Thank you!

--John Paul Murtagh (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

AL resistant malaria

I want to add this to the article. There may be better medical sources but this also shows patients can self refer -and the non-routine work they do. If it's not in the right place could someone please move it. Regards JRPG (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)