Talk:Buck Institute for Research on Aging

I'm layering in content, a step at a time, following the article on GTRI as a model. My "Cite" function is currently broken, so I know I've left things in a somewhat dirty state. Working entirely from first sources at this point. Thanks -- ResearcherQ (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Article on science: http://www.buckinstitute.org/ourScience

Article on employees and budget: http://www.buckinstitute.org/news

Articles on facilities: http://www.buckinstitute.org/architecture http://www.pcf-p.com/a/p/8906/s.html

These sources do not look independent... look at WP:RS and WP:OR or just find some secondary sources! BO | Talk 00:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC).Reply

I agree -- I'll keep whittling at it -- ResearcherQ (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Another good model is SRI International -- ResearcherQ (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

• An example would be: {{cite web |url = http://www.example.org/ |title = My Favorite Things, Part II |last = Doe |first = John |publisher = Open Publishing |date = 30 April 2005 |work = Encyclopedia of Things |accessdate= 6 July 2005 }}

• docs with more examples are at Template:Cite_web. There are templates for books articles etc. BO | Talk 00:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

thanks -- the Template reference was very helpful -- ResearcherQ (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, full disclosure — I work for the organization as a staff member, and I wanted to add content to the article that are accurate (using external references, not just self-sourcing). I have made some edits before, which all got deleted due to a potential conflict of interest although the additions were accurate. What is the best way to bring back those additions? Or am I not allowed to make any changes because of my employment status? Thank you! Irenepark89 (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi—I'm a staff science writer at the Institute (see my user page), and I have made some changes a couple of months ago that were deleted due to a potential COI conflict. I wanted to see if it seems fit to undo some of the recent deletions? In particular, I wanted to see if we could return the article to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buck_Institute_for_Research_on_Aging&oldid=869874466. I will make sure to change some of the sources so they do not link to the institute's website since information itself I have added in the past is accurate. Thank you so much. Looking forward to working with you on this! Irenepark89 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Here are the unbiased, outside sources for some of the citations instead of sourcing the Buck news: 11. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/11/01/buck-institute-donor-fertility-research.html 15. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/04/06/unity-biotechnology-ipo-anti-aging-senescence.html 19. https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/csp/mediapool/sites/NBBJ/IndustryNews/story.csp?cid=4173085&sid=778&fid=181. We will need to delete the bit about Touro University since I cannot find an independent source outside press releases and the school's websites.

Need to delete "The institute's Learning Center offers summer camps, internships, and field trips for students; education programs for teachers; and lifelong learning program on aging biology for older adults" for now since no unbiased sources can be found. Irenepark89 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Clarification needed  

• The version you have requested to be restored had several issues with it, many of which would remain unresolved if your edit request here were to be implemented and the page restored.
• My suggestion is that you write a draft version which incorporates all of the changes you've requested but does so by supplying references to reliable, third party sources. This draft would include the references placed within the text as ref tags, in order for the reviewer to easily verify all of the information.

When ready to proceed with a draft version, please open a new edit request at your earliest convenience. Regards,  Spintendo  07:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thank you so much for the suggestion. I have drafted my proposed changes in my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Irenepark89/sandbox). For the "History" section, I would like to add a couple of sentences to the section rather than rewriting it myself. For the other sections, I am proposing to replace what is in the current version with what I wrote in the draft. Also, I noticed that the last editor who deleted large parts of this wiki article also got rid of photos, and is there any way those could be restored? I did not upload those photos. Please look over the draft and let me know if there are any issues/concerns. Thank you. Irenepark89 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

• For future reference, the list of the COI editor's requested changes are shown in this diff. There are a couple of issues with this request:

1. Much of the information appears to already exist on the subject's web portal, buckinstitute.org. Wikipedia ought not to become a mirror of information which is already available elsewhere.^[1]
2. The sources for the proposed claims are not from reliable, secondary and third party sources. Those types of sources are preferred to ones that are closely related to the subject of the article.^[2]
3. As far as the deleted image files, they appear to have been pictures of the same facility taken from different angles. One picture of the facility should be sufficient for the article's needs.^[3]

Regards,  Spintendo  01:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you clarify the SPECIFIC places where the citations are unacceptable? Out of references I have cited, only one directly leads to the institute's website. The others are news articles from local and national outlets or from other institution's websites, which have no reason to promote the institution. If you have problems with the outlets I have cited, I am not sure what to tell you. I would say outlets like SFGate and Forbes are reputable. These kind of general comments are really not helpful for users like us, and if my status completely prevents me from editing this page, please let me know (Several editors have previously told me that although my status may pose some problems, I can still edit the wiki). I'm getting mixed, vague comments from different editors. Also for the photos, they are all photos of the institute (as they should be), but they are showing different parts of the institute, and they are not of the same building. They do have contextual captions too, so I don't understand what the exact problem is. Irenepark89 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Irenepark89: I have reverted to a version before you started editing, basically eliminating your contributions and the massive deletions that followed, and then added selected edits back in.

As an editor with a conflict of interest, you are welcome to make minor corrections (spelling, numbers, names, dates, grammar), revert obvious vandalism, and add additional citations to independent secondary sources. Anything more substantive than that, you should propose here on this talk page for others to review. Feel free to create new edit requests on this talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

There is lots of undisclosed paid editing of this article going back to its creation by User:BuckInst1. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can we remove "In 2014, Ultragenyx" at the end of "Laboratories" section? It's an incomplete sentence. Irenepark89 (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

   Edit request implemented    Spintendo  21:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello — I was wondering what are the necessary steps to remove the "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments"? As I disclosed on my user page, I do work for the institution, but my suggested edits have been reviewed by neutral Wikipedia editors. Irenepark89 (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

   Please consult assigning editor  

• It is recommended that, as a courtesy, you first try asking the editor who assigned the template — in this case Doc James — in order to find out from them if it can be removed. Since they placed the template, they are in the best position to know whether or not the issues which caused its placement have been corrected.^[a] You may contact them by placing a new message on their talk page. In the unlikely event that you do not hear back from them after a reasonable amount of time, please reopen this request by altering the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yesto|ans=no. Thank you!
  Regards,  Spintendo  21:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have added the proper tag to the top of this talk page. The question remains about removing the paid editing tag from the article. I'd say that depends on how much of the content from paid editors remain. Irenepark89 is only the most recent one. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

So when it comes to paid editing, it is not just the text added, it is also the material that has been left out. Would require a review of the topic in question to determine if it is justified to be removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I thank the good Doctor and Anachronist for their input. It's much appreciated.    Spintendo  22:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

The original plan called for 130 apartments built on-site, for lower-paid employees, per https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Asking-age-old-questions-At-Buck-Institute-in-2600926.php . I haven't found anything to indicate that these were built - http://www.nfh.org/mixed-use_project.html?id=9 implies that they were "pending" as of 2010. Can anyone provide links to articles that discuss these, even if only voter resistance, financial difficulties, etc.? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

This goes so far back, I don’t think there is any news coverage to find in the IJ.

Basics:

• Our Master Plan included a plan for housing for employees – it was part of the plan approved by Novato voters.
• We are not yet big enough to fill the planned apartment complex. (It was too expensive to build in stages, we needed to build it all at one time)

At one point, there was interest in building the complex and making some of the apartments available to local teachers, firefighters, etc. But doing that would require going back to the voters for approval. (the project was initially approved just for employees). Doing a ballot initiative was cost-prohibitive. Chloecaviness (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Okay, apartments not yet started, may never be built. Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply