Talk:George Institute for Global Health

message: In my opinion, this article either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for Organizations and companies, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation. 
Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones) suggests to some editors that multiple reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.
Although I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the Deletion policy, I am nonetheless willing to assist User:, and other recent contributors to this article, to make some constructive improvements to it ... I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.
Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.
To better understand why I have used this template, please read Flag templates for deletion warnings ... I realize that some of the expressed possible concerns may not be appropriate in this case.
—triwbe (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice: This article lacks [[WP:A]] to establish [[WP:CORP]]

message: I have removed the :Category:Flagged articles from
the message above 
. it was flagged at least two months ago by Some Other Editor, 
but the current version looks OK to me. Avicennasis @ 05:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Flagged articles]] 

message: This is a request to change the sentence regarding the global ranking of the institute. The new sentence should read "The Institute was ranked among the top 10 research institutions in the world for scientific impact by the SCImago Institutions Rankings (SIR) World Report in 2014.
This edit request is made to update a specific sentence noting the organization's global ranking.  Currently the reference is very dated. If this edit could be made it would improve the accuracy of the article.  Thank you.
Easel14 (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the article to reflect the institute's 2014 ranking. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to update global ranking reference 

message: @Mr. Stradivarius thanks so much for the feedback on 5 Feb 2016. Please see the updated version below in response, hope this is better and let me know if any further changes needed:
The George Institute for Global Health is an independent medical research institute with a focus on improving global health. It conducts clinical research that targets preventable illnesses and injuries that are the leading causes of death and disability worldwide, including heart and kidney disease, stroke, diabetes, and injury. It is ranked in the top 10 research institutions in the world for research impact by the SCImago Institutions Rankings World Reports  and The Lancet called it “one of the world's most renowned global health research institutions”.
=== Purpose ===
The George Institute states its mission as “to improve the health of millions of people worldwide”. It conducts research in more than 50 countries, with bases in Australia, China, India and the UK. Its global network conducts research to improve healthcare solutions for hospitals, clinics and medical facilities.
With a specific focus on the Asia Pacific region, it works to improve health care and medical practice through large-scale   health research  that provides the best possible evidence to treat the leading causes of death and disability.
=== Research examples and activities ===
Since 1999, The George has invested over $550 million across 50 countries. With over 500 staff globally, it collaborates with universities, health professionals, hospitals and governments.
Areas of research include: chronic diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and stroke; and injury prevention, such as falls prevention. 
Examples of The George Institute’s work include:
* A study of 3,200 foods found gluten-free foods are no healthier than non-gluten-free foods for people without Celiac disease or other relevant conditions.
* A large scale study of 4 million people in the United Kingdom confirmed that people with high blood pressure have a much greater chance of developing diabetes.
* A study of 380,000 births in six countries found the incidence of childhood cancer rises with higher birthweight.
* Foodswitch, a consumer smartphone app that scans the barcodes of food products to get nutritional information and suggest healthier alternatives. In March 2015 Foodswitch had been downloaded over 500,000 times in Australia.
* Foodswitch has also been released overseas in countries such as India. 
* In New South Wales, Australia, The George worked with other health groups to encourage McDonald’s to comply with local fast food labelling regulations.
* In Australia, The George joined with over 30 other health and community groups to lobby the federal government for healthcare reform and increased funding.
* In 2015, The George Institute, The International Society of Nephrology, Farrell Family Foundation and the Asian Pacific Society of Nephrology ran a competition where US$100,000 was offered to anyone who could design an inexpensive dialysis machine.
* A study successfully used smartphone apps to help manage cardiovascular disease in rural India, China and other areas with limited resources and access to traditional medical services.
* A successful education program that reduced the amount of salt eaten by some families in China.
* A partnership with UNICEF and University of Oxford to train journalists in India about health reporting.
* Three George Institute researchers were included in Thomson Reuters World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds 2015 report.
Research from The George Institute has been published in The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, PLoS ONE Journal  Heart (formerly British Heart Journal) and more.
=== Structure ===
Founded by Professors Stephen MacMahon and Robyn Norton, The George is affiliated with the universities of Sydney, Peking, and Oxford. As of 2016 it is chaired by Mike Hawker AM and its board members are business and scientific leaders in both Australia and internationally.
Ktr183 (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This still reads like a PR piece, I'm afraid. You need to strip out all of the peacock words and in general stop trying to make the organisation seem like some magical solution to all of the world's problems. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update and new information: response to feedback 

message: Founded by Professors Stephen MacMahon and Robyn Norton, The George is affiliated with the universities of Sydney, Peking, and Oxford. As of 2016 it is chaired by Mike Hawker AM and its board members are business and scientific leaders in both Australia and internationally.
Ktr183 (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This still reads like a PR piece, I'm afraid. You need to strip out all of the peacock words and in general stop trying to make the organisation seem like some magical solution to all of the world's problems. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Founded by Professors Stephen MacMahon and Robyn Norton in 1999, The George is affiliated with the universities of Sydney, Peking, and Oxford.  
Ktr183 (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Hi. I disclose I am employee of The George Institute. I made a few changes that I believe meet the definition of uncontroversial edits. They were: updating the logo, URL, number of staff as of 2017, amount of money raised as of 2017, and university affiliates. I believe these are within the rules but happy to discuss if there are any concerns.  Ktr183 (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ktr183. Thanks for your edits which were relatively benign. Thank you for disclosing your position. I have made some further edits to tone down some of the self-serving language in the article and to improve some of the references. The use of primary sources is not ideal and I would encourage you to seek third party sources as much as possible. Cheers and thanks again. Rangasyd (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making uncontroversial edits 

message: Hi, Rangasyd. You reverted the reinsertion of the old logo, which I relicensed as free only in the US. How would this logo be ineffective to increase readers' understanding of the subject? --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there . Thanks for the quick response. Wikipedia is not a repository of old logos, etc. The current logo is pictured in the infobox and adding an old logo doesn't substantially increase readers' understanding of the subject, and the part that you left out, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. I believe that the inclusion of an old logo is not central by adding value to the article. Perhaps it may be relevant if the new logo was substantially different from the old logo and the organisation had a history spanning many years and where the existing logo had significant global presence. Examples in my mind where it is relevant to include former logos are like when Coke changed its bottle design (not directly related to logo, but significant); and when BHP and Billiton merged to form BHP Billiton, and now rebadging itself as BHP; the plethora of British Telecom/BT logos; the evolution of EY logos; etc. I hope that helps you understand why I came to my view. Cheers; and happy editing.   Rangasyd (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the response, Rangasyd. I guess I'll never use logos to make Wikipedia a repository in the future then. I'll ping AussieLegend, who uploaded the old logo, and ask whether he's okay with the deletion of the old logo. --George Ho (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't upload the file, I just reduced it in size to comply with WP:NFCC. The file was originally uploaded by , who was indef blocked in August 2012 for sockpuppetry. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:George Institute.png]] 

message: Hi. I disclose I am an employee of The George Institute. I recently made a few changes that I believe meet the definition of uncontroversial edits, but I did not fully understand Wikipedia’s protocols for disclosure, so I’m contacting you now.  I’m sorry for the confusion. The changes were: updating the new Board Chairman and the number of staff as of 2020. I believe these are within the rules but wanted to confirm in case these require any details or raise any concerns.
TGIdigital (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclosing identity and affiliation to TGI and benign direct changes made to TGI Wikipedia page. 

message: Hi team,
Just wanted to follow up if the above-submitted changes can be reviewed and made on the page, please.
TGIdigital (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Following up on content update submitted above on 12 Aug 2020