Talk:Benaroya Research Institute

Hello and COI Disclosure
Hello, my name is Justin Matlick. I own Message Lab LLC, a marketing firm that represents Benaroya Research Institute (BRI). We noticed that BRI’s entry is outdated and very limited in its scope. We don’t intend to directly edit this page. However, we would like to aid the Wikipedia editing community in cleaning up and expanding this entry, and will provide factual, non-advertorial information required, supported by third-party citations. Jmatlick (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Requesting edits to the Benaroya Research Institute Wikipedia entry
We would like to provide factual, non-advertorial information that can be used to update the Benaroya Research Institute (BRI) entry so that it includes organizational awards, research findings and other information. The goal of these edits is to better inform physicians and researchers about BRI’s history, and its current research and activities. We also hope to raise awareness of BRI’s research among patients with type 1 diabetes and other autoimmunue diseases. All requested edits will be from a neutral point of view. We will provide appropriate third-party citations will be provided in support of these requested edits. Jmatlick (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Different people might tell you different things. My personal advice is that before redrafting the article, propose content here on the talk page piecewise by sentence. After every sentence you propose, provide a citation to a third party. If you do not have a third party citation, then delay posting the sentence until you do. After staging content here it can be migrated to the main article after approval.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this, and for the advice -- I will definitely follow it! Jmatlick (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Edit: Updating Jane Buckner, MD's title to "President"
We are requesting an edit on behalf of Benaroya Research Institute (BRI), which is a paying client. The current right-hand box on BRI's Wikipedia entry lists Jane Buckner, MD as "Director." Her correct title is "President." This title is reflected in a Seattle Times article that announces Dr. Buckner's appointment as president. (Her appointment is mentioned about halfway through the article, under "Medicine.") Her title is also listed on her page on BRI's website. Jmatlick (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I updated this. The hardest part of this for me was formatting your citation. If you continue to make requests, could you do the work of making the citation in the future? See how it looks in the article. Instructions for doing this are at Help:Referencing for beginners, or you can ask questions to me or anyone else and get personal support. Thanks if you can try to do this.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help with this and for sending the link to referencing - I will make the citations in the future. Jmatlick (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Edit: Updating BRI's logo
We are requesting an edit on behalf of Benaroya Research Institute (BRI), which is a paying client of ours. The current BRI logo featured in the right-hand box on their Wikipedia entry is outdated. The new logo can be seen the BRI website's home page. I have attached the new logo. Thanks very much for your help! Jmatlick (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Right now you are listed as the copyright holder of this image. I presume that this is incorrect, and either this is a public domain image or an image owned by Benaroya Research Institute.
 * Can you please confirm the copyright which the organization wishes to assert on this image? If it is public domain, then I can make changes. If they are asserting a copyright, then there is a more complicated process.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I believe this image is copyrighted by BRI. Can you fill me in on the process for copyrighted images? Thanks again. Jmatlick (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There are two options. The more commonly desired one is to apply Non-free content guidelines to the image, which would indicate that the image is non-free but used under a fair use rationale on English Wikipedia only. Most organizations choose this option so that they can avoid making a legal decision about a copyright release. There are some disadvantages listed that you could read, but none of them are lasting, and this is the reversible option.
 * The other option is to make a copyright release as described at Commons:Commons:Email_templates. Most Wikipedians recommend this choice because it makes way for typical Wikipedia activities which are prohibited with the other option, like using the logo if the page is translated to another language. Choosing this option requires permission from someone at the organization with ability to assign copyright.
 * If you choose to have a discussion about this with legal staff at the organization, then along with discussing the logo or before discussing the logo, a great place to start copyright discussion is to attempt to negotiate a copyright release for promotional images of the facility. The Wikipedia community desires high quality images of buildings, both interior and exterior, and any other media that the organization would share.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for this information - it's really helpful. I will check with the organization. Thanks again! Jmatlick (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is the non-free use rationale. Please let me know if you have any questions or if there is any way I can improve this request. Thank you for your help.Jmatlick (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I can talk this through with you but at this point we are going out of bounds of established protocol. You say that you are using a high resolution image. The right answer to "low resolution" is "yes", but that may or may not make sense for vector images, so the current practice right now is to talk it through somehow. See Non-free_content for discussion on acceptable resolution. The requested practice in Wikipedia (for fair use images) is to intentionally upload an image which is low resolution and that would seem undesirable for reuse. Options for going forward including sharing a lower quality image, or otherwise making an argument that this image is already what would be identified as the lowest quality image. A recent discussion on the quality of vector images is at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04. Can you talk this through? There really is no right answer, but an answer is required.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this clarification. I have received a low-res version of the image. Can you advise me on how to upload it without declaring I own the copyright or releasing it the commons? Thanks again, you have been so helpful!
 * Great. Thanks for asking, because this is not intuitive at all, and there is no way to know this except by asking. The difference is that English Wikipedia allows local uploads of non-free content, and this is a different set of files than what is hosted on Wikimedia Commons. English Wikipedia uploads start at File Upload Wizard. When asked about copyright information, say that it is a non-free work and then say that it is a logo. If you can upload a low resolution logo here, then that should settle things, and then the logo can be posted in the article in the place of the other one.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing me in the right direction on this. I have uploaded the logo. Can you insert it into the article? Please let me know if you hvae any more questions or clarifications -- I really appreciate that you have been so helpful! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Benaroya_Research_Institute_Logo.png#Summary Jmatlick (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Done. Thank you for your kind words. Make other requests if you need to do so.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  00:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Edit: Update Benaroya Research Institute's affiliation and location
Hi, I would like to request a correction and clarification to the article on Benaroya Research Institute, who is a paying client of mine. The current article reads "It is affiliated with and located on the Virginia Mason Medical Center." This is incorrect. The article should read: "It is affiliated with Virginia Mason Health System and located on the campus of Virginia Mason Medical Center."

This should also be corrected in the box on the right-hand side. The "Affiliations" section should read "Virginia Mason Health System" instead of "Virginia Mason Medical Center." To verify this, please see the Virginia Mason Health System page. Thank you for your help. Jmatlick (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This might be beyond the level of detail that is merited to cover. Can you provide a third party source which presents this information? Editorial decisions of what to include usually begin with establishing that a third party journalist has already presented the information. A complicating factor is that Virginia Mason Medical Center is a notable topic in Wikipedia, while Virginia Mason Health System is not currently a concept which Wikipedia covers. If it is incorrect to say that BRI is affiliated with Virginia Mason Medical Center, then it might be appropriate to delete that sentence. It already is a bad sentence for not having a citation, but their website does say "Virginia Mason" in many places. What is better - citation or deletion?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the guidance. Here is the new sentence, with citations. Let me know if you have more questions. Please update the affiliation in the right-hand box so it reads "Virginia Mason Health System." The article text should read: "It is affiliated with Virginia Mason Health System and located on the campus of Virginia Mason Medical Center."


 * Jmatlick (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing the name "Virginia Mason Health System" in either of the sources you are presenting. Can you please point out where this name is used? This is kind of a brainless process. Wikipedia should call the institution whatever is called in cited sources. The usual options are to either mirror a third party source or avoid presenting the information. What should we do?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking at this. The "Marriage of Virginia Mason, Yakima Memorial" article reads: "Under the affiliation, Memorial Family of Services — comprised of the 226-bed Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital and several clinics and other outpatient centers — will become part of Seattle-based Virginia Mason Health System. The non-cash transaction is the first in which another hospital joins the Virginia Mason System, the parent company of a group of organizations including Virginia Mason Medical Center and the Benaroya Research Institute." Jmatlick (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I made the changes you requested - please check and confirm.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I made the changes you requested - please check and confirm.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Your changes look great - thank you so much! Jmatlick (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Edit: Add background information on BRI
Hi There,

We are requesting an edit on behalf of Benaroya Research Institute (BRI), which is a paying client of ours. We would like to add the following paragraph, making it the article's second paragraph. I've included two citations to support this material. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

"Much of BRI’s research aims to uncover how immune cells function and why they malfunction to cause disease. BRI researchers have illuminated how immune cells contribute to rheumatoid arthritis, type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis and other diseases."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmatlick (talk • contribs) 16:32, 29 July 2016

✅ See history log.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  16:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Request edit: Additional Background on BRI
I would like to add the following paragraph, making it the article’s third paragraph. I have included citations to support this material.

“BRI uses translational research and clinical trials to carry its discoveries from the lab to the clinic, improving how physicians diagnose and treat disease.”

Note on citations:

Clinicaltrials.gov link: Lists BRI clinical trials underway to show that BRI is involved in clinical trials

Seattle Magazine article: Demonstrates that BRI discoveries have enabled earlier diagnosis and better treatment for diseases. Also Demonstrates that BRI uses “translational research” to carry discoveries from lab to clinic.

Jmatlick (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I probably cannot add this, but let's talk this through.
 * I think the article cited does not say that BRI does clinical trials. Correct me if I am wrong. If my reading is correct, then the idea "BRI does trials" is the introduction of WP:OR (original research) on WP:Primary data to present a new insight. If this information were really important to include, then there ought to be independent third-party media coverage stating this. If no journalist or independent researcher has ever seen fit to profile the organization in this way, then Wikipedia cannot be the first place to give this perspective. There is no question about whether the information is accurate; the only issue is that Wikipedia determines what is fit to cover by reflecting what authorities have already covered. Can you provide any publication in which someone has presented this information?
 * For further context, Wikipedia strives to be the summary of all published third-party sources on organizations or any other topic.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input on this. The clinicaltrials.gov link I included shows that BRI is currently invoived in 67 clinical trials. Is that sufficient? If not, there are also dozens of academic publications by BRI researchers that reference clinical trials. Would this be a better source? Please let me know what you think. Jmatlick (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not sufficient because ClinicalTrials.gov is a database, and databases present primary information. A WP:Secondary source is required, like for example, a journalist writing about how many trials this organization conducts.
 * Research authored by the organization is still primary information about the organization. Wikipedia does not permit anyone to publish new insights about primary information. This includes disallowing the most mundane of insights, like "this organization did this research..." while citing the paper which clearly establishes that they did the research. Wikipedia does not necessarily present all truths that can be found in primary sources, but instead, mirrors what the secondary literature has identified as relevant. The general rule is to avoid citing publications which have their origin in the organization.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input. This is frustrating, especially in the case of peer-reviewed academic journals that work to vet research even when it is under an author's name. But I know it's not up to you. I have added a citation from a secondary source that mentions BRI's involvement in clinical trials. Please let me know what you think. Jmatlick (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just checking in on this, to see if the citation I added is sufficient for us to include "clinical trials." Thank you for your help. Jmatlick (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I added it. The new source matches the content. It is grasping a bit to cite an interview for an individual in a patient diabetes magazine, but the information is confirmed. I wish for basic information like this, some public profile of the institute could be identified in journalism. But where it is right now works. I removed the link to the CT dot gov search.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Terrific, thank you for your help and your patience! Jmatlick (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Requesting new "History" section and initial content
Hi There, I’d like to create a new “History” section for the article and start adding content to that section.

This is the first sentence I’d like to add, including citations:

"BRI was founded in 1956 as the Virginia Mason Research Center."

Note on citations:

For context, here is the 2003 announcement that VRMC was changing its name to BRI: https://www.benaroyaresearch.org/news/press-releases/virginia-mason-research-center-changes-name-benaroya-research-institute-virginia-mason-bri#.V6NsNj4rLfY

I could not find many secondary sources that directly cover the name change.

The “Washington Life Sciences” article specifies the VRMC was founded in 1956 and is now known as BRI.

The article “Longtime Benaroya Research Institute Boss to Step Down” says that BRI was founded in 1956.

The article: “UW Medicine Honors Outstanding Alumni” includes an item on Gerald Nepom. That item specifies that BRI was previously known as Virginia Mason Research Center.

Please let me know if this is sufficient. Thank you.

Jmatlick (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Just checking to see if you have feedback on this edit. Thank you for your help. Jmatlick (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the content. Sorry for the delay. I posted it as you suggested. Thanks for the context.
 * Name changes for organizations are often challenging. One challenge is establishing what all the names are, and another is establishing that the name change is necessary to mention. You presented relevant context here which establishes those things. Sorry for the delay in responding. This is great.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Terrific - thank you! Jmatlick (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Request edit: Fixing BRI's formal name in the first sentence
Hi There, The first sentence of this article refers to the institute as simply the "Benaroya Research Institute." The institute's formal name is:

"Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason. "

I have cited a news source to confirm this name. Please change the name in the first sentence. Thanks for your help.

Jmatlick (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Just checking to see if you have feedback on this edit. Thank you. Jmatlick (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a few instances in which Wikipedia will cite self-published information about an organization or person. The name of an organization can be one of those. Thanks for attempting to provide a citation. Would you understand if I said that I felt that the source you provided lacked authority on this point? I added the information and cited the organization's own page. Let me know if that works, or if you have ideas about doing this in a different way. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  00:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'd love to know why you think this is a weak citation, because I thought it was a strong one! NBC News is generally considered a reputable news source, but maybe that's not what you're looking for. I'd really appreciate your insight on why it lacks authority -- this would help me select sources in the future. Also, we'd really prefer to just start the article with "Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason (BRI) is a Seattle-based...." The "formally called" language doesn't seem necessary, given that "Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason" is the actual name. But, again, let me know your reasoning here. Thanks for your help with this. Jmatlick (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I said that the source lacked authority because it incidentally used the full name of the organization outside of the context of discussing the name. We could remove the "formally called" part. Note that the title is currently "Benaroya Research Institute". Should that change also? Typically, the article's title is the WP:COMMONNAME, and I was expecting that most sources do call the organization "Benaroya Research Institute". I could be mistaken. Usually, Wikipedia articles are named after the common name for a topic, and not the actual name, so if there is an actual name, then that is listed in the lead after the common name.
 * Do you think this organization has a name that is commonly used in media, and which is different from the actual name? There can be some amount of editorial judgement how the Wikipedia article looks, because already there is an acronym being used as a short name.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  10:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, that's super helpful. I think the article title is correct -- you're right, Benaroya Research Institute is the institute's common name. Typically, news sources call them "Benaroya Research Insitute at Virginia Mason" on first reference, and then just "Benaroya Research Institute" in subsequent references. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to remove the "formally called" part. Jmatlick (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Request edit: New paragraph for BRI's history section
Hi there, I’d like to add a short paragraph to this article’s “History” section. This sentence reads:

“In 1985, Gerald Nepom, MD, PhD, became BRI’s director and established its immunology research program.”

I have cited three articles, which support this entry as follows:

Puget Sound Business Journal article: Published in 2015, it states that Nepom led BRI for 30 years, which infers that he became BRI’s leader in 1985.

Seattle Magazine Article: Published in 2015, the article states the BRI’s immunology program began 30 years prior under Nepom’s leadership.

UW Today article: States that Nepom became BRI’s director in 1985.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your help.

Jmatlick (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

✅  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  10:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Request edit: Adding content to BRI's History section
Hi There, I’d like to add a segment to this article’s History section. The sentence is below. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

"In 2016, Jane Buckner, MD, took over from Nepom and became BRI’s president. Nepom remained at BRI as a researcher and faculty member. "

I’ve cited two news articles, which support this entry as follows:

Puget Sound Business Journal article: Shows that Buckner succeeded Nepom, and that her title is President.

NBC News / Today article: Shows that Nepom continued his affiliation with BRI after he stepped down

Jmatlick (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

✅ Thanks   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  01:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Requesting new "Research" section and initial content
Hi There,

We’d like to create a new “Research” section for the article and start adding content to that section. This section should go after the History section and before the Funding section.

The first segment we’d like to add is below, including citations.

“BRI actively studies immune cells and immunotherapies that reprogram those cells; these therapies could prevent or stop type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases. ”

For context, here's how the citations support the entry:

Seattle Magazine article: Specifies that BRI researchers is a “leader in immune system research” and studies T cells, which are a type of immune cells. Also talks about how BRI has made immune discoveries that improve how doctors diagnose and treat a variety of immune-related diseases.

Seattle Business Magazine article: Specifies that BRI researchers are studying immunotherapies that target Type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Thanks for your help.

Jmatlick (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Just checking to see if you have feedback on this edit. Thank you. Jmatlick (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I have been traveling and am traveling for a few days more. Either I can get to this in a few days or feel free to try for another reviewer. Cheers -  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  21:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, can you fill me in on how to try another reviewer? Meanwhile, enjoy your trip! Jmatlick (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there, just checking in to see if you're back to editing, or can point me toward someone else. Thank you. Jmatlick (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Request Review: New content on BRI article
Hi There, I have been filing updates for this article since May. The wiki editor I worked with notified recently me that she no longer has time to assist with edits, and warned that it could take weeks or months for each edit to be approved. In their words “Because it is so uncommon to see anyone actually follow the stated rules, the Wikipedia community is unprepared to respond to someone like you who actually does everything they are supposed to do.”

I am going to move ahead and update the content on my own, following WikiPedia’s standards and guidelines. I don’t mean to be difficult and am trying to do things with integrity, but my client needs for the page to be current, as soon as possible.

That said, I would love for this content to be formally reviewed by a WikiPedia editor. I am happy to revise and amend the content.

Please let me know if you have any questions. And thanks for your help. Jmatlick (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)