Talk:Breakthrough T1D

Old Facts / Controversy
This article paints a bleak picture for those diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and does not cite any facts. It is well doccumented that with the proper use of insulin as prescribed by doctors, people with type 1 diabetes are at the same risk of kidney failure, blindness, and amputation as those without diabetes beginning with the 1993 publication of the Diabetes control and complications trial.

Additionally, "Juvenile Diabetes" is no longer used in the medical community, and can be considered inappropriate considering that type 1 is prevalant in adults, and type 2 is increasingly prevalant in children in the United States. MUW Fan (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed; it seems to be quite the controversial organization for allegedly ignoring promising treatment and cure protocols by mainstream medical researchers. See http://www.fumento.com/biotech/diabetes.html --Elvey (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Confusion
The Autoimmunity and Complications portions of the "research" sections seem to be duplicates of the same statements, and the "complications" portions makes very little sense since it does not describe diabetes complecations.MUW Fan (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

JDRF (formerly known as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation) → JDRF – The organization is now known simply as "JDRF", rather than "Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation". "Since its founding in 1970, JDRF was known as the "Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation." But today, 85% of those with T1D are no longer juveniles, they are adults.  As a result the word "juvenile" is no longer descriptive of T1D or of the people and families living with the disease.  Therefore, we recently dropped the formal name "Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation" from our identity and will now be known simply as JDRF.  This better reflects our commitment to working with all ages and all stages of T1D, transforming lives both today and tomorrow.  The brand section of the JDRF website contains more information on our name change and brand identity." Please see the jdrf.org website's "Frequently Asked Questions" section: http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?page_id=103442#name User:ECuebas 19:48, 2 July 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Support Article titles shouldn't contain former names of formarly known phrases. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  06:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support And I thought JDRF (formerly known as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation) was a bad title. JDRF: Improving Lives. Curing Type 1 Diabetes.?? The talk page and article page aren't even matching up. The sooner we clean that up the better. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support move to JDRF. Someone really messed this up—moved the article but not the talk page. Yes, move this to JDRF, without the slogan. We definitely do not include an organization's slogan in the article title. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to change my vote, but I'm not sure how "official" this change is. I'm definitely hearing radio ads for "the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation." Could be JDRF just isn't a household name yet, but it's not quite the same situation as KFC. --BDD (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

27.2 + 30.1 doesn't equal 57.2
Cure and Prevent: JDRF funded $57.2 million (62% of its research funding) in cure therapy research, with $27.2 million going to beta cell therapies and $30.1 million going to immune therapies.

It could be rounded, but...would anyone mind double-checking the statistics? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.209.84 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Request edit on 11 July 2018
I would like to make an edit to the Research section of this Wikipedia page the JDRF (research is JDRF's self-stated primary mission focus) showing a year by year overview of how much money the organization spends on research. The first sentence on the JDRF “about” page quotes: “JDRF is the leading global organization funding type 1 diabetes (T1D) research.” Consequently, I feel this information is both relevant and important for the community. This information can be displayed within a research spending chart or can be listed in a bullet point list. The information in the post is 100% factual, listed in JDRF’s publicly available 990-tax forms and can be sourced to JDRF itself, the IRS or to a website which aggregates the spending by year, like the JDCA.org, Guidestar.org, or Propublica.org.

I would like to disclose that I work for the JDCA, a T1D nonprofit that tracks research, research spending, and community values and priorities via ongoing surveys. I attended the NYC Wikipedia Day 2018 in January to discuss the utility of JDCA information within Wikipedia and spoke to multiple administrators and editors who said as long as the edits are 100% factual, the JDCA was a perfect source for T1D-related websites because we do very specific and detailed analysis, which is exactly what Wikipedia is looking for. ElisabethF (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * When you do this, you need to propose the exact content you would like to add to this page, formatted just like you would put it in the article. Would you please do that? Thanks. 21:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Request edit on 12 July 2018
In 2017, JDRF provided $79 million (38% of their total income) to T1D scientific research grants, down from $156.4 million (67% of their total income) in 2008.



In 2017, the JDRF spent $21 million (11% of JDRF’s total revenue) on expenses related to research grant spending (administration costs), up from $9 million in 2007 (4% of JDRF’s total revenue). This includes all costs directly related to giving and managing research grants, including salary, bonuses, administration, meetings, etc.

Or, the other possible edit is: In 2017, JDRF provided $79 million (38% of their total income) to T1D scientific research grants, down from $156.4 million (67% of their total income) in 2008. Research Grant Spending by year:
 * 2017: $79 million (38% of total income)
 * 2016: $75 million (38% of total income)
 * 2015: $72 million (37% of total income)
 * 2014: $98 million (44% of total income)
 * 2013: $106 million (51% of total income)
 * 2012: $110 million (57% of total income)
 * 2011: $116 million (53% of total income)
 * 2010: $108 million (52% of total income)
 * 2009: $101 million (70% of total income)
 * 2008: $156 million (67% of total income)

In 2017, the JDRF spent $21 million (11% of JDRF’s total revenue) on expenses related to research grant spending (administration costs), up from $9 million in 2007 (4% of JDRF’s total revenue). This includes all costs directly related to giving and managing research grants, including salary, bonuses, administration, meetings, etc.

This edit will be made to the Research section of this Wikipedia page.

--ElisabethF (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting here, and posting the content you would like to see added. This is interesting and difficult to me.
 * The first version is sourced from (and proposed by an editor from) a watchdog group that advocates fiercely for more research funding for JD.  The group has identified a trend in JDRF's research funding and has already posted information about that finding on their own website. The purpose of this edit is to try to make knowledge of that trend more widely known.   In my view this is a WP:SOAP issue.  If there were a source that was independent of JDRF and JDCA I would not be struggling, but as it is, I am struggling.
 * The 2nd version avoids citing the JDCA, but is really kind of WP:SYN, building a story from primary sources (as the JDCA did on their own website... which was fine to do there).
 * So figuring out a good response to this, is difficult for me. Others may find this simple. This is something where it may be useful to have an RfC to get a very broad peer review for this. Not sure.
 * Again, I appreciate you following the COI guideline, ElisabethF. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've asked for input at WT:MED, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . May I set the template's answer parameter to D|D or would you like to keep it open?   spintendo   18:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is open, from my perspective. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * may be useful to have an RfC...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ElisabethF, this shows that grant-funded research expenses went down from an average of ~60% to ~40%, but it doesn't say why, so these are the kind of de-contextualized numbers that don't educate people much. An increase in grants administration can mean a number of different things, but it may be the right choice.  It may also be a matter of fungibility:  previously, we required you to do a bunch of paperwork and paid you to do it, and now we're doing that ourselves, and paying ourselves to do it.
 * Also, million-dollar grants to the wrong thing are wasteful. Is there any measure of actual effectiveness?  I'm concerned that this criticism may be a case of measuring busy-ness when we need results.
 * Also, I dislike picking the peak and using that as a comparison point. A record high is not the normal point.  It would be more pointful to compare across ranges (e.g., 1990s vs 2000s vs 2010s).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi WhatamIdoing! Thanks very much for responding! Your point about not explaining why the research trend declines from 60% to 40% is well taken. However, to date, JDRF has not commented or made a public statement as to why the research spending has gone down. Although broad, the amount of research grant and administration cost spending is the most detailed information, other than information on individual grants, publicly available. I could add a note that JDRF has not commented on the decline. I view research spending as the most relevant data related to JDRF because it specifically identifies itself as a research funding organization. I wanted to include both research grant and research administration costs because to be as transparent as possible.


 * To address your comment on busy-ness vs. results; measuring grant effectiveness is an extremely tricky thing to do and there is no straightforward way to do it. For example, you could look at progression through testing phase (phase 1,2,3), but even this leaves out a reality that many projects that fail have value for other trials.


 * I would argue, because JDRF is 100% funded by donors, that an overview of research funding and administration costs provides content for the effectiveness of the non-profit itself in comparison to others, as opposed to effectiveness of the grants. Having said this, I am happy to add an additional analysis which shows what areas of grant funding JDRF has been successful/not- successful in.


 * Finally, I am happy to add more years as comparison points! I chose to start the comparison at 2007 because it was ten years back, I’m not sure if the data goes back to the 90s, but I am positive it goes back to the early 2000s. Happy to include that data as well and break it up into 3 or 5-year trends.


 * Please let me know if this addresses your concerns! Happy to continue to tweak it if need be. ElisabethF (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the input! Your suggestions were extremely helpful! I have tried to incorporate all your suggestions and they should be reflected in this updated edit! Just putting this up here again one more time to make sure there are no more further suggestions before I repost on wikipedia!


 * In 2017, JDRF provided $79 million (38% of their total income) to T1D scientific research grants. Research grant spending was $110 million (57%) in 2012, $138 million (60%) in 2007, and $108 million (78%) in 2002.


 * Wikiwikiwikiwiki.jpg


 * In 2017, the JDRF spent $21 million (11% of JDRF’s total revenue) on expenses related to research grant spending (administration costs). Expenses related to research grant spending was $14 million in 2012 (7% of JDRF’s total revenue), and $9 million in 2007 (4%), the most recent year this information was made publicly available. This includes all costs directly related to giving and managing research grants, including salary, bonuses, administration, meetings, etc.


 * ElisabethF (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that no one has responded yet to your revised proposal. You are still doing blog-like postings, like mentioning "most  recent".   Wikipedia articles have no datelines, so we  don't use  language like "most recent"; we don't write from a perspective where "most recent" is even relevant.
 * This is still not telling the whole story, which is -- again -- the key underlying problem here. We have no independent source discussing  this.  The content above accounts for 49% of JDRF's income in 2017.  Are they banking the rest?  If so, why?  Nothing here provides context.  Again it is clear to me that the purpose of this post is to "raise an alarm" about JDRF's decline in grant funding. That is what JDCA does. It is not what WP does.
 * I'll also add that the legends on the axes in the figures are almost unreadable to me, and about the graph on the right, please see Misleading_graph - this is a classic way to skew the perception of data.


 * Others might have other input. Pinging User:WhatamIdoing who provided input on the prior version. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jytdog! I am going to address your issues one by one.

1st I’ll remove all “most recent language”.

2nd I will change the chart, so it is not truncated and makes the axes more legible.

3rd I only included research and research administration costs because JDRF is a research funding organization. In addition, the wiki section is titled “research,” not JDRF total spending. To try and solve this issue of “telling the whole story” I will add another chart which shows other JDRF expense areas (The four line items listed on non-profit financials is research grants, research administration, management, and SGA+fundraising: those four are the entire picture). I want to note here that I do not believe the fundraising/management information makes sense in the research section but am adding it simply to provide the full picture as you requested. Please let me know if you would like me to create other sections, like a fundraising section, to discuss each area of spending individually. Again, I feel research deserves individual attention based on JDRF’s self-stated mission: “For over 40 years, JDRF has been a global leader in the search for an end to type 1 diabetes (T1D), through both research funding and advocacy.”

4th In response to “I have no independent source discussing this.”: The whole reason I started to edit on wiki is because I went to a wiki conference in NYC last February and multiple administrators in attendance told me that, because I have specified information in diabetes research, I was the perfect source for diabetes-related websites on wiki. I want to note that I also previously edited the ADA page, as well as several other smaller diabetes research organization sites and you are the only editor who has ever taken down any of my edits.

The edits I have put up on JDRF have been 100% factual and straightforward. Furthermore, I have tried to incorporate every point you and WhatamIdoing have suggested when possible in the interest of finding middle ground. I will add, your response of immediately removing my edits instead of revising the edits has felt uncollaborative at times. I have always believed that the first reaction should be a revision, instead of immediate removal.

Also, I posted the new edit on the talk page saying I incorporated both your and WhatamIdoing’s points and asked for further revisions. Nobody responded so I assumed it was okay to repost. I will ping you and WhatamIdoing on every interaction on this page from now on, as I just want to find an amicable solution.

Revised edit: In 2017, JDRF provided $79 million (38% of their total income) to T1D scientific research grants. Research grant spending was $110 million (57%) in 2012, $138 million (60%) in 2007, and $108 million (78%) in 2002.

In 2017, the JDRF spent $21 million (11% of JDRF’s total revenue) on expenses related to research grant spending (administration costs). Expenses related to research grant spending was $14 million in 2012 (7% of JDRF’s total revenue), and $9 million in 2007 (4%). This includes all costs directly related to giving and managing research grants, including salary, bonuses, administration, meetings, etc.

In 2017, the JDRF spent $53 million (25% of JDRF's total revenue) on public education expenses. Public education expenses were $43 million (22%) in 2012, $40 million (17%) in 2007, and $29 million (21%) in 2002. In 2017, the JDRF spent $41 million (20% of JDRF's total revenue) on SGA + Fundraising expenses. SGA + Fundraising expenses were $38 million (19%) in 2012, $30 million (13%) in 2007, and $24 million (18%) in 2002.



ElisabethF (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting the additional data. It is clear from that data as well as materials from JDRF that their priorities have changed to give higher priority to things they classify as education, as pointed to in the 2012 article cited in the article and sources like this.  I get it that JDCA is unhappy about that, but no it is not OK to use WP as a soapbox for that complaint. I am not sure if people at the meetings you went to were aware of how you wanted to edit.   But this is my perspective on the actual edits you have offered here. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog,


 * You're welcome and thank you for responding. Please address all the questions in my response. I want to make a few points:


 * First, it is unfair of you to make assumptions about the objective of my edits, and in addition, your response came off as hostile and curt and failed to answer any of the questions I put forward. I have made every single change you and WhatamIdoing have suggested and have tried very hard to work to find an agreeable edit, as per Wikipedia protocol.
 * To date, the only suggestion you have made is to “provide a bigger picture.” I did that, and now you are rejecting your own suggestion? I am confused.


 * I understand that WP is not a “soapbox”, but after I provided the additional data to tell the whole story, per your request, I asked if the edit would be acceptable to implement. As I stated previously, the whole story is broken into four spending categories (research grants, research administration, general management, and fundraising + sga). These are not JDCA categories, but are reflected on every single non-profit 990, with the occasional exception of a 5th category depending on what the non-profit does.


 * To repeat my question, if I make charts for all four of these categories and put them into new sections on Wikipedia, does this solve your problem?


 * If not, can you please explain why you asked me to provide a bigger picture? If this is still not agreeable, can you also please explain why spending information, conveyed in its entirety, should not be displayed on a wiki page?


 * I cannot imagine more relevant and useful information than the amount of money a self-appointed research funding organization spends on research.


 * I will also note that I plan to add this same information on other diabetes non-profit websites soon. Again, as I have stated in the past, the information I put up is 100% factual and pulled directly from professionally audited statements. It also shows the deepest level of detail available.


 * Additionally, there is no rule stating that an editor must make multiple edits to a page. All edits, if they are factual, straightforward, unbiased, and relevant are acceptable. Respectfully, the JDRF and ADA pages, as they stand now, are almost incoherent. Not only did you edit the pages down to a point where they make little to no sense, you did not add any new sources to the page. And now you are blocking new and useful information. I want to make it clear that I think this type of editing is destructive and harmful for the wiki community. Edits should be replaced with new sources or revised whenever possible.


 * Again, I am happy to add additional sections and make more than just the one edit to research, but I wanted to point out that many, if not all, WP article’s lack “the whole story,” which is why WP articles are constantly being edited.


 * Once again, if you can suggest any way to reflect JDRF’s spending info, not just research, but also the other sections as you have asked, please let me know and I am happy to develop that edit. ElisabethF (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A last note here. I do not accept http://thejdca.org/2018-jdrf-financials as a reference. It includes raw advocacy and urges readers to act -- "We encourage all JDCA readers to forward this email to their local JDRF chapter heads, as well as the JDRF corporate offices, to ask for a public statement explaining this historic decline in research funding.".
 * Again - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please do not propose using JDCA's blog postings as a source again.  Please find independent sources for the content you wish to add. Please do not try to assemble a story from primary sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I was intrigued by this statement that the "four spending categories (research grants, research administration, general management, and fundraising + sga)...are not JDCA categories, but are reflected on every single non-profit 990", because I'm pretty sure that hasn't been the case for any org that I've ever been connected with. It wouldn't make sense for a soup kitchen to talk about their "research administration" costs, would it? So I pulled up their latest 990 at Guidestar, and I do not find those categories present there. It looks like this is mostly built from their statement of programmatic activities (it's Part III, line 4; try page 13 of the pdf). I find:


 * "Research grants" of $79M seems to be taken from Part 1, line 13, "Grants and similar amounts paid (Part IX, column (A), lines 1–3)". This assumes, perhaps fairly, that all of their grants are for research and not, say, to non-profit organizations that are engaged in public or professional education efforts.
 * "SGA+fundraising" appears to be the sum of columns C and D line 25 in from Part IX, "Management and general expenses" ($15M) and "Fundraising expenses" ($26M). ("SGA" needs spelling out in that image, BTW.)
 * It took me a very long time to figure out where the $53M in "education" expenses came from (it's on Schedule O, in a wall of text about the organization's mission).
 * But $$193-(79+15+26)\neq53$$. There's about $21M in expenses that is overlooked by this analysis.  That happens to be the amount they name for their "Research Support" program, which seems to be significantly different from mere administration of grants.  This seems to be a technical support program (must be nice to have someone you can call about your regulatory problems...) as well as a program for coordinating research and funding between multiple groups.
 * There's another $71M in research-related investments that aren't "expenses" in the accounting sense, but which this analysis ignores as nothing.

Also, when I divide total grants of $79M by total expenses of $193.7M (Part I, line 18, "Total expenses"), I get 40%, not 38%. So I think you can imagine why I'm not feeling super-confident about this list of numbers right now: relevant stuff seems to be left out in a way that makes it appear that they're doing less and less over time (which might not be entirely true), and even the arithmetic is off.

I believe that the typical way to evaluate a non-profit's spending isn't to say "X on research and Y education", but rather "X on program services, Y on administrative costs, and Z on fundraising". This could be followed by "JDRF has been criticized by JDCA for deciding to invest in relevant biotech companies instead of giving all the money away for free", or "JDRF has been criticized by JDCA for deciding to spend more helping researchers get additional funding from taxpayers instead of giving that money to the researchers now", or whatever the situation seems to be, but I'm not feeling like the current approach is the best we could do.

Also, before anyone else creates and uploads any more graphs as images, you might want to consider some of the options at Graphs and charts, which would be easier to update each year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much WhatamIdoing. Your response was extremely helpful and enlightening. I have redone the entire edit in line with your suggestion: “I believe that the typical way to evaluate a non-profit's spending isn't to say "X on research and Y education", but rather "X on program services, Y on administrative costs, and Z on fundraising.” Also want to thank you for your suggestion to use wiki charts!


 * One quick note on this prior comment:


 * “When I divide total grants of $79M by total expenses of $193.7M (Part I, line 18, "Total expenses"), I get 40%, not 38%. So I think you can imagine why I'm not feeling super-confident about this list of numbers right now: relevant stuff seems to be left out in a way that makes it appear that they're doing less and less over time (which might not be entirely true), and even the arithmetic is off.”


 * 38% actually comes from total grants ($79M) divided by total revenue ($207m).
 * [Inserted comment: Unless the goal is to show that they're mismanaging income through either significant under- or over-spending, I think expenses should be compared to total expenses, not to total revenue.  Otherwise, unpredictable and uncontrollable changes in revenue [e.g., due to a recession or large bequest] can cause strange effects.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)]


 * Here is the fixed edit: I welcome any additional comments or edits from both you and Jytdog.




 * The chart above shows a summary of JDRF expenses over the past ten years. Research spending as a percentage of expenses has declined from 68% in 2007 to 52% in 2017. Over the same time period, Public Education and General spending increased from 18% to 27%, Fundraising increased from 7% to 13%, and Management and General remained at 7%.




 * The chart above shows a summary of JDRF research spending over the past ten years. Research Grant spending Research spending as a percentage of expenses has declined from 64% in 2007 to 41% in 2017. Over the same time period, Research Administration spending doubled from 4% to 11%. This includes all costs directly related to giving and managing research grants, including salary, bonuses, administration, meetings, etc.


 * ElisabethF (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ElisabethF, the implied message here is that an increase in research administration costs is bad. Do you think that it's bad?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

break
I've added content here, discussing the broadening of their focus, and using the topmost chart, without the WP:OR interpreting the data. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Jytdog! Two quick questions: Could you please let me know why you removed the data labels from the chart? It seems more difficult to read and quickly comprehend. Also, could you please explain how the first chart is not considered original research? The information I used for both charts was pulled from the same place and calculated the same way. Thank you!! ElisabethF (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The chart itself is dicey but am trying to work with you. If you want to be super rigorous I have no problem with removing the chart.  Simply reproducing the raw data via the chart is ~sort of~ OK. The caption interpreting the data is not OK under OR.Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And the reason for removing the data labels from the chart? ElisabethF (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "data labels". The axes are labelled, and the legend is there. If you mean the caption (the text "The chart above shows ...."), I discussed that above. If you mean something else, please clarify. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * When I originally made the edit to the JDRF page the chart had the percent number in the bar itself to make it easier to read and digest:
 * The chart that is currently up no longer has them! ElisabethF (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying.  I used the version you posted above the break, which doesn't have them.  I wasn't aware of the difference in the chart you posted. Now that I see the version with the numbers in the bar chart, I see those tiny numbers as clutter. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The article contains an explanation of the shift in spending. This graph, which shows that spending on public education has increased proportionately, illustrates that fairly well.  Perhaps it should be placed near that paragraph?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:WhatamIdoing do see the recent history. i had added one of the graphs, ElisabethF removed it. I was fine with the edit I had made.Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also been wondering why there is only the one ==History== section, and not anything else. Compare it against American Cancer Society or Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I got involved with this page because it was a horrific pile of promotional garbage -- the product of a large number of PROMO SPA accounts listed in the mustard (why mustard?) colored box above -- and I cut it down dramatically. (btw, working on this led me to a PR company that markets its paid WP editing services to nonprofits and they had hijacked several pages into pure marketing/proxy websites for the subject organizations) But if people want to build it back up as an encyclopedia page that would be fine  Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I got involved with this page because it was a horrific pile of promotional garbage -- the product of a large number of PROMO SPA accounts listed in the mustard (why mustard?) colored box above -- and I cut it down dramatically. (btw, working on this led me to a PR company that markets its paid WP editing services to nonprofits and they had hijacked several pages into pure marketing/proxy websites for the subject organizations) But if people want to build it back up as an encyclopedia page that would be fine  Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Updating to reflect name change
It seems that the organization has rebranded itself, at least partly to reflect the fact that the term "juvenile diabetes" is becoming less prevalent (as already discussed on this talk page).

The name change is mentioned in a number of press releases as well as some independent coverage, so I've gone ahead with the move, but the content of the page will still need to be updated to reflect the change.

There may also be references to "juvenile diabetes" in the article which should be updated to "type 1 diabetes." I don't have time to go through it all right now. Chagropango (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)