Talk:New York Blood Center

Looks like ad
This article looks like an advertisement by and for the subject. It was even written by NYbloodcenter. Seems to me there really ought to be a more objective article written. Danellicus (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked the article history and the article has never been better. I delete most of the content here because much of it was copypasted from the organization's own website in violation of copyright. To address the problems I deleted content which was in violation of Wikipedia policy.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to restore some content that predates the WP:COPYVIO/WP:CONFLICT. Still needs sources, but it's something. — J D (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for what you can do to stabilize the article. I appreciate your attention here while it settles.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  01:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Requesting assistance - The edits placed yesterday by me were an innocent and a good faith attempt to provide information both brief and accurate. Is it possible to request that the submission of August 12th be reviewed and the relevant portions of the entry be restored and allowed to remain? I am a new user and not a willful partisan. In the interest of transparency, I picked an errant user name but the spirit and intent was disclosure. Orange Mike...thank you for your help. Bluerasberry...I e-mailed you yesterday: my lack of reply to your response on my 2014 edit was not a disrespect - was just too new to the interface to find the talk page. Asking the Wikipedian community for help until the information in this entry can be stabilized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueDuffy (talk • contribs) 09:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC) PS BlueDuffy (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I replied to you by email. In summary - many options for support are available. Plain and simple conflict of interest guide is one place to start for guidance. The edits you made are preserved and can be developed further.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Repeated unexplained removal of "Controversy over abandonment of research chimpanzees"
User:NYBC2014 has repeatedly removed without explanation the section noting that NYBC has discontinued funding of animals they previously used in research. This is WP:UCR by a user with a potential conflict of interest. I, and others, have attempted to contact this user on their talk page but they have been unresponsive. Please leave the section, or else justify its removal. I will refer any further unexplained removals to admins. — J D (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Chimp scandal needs cleanup
The section "Primate research in Liberia" needs cleaning up. Too many editors have created a franken-section. For example, the last paragraph circles around and covers some of the same content and is out of chronological order. Some of the citations don't qualify as reliable sources. Some of the years-old language is still in present tense. Needs a good trim, organization and cleanup. Grorp (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the section. Tossed out the unreliable citation. Removed some OR, loaded language, and unsourced content. Put it in some order that made sense (at least to me), and added the happy ending (which was missing altogether). Grorp (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)