Talk:Smile Train

Founding/Origin
I'm wondering why there is no mention of this organization's start as a program of Operation Smile. Its own site (smiletrain.org) previously mentioned this, but the letter now appears to be available only through Google cache. Robertissimo 06:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This page seems to indicate that The Smile Train is a spin off of Operation Smile. Gront 02:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edits to Smile Train. For what it's worth, its always good to have pro's and con's in a 'controversy' section to provide balance and maintain NPOV. That said, rather than just duplicate info from the American Institute of Philanthropy, I linked to that article as well as Intelligent Giving. I also linked to the Steven Levitt article, and moved his quote, modified to include more of his quote, to the section lead.

It's not clear from the nature of your edits to Smile Train whether you have a [conflict of interest], but your edits to remove controversial information, provide unreferenced, pro-Smile Train information in the "Controversies" section of the article, the fact that you've only contributed to the Smile Train article, and that your User name has has "Smil(l)er" in it &mdash; all these suggest the possibility of conflict of interest. Be advised that editing with a 'conflict of interest' is strongly discouraged, and that editors with a conflict of interest are encouraged to declare their conflict of interest on their talk pages.

In the meantime, please use edit summary line to clarify your edits.842U (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback to my edits on the Smile Train page.


 * I appreciate your changes, but feel that your deletion of my American Institute of Philanthropy reference is unwarranted. As you said, it's always good to have pro's and con's in a controversy section to provide a balance and maintain NPOV. I feel as if your edits removed neutrality and so am reposting. There are many critics of the American Institute of Philanthropy, as cited by an established study. This is important as this publication is given much weight in this section, and isn't really even a "controversy." It is one organization's opinion, based on what could be faulty methodology. It shouldn't be posted in this section at all, which is why I deleted in initially. If you would like to leave it in, it is only fair to also point out that the American Institute of Philanthropy has its own faults. I don't see how linking to the Intelligent Giving article solves the problem as they are another watchdog group! My citation provides neutrality. For all of these reasons, do not delete the controversies section of the Smile Train article without discussion and consensus: to do so is vandalism of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiller44 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

After you make a post, you need to sign your post, using four tilda's. Otherwise the bot will come along and sign for you.

While AIP has it's detractors, as is completely spelled out on it's page, those general concerns have nothing specifically to do with Smile Train; there is no demonstrated link to the cited statement regarding Smile Train. The issue does belong in a controversy section, as it is two-sided argument or debate whether Smile Train is or is not fiscally responsible or efficient &mdash; with each side presented by Levitt and AIP/Intelligent. 842U (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reorganized the section into two sections: Financial and Richmond Times &mdash; the two sections stand on their own and are more neutral when not under the controversy banner.


 * Please do not pad the article with information on AIP unrelated specifically to Smile Train. We do not bring into this article every bit of depricating information about each source... esp. when that info is covered broudly elsewhere... e.g., we don't bring into this article, the controversial information about Steven Levitt, lawsuit info, etc.  This article now has two pro and two con points, it is succinct and straightforward.


 * Also, please address the concern about possible [conflict of interest]: you haven't edited any other article, you have only made edits biased toward Smile Train, and your user name suggests bias. Please address this concern.


 * Also, please note that your reference for the Guidestar report isn't linked correctly; if you want the information to remain in the article, please fix the reference.842U (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Special Ambassadors
Notice that none of the references added for this edit, which added the list of Special Ambassadors is actually a functioning reference. In other words, the list is completely unreferenced. Either the references need to be fixed or the list needs to be removed. 842U (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and corrected the reference, renaming the section per the source page, which is that these individuals are "supporters" not "special ambassadors." Be clear, that this inclusion of a promotional list of supporters does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for NPOV &mdash; and probably should be removed altogether. 842U (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: Any reason the list of "supporters" would include a deceased person? 842U (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor credibility
The majority of recent editors to the article fit this pattern: they show up, expand the article greatly in a pro-Smile Train fashion, make no remarks when making their edits, make no other edits to any other article, and then disappear without responding to comments on their talk pages. Are these sockpuppets? Here is a list of editors who fit the profile: 1975athomas, Buddha29, Sharonwestwoods, Smiller44, Whalenkis, Jhmumford, and Thesmiletrain. What gives? 842U (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's what gives:. Reverting article to January 13th edit, prior to disruption. 842U (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Finances and Richmond Times
I made several changes to the Richmond Times section. This headline should not be bolder than the others. It should be the same font as all of the others. Also, it was not a "campaign," it was simply one ad. So this title should now simply be Richmond Times. To change the headline back, please find proof of a campaign. Additionally, I added the American Insitute of Philanthropy ratings as they were also in this article and are relevant to this section. Should you choose to remove this, please justify. Additionally, Bill Magee refused to respond so I corrected that part. The organization itself responded. To recent users who have made changes, please also be sure to note your possible conflict of interest before making edits. 923Y —Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC).


 * FYI, the fonts for headings and sub-headings are chosen automatically, by the software; they are not user controlled. As a subheading of a category, the font is darker but slightly smaller, and without the underlining.  You can see this feature on this page... for example "Special Ambassadors."  I've added a reference with quotation, which you can see in the footnotes, pointing out the sentence in the article with Mullaney's intention to run the ad more than once, hence he has "initiated a campaign".  The article states Magee "declined an interview," the article has been amended accordingly. Heads up: the two sentences (starting with "The American Institute of Philanthropy guide gave Smile Train a B-) are lifted directly from the Virginian Pilot article, verbatim. As examples of cut and paste plagiarism, they were removed. The info can be either rewritten or attributed as a direct quotation and reintroduced (better in the finances section?). 842U (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes to this section of the article by Porous seem to have made the section inflammatory. There is no need to 'color' the information presented in the section with a title that characterizes the Richmond Times incident as an attack. The best thing to do is to eliminate anything emotional from the tone of the section, and let the information talk for itself -- using solid references. For this reason, I've reverting the section title to Richmond Times Dispatch, and re-introducing the section as it was before. 842U (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

References for Claims
Claims of the number of surgeries performed by Train rely on a reference to a Frekonomics blog post by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt. However Levitt notes that he is a historic supporter of train and refers to an earlier post in the same blog. In that post, Levitt mentions spending an evening with Train where he supposedly learned of the claims by Train. These claims may well be acurate and true but how are we to know when they are relayed by a Train supporter who learned them from Train itself. This citation might as well cite Train's website itself. I think the claims should be reworded to say "Train claims. . ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kydp (talk • contribs) 17:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Flags
I've removed the field of flags from the article. It seems like it would be a headache to constantly maintain, and conceptually it doesn't inherently add any more info than saying "more than 80 countries". - Here Under The Oaks (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Logo outdated
The org's logo doesn't say "The" Smile Train any more, just "Smile Train". What's the proper way to update that? -- 75.151.145.57 (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism Not Allowed?
There was a "criticism" section here a long time ago, which seems to have been removed. I'm placing criticism here in Talk for future reference:

Charity Watch has questioned some of the company's financial claims, also criticizing the $420,209 compensation package of Smile Train's President & Co-Founder, Brian Mullaney.[30]. Although the charity responded that "100% of Mr. Mullaney's compensation, benefits and all travel expenses are paid for from the temporary restricted funds set up by the founding board members to cover overhead and fundraising (non program) expenses," Charity Watch asked: "How can 100% of his salary be paid for by a fund that is restricted for only non-program expenses? All else aside, if Mullaney's compensation were lower, then more of the temporarily restricted funds could be available for other expenses."

Charity Watch's criticism goes on to say: "Money is fungible, regardless of its source; what is spent on one function is not available for another function. The bottom line is that more donations could go toward treating children with cleft palates if the charity were operating more efficiently, regardless of whether or not some donors earmarked their donations for overhead."

Further criticism appeared in an article in The Examiner (June 25, 2009), entitled "Smile Train's tactics with Oprah, financials raise serious questions."

Givewell.org expressed concern on the company's lack of transparency and accountability, stating: "We do not have the information we would need to be confident in the effectiveness of Smile Train's programs, particularly regarding quality control of surgeries and education in the developing world. We also do not have a clear breakdown of how funding is spent by program (as over 30% of program expenses are spent on a program that we can't identify a description for)."

Charang1 (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Criticism is allowed, but copy and pasting from other sources is not. Make sure it is written "in your own words" then put it back in the article. --Marianian(talk) 23:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent improvements
I made a few minor improvements to the article and added a COI template to this talk page, which discloses that I am working for Smile Train via Glover Park Group as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Here is a diff displaying the changes I made to the article (no major content changes). I added two relevant categories, corrected the company's name once by adding a space, corrected linking to New York City in the infobox (and removed the logo width command), corrected the spelling (punctuation) of "Washington, D.C.", formatted references, and changed the tense of one sentence. Please let me know if you have any concerns about these changes to the article. Thanks! -Inkian Jason (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: I also replaced a dead link with a current URL, removed one former board member, and listed current board members in the same order as the company's website. I don't believe these changes are controversial in any way, but please let me know otherwise. I think I got ahead of myself by editing the article directly. I stand by the content of the edits, but I intend to abide by Jimbo's advice against direct edits under current circumstances, and in line with my colleagues. (Here is a diff displaying all changes I've made to the article thus far. Thanks!) -Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Request re: Partnerships and supporters
Hi, I'm Shari and I'm here on behalf of my employer, Smile Train. With some help from Glover Park Group and Beutler Ink to put together appropriate content and formatting, I want to propose some updates for this page. To begin, I have two straightforward requests, the first of which is to make the following additions to the article’s "Partnerships and supporters" section:

In 2015, Smile Train participated in Giving Tuesday and announced its own "Give a Smile, Get a Smile" campaign to help children with clefts. In an effort to raise awareness of the campaign and funds, American supermodel and Smile Train Goodwill Ambassador Christie Brinkley lit the Empire State Building in Smile Train’s signature colors, red and blue.

In 2016, Smile Train partnered with the Miss Universe Organization to increase awareness of the issues faced by children in developing countries who are living with unrepaired clefts. The partnership also allows the reigning Miss Universe, Pia Wurtzbach, to become involved in Smile Train’s global initiatives.

Thank you. SM at Smile Train (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ This was a difficult decision, but I am not comfortable with including this paragraph in the article. The proposed text focuses more on how Smile Train promotes itself as an organization rather than the activities the charity carries out. I would be alright with concise mentions of the latter, but not of the former. As this edit request treads too closely to promotionalism (by my standards, at least), I must unfortunately decline this edit. Altamel (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing this request. Would the following text be more appropriate?
 * Seeking to raise awareness and funds for Smile Train's "Give a Smile, Get a Smile" campaign, the organization's Goodwill Ambassador Christie Brinkley lit the Empire State Building in the organization's colors for Giving Tuesday in 2015.  In 2016, Smile Train partnered with the Miss Universe Organization to raise awareness for children in developing countries with unrepaired clefts.


 * I'm open to other suggestions as to how best to word this! SM at Smile Train (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I just don't see a way to present this material without a noticeable slant. Explicit promotionalism is forbidden on Wikipedia; writing about promotional campaigns is not much better unless you can demonstrate why the initiative is significant. "Raising awareness" of cleft lips is certainly a benevolent activity, but compared to all the other useful services that Smile Train renders, and are already described in the article, "raising awareness" is a rather vague descriptor, and mentioning it for a second time in the article seems superfluous. Perhaps a better explanation comes from Wikipedia's "Balancing Aspects" policy: it basically means that an article should contain an appropriate balance of details on the subject, and avoid becoming a laundry list of one-time related events. For example: having the Empire State Building lit up was certainly an honor, but in the context of all the advertising campaigns and all the activities that Smile Train carries out, what would adding this detail bring to the article that the existing text does not? Altamel (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. I hoped one sentence about Christy Brinkley's role as the organization's Goodwill Ambassador and her lighting of the Empire State Building, which was covered by multiple reliable sources, would be seen as an improvement to the article. But at least she is listed as a supporter and I appreciate your consideration. As for the Miss Universe Organization partnership, I think this one is definitely worth mentioning. This is a major partnership between two prominent organizations that is not currently included in the article at all. Is there a way to mention this partnership without coming across promotional? SM at Smile Train (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, no. If you feel very strongly about it, you can seek a second opinion at a noticeboard, such as the Conflict-of-interest noticeboard, but this is as far as I am willing to go. Altamel (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OK. Again, I must disagree because I think a partnership between two notable organizations is worth mentioning, but I appreciate your consideration and I will move on for now since there are other details that need to be addressed. Thank you for taking time to review my request. SM at Smile Train (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Request re: Recognition
Hi again, per my first request above, I'm Shari and I'm here on behalf of my employer, Smile Train. As well as the additions above to the "Partnerships and supporters" section, I propose the following addition to the "Recognition" section:

In 2013, the documentary Dzachuka’s Smile, which was co-produced by China Central Television Documentary Channel (CCTV) and Smile Train, received the Gold Panda Award for Best Documentary in Society for Asian Production at the 2013 Sichuan TV Festival. The documentary follows the Lamu Sisters’ efforts to help children with clefts living on the Dzachuka Plateau. The National Training Simulation Association (NTSA), which is a subsidiary of the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), presents annual awards to honor “outstanding achievement in the development or application of models and simulations”. In 2013, NTSA recognized Smile Train and BioDigital in the “training” category for their collaborative work on Smile Train's Virtual Surgery Simulator, the first “open-access, web-based, interactive, surgical teaching tool” for training surgeons in developing countries to repair cleft lips and palates.

Thank you. SM at Smile Train (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This edit request is more acceptable than the one above, but I would like the second paragraph to be more concise. The phrases quoted are not worded very neutrally, could you paraphrase them in a strictly objective tone? Altamel (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I decided to add the first paragraph, as I feel it is neutrally worded enough. Altamel (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding the first paragraph. Is the following text more appropriate for the second paragraph?
 * In 2013, the National Training Simulation Association (NTSA), which is a subsidiary of the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), recognized Smile Train and BioDigital in the "training: category for their collaborative work on Smile Train's Virtual Surgery Simulator.
 * As noted above, I am not set on this if there is a different wording you feel would be better. SM at Smile Train (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, reworded and merged into the Partnerships and supporters section. Altamel (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! I really do appreciate your help. Does the above "edit request" template need to be updated to show that this request was completed? Thanks again for your assistance. SM at Smile Train (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, "partially done" is correct in my opinion since I didn't implement your edit request exactly as written. It doesn't really matter how the result of the edit request is marked; the important thing is to clear the 180+ request long backlog. Altamel (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Request re: additions to History
On behalf of Smile Train, I have another request for an update the article. I would like to request the addition of two pieces of information to the article's "History" section.

Currently, the article does not mention World Journal of Surgery 2016 independent study, which was conducted using data from Smile Train patient records. I have proposed an addition to the article, with formatted referencing, below:

In 2016, World Journal of Surgery published the comprehensive independent study "Economic Valuation of the Global Burden of Cleft Disease Averted by a Large Cleft Charity", which was conducted using data from 547,769 Smile Train patient records of primary cleft procedures (58 percent cleft lip repairs, 42 percent cleft palate repairs). The study measured the economic impact of cleft repair surgery over a ten-year period (2001–2011) and "[quantified] the burden of disease averted through the global surgical work of a large cleft charity". It concluded that for each $250 cleft repair surgery, as much as $50,000 is returned to the local economy as patients contribute to productivity. The total economic impact achieved as a result of their cleft repair surgeries in 83 countries between 2001 and 2011 amounts to as much as $27 billion.

Also, I would like to request an addition regarding Brian Mullaney's departure from the organization in 2010. In order to keep the article in chronological order, I think this text would be best placed in the "History" section, between the 2008 Pan African Anaesthesia Symposium and the 2014 "The Power of a Smile" campaign. Please see the following proposed text along with formatted references:

In October 2010, Smile Train experienced a major leadership change which included the departure of Mullaney and other top executives. According to Wang, the organization's board had directed Smile Train's senior management to focus on cleft-related initiatives and this directive was not followed, which led to a loss in confidence in the leadership and the decision to change the management.

I am open to different wording if you have any suggestions. Thank you for your consideration. SM at Smile Train (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Effectiveness paragraph with citation added as written. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ The endless palace intrigue between the out of touch board versus the domineering executive (depending on which side you take) is the nature of the governance of most non-profits. I'm uncomfortable from a false light/WP:BLP perspective with including such mudslinging when it falls short of criminal charges. Feel free to resubmit that one separately though if you want to get another editor's take. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking time to review this request. I understand your concern and am open to other wording: I’d included the explanation for the management changes thinking that editors would prefer this detail, but the main point I’m seeking to add is that Mullaney departed from the organization. There are many articles discussing the relationship between Mullaney and Smile Train, so I am just trying to update the article to address his departure as part of the company's general history. SM at Smile Train (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Request re: frequency of Smile Train surgeries
On behalf of Smile Train, I'd like to propose one correction to the article's "Partnerships and supporters" section. Currently, the article reads, "... through these local partnerships, the organization is able to provide free surgery for children any day of the year, with more than 120,000 surgeries each year."

However, I propose the following text instead:

... through these local partnerships, the organization is able to provide free surgery for children any day of the year. Smile Train has provided more than 1 million surgeries since its inception, averaging one every five minutes.

This language follows the source, which is already used in the article. In other words, the source no longer verifies the current article's claim, so the language should be updated accordingly. (No change to the inline citation is required.)

Again, please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I appreciate your assistance in advance. SM at Smile Train (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , reworded and updated. (Traditionally I do rewordings as "done" but, based on the conversation above, maybe that's the custom on this article.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding to my request. I appreciate your time and willingness to help. Would you mind updating the above template by changing "requested edit" to "requested edit|P" to show that the request was partially implemented? Thanks again! SM at Smile Train (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Request re: Mullaney's departure
I submitted a more detailed request above, but never heard back about a simplified addition to the article's history section acknowledging Mullaney's departure from the organization. As I said before, there are many articles discussing the relationship between Mullaney and Smile Train, so I am just trying to update the article to include his departure as part of the company's general history. In order to keep the article in chronological order, I think this text would be best placed in the "History" section, between the 2008 Pan African Anaesthesia Symposium and the 2014 "The Power of a Smile" campaign.

Please see the following proposed text along with formatted references:


 * In October 2010, Smile Train experienced a major leadership change which included the departure of Mullaney and other top executives.

Again, I am open to different wording if a reviewer has a specific suggestion. Thanks for your consideration. SM at Smile Train (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Shari here again to "ping" this message and let editors know that I am still looking for help. Are either or  available to review this? SM at Smile Train (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

✅ This is good, covers the topic without getting into the weeds. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Request re: Operation Smile
On behalf of Smile Train, I have another request for the article's History section, this time regarding the information on Operation Smile. The "Smile Train and Operation Smile" subsection heading seems unnecessary. With the heading in place, it seems to place a lot of weight on the interactions of the two organizations. Based on RevelationDirect's input on a previous request it sounds like the level of detail about the two organizations' interactions right now might not be appropriate at all in the article.

So, I have two suggestions:

1. I wonder if editors would be open to the idea of removing the "Smile Train and Operation Smile" heading and incorporating the details into the History, chronologically?

2. I propose the following wording update, to re-organize and condense the information to a simple, encyclopedic overview:


 * Before




 * After
 * In 2009, Smile Train placed an ad in the Richmond Times-Dispatch highlighting the organization's attempts between 2006 and 2009 to donate nearly $9 million to Operation Smile. The Virginian Pilot outlined the history and differences between the two organizations and indicated Mullaney wanted the two organizations to reconcile. Operation Smile formally responded to the ad, saying the two organizations "have different operating philosophies and business ethics", and that Operation Smile would continue foregoing donations from an "unproductive relationship".


 * In early 2011, Smile Train and Operation Smile announced the two charities would merge, followed three weeks later by announcements the merger had been aborted, Smile Train having canceled the union. Following the merger cancellation, Smile Train's board named Priscilla Ma the executive director of the organization.


 * Reason
 * First and foremost, the section should be in chronological order. The content is also overly detailed, so I propose trimmed wording that is less contentious and contains the most relevant information to the company's history. I propose changing "initiated an ad campaign" to "placed an ad", which is more accurate.


 * In the second paragraph, the first sentence is left alone, but the second has been updated with slightly different wording. I propose this wording per User:RevelationDirect's comment above regarding the nature of the governance of most non-profits. I don't think it is noteworthy that some directors stepped down, but it is worth noting the appointment of a new executive director.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for any assistance in advance. SM at Smile Train (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Shari here again, also "pinging" this message to let editors know that I am looking for help here too. Would either or  be able to review this, also? SM at Smile Train (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Request to 1) remove "citation needed" tag and 2) add Gregg Sulkin as a supporter
On behalf of my employer Smile Train, I have a final request for two updates to the article, including: 1) removal of the "citation needed" tag from the opening paragraph and 2) the addition of Gregg Sulkin as a supporter. 1. Currently, the opening paragraph has a "citation needed" tag about the organization's size. I'd like to offer the following sources to verify that Smile Train is the largest organization providing cleft lip and palate repairs for children. Please see the following formatted sources below, which can easily be copied and converted to inline citations:

I am sure there are other sources that could be used, but hopefully these will work. Is someone willing to update the article by adding sources appropriately and removing the "citation needed" tag on my behalf? I prefer not to edit the article directly given my conflict of interest. 2. Can Gregg Sulkin be added as a supporter within the current list in the Partnerships and supporters section, given the following sources? Thank you for your assistance. SM at Smile Train (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Article needs extensive updating
I may spend a short while improving this article; it looks like it's been very manipulated in the past and then largely abandoned. As a consequence, parts of it look like hopelessly out of date PR. For now, I'm just going to point out that Charles B Wang, 'key personnel' is long dead. So I've changed that. Emmentalist (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I've edited out some outdated material and some daft PR guff. Essentially, Smile Train is a notable organisation for a number of reasons, mainly good but also bad. This article has been distorted by obvious PR efforts which all seems to have been done about half a dozen years ago. Maybe the company hired someone to improve their Wiki page (see Talk above) at that time? Anyway, once I've taken out the chaff I'll restructure it. It'll be shorter but better. Any comments from Wikipedians interested most welcome. Emmentalist (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I've removed quite a bit of material - it's a bold edit so do consider reviewing. Consistent with what I've said above, much of the material reflects an old and time-bound PR effort. It constained a lot of trivia and references back to the organisation's own website (maintained by the same PR people most likely). It may look like a slash-and-burn operation but over the next day or two I will add in some new material with up to date references. If you're considering reverting any points, could you possibly wait for 2 days so that you can see the updated article first? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I've finished editing for now. I've cut the PR rubbish out and balanced the article. The simple fact is that Smile Train is a world leader in providing a much-needed service to some of the poorest people in the world, and in a way which adds great value to the countries it serves. I have have no axe to grind, so should anyone feel it is appropriate to emphasise goings-on re: remuneration many years ago, I'd appreciate a chance to respond before you revert. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)