Talk:Georgina Long

Edit request

Long’s h index was recently updatedf to 140. The citation verifies this information. Can the page be amended to match the source. Wise owl 2 (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately the reference in relation to the h index was requested to be included in the article back in 2021 but was declined (for reasons stated up-page). It therefore should not have been included in the article and I will remove it from the article.

Also, you have not declared you conflict of interest on your user page and none of the edit requests that you have made above carry the required COI template. For further details of the COI editing policy please see WP:COI. Axad12 (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for the direction in relation to COI handling. I will read and apply the policy. The h index request from three years ago was rejected for conflict of interest reasons and not because academics should not have their h index listed on their page, are you able to confirm? Wise owl 2 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it was declined to be included for the reasons mentioned in the relevant section above (see the section "Request for edit - change to introduction 2"). It wasn't due to the conflict of interest, it was because it was inappropriate for several reasons. I do not believe that there is any realistic prospect of material of that nature being included in this article.

Would you please drop by at the conflict of interest noticeboard WP:COIN (relevant discussion here [1]) to clarify any possible connection between yourself and editor Sitalia1990, who seems to also be editing the article with an identical agenda to yourself. Axad12 (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for your advice. I am learning to edit on Wikipedia. I have made an initial attempt to declare a conflict of interest and you have since advised the way to do this. The news under the impression that Wikipedia attempts to make available comprehensive verifiable information. There are many gaps in the wiki page for Long and I am doing no more than attempting to fill the knowledge gaps. I have looked through sitalia1990 entries on Long’s page and they have declared themselves as a connected person. The learning curve in the Wikipedia space is quite steep ( especially for someone who isn’t a media or marketing professional. Thanks again for you swift advice. Best place for me to start is to follow the COI policy, declare the COI on my profile page and work out how best the fill the gaps about Long. Wise owl 2 (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the typos! I am

using my tiny phone. Wise owl 2 (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think your post of 22.03 is the correct way to go.

It would probably be wise for you to consider what sort of information you are hoping to include and whether it is possible to provide the necessary sourcing, which must confirm with the relevant policy WP:RS and be entirely independent of the subject.

It will not be possible to add promotional material, of the type which has previously been declined or removed from the article, or material taken directly (or paraphrased) from other sources. See WP:COPYVIO for the relevant policy.

I'd just like to add that I don't doubt that Ms Long has made many wonderful scientific advances for the benefit of humanity, and I wish her well in her work. I suspect that there is a significantly better article to be written about Prof Long than the one that currently exists here. However, in terms of what it is possible to add to this article, there are policies that need to be complied with.

As an example of relevant text that I would personally be looking to add to the article if I was you, how about some content on Prof Long's research, written in layman's terms and understandable to the general reader?

I think that it may be possible to reinclude a much abbreviated list of awards, but they would need to be notable awards. There is a relevant policy somewhere, but off the top of my head I'm not sure where. For the time being it may perhaps be useful to assume that notable awards are ones which already have Wikipedia articles devoted to them.

Hopefully the above notes are of use. Good luck. Axad12 (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant advice, thank you for being my guide! Wise owl 2 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Huge Gaps

There is so much missing from this page. It tells only a fraction of the story of this amazing Australian. Wise owl 2 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing the gaps and filling in the narrative with more detail. There is just one small edit required in the career section. Thanks again and thank you for guiding me through the wikipedia space. Wise owl 2 (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request.

The text below in the Career section is inaccurate. It is critically important that novel and complex scientific and medical information is obtained from credentialed sources. A paper on the novel experimental treatment, which is factual and accurate, can be found at reserachsquare.com "Neoadjuvant Triplet Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma." It is harmful to the community to present complex ideas in redacted or oversimplified form.

Together they developed an immunotherapy treatment for melanoma, which they then adapted for brain cancer when Scolyer was diagnosed with it in June 2023. He was the first brain cancer patient in the world to have pre-surgery combination immunotherapy. Wise owl 2 (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Wise owl 2 your comment "It is critically important that novel and complex scientific and medical information is obtained from credentialed sources" suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources, not primary sources - see WP:RS. It will therefore by nature present complex ideas in simplified forms, based on what secondary sources have said. Wikipedia articles are also always written for a general, rather than specialist, audience. If you believe there are inaccuracies in what is said in the sources or written here, please explain and provide other secondary sources for a proposed change. Thanks Melcous (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again. There is simplified and accurate and simplified and inaccurate.

Accurate information in relation to the experimental treatment can be found below:

August 2024

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/even-when-it-turns-personal-science-is-still-their-watchword/news-story/cfae4919b2e767232afb272d3f77a007

June 3 2024

https://www.smh.com.au/national/hayley-s-melanoma-came-back-then-scientists-tried-something-different-20240527-p5jguy.html

April 1 2024

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-01/richard-scolyer-brain-cancer-treatment-scan-/103610270#

Wise owl 2 (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

And another one

https://australianoftheyear.org.au/recipients/professor-georgina-long-ao-and-professor-richard-scolyer-ao

Wise owl 2 (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Wise owl 2 thanks for the sources, but it is still not clear what change you are asking for. Perhaps try using the Wikipedia:Edit request wizard. The easiest form of an edit request is one that says "The article currently says x, please change x to y, and here is the source for y". Thank you Melcous (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thank you! Wise owl 2 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again, the request is below.

The career section, the following sentence should be changed from

Together they developed an immunotherapy treatment for melanoma, which they then adapted for brain cancer when Scolyer was diagnosed with it in June 2023.

to

Together they have been part of a team of pioneers in the use of immunotherapy for melanoma. Georgina adapted melanoma immunotherapy for brain cancer when Solyer was diagnosed with it in June 2023.

Sources for this change are

https://australianoftheyear.org.au/recipients/professor-georgina-long-ao-and-professor-richard-scolyer-ao

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-01/richard-scolyer-brain-cancer-treatment-scan-/103610270#

https://www.smh.com.au/national/hayley-s-melanoma-came-back-then-scientists-tried-something-different-20240527-p5jguy.html

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/even-when-it-turns-personal-science-is-still-their-watchword/news-story/cfae4919b2e767232afb272d3f77a007 Wise owl 2 (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Career section edit.

The career section, the following sentence should be changed from

Together they developed an immunotherapy treatment for melanoma, which they then adapted for brain cancer when Scolyer was diagnosed with it in June 2023.

to

Together they have been part of a team of pioneers in the use of immunotherapy for melanoma. Georgina adapted melanoma immunotherapy for brain cancer when Solyer was diagnosed with it in June 2023.

Sources for this change are

https://australianoftheyear.org.au/recipients/professor-georgina-long-ao-and-professor-richard-scolyer-ao

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-01/richard-scolyer-brain-cancer-treatment-scan-/103610270#

https://www.smh.com.au/national/hayley-s-melanoma-came-back-then-scientists-tried-something-different-20240527-p5jguy.html

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/even-when-it-turns-personal-science-is-still-their-watchword/news-story/cfae4919b2e767232afb272d3f77a007

paragraph

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Wise owl 2 (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

References