Talk:Susan G. Komen for the Cure

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 60 days

Organizations C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Medicine C‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Unassessed

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Critics of over-screening

Here are 2 good articles criticizing over-screening, which put most of the blame on Komen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/our-feel-good-war-on-breast-cancer.html Our Feel-Good War on Breast Cancer By PEGGY ORENSTEIN April 25, 2013

http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e5132?ijkey=WqUqgA.EgJq76&keytype=ref&siteid=bmjjournals%2520 Not So Stories How a charity oversells mammography BMJ 2012; 345 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5132 (Published 2 August 2012) BMJ 2012;345:e5132 --Nbauman (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Criticism Section

Per Wikipedia rules, there shouldn't be a criticism section. They need to be worked into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacarids (talk • contribs) 08:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two entire books and a documentary film about the whole "pink ribbon, inc" pattern of using fundraising for diseases as a marketing tool to promote random, unrelated retail products. Komen, as one of the largest names in this sector, has drawn a huge amount of attention. There is enough information on that issue alone that it merits a section, even if some key facts (such as the amount of donated money going to the cost of running the "run for a cure" events themselves) remain unknown. K7L (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves (and it might not), they spend about a quarter of "Run" money (not a quarter of all money) on the event. Only 25% is actually considered pretty good by industry standards for these events. Some notorious events have spent more than 90% of the gross event revenue on event expenses.

I believe that whenever it is possible to unify the minor criticisms in an unobtrusive way, that this should be done. (Perhaps "Komen changed their logo, and some people complained", but not "Komen changed their logo, and here are six paragraphs of complaints about it.") However, there are major criticisms that are probably best handled in a separate section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 CEO salary

This article now contradicts itself. "The Komen CEO salary in 2010 was $459,406 a year.[1] Komen paid founder and CEO Nancy Brinker $417,712 in 2011.[2]" contradicts the NBC piece [3] which indicates that "Brinker still holds her position and tax documents reveal that she received a 64 percent raise and now makes $684,000 a year, according to the charity’s latest available tax filing. Komen says the raise came in November 2010, prior to last year’s controversy." The 2012 Reuters piece appears to be pulling outdated info from the Charity Navigator site and publishing it as gospel. Both Reuters and NBC are cited in this WP article, even though they contradict each other. K7L (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that we need to compare Komen to the American Red Cross twice in the same section. Do we really need "This is more than the head of the Red Cross is making for an organization that is one-tenth the size of the Red Cross" and "The American Red Cross had revenue of $3.4 billion in the 2010-11 fiscal year, while Komen’s was $342 million"? Isn't one of those enough, or is it important to be redundant here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's the way the information appears in the original cited source? K7L (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot more than these numbers also appears in the original, thousand-word-long cited source. We don't need to repeat absolutely every fact that's in that source in all of its original glorious detail. Couldn't we provide a non-redundant summary? A non-redundant summary says either that Komen has one-tenth the revenue as the Red Cross or it says that the American Red Cross grossed US $3.4 billion compared to Komen's US $340 million, but it does not provide both the raw numbers and then go on to do the very simple mathematical calculation for the reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quotation (in this case, of the Charity Navigator CEO) is normally verbatim. Paraphrase and you no longer have a quote. K7L (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but irrelevant. We have both a quotation that says "one-tenth the size" and a non-quotation that talks about the exact number of millions of dollars. Do we need both of these statements? Do you think that our readers can understand "one-tenth the size" all by itself, or will they be confused about the difference in the relative sizes of these organizations' budgets if we don't then explain that "one-tenth the size" means that the ARC grossed US $3.4 billion and Komen only grossed $340 million? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A term like "one-tenth the size" on its own is vague... is it the number of staff? the number of local chapters? something else entirely? K7L (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the source seems to be concerned with gross revenue, but for organizations with fairly similar approaches, the number of employees would also have approximately the same proportion. (For example, a $10 million food bank probably has about ten times as many employees as a $1 million one.) I'm not sure that ARC and Komen are actually sufficiently similar for that to hold completely true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this link: http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html Note that "Breast Cancer Research Foundation" CEO makes considerably more than Brinker and they are tiny compared to Komen. Note all the other MAJOR charities listed are about the same size as Komen. FYI, the head of the Red Cross is a Presidential appointment and it's is a quasi-governmental agency taking billions from the Federal Government each year. Komen is totally private and the CEO is responsible for fundraising tens of millions each year in development activities. This article is totally biased and has been shaped by "haters" not looking to provide balance or FACTS, unless they are spun to meet a certain agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.254.47.96 (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one trying to "spin" this, in an attempt to mitigate the fact that $340 million in donated funds spent on one executive salary is $340 million which will not be going to find a cure for breast cancer. K7L (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

The lede currently looks like it was written by a PR rep from Komen themselves. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 05:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]