Talk:American Red Cross

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

National Response Plan[edit]

This section is out of date. ARC is no longer the principal agency for Emergency Function 6 (mass care, housing, and human services) in what is now called the National Response Framework. FEMA is now the lead for this function, working closely with the Red Cross (FEMA takes responsibility, and coordinates, but mostly ARC does the work still). People decided that after Katrina, having the Red Cross telling other government agencies what to do, even within just this function, doesn't make sense. I thought about just taking it out, but maybe someone would be willing to rewrite it instead, to reflect this? Nam1123 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I made changes to reflect the most recent information about the National Response Framework. Riaglo (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

CFR 21[edit]

From an edit by User:209.213.198.25 to the article): The blood collection and distribution of American Red Cross is regulated under the Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 as some of the drug and computer systems associated with the collecting, testing, and distribution of blood products is regulated as a medical device. Is this true in its entirety? This statement should be reviewed for accuracy. Just post the letter that is the best piece of evidence and is NPOV. The current statement is biased for there is no history behind the CFR 21 reference.

I don't know about NPOV, but the information seems too specific to be encyclopedic in nature. Unless someone can word it in such a way that it makes sense to a medical moron such as me, I say its best left outside the article. SwissCelt 19:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Reference to CFR 21 has been removed from the article. -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

neutrality[edit]

Could someone explain why the neutrality of the biomedical section is disputed? It was flagged, but no explanation given. March 1, 2006

The neutrality tag has been removed. -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comair[edit]

I'm wondering why Comair Air Crash is listed under Other Responses? It doesn't seem feasible to list every ARC disaster response in this article nor is it clear what the criteria for inclusion should be. I would rather see details about the ARC's responsibilities in responding to air transportation accidents as delineated by NTSB. ~~Dizman

The section on the Comair Flight remains a part of the article. I imagine it was added because it ranks as one of the worst air disaster in the United States. I agree that entry is not well written. It's' difficult to grasp the significance of the event without reading the article about the event itself. It might be better to create a brief list of the most significant Red Cross responses with links to the articles and then on those articles add more details about the Red Cross response. -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought[edit]

I think maybe this article should be split up. Maybe put the DR's (Disaster Responses) on separate pages and maybe put the controversies on separate pages. Cori Fournier 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC) D.S.H.R. Field Supervisor American Red Cross

I agree that the page seems unwieldy at present. I would like to see the biomedical controversies listed under biomedical section and the disaster services controversies listed under the disaster services section. -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The topic is the American Red Cross, and moving the controversies to another page will give ARC the benefit of "out of sight, out of mind" and thus a boost in public perception. If the organization is not able to withstand such scrutiny, they should remedy the issues, not just try to hide them. 75.208.135.181 (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

References[edit]

I've gone through the article checking the references, and adding in details to help us find them again when the URL no longer works. Unfortunately, there are quite a few that were already dead links. I looked for replacements but couldn't find any. For the moment I've just commented them out in the hope that others who have actually seen them might be able to find them again. -- Siobhan Hansa 23:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Status[edit]

Am I alone in believing that this article should be nominated for GA Article status? (♠ Taifar ious1♠) 10:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont know what that means but the article doesn't seem very well put together in terms of references and to me it seems a bit negative.  For an organization such as The Red Cross I thought I'd see more accolades, information about the good work they do, etc.  Too many "controversies" as if someone has a personal vendetta against the organization.  I wish I knew more about it to add to it, but the reason I'm here is to learn more. Unfortunately that didn't really happen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.143.106 (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC) 

ANRC is Congressionally Chartered[edit]

This article needs history of the congressional chartering. It also needs history of business status. Is it a 501c3 non-profit or what?

Another aspect: Congress changed the Red Cross "Service to Military Families" protocols as a result of hearings into difficulties during Vietnam War. This somewhat coincided with the advent of the "All-Volunteer" Army and assumed a return to the typical overseas deployment scenario, namely ca. 240,000 US soldiers in Cold War Germany, only now they would be all-volunteers (plus, of course, the much shorter tour deployment in South Korea). Nothing on the horizon envisioned the protracted war in Iraq. The specific congressional hearing is referenced, by endnote source, in "Chance and Circumstance: The Draft, The War, and The Vietnam Generation" by Lawrence M. Baskir and William A. Strauss. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1978. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.49.206 (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The military depends upon data provided by Red Cross agents re Service to the Military (esp. to military dependents) for the functioning of government. Nothing implemented in the last 45 years, such as the Army Community Service entities on Army installations, affects the military dependence upon Red Cross agents for information for the functioning of government. The military relies upon such Red Cross services, inasmuch as the military has no such military staffed nation-wide Health & Welfare agency for military dependents, especially those hundreds of miles from the nearest military installation (and, for example, the husband-soldier is in Iraq), which may or may not be of the same service as the, for example, overseas stationed service member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.49.206 (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The following is from the on-line, Volunteer Handbook, CORNHUSKER REGIONAL CHAPTER, Lincoln, Nebraska (http://www.redcrosslincolnne.org/media/Vounteer_Handbook_Aug.08.doc):

"The United States Congress has mandated that all Red Cross chapters must provide services for the military and their families and provide relief assistance during all disasters, domestic and international."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Service to the Armed Forces[edit]

"Armed Forces Emergency Services" has changed names to "Service to Armed Forces" as of last month, so I have changed that section heading. The program is the same for now, although services are expected to be refined in the near future.67.100.218.210 19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Child birth notification as an "emergency" is a stretch. Here would be a better "emergency": A military dependent is religiously "shunned" by members of her religious group; her husband is, for example, in Iraq. Red Cross "Contact" workers, whether they be credentialed in Social Work, or not, are not likely prepared to do religiously intertwined social work. Yet, the American Red Cross is under congressional mandate to provide data on military dependents for the functioning of government in certain cases.

Fair use rationale for Image:Crux Rubra.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Crux Rubra.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Service to the Armed Forces[edit]

This section is extremely interpretive, and displays a non-encyclopedic level of opinion in its wording. It should be rewritten —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.8.21 (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to clean it up. For the record, I only became a Red Cross volunteer twenty years after the Red Cross assisted me in getting a surgeon to look at my knee at Madigan General Hospital when I was injured on Active Duty in 1970. And they gave me a free cup of coffee ;-) GCW50 (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Defense of Critcisms[edit]

I get the strange feeling that there is an overwhelming defense of the criticisms here that a Red Cross staffer from their NHQ is having their way with the page. I will endeavor to research whether or not this cited "high praise" is accurate. It seems more like a whitewash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.187.194 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

First Aid Training and Certification[edit]

I'm surprised that there is no discussion of the role of the Red Cross in First Aid training and certification.Bill (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Disaster Responses Section[edit]

Many of these disasters are out of date and poorly written, with no indication of what makes them notable. The June 2008 Midwest Floods looks like it was lifted directly off of a press release. Some discussion on how to structure this article is needed - should a more comprehensive list of notable disasters be moved to a separate article? There is also a need to decide how to organize international disasters that the ARC responded to. Riaglo (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Haiti[edit]

This information definitely needs to go in the critcism section: [1], [2], [3]. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Failure at Hurricane Sandy relief[edit]

More info to go into the Criticisms section: [4], which also mentions a November 2, 2012 New York Times article (which can be looked up and cited as well) criticizing the Red Cross for its failure at Sandy relief. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The criticism of American Red Cross Katrina was not directed to a few rogue volunteers. It was hurled at the American Red Cross and their private profiteers themselves! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

Talk about a biased fluff piece. There are a LOT of critics of the ARC. I know one instance where at an emergency levy, they served hot coffee to the men, free of charge...until the cameras left, then they charged the guys. More recently, in Haiti, they said they were going to build homes, accepted hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and have built 6 homes. Meanwhile the president gets a salary of $500,000 plus no doubt all sorts of fringe benefits. by way of contrast, the president of the USA makes $400,000 plus expense accounts of 169k (for travel, entertaining, and misc duty related expenses). I see nothing about their being significant criticism of the organization because of Haiti. Why not? I also don't understand why the criminal negligence they have committed is minimized as a "controversy" rather than clear evidence that it is a corrupt, bureaucratic organization more concerned with good pr than good works.Abitslow (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are outraged by the salary of the CEO/president or other executives, please take a look at The New York Times "Executive Pay by the Numbers". The American Red Cross has annual revenues of $3.5 billion, most CEOs of private sector companies with revenues of ~$3 billion make $20+ million a year. Although Red Cross is a non-profit, if you want the talent that can lead an organization bringing in billions in revenue, you are going to have to pay a decent salary. Otherwise, every single qualified person is going to choose making $20+ million/yr in the private sector rather than making $500,000/yr in the non-profit sector. Also, all I see is from you is lots of bashing but no sources; I just wanted to remind you that the talk page is not a forum or a soap box for your criticism. If you have any reliably sourced material to contribute to the article, please provide it. Abierma3 (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)