Talk:Susan G. Komen for the Cure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale


Contents

[edit] Komen

Thanks for helping with the page guys. I saw that "Komen" was requested, so I assumed that the person who requested it wanted the Komen Breast Cancer Foundation.Bjtitus 04:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy/Criticism

I would like to see a section in the article containing any controversy or criticism against/about this organization if there is any. --PaladinWriter 23:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would you want the section if you don't know if any exists? CynicalMe 23:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people can not grasp the concept of positive things and they insist on being a pessimist. If you find some controversy then post it, but I will not waste my time digging up trash.

There is a Facebook group (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2239255066&ref=nf) that alleges that the organization conducts inhumane animal testing. Does anybody know anything about this?
The link you provided required login so I can't read the actual allegation. But the foundation raises money and grants it out to others. It doesn't do any medical research directly nor does it design the research. there are plenty of accusations of animal cruelty in medical testing, but I don't see (especially since I can't read the link) that the Koman foundation is any more a player in it than any other group that gives money to medical research. Facebook looks like a mix between social networking and blogging, in which case it wouldn't be a reliable source. But if you can find reliable sources from the entry maybe we could investigate further. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

One element of controversy might be the "efficiency" of this charitable organization relative to others. In the 2004 data from Forbes' "America's Most (and least) Efficient Charities" articles, the Komen organization is in the bottom quartile of the 200 charities compared vis-a-vis the percent of monies collected that are distributed to the charity's target, as opposed to fundraising expenses (i.e., 3/4 of the charities did better than Komen). This article is here: http://www.forbes.com/2004/11/23/04charityland.html . Sjmwiki 16:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless I missed it, there's no editorial on this article, so it's hard to use these figures in a way that isn't original research. The fact that they place in the bottom quartile of a restricted group isn't by itself an indictment of their practices. -- Siobhan Hansa 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

One source of ongoing controversy for Komen is the fact that some of their community grants go to Planned Parenthood clinics. Those who are anti-abortion and anti-Planned Parenthood are often upset to learn that a breast cancer foundation provides funding to PP -- even if the grants are used to treat breast cancer. Unfortunately, the only source I have for this at the moment is original research. I will see if I can source this controversySfmammamia 05:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The grants funded by Komen for the Cure and its Affiliates are specific to Komen’s mission to save lives and end breast cancer forever by empowering people, ensuring quality care for all and energizing science to find the cures. All community grants are restricted to provide vital breast health education, screening and treatment services for underserved women. In keeping with the high standards set by Komen headquarters, grant recipients are required to provide detailed reports about how the funds were used to the funding Affiliate at least bi-annually.
Early detection through breast cancer screening is the key to surviving breast cancer. In many urban and rural areas, Planned Parenthood may be the only source of free or low-cost women’s health screening services (e.g., pap smears, mammograms, clinical breast exams, etc.). Unfortunately, many underserved women find breast cancer at a later and more aggressive stage and have a higher mortality rate from this disease. Some Komen Affiliates provide restricted grants to local Planned Parenthood clinics that offer vital breast health services for underserved women in their communities. These services often help to provide otherwise unavailable breast screening for women ages 40 to 50, which may not be covered by the Centers for Disease Control’s Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.
The common thread to the individuals served is that they are at risk for breast cancer. Komen and its Affiliates do not provide any funding for abortions or for any activities outside the scope of their mission, and do not discriminate on age, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability or decisions people have made in their lives.

CrayolaStar 21:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Jim Hightower noted in "There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos" that the Komen Foundation was originally bankrolled by major chemical companies, so that they could vet all the ads...which is perhaps why the focus is on a "cure" and to some extent on "early detection", with no mention of "not pouring such massive amounts of carcinogenic chlorine compounds into the air and water". DanielCristofani 19:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It does seem like they are spending a heck of a lot on ads for the 3 day event right now. That may indicate some inefficiencies, but then this is only anecdotal and an assumption.204.130.0.8 (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expand Article

I would like to see this article expanded. As such it is hardly complete. --PaladinWriter 23:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty complete to me, if you'd like to expand it, feel free. Suppafly 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Copyright Violations

User Karencohick has added a ton to this article in the past couple of days, which is great. I'm concerned, though, that most of the content is ripped directly from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure website and is therefore copyrighted. I marked the article as a copyright violation with the copyvio template, but Karencohick removed it and kept editing.

Karencohick - can you address these concerns, please?

Thanks, -- Amoore 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on rewriting most of the copy. Thanks for pointing it out.Karencohick 16:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
GFDL licensing statement for the text has been received and archived here. Jkelly 02:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Written like an advertisement

I'll echo Amoore's concerns. While I appreciate Karencohick's hard work on this article, I'm concerned that statements like:

  • Komen is leading the global movement to end breast cancer forever.
  • Nancy Brinker promised her dying sister, Susan G. Komen, that she would do everything in her power to end breast cancer forever. In 1982, that promise became Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
  • Komen for the Cure has played a role in major advances in the fight against breast cancer - transforming how the world talks about and treats this disease and helping to turn millions of breast cancer patients into breast cancer survivors.
  • Every major advance in the fight against breast cancer has been touched in some way by a Komen Grant.
  • Because 10 million women around the world could die from breast cancer in the next 25 years without a cure, Komen for the Cure is fighting every minute of every day to save every life.

aren't in an encyclopedic tone and sound like it came from Komen's PR department. The "Breast Cancer Then and Now" seems superfluous; is the Komen foundation directly responsible for all the advancements, as the section seems to imply?

I also agree with PaladinWriter -- there should be a controversy/criticism section. I seem to vaguely remember something about the Komen Foundation, but I'm not too sure what it is. In any case, there is considerable discussion about the Komen Foundation's political ties, so if anybody is interested in writing such a section, this article would be a good place to start. Purifiedwater 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. I took some time and went through a lot of this stuff in this article to clean it up:

  • removed statements that were impossible to make NPOV;
  • made NPOV the parts that I could (except for Breast cancer: 1982 and now — looks like there's too much research needed to salvage it easily);
  • added Komen as the source for things I think an organization's self-sourced statements are appropriate sources for (and maybe a few more things too - feel free to tag); and
  • added citation-needed tags on items that I think need a non-Komen source to have encyclopedia-level verifiability.

Oh, and I removed ™ and ® marks from proper names, for obvious reasons (and because Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) says to). Related articles that one may want to check:

--Closeapple 12:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute?

I noticed this article has been tagged as NPOV, but a big cleanup was done back in February. Is the neutrality still disputed, or can we take down the tag? -- MisterHand 13:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking that the guidelines for NPOV disputes and it does not appear to me that they were properly followed in this case. The guidelines state that there should be a discussion of the reasons for placement of the tag in a clearly marked section of the article's talk page. Given that this was not done originally, and the fact there have been numerous additions to the article since February that have worked to balance the tone and content of the article, I'm going to make a bold edit and remove the tag. If others disagree, can we please discuss here? -- Sfmammamia 01:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The branding image was kind of dull and a bit same-y with the logo at the top, but I don't find the image of Brinker does much for the article. She was the founder sure, but the non-profit's moved on and I don't think a photo of her really tells the reader much. I brought in a photo from the Race for the Cure article instead - though a different illustration of one of their fundraisers might be even better. -- SiobhanHansa 09:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)