Talk:Susan G. Komen for the Cure

message: The infobox contains a link to an Ellen Willmott who died in 1934.  I am not comfortable with making any of the kinds of changes that would be required to delete the current link or provide a better one, if any.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.199.114 (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks for noting. -Jordgette [talk] 17:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate link 

message: Please note that while I am an employee of Susan G. Komen, I am hoping to make the below uncontroversial, factual changes to the biography section of our page. See here for more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2019_July_18#How_to_make_factual_edits_to_biography_section_of_a_page?
*Change page name to: Susan G. Komen 
Information to be added or removed: Remove "for the Cure" at any instance of Susan G. Komen
Explanation of issue: Formerly known as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, now is just Susan G. Komen
References supporting change: https://ww5.komen.org/AboutUs/AboutUs.html
216.215.70.162 (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting factual changes to biography section of this page  

message: #  The address was changed.
#  The two officers names were updated.
#  The employee count was updated.
#  The numbers in the second paragraph were not updated. The information in the proposed text varied from the information shown in the source reference, in particular, the amounts listed for education and research were split in the source rather than combined as was in the requested prose. In any event, the proposed wording and amounts were all obtained from promotional materials provided by Komen. These items of information involved financial figures and other data which were summative in nature, and therefore perfect for a lead section in theory. However, these figures originated not from official financial disclosures, but rather, from the "About us" section of the Komen website, and thus were felt not to be the most ideal information to be placed in the lead section of the article.
#  The article's name was not changed. Requests to change an article's title should be submitted using the  template specifically as a controversial move request process requiring discussion amongst the wider community. More information can be found at requested moves.
Regards,  Spintendo  20:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 8-AUG-2019

message: Please note that while I am an employee of Susan G. Komen, I am hoping to make the below uncontroversial, factual changes to the biography section of our page. 
In response to Spintendo:
Information to be added or removed: Remove "for the Cure" at any instance of Susan G. Komen
Explanation of issue: Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Inc. dba Susan G. Komen since Spring 2013. Please update throughout. This is an uncontroversial, factual change. 
References supporting change: https://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/_Komen/Content/About_Us/Financial_Reports/fy18-susan-g-komen-audit-report.pdf
216.215.70.162 (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If the corporation's legal name is Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, then I think it would be better to have that full name.  Otherwise, people might be confused about whether the article is about Ms Komen herself, vs. the corporation.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to: Reply 8-AUG-2019  

message: Would echo the above concerns on the article being too one-sided. While it is loosely alluded to in the "Pinkwashing" section, the article would benefit from inclusion of the criticism Komen historically received about its branding as a research-supporting institution vs the amount of money spent on research. Some sources on this below; I found http://curekomen.org/ as an organization that raised this criticism especially. Perhaps a "Research Spending" section could be added to the criticism section.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-komen-research/insight-komen-charity-under-microscope-for-funding-science-idUSTRE8171KW20120208 Critics within the philanthropic and research communities in particular have raised questions over its scientific approach to some issues and how it spends the money it raises.... In 2011, the foundation spent 15 percent, or $63 million, of its donations on research awards that fund studies on everything from hard-core molecular biology to the quality of breast-cancer care for Medicaid patients.
[2] https://theappalachianonline.com/problems-susan-g-komen/ In the organization’s 2010-2011 financial report it was revealed that Susan G. Komen only devotes 20.9 percent of the donations it receives to researching breast cancer. The rest of their funding goes towards administrative costs and raising “awareness,” i.e. devoting money to advertising the Susan G. Komen brand and merchandise.
[3] https://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-susan-g-komen-maryland-dissolution-20210504-oaz6u4frbnedvj2ugj255d64pe-story.html Komen has attracted criticism for how it managed its funds. Critics said a deceptively small chunk of the funds went to breast cancer research, relative to education and treatment, when research was sometimes most prominently advertised
[4] https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2019/12/11/does-komen-need-a-cure-of-its-own ...That included a deep dive into the organizations that fund research, including Susan G. Komen, the most famous brand in breast cancer philanthropy. But the more they learned, the more they wondered if Komen's actual giving for research was in line with the public image it has developed and promoted so tirelessly, and for the most part, successfully...
“When we learned how small a part of their annual budget Komen spent on research, despite years of marketing themselves as a cure-oriented organization, it looked like their marketing was misleading,” said Goldstein. “We decided that we needed to inform the public about where the money they’d donated to Komen was going.”  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.180.14 (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spending Criticism (Extending "One Sided")