Talk:American Cancer Society/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Do embezzlement scandals belong in article?

Alexbrn (talk) removed two incidents of embezzlement that occurred in the American Cancer Society, stating in his edit summary, "rm. irrelevant/undue material on bad behaviour by individual employees". The information removed is:

New York embezzlement

In the 1980s, an employee of a New York branch was indicted for a tax fraud scheme that allowed individuals to fraudulently claim contributions, much of which had been returned to them.

Ohio embezzlement

In 2000, Dan Wiant, the chief administrative officer of the American Cancer Society of Ohio, pled guilty to embezzling $7 million from the organization.

As this was considered notable by the New York Times and the second incident involved the chief administrative officer of the Ohio affiliate it could be considered significant regarding the organization and relate to the next subsection on lack of control of state affiliates. I am not sure how important to the article on the organization as a whole the activities of individual employees would be considered so I am opening this discussion. As I have said before I think this article would benefit from expansion and that the POV leans towards negative, when it is possible that some research would provide more balance. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the re-organization and consolidation is related to those issues. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I would think so also but unless a WP:RS says so... I think the two facts removed should be replaced but not as subsections. Thank you for contributing the information on the re-org/consol, Capitalismojo, bare urls tho ;). - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a fundamental balance and neutrality concern here. The NYT is of course a generally reliable source, and the information is verifiable, but that does not mean it is significant in an article on the ACS. This is a large organization and of course some of the people in it will do bad things sometimes, as with any big organization. The fact that 30 years ago and 13 years ago this happened with two particular individuals does not merit a mention here in my view (even less does it merit two whole subsections!) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Alexbrn, particularly in terms of prominence and the overall balance of the article, at least as the article is now. The mention of control of affiliates and the reorganization is probably adequate. If those two sections are combined these incidents may warrant mention. I have no objection to their current removal. I strongly suspect this organization has made notable contributions that should be included in the article and hope an editor takes the initiative to work on improving the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Relatedly, since this was the worst neutrality problem with the page, now this material has gone I propose that the articles POV tag be removed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the article still lacks balance and is not NPOV. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

what is the relationship between Kintera and ACS?

I've been asked to donate to the ACS through a http://acsevents.org/ website. It was apparently built by http://kinterainc.com/ . Why does the http://cancer.org/ website never mention http://acsevents.org or http://kintera.org ?

What is the relationship between Kintera and ACS?

Kintera is a company that ACS contracts with to provide web hosting for several fundraising based events like Relay For Life and Making Strides Against Breast Cancer. As such, online donations for those events are handled through Kintera sites. If you have any questions, you can usually make the donation through the phone or mail it in, just call ahead to make sure you mark it correctly so that it can be credited to the appropriate event and/or team. My understanding is that Kintera also works with other prominent non-profits like the American Heart Association.

Comment added with sig and timestamp to facilitate archiving. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

animal testing

do they test on animals? if so, that should be in the article

Comment added with sig and timestamp to facilitate archiving. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Turning down a donation worth $500,000

• American Cancer Society refuses $500,000 from atheists--84.152.30.10 (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I edited this section including more details and providing citations. Although blogs are generally not accepted as high quality sources they are virtually the only source on this factual event, also the particular blog citations are not general opinion blogs. One is a statement from the Executive Director of the Foundation Beyond Belief posted under his name and title on the foundation website. One is an open letter from the President and Founder of the foundation. Another is from the blogger whom the President chose to host his open letter and contains quotations from ACS statements. I have chosen not to add the reference for the ACS replies as they were posted exclusively on Facebook. If someone wants to cite Facebook or wants me to do so let me know. The final citation is from a magazine with a WP page and is via a news service with clear standards. I would like to include the following blog because it contains documentary evidence, http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2011/10/28/american-cancer-society-and-foundation-beyond-belief-documents/. I don't know if it is necessary to support the section or if the section is adequately enough sourced and as extensive as appropriate. Please respond on this page with input, concerns, etc.MrBill3 (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Blogs are inapproriate. Please remove blogs as refs. Reliable news media accounts are fine, blogs not so much. The one news account should support the existence of the criticsm. There is a question as to whether its inclusion is WP:UNDUE. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that your edit of the copy removed information contained in the news article, specifically that this was a change in policy and that it occurred after an initial acceptance of Foundation Beyond Belief as a part of the National Team program.

That claim is disputed and appears in a blog. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please indicate where this claim is disputed I don't believe it has been. It was also in a news article.MrBill3 (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It was disputed by the subject of the article, ACS, according to the original refs. Also, your 'news' article, isn't. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of WP:RS In season of giving, atheist groups’ charity rebuffed Atheists say cancer volunteering thwarted --Nbauman (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of Blogs for Reference

Although IN GENERAL blogs are not considered reliable sources, the SPECIFIC blog entries I listed as references are unique in several ways. First they represent the most reliable available information. Second one was an statement from the Executive Director of the foundation on the website of the foundation, another was an "open letter" from the President and founder of the foundation and the other contained substantive quoted material from the involved parties. The ACS has made it's statements on the issue on FaceBook. I chose not to reference FB. The importance of blogs and social media necessitates an evolving policy for WP. Individual and specific references should be evaluated on their merit. - - MrBill3

Ummmm. No. Take this to RS noticeboard if you want to add these blogs as RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, was the section above MrBill? If yes, please sign. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If this was at all notable then reliable secondary sources would have reported on it. The fact that you must rely on blogs for additional information is both against WP:RS and argues against this even being included in the article at all.Capitalismojo (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy on this. WP:V Verifiability

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Policy shortcuts: WP:ABOUTSELF WP:SELFPUB WP:TWITTER WP:SOCIALMEDIA

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

I hope this guidance helps.Capitalismojo (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Undue

This is a valid consideration. In the whole of ACS history and activity this criticism is not major. It is an important issue as religious discrimination (even against those whose religious position is non belief) is an acknowledged important topic. Atheism and no religious are large and growing parts of our society.

My suggestion is that you expand the rest of the article. I think ACS should have a more extensive article and that there is adequate material available. Rather than cut a few sentences in a criticism section lower in the article, add to the article overall. Also as above when editing instead of an undo actually edit the content based on the sources.MrBill3 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My first thought is why me? You can add material as well. I don't really care for the organization. I stumbled upon it some time ago and was concerned about bad sources and NPOV editing. My second thought is that I generally don't like (and WP frowns upon) criticism sections. I'd just as soon seen criticism folded into the body of the article but right now there isn't that much body. Additionally I'd note that I didn't undo. I cut and pasted the original material back in. The undo function didn't work. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is that the rejection of a (potential/possible?) $500,000 donation in a billion dollar organization is nothing. It is less than nothing because apparently ACS was willing to take the money, they just didn't allow a non-profit into a corporate program. We are making a one-day story into one fifth of the article about a hundred year old organization. That seems the very definition of Undue.Capitalismojo (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Having given the matter some thought and allowing some time to pass, I have come to agree that due weight for this issue is the one sentence mention that now remains. I have also eliminated the section/subsection. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Change of section header, Addition of source

I changed the section header for accuracy. I added a source which is a news article from AlterNet. This source and the other news article support all of the content in the section. If someone feels 6 sources is excessive the other 4 can be removed.MrBill3 (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternet is not RS. Your reversion is inappropriate. See WP:BRD. You were bold. I reverted. You should have then come and discussed. Instead you reverted again. You have also added a non RS on top of previously discussed BLOG refs. Really? Blogs? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Summary response to discussion of criticism section

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this issue. Being relatively new to WP I am still learning. Thank you for referring me to WP:BRD, I apologize for my violation of etiquette/policy. I am removing the blogs as references. Evaluating the statements and actions of the involved parties verges on original research and I understand WP policy that notable events reported by reliable secondary sources is the standard. I did check WP:RSN for information on AlterNet and found nothing. I also looked into The Huffington Post (another article appears there) and found that there had been some discussion in the past that is no longer visible. Another source that supports all of the information in this section is The Young Turks. Again nothing in their Talk page or WP:RSN. I have found a source that I feel meets the WP policies, an article on Salon. There is no discussion on their Talk page or WP:RSN. Salon does have a policy on corrections and a statement on accuracy. The Salon reference is an article that supports all the information on the subject and was published some time after the events. This also supports the notability of the event. The original reference for the section is a forum post and should probably be removed. It seems to me that of particular importance for an individual reference is it's accuracy. Although research and fact checking as original research is contrary to WP policy, is it appropriate in support of a reference? It seems to me the underlying principle here is the veracity of the source for information. If you think this warrants bringing the AlterNet, Huffington Post and Salon references to WP:RSN then I will do so. As I have said I am still learning WP. Regarding notability I think the coverage by RNS, Salon, The Young Turks and AlterNet meets the standard. In terms of undue I think that four sentences is not excessive. Characterizing this section as one fifth of the article seems an exaggeration. I would note that the article contains WikiLinks to two programs of the organization. The structure of the article should probably be revised to reflect the size and importance of these programs relative to the organization. Additionally the article needs substantial expansion and improvement. I invite you to edit the article as a whole. The range of dates of the event in question and the reporting of it are not “one day” as you stated. I think there is room for discussion regarding the notability and due weight of this single issue. If you can provide a more concise and adequately complete edit I look forward to reading it. Regarding the disputation of the facts by the ACS. That is not present in the original source (I assume you meant the source present before my edit). That source is bare url linking to a forum post (signed with an alias) on Prooform which describes itself as a “social entertainment destination”. I do not see any disputation of the facts anywhere by the ACS. Please indicate what specific fact is disputed and the reference (some indication of where or the wording would be helpful). If you find a statement disputing any specific fact I will definitely rewrite this section. Again I thank you for your time and apologize for not following the appropriate procedures. Although I feel this event deserves inclusion in this article, the time and effort expended on it reflect my interest in learning to edit WP properly. If you have information on WP “frowning upon” criticism sections please point me in the right direction.MrBill3 (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I propose removing the forum post reference and the AlterNet reference (In discussion with other WP editors the use of AlterNet as a RS is not supported) and removing the fourth sentence as undue detail. I also think tagging the article for NPOV is warranted, as neither of us wants to edit the article as whole. The overall article does seem more critical than balanced.MrBill3 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

POV

This article seems unbalanced. It consists primarily of criticisms, scandals and has a generally negative tone. Perhaps creating sections for the major programs/features of the ACS with summary info and a wikilink to the appropriate pages would help. Some of these are listed under see also. Some of the items in see also might be small enough to merge into this article.

MrBill3 (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your view. There is work to do. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this article is now sufficiently NPOV to remove the tag so I am doing so. If someone feels otherwise they may boldly replace it, hopefully with some explanation here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why this (i.e. a negative tone) is such a bad thing. Having controversies on a page of such importance is vital to helping people understand how the money they are donating is being used or has been used in the past, and allows for the people to make decisions based on information provided from differing viewpoints, including any criticisms and scandals. Jay eyem (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the issues were resolved, thus the tag was removed. I agree valid criticisms and controversies should be present to the extent that they are supported by reliable sources. The article seems not to have the previous over emphasis on criticisms/controversies. If there is critical content from reliable sources that should be added to the article, feel free to propose here or edit boldly. If you think content that was removed should be restored make a proposal, of note is the need for reliable sources and consideration of due weight. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I'm just getting into actually editing things on Wikipedia, and I didn't want to go in and edit anything without the knowledge of how to properly do so. Jay eyem (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference for history of ACS

I have done some cleanup and rewriting on the article. I doing so I found an excellent article that I don't have the time to read fully and paraphrase. I am also unsure how much historical information this subject needs. The following article will provide more than enough and is a high quality source.

• Triolo, Victor A.; Shimkin, Michael B. (1969). "The American Cancer Society and cancer research origins and organization: 1913-1943" (PDF). Cancer Research. 29 (9): 1615–41. PMID 4898393.

Happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Here's another on a 1920's newspaper campaign An Intensive Newspaper Crusade for the Control of Cancer. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article discuss cancer?

This article is almost exclusively about the ACS fundraising efforts, their charity evaluations, and a list of their big names. It looks like a fundraising handout. This is what you might want to know if you were deciding whether to leave them money in your will. You could write a similar article about a charity for the promotion of symphony orchestras.

What about Mary Lasker? What about the War on Cancer? What about their scientific work? What about the controversies they've gotten into, like their recommendations for mammography starting age 40 (and now age 45)? Controversies in science are not bad, they're a way of understanding the facts, for the ultimate benefit of patients. What about the benefits of all that research they've paid for, by all those Nobel laureates? This entry would have been better-written by the ACS PR department. --Nbauman (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)