Talk:Susan G. Komen for the Cure

Inappropriate link
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)
 * Fixed, thanks for noting.  -Jord gette  [talk]  17:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting factual changes to biography section of this page
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?

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: 216.215.70.162 (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Change page name to: Susan G. Komen

Information to be added or removed: Change Suite 250 to Suite 526 Explanation of issue: moved floors References supporting change: (see the address at the bottom) 216.215.70.162 (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * update headquarters address

Information to be added or removed: Update from Dr. Eric Winer to Jennifer Pietenpol, PH.D. Explanation of issue: NEW CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER References supporting change: 216.215.70.162 (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * update Chief Scientific Officer

Information to be added or removed: Update from Connie O'Neill to Peter D. Brundage Explanation of issue: New BoD Chair References supporting change: 216.215.70.162 (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * update chair, board of directors

Information to be added or removed: Updtate to Employees (2018-9): 194 Explanation of issue: Changes to total employee number 216.215.70.162 (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * update employees

Information to be added or removed: Update to: From its inception in 1982 up to 2019, Komen has spent nearly $2.2 billion[4] for breast cancer education, research, advocacy, health services and social support programs in the U.S.,[5] and through partnerships in more than 60 countries.[6][7] Today, Komen has more than 100,000 volunteers[8] working in a network of 60 affiliates worldwide.[9] Explanation of issue: New boilerplate info References supporting change: 216.215.70.162 (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * UPDATE numbers in second paragraph

Reply 8-AUG-2019
Regards, Spintendo  20:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) ✅ The address was changed.
 * 2) ✅ The two officers names were updated.
 * 3) ✅ The employee count was updated.
 * 4) ❌ 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.
 * 5) ❌ 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.

Response to: Reply 8-AUG-2019
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: 216.215.70.162 (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

✅ This has been done in all instances where the text is referring to the present organization except for the article's main title, which needs to be changed in the manner I described in my previous post. Regards, Spintendo  21:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)

The lede seems a bit too one-sided
The lede seems to give undue importance to a number of controversies that seem like they would be better discussed later in the article. I do not have enough familiarity with this organization to know for sure. RedBlue1993 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree. I think it would make sense to replace that blow-by-blow controversies narrative with a link down to the controversies section. Just keep a simpler statement about SGK's fall from grace. Maybe something like this:
 * According to the Harris Interactive 2010 EquiTrend annual brand equity poll, Komen was once one of the most trusted nonprofit organizations in America. However following several controversies, between 2011 and 2017 revenue declined by about 80% and a number of affiliates merged or dissolved. Komen's ranking on Charity Navigator, which was four stars (the highest rating) as of 2013, sank as low as two stars in 2014. It ranked three stars in 2021 with a score of 82 out of 100.
 * In short, replace the controversies part of the 2nd paragraph with a link. What do people think? -- M.boli (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @M.boli, I like the general concept, but I think that a single survey is too specific for the introduction. Maybe put that in the body of the article, and make it more general for the introduction?  More like "Komen was widely trusted during its early years.  However, after 2010, following several controversies, its reputation declined." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Spending Criticism (Extending "One Sided")
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)

Updating article
A few more improvements that could be made:
 * The lede says nothing about SGK's programs. The lede ought to be able to answer the question what does this organization do?
 * The Race for the Cure fund-raising event has been changed and rebranded as the More than Pink Walk.
 * I think SGK's activities have moved more heavily into advocacy since this article was written. Similarly, SGK Center for Public Policy should be mentioned.
 * A lot of the numbers in this article are ten years old.
 * I can't take this on as a solo project --- it is late in the semester and I teach --- but I'll be happy to work with other editors on improving the article -- M.boli (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with these suggestions. I am also unable to take this on at the moment, but perhaps another editor is interested in building on the suggestions above? RedBlue1993 (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that the question about "what does this organization do?" is very important. Summaries of the article's body are helpful, and you don't necessarily need to add ref numbers to the introduction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Other useful improvements:
 * Describe the affiliate structure. There were about 50 local affiliates. This article mentions affiliates, separate corporated entities, but doesn't specifically mention that they exist and what is their relation to the parent organization. For the past year Komen has been closing affiliates, probably closing them all. Here is an article saying the Maryland organization closed iself, rather than waiting for the parent organization, so they could donate their remaining locally-raised money to their local recipients. If they waited to be forcibly closed the money would go elsewhere.
 * With the closing of affiliates and redirection of emphasis, possibly this article could be structured into a historical description and a current description.

-- M.boli (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)