Talk:Susan G. Komen for the Cure/Archive 2

Editing Pinkwashing Section for a Class
As part of a Public Relations class, I'm having 2 students edit the pinkwashing section of this article in this user sandbox. Once they are finished and I have reviewed it, I will be posting it in its entirety. The changes aim to clarify what is pinkwashing and the two types of criticisms associated with the term, give clearer examples of pinkwashing, and briefly note why they have been labeled as such. More about the project in our class page. Any suggestions, beyond doing this post, on how I should paste the edits into this article without causing chaos would be appreciated. Drdemartino (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for disclosing the above, that's always a good idea and appreciated. I will defer to others on this, but this project, for better or worse, works on the principle of consensus. If others agree with the additions then no big deal. If a consensus forms to not include the material, then it doesn't go in. Of course there can be middle ground. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ps, don't the changes/additions belong in the pinkwashing article? I wouldn't go to overboard here. People can click the link and read about pinkwashing at that page? --Malerooster (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * pss, I am into birds to :) --Malerooster (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All the edits have to do with Susan G. Komen partnerships; but I do agree, the pinkwashing article itself also needs a lot of work. I will look at putting some/all of the content there. Also, yay birds! Drdemartino (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

WWE criticism unfounded
I've gone over some of the claims made in the "pinkwashing" section. One of which, regarding the WWE campaign states: "The amount of the donation during the campaign has been criticized as inconsequential for the WWE based on the amount made from moving the merchandise," despite the article's previous mention of a donation of one million dollars. A verification of the percent made from the sales of the merchandise versus the donation can be found immediately in the citation posted for the claim: http://hollywoodlife.com/2012/09/17/john-cena-pink-wwe-breast-cancer-awareness-susan-g-komen-for-the-cure/ and I quote: "...WWE will donate 100 percent of its profits (at least 30 percent of the retail purchase price) to Susan G. Komen for the Cure." So in other words, no amount of money was earned directly through the sales of the merchandise by the WWE. I will proceed to remove the WWE segment from the "pinkwashing" section in light of this documented fact. Typenolies (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

$1,000,000 spent sending legal threats?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2010/12/07/komen-foundation-charities-cure_n_793176.html?ir=Australia

This is very interesting material, very note worthy. I would submit that it should be in the lede in the second paragraph and again in the break down section. I would add it in myself, but let's be realistic - any organisation willing to drop that much cash on legal threats will have a well policed wiki page. So I'll leave it as a submission for current editors to take advantage of and we'll see where that goes. &lt;!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 20:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly (this might be in the talk archive), the problem is that the source doesn't say Komen spends $1,000,000 on legal threats over trademark. It just says these are the company's legal fees, which could be anything. The Wikipedia article does discuss the trademark-dispute issue. I don't think it really rises to the importance of being mentioned in the lede.  -Jord gette  [talk]  00:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)