Talk:Susan G. Komen 3-Day for the Cure

Fair use rationale for Image:BreastCancer 3-DayLogo.jpg

Image:BreastCancer 3-DayLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Update?

The article currently says "The 2007 Breast Cancer 3-Day Series will generate millions of dollars to fund critical breast cancer research and community outreach programs." Well? Did it? FreplySpang 04:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Reason for name change?

The walk has been called The Breast Cancer 3-Day for many years. It puts the cause front and center. Now all of a sudden they're calling it "The Susan G. Komen 3-Day For The Cure" which makes little sense, not even mentioning what it is they're trying to cure! Does anyone know the reason for the name change? Was there a lawsuit? Were they having trouble with blocking software getting hung up on the word "breast"? That's what I came here looking for answers to, and I find that the article has been chopped until it's barely worth looking at! Critterkeeper (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This looks promotional.

The lack of sources is problematic, but there are also a few statements which look a bit one-sided:

walks that raise millions of dollars for breast cancer research, education, and community health programs.

Komen spends just under 20% of its money on "research" and it's unclear how much of that is research "for a cure". The article repeatedly lists "research" first - giving the misleading impression that it's the largest expenditure instead of the smallest.

If it's numerically last, list it last - and provide the actual numbers and percentages.

walk an average of 20 miles a day, educating thousands of people about breast health.

Um, define "educating"? Events like this do a lot to promote Komen and promote its many deep-pocketed corporate sponsors, but self-promotion is a very different animal from "education". Other than the endless promotion of screening (or overscreening), there isn't a whole lot of education here. The distinction is a key one if "education" is 40% of Komen's budget (more than any other category - and twice what actually goes to research). Pinning down exactly how much donated money goes to the cost of running the fundraising events themselves has been like trying to nail gelatin to a tree with this organization - which is problematic given the huge amounts of money at stake.

There is some information in the main article on Susan G. Komen for the Cure about the various controversies surrounding this organisation. Participation is down 37% for a reason; Komen alienated much of its core base of support by implicating itself in partisan anti-abortion politics in 2012 [1] and the business model of potentially-fatal disease as marketing tool for an extensive list of random consumer products has drawn long-standing objections from groups like Breast Cancer Action that this is pinkwashing on a grand scale.

The article will need a fair amount of revision to be balanced instead of promotional. If only a fifth of the money goes to research, say so. If the 37% drop in participation is the result of scandal or controversy, say so - but refer back to the main Komen article for the details in order to avoid extensive overlap between the pages. K7L (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)