Jump to content

Talk:American Red Cross/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

CFR 21

From an edit by User:209.213.198.25 to the article):
The blood collection and distribution of American Red Cross is regulated under the Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 as some of the drug and computer systems associated with the collecting, testing, and distribution of blood products is regulated as a medical device. Is this true in its entirety? This statement should be reviewed for accuracy. Just post the letter that is the best piece of evidence and is NPOV. The current statement is biased for there is no history behind the CFR 21 reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.198.25 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about NPOV, but the information seems too specific to be encyclopedic in nature. Unless someone can word it in such a way that it makes sense to a medical moron such as me, I say its best left outside the article. SwissCelt 19:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Reference to CFR 21 has been removed from the article. -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

neutrality

Could someone explain why the neutrality of the biomedical section is disputed? It was flagged, but no explanation given. March 1, 2006

The neutrality tag has been removed. -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comair

I'm wondering why Comair Air Crash is listed under Other Responses? It doesn't seem feasible to list every ARC disaster response in this article nor is it clear what the criteria for inclusion should be. I would rather see details about the ARC's responsibilities in responding to air transportation accidents as delineated by NTSB. ~~Dizman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizman (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The section on the Comair Flight remains a part of the article. I imagine it was added because it ranks as one of the worst air disaster in the United States. I agree that entry is not well written. It's' difficult to grasp the significance of the event without reading the article about the event itself. It might be better to create a brief list of the most significant Red Cross responses with links to the articles and then on those articles add more details about the Red Cross response. -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought

I think maybe this article should be split up. Maybe put the DR's (Disaster Responses) on separate pages and maybe put the controversies on separate pages. Cori Fournier 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC) D.S.H.R. Field Supervisor, American Red Cross

I agree that the page seems unwieldy at present. I would like to see the biomedical controversies listed under biomedical section and the disaster services controversies listed under the disaster services section. -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The topic is the American Red Cross, and moving the controversies to another page will give ARC the benefit of "out of sight, out of mind" and thus a boost in public perception. If the organization is not able to withstand such scrutiny, they should remedy the issues, not just try to hide them. 75.208.135.181 (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

References

I've gone through the article checking the references, and adding in details to help us find them again when the URL no longer works. Unfortunately, there are quite a few that were already dead links. I looked for replacements but couldn't find any. For the moment I've just commented them out in the hope that others who have actually seen them might be able to find them again. -- Siobhan Hansa 23:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Status

Am I alone in believing that this article should be nominated for GA Article status? (♠ Taifar ious1♠) 10:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont know what that means but the article doesn't seem very well put together in terms of references and to me it seems a bit negative. For an organization such as The Red Cross I thought I'd see more accolades, information about the good work they do, etc. Too many "controversies" as if someone has a personal vendetta against the organization. I wish I knew more about it to add to it, but the reason I'm here is to learn more. Unfortunately that didn't really happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.143.106 (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

ANRC is Congressionally Chartered

This article needs history of the congressional chartering. Another aspect: Congress changed the Red Cross "Service to Military Families" protocols as a result of hearings into difficulties during Vietnam War. The specific congressional hearing is referenced, by endnote source, in "Chance and Circumstance: The Draft, The War, and The Vietnam Generation" by Lawrence M. Baskir and William A. Strauss. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1978. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.49.206 (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This somewhat coincided with the advent of the "All-Volunteer" Army and assumed a return to the typical overseas deployment scenario, namely ca. 240,000 US soldiers in Cold War Germany, only now they would be all-volunteers (plus, of course, the much shorter tour deployment in South Korea). Nothing on the horizon envisioned the protracted war in Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The military depends upon data provided by Red Cross agents re Service to the Military (esp. to military dependents) for the functioning of government. The military relies upon such services, inasmuch as the military has no such military staffed nation-wide Health & Welfare agency for military dependents, especially those hundreds of miles from the nearest military installation, which may or may not be of the same service as the, for example, overseas stationed service member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.49.206 (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing implemented in the last 45 years, such as the Army Community Service entities on Army installations, affects the military dependence upon Red Cross agents for information for the functioning of government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The article also needs history of business status. Is it a 501c3 non-profit or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.57.211 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The following is from the on-line, Volunteer Handbook, CORNHUSKER REGIONAL CHAPTER, Lincoln, Nebraska (http://www.redcrosslincolnne.org/media/Vounteer_Handbook_Aug.08.doc):

"The United States Congress has mandated that all Red Cross chapters must provide services for the military and their families and provide relief assistance during all disasters, domestic and international."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Service to the Armed Forces

"Armed Forces Emergency Services" has changed names to "Service to Armed Forces" as of last month, so I have changed that section heading. The program is the same for now, although services are expected to be refined in the near future.67.100.218.210 19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Child birth notification as an "emergency" is a stretch. Here would be a better "emergency": A military dependent is religiously "shunned" by members of her religious group; her husband is, for example, in Iraq. Red Cross "Contact" workers, whether they be credentialed in Social Work, or not, are not likely prepared to do religiously intertwined social work. Yet, the American Red Cross is under congressional mandate to provide data on military dependents for the functioning of government in certain cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crux Rubra.jpg

Image:Crux Rubra.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 this Wikipedia article 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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Service to the Armed Forces section should be rewritten

This section is extremely interpretive, and displays a non-encyclopedic level of opinion in its wording. It should be rewritten —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.8.21 (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to clean it up. For the record, I only became a Red Cross volunteer twenty years after the Red Cross assisted me in getting a surgeon to look at my knee at Madigan General Hospital when I was injured on Active Duty in 1970. And they gave me a free cup of coffee ;-) GCW50 (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

National Response Plan

This section is out of date. ARC is no longer the principal agency for Emergency Function 6 (mass care, housing, and human services) in what is now called the National Response Framework. FEMA is now the lead for this function, working closely with the Red Cross (FEMA takes responsibility, and coordinates, but mostly ARC does the work still). People decided that after Katrina, having the Red Cross telling other government agencies what to do, even within just this function, doesn't make sense. I thought about just taking it out, but maybe someone would be willing to rewrite it instead, to reflect this? Nam1123 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I made changes to reflect the most recent information about the National Response Framework. Riaglo (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Defense of Critcisms

I get the strange feeling that there is an overwhelming defense of the criticisms here that a Red Cross staffer from their NHQ is having their way with the page. I will endeavor to research whether or not this cited "high praise" is accurate. It seems more like a whitewash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.187.194 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

First Aid Training and Certification

I'm surprised that there is no discussion of the role of the Red Cross in First Aid training and certification.Bill (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Disaster Responses Section

Many of these disasters are out of date and poorly written, with no indication of what makes them notable. The June 2008 Midwest Floods looks like it was lifted directly off of a press release. Some discussion on how to structure this article is needed - should a more comprehensive list of notable disasters be moved to a separate article? There is also a need to decide how to organize international disasters that the ARC responded to. Riaglo (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Haiti

This information definitely needs to go in the critcism section: [1], [2], [3]. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Failure at Hurricane Sandy relief

More info to go into the Criticisms section: [4], which also mentions a November 2, 2012 New York Times article (which can be looked up and cited as well) criticizing the Red Cross for its failure at Sandy relief. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The criticism of American Red Cross Katrina was not directed to a few rogue volunteers. It was hurled at the American Red Cross and their private profiteers themselves! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

ProPublica story

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-corporate-takeover-of-the-red-cross
The Corporate Takeover of the Red Cross
Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern, who was hired to revitalize the charity, has cut hundreds of chapters and thousands of employees.
by Justin Elliott, ProPublica December 14, 2015

...

McGovern and her handpicked team of former AT&T colleagues have presided over a string of previously unreported management blunders that have eroded the charity’s ability to fulfill its core mission of aiding Americans in times of need.

Under McGovern, the Red Cross has slashed its payroll by more than a third, eliminating thousands of jobs and closing hundreds of local chapters. Many veteran volunteers, who do the vital work of responding to local fires and floods have also left, alienated by what many perceive as an increasingly rigid, centralized management structure. Far from opening offices in every city and town, the Red Cross is stumbling in response to even smaller scale disasters.

--Nbauman (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

ProPublica is an aggressive, overly-political, libelous organization which somehow has managed to keep itself afloat as a respectable investigative journalism operation despite its complete lack of journalistic ethics. Essentially all of ProPublica's statements of fact are factual; their analysis is highly-faulty in extreme ways.
One repeating theme in ProPublica IJ is the "leaked internal document," whereby they get a hold of Red Cross Lessons Learned documentation--which includes listings of all things that went wrong, why they went wrong, what the American Red Cross must do in the future to prevent such problems, and what continuing effort must be made related to the issues encountered--and carry out a smear campaign accusing the American Red Cross of covering up and ignoring serious operational problems. This is particularly egregious because the evidence they cite directly demonstrates the American Red Cross investigating and addressing those very problems.
ProPublica and NPR published an article about ARC Haiti Relief following the same formula of muddied facts and malicious analysis: they claim the Red Cross spent money but it went nowhere, because they don't see new buildings and cities and schools. The Red Cross published details about their spending, and ProPublica claims they're keeping those details a secret. The Red Cross provided sanitation services, vaccine distribution, food, water, temporary shelter, and infrastructure improvement--training the Haitian Government to better-respond to disaster in the future--and ProPublica asks where all the schools and roads and homes are. With ARC providing clear and effective aid, ProPublica has drawn a libelous narrative about ARC completely wasting nearly all of its resources and providing nothing of value to Haiti.
ProPublica's most egregious transgression in that article is accusing The American Red Cross of having 40% overhead because contractors make a profit. By this logic, all of the material suppliers also make a profit, and have overhead; and every worker obtains wages, and thus makes a profit; and so 100% of the Red Cross's spending is overhead.
Thanks to ProPublica's faulty and malicious reporting, Congress expressed its own concerns and considered holding an investigation into the American Red Cross. The American Red Cross is one of the most efficient charities in the world, and ProPublica's unethical journalism has drawn criticism and redirected funding away from ARC and to much-less-efficient programs. Even Doctors Without Borders, a highly-effective charity with a different specialization than ARC, has approximately 88% program efficiency, versus ARC's 92%. United Way Worldwide achieves a 91% efficiency, and Susan G. Komen for the Cure achieves only an 82% efficiency.
That means ARC stands head-and-shoulders over most charities and is a model even for the most-efficient public charity groups; and ARC is itself the *best* disaster-response aid group in human history, while its peers are specialized for medical aid, education, poverty relief, and specific causes such as cancer. ProPublica has sought to interfere with the American Red Cross through the simple mechanism of making their readers feel that their trust was violated: people trust ARC, they give ARC money, and they will be very angry if they believe ARC is violating that trust by operating ineffectively and irresponsibly; and if they feel a journalistic outlet such as ProPublica has exposed this, then they will come back to ProPublica for protection against that kind of violation in the future. ProPublica has traded its journalistic integrity away in favor of profit.
In my not-so-humble opinion, covering ProPublica-style controversies without also documenting the readily-available information to the contrary is NPOV by way of citing a known-unreliable, heavily-biased source and presenting it as an unbiased source. --John Moser (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on American Red Cross. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on American Red Cross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on American Red Cross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Clara Barton Award

Supposedly there's an ongoing discussion here about merging the Clara Barton Award article into this one, but I can't find it. FWIW, I think it would be better to expand that article to include a list of recipients, with a brief mention and link from this article. --MopTop (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The American Red Cross was created by an act of February 5, 1905, published at 33 Stat. 599. The US House of Representatives has codified and organized the pertinent legislation at 36 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 07:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed two paragraphs from the Scientific Advisory Council section. The content was an exact copy of content from the Red Cross site. The American Red Cross "Terms of Service" page does not give authorization for such copyright infringement. Otr500 (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Article has Copy-paste problems

From the article's introduction:

"The American Red Cross ... is a humanitarian organization that provides emergency assistance, disaster relief and education inside the United States. It is the designated US affiliate of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

The organization offers services in four other areas: communications services and comfort for military service and family members; the collection, processing and distribution of blood and blood products; educational programs on preparedness, health and safety; and international relief and development programs.[4]"

From another site (http://www.americanmedical-id.com/red-cross):

"The American Red Cross is a humanitarian organization that provides emergency assistance, disaster relief and education inside the United States. It is the designated U.S. affiliate of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

Today, in addition to domestic disaster relief, the American Red Cross offers services in five other areas: community services that help the needy; communications services and comfort for military members and their family members; the collection, processing and distribution of blood and blood products; educational programs on preparedness, health, and safety; and international relief and development programs.

From disaster services section of the article:

"Although ARC is not a government agency, its authority to provide disaster relief was formalized when, in 1905, it was granted a congressional charter to "carry on a system of national and international relief in time of peace and apply the same in mitigating the sufferings caused by pestilence, famine, fire, floods, and other great national calamities, and to devise and carry on measures for preventing the same. " The Charter is not only a grant of power, but also an imposition of duties and obligations to the nation, to disaster victims and to the people who support its work with their donations.

Disaster relief focuses on emergency disaster-caused needs. When a disaster threatens or strikes, ARC provides shelter, food and health and mental health services (Psychological First Aid) to address basic human needs. The core of Red Cross disaster relief is assistance to individuals and families to enable them to resume their normal daily activities."

From another site (http://www.easternpanhandlearc.org/disaster-services/):

"Although the American Red Cross is not a government agency, its authority to provide disaster relief was formalized when, in 1905, the Red Cross was chartered by Congress to “carry on a system of national and international relief in time of peace and apply the same in mitigating the sufferings caused by pestilence, famine, fire, floods, and other great national calamities, and to devise and carry on measures for preventing the same.” The Charter is not only a grant of power, but also an imposition of duties and obligations to the nation, to disaster victims, and to the people who generously support its work with their donations.

Red Cross disaster relief focuses on meeting people’s immediate emergency disaster-caused needs. When a disaster threatens or strikes, the Red Cross provides shelter, food, and health and mental health services to address basic human needs. In addition to these services, the core of Red Cross disaster relief is the assistance given to individuals and families affected by disaster to enable them to resume their normal daily activities independently."

Even the names of some of the sectional organization in the article:

  • History and organization,
  • Blood services,
  • Health and safety services,
  • Disaster services,
  • Disaster responses,
  • International services,
  • Service to the Armed Forces,
  • Controversies.

And their official "Guide to Services" ([5]):

  • American Red Cross Congressional Charter,
  • American Red Cross,
  • Disaster Services,
  • Service to the Armed Forces,
  • Health and Safety Services, Blood Services,
  • International Services,
  • American Red Cross Volunteers,
  • The International Movement in Brief,
  • Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

It's not just similar topics, which might be understandable, but 5 out of 8 of the headings are word-for-word exactly the same.

There may be more copy-paste issues. The article should not rely so closely on first-party sources (WP:IS) and should make sure to avoid Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Forbes72 (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It's copy/pasted because this page is a COI Red Cross-created and controlled article. I applaud your effort, but you need to choose your battles. This is not a hill worth dying on. rags (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Notable members

Under "Notable members" we do not list notable people who are not members because they are not notable members. For the same reason, we do not list members who are not notable. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Red Cross and Tainted Blood

I am surprised there is no section talking about the Red Cross and tainted blood especially HIV in the 80s--Patbahn (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Organization

It amazes me that under the section labeled as being about "Organization" there's actually nothing about organization! No one reading this would know if the ARC is a national group with local chapters, or has state divisions, or had regional divisions. Dismalscholar (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Reference style for multiples

I have been working on improving existing references/citations. There are a number of references repeated with, primarily, page=N differences.

For example: IRWIN, JULIA F. (2017). MAKING THE WORLD SAFE : the american red cross and a nation's humanitarian awakening. OXFORD University Press. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-19-061074-6. OCLC 959033970.

Before I select a method/style of consolidating these I'd like to see if involved editors have a preference here. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"Kush Patel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kush Patel and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 10 § Kush Patel until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Meters (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Red_Cross/Archive_1&oldid=1258395077"