Talk:American Red Cross

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Red Cross article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 21, 2004 and May 21, 2005.

Criticism

Talk about a biased fluff piece. There are a LOT of critics of the ARC. I know one instance where at an emergency levy, they served hot coffee to the men, free of charge...until the cameras left, then they charged the guys. More recently, in Haiti, they said they were going to build homes, accepted hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and have built 6 homes. Meanwhile the president gets a salary of $500,000 plus no doubt all sorts of fringe benefits. by way of contrast, the president of the USA makes $400,000 plus expense accounts of 169k (for travel, entertaining, and misc duty related expenses). I see nothing about their being significant criticism of the organization because of Haiti. Why not? I also don't understand why the criminal negligence they have committed is minimized as a "controversy" rather than clear evidence that it is a corrupt, bureaucratic organization more concerned with good pr than good works.Abitslow (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are outraged by the salary of the CEO/president or other executives, please take a look at The New York Times "Executive Pay by the Numbers". The American Red Cross has annual revenues of $3.5 billion, most CEOs of private sector companies with revenues of ~$3 billion make $20+ million a year. Although Red Cross is a non-profit, if you want the talent that can lead an organization bringing in billions in revenue, you are going to have to pay a decent salary. Otherwise, every single qualified person is going to choose making $20+ million/yr in the private sector rather than making $500,000/yr in the non-profit sector. Also, all I see is from you is lots of bashing but no sources; I just wanted to remind you that the talk page is not a forum or a soap box for your criticism. If you have any reliably sourced material to contribute to the article, please provide it. Abierma3 (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to compare it to Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) USA, whose executive director salary was $163,783. http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/about-us/financial-information

Maybe the ARC could save money by hiring their directors from MSF. --Nbauman (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are so right. This article is a fluff piece. I can't believe the ProPublica investigation (a juggernaut of investigative journalism) was reduced to a tiny paragraph under controversy. MoodyGroove (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

COI is evident throughout this article, but I seriously doubt it will be effectively addressed. In fact, I will be quite surprised if these comments have not been "corrected" when I visit this page in future. Just sayin' rags (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 regardless of angything else, 500 mil of earthquake relief vanishing into thin air seems noteworthy and deserves more attention than a footnote. Azuefeldt (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Seminar in Digital and Public History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PHKJIU (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by PHKJIU (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Labor union

there is no mention of the fact that much of their workforce has unionized due to poor working conditions and a lack of benefits. See Teamster.org red cross national contract 2600:1004:B055:3B3D:0:1B:35C9:C301 (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been badly vandalized

If you look through the article history in 2022, it was vandalized quite frequently all year. Unfortunately, it looks like no editors are monitoring this article regularly, so a lot of bad stuff is getting through.

For example, the books currently linked through image boxes in the article appear to be non-sequiturs which have nothing to do with the American Red Cross. They were added in these edits on 22 July 2022 and 24 July 2022. And that's just the most obvious damage.

I have neither the time nor interest to clean up any other damage lurking in the article. It may be safer to pull this back to a last good version in May or June 2022. Any objections? Coolcaesar (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]