Jump to content

Talk:Cancer Research UK

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

Removed 1

[edit]

I've removed the section discussing the proportion of the charity's income spent on research per WP:FORUM. Rockpocket 17:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for changes by CRUK

[edit]

Cancer Research UK would like to suggest the following edits to its Wikipedia entry:

Add Scottish charity number: (registered charity number in England and Wales: 1089464 and in Scotland: SC041666)

Insert the following paragraph beneath Imperial Cancer Research Fund paragraph:

The Cancer Research Campaign

In the 1920s, a group of doctors and scientists from the ICRF wanted to focus more heavily on clinical research rather than fundamental lab research. They formed a new charity, the British Empire Cancer Campaign, later renamed The Cancer Research Campaign. Decades later, the two organisations would merge, forming Cancer Research UK in 2002.


Under ‘Research’: In the financial year 2009/10 the charity spent £334 million on cancer research projects [1] [2] (around 65% of its total budget). (Note to Wikipedia editors: The 65% is not representative of how the charity processes donations as it includes retail. For every pound the charity receives, excluding its retail chain, 80 pence is available to spend on its work. In addition to the £334 million on research, in 2009/10 the charity spent a further £14 million on cancer information and advocacy. See the Annual Report and Accounts [3] or p22-23 of the Annual Review [4]. )

The charity funds the work of over 4,000…

Around 40% of the charity’s research expenditure goes on basic laboratory research…

Under ‘Fundraising’: 44,500 regular volunteers

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarastark1986 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're at liberty to make these and any other changes yourself provided you don't turn the article into an advertisement! Conflict of interest is usually only taken to arise when a substantial quantity of material is added or removed by an editor who is involved with the subject, potentially leading to a non-neutral article. That doesn't seem to apply here, especially since you made it clear on the talk page. I'd suggest you use an edit summary along the lines of "factual material plus references added by CRUK staff member - see talk page". That way, if anyone objects they can easily alter it. andy (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed 2

[edit]

I removed the advert written here on the Talk Page. The talk pages are here for a reason to talk and discuss the article not some scam medicine.

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo cancer research uk.png

[edit]

Image:Logo cancer research uk.png 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) 13:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraising Section

[edit]

I would be grateful for views:

The following edit was criticised as "Extreme POV" (with which I would respectfully disagree), and I would like to suggest a redraft taking into account the criticisms made.

Original: "Cancer Research UK engages for-profit third party telephone fundraising companies to make unsolicited calls to supporters and potential supporters. In 2009, it was widely reported in the national press that great offence was caused to one recipient of such a call who was battling terminal cancer. Following this incident, and a Daily Mirror report on the questionable tactics employed by fund raising companies, Cancer Research temporarily suspended the use of its fundraising agencies GoGen and Pell and Bales, but has since re-engaged telephone fundraisers.[10][11][12][13]"

Upon re-reading, I would agree that the words "questionable tactics" represent POV and ought not feature in the edit. Nevertheless, I do feel that it is a fact worth mentioning that CRUK make use of third party fundraisers, and I would suggest that these third party fundraisers are the main 'face' of the charity for many members of the public.

Are any views held regarding the following redraft, intended to address the criticisms levelled at the original?

Redraft: "Cancer Research UK engages for-profit third party telephone fundraising companies to make unsolicited calls to supporters and potential supporters, which was criticised in the national press in 2009 [insert link to Mirror article etc]. Cancer Research temporarily suspended the use of its fundraising agencies GoGen and Pell and Bales in 2009, but has since re-engaged telephone fundraisers." Wikip-ian-dia (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know why you have it in for CRUK. Name me a major charity that does not use third party fund raisers. They all knock on your door, shove tins in your face in the street, telephone you or send unsolicited mail. By mentioning one minor incident, which was immediately tackled by CRUK, you give the impression that they are in some way dodgy. I'll bet that every major charity has had incidents like this, possibly leading to complaints, but don't forget that every UK charity is regulated and if they do anything seriously wrong the regulators come down on them like a ton of bricks. My edit summary said "There are no reliable sources showing that this is significant issue". Now if you can find any comments from the Charities Commission that CRUK engages in shady and underhand tactics that's a whole different story... andy (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am not seeking to give the impression that CRUK are dodgy, and would disagree that this could be inferred from my redraft. I feel it is reasonable to state the fact that CRUK use third party fundraisers in the article, and the fact that other charities also use third party fundraisers is not sufficient to deny inclusion of the fact that CRUK do. By way of analogy, all football teams have stadia, yet this would not justify the removal of references to the Emirates Stadium from the Arsenal article.

Nevertheless, in order to further minimise the possibility of the section being read in this way, I would propose the following redraft:

"Cancer Research UK engages for-profit third party telephone fundraising companies to make unsolicited calls to supporters and potential supporters. Cancer Research temporarily suspended the use of its fundraising agencies GoGen and Pell and Bales in 2009, but has since re-engaged telephone fundraisers."

I hope this redraft removes any perceived suggestion that there is any issue with CRUK using 3rd party fundraisers, and consequently removes any perceived need for reference to Charity Commission comment on the matter. (Perhaps incidentally, I would also disagree with the statement "if [charities] do anything seriously wrong the regulators come down on them like a ton of bricks").

Finally, I would like to state that I do not "have it in for CRUK". The comment does not assume good faith, which I understand is one of the principles on which Wikipedia is built.

I would be grateful for views on the redraft. Wikip-ian-dia (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was a banal incident with zero consequences. By adding it to the article you indicate that it is noteworthy. Your argument about football stadia is back to front because this discussion is about how readers will interpret that addition of information to an article. The equivalent would actually be something like "Arsenal sell tickets through third parties. After complaints about counterfeiting, Arsenal severed their relationship with one such reseller" - this would give the misleading impression that Arsenal is unusual in the way it sells its tickets, that the club mismanages the process and that some at least of the resellers may be engaged in criminal activity."

BBC - Cancer charity 'tidies' Wikipedia

[edit]

Cancer Research UK is turning its specialists loose on the internet to get them to tidy up the online encyclopedia - Wikipedia. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12887075 213.246.85.152 (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Cancer Research UK brought in a team of experienced Wikipedians (including myself) from Wikimedia UK to train them how to engage with Wikipedia and to help them make their first edits. We have stayed in occasional touch since. Just as with any Wikipedia training we deliver, we have included advice on neutrality and conflict of interest policies, and as a result the CRUK staff are well aware of these issues. The training has been openly documented on the Wikimedia UK site. The involvement of Cancer Research UK staff in reviewing and improving Wikipedia articles is clearly a very positive thing for the encyclopedia. They're not merely allowed to contribute; they're welcome to. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox date format

[edit]

The date format in the infobox is inconsistent with the rest of the article and different from the original date format used in the article. This article already used dmy format when the infobox was added [5] (4 February 2002 used in the lead), as it has done since 2006 [6] so the inconsistent date format in the infobox should have been corrected at the time per WP:DATERET. January (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The date in the infobox currently reads as February 4, 2002 which is US format (see WP:STRONGNAT) and is inconsistent with the date format in the lead, which was there several years before the infobox was added. If no further objections are raised I intend to amend it to show as 4 February 2002. January (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013/14 Annual Report now out

[edit]

The CRUK 2013/14 Annual Report is now out. COI issues I think prevent me from updating the figures etc in the article, which are now 3 years out of date (I did update the revenue to last year's previously). All available here Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And charity sector press stories: [7] and [8]. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cancer Research UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Cancer Research UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

tax decuctible

[edit]

198.134.51.41 (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Is a donation to Cancer Research UK tax deductible in the US?[reply]

"Reads like a press release"?

[edit]

Hi there. Henry from CRUK here - dusting off my user account after a long absence. I'm trying to investigate how we might improve the page so that it no longer has a banner saying it 'reads like a press release'. Happy to work with any passing editors to update the relevant sections, although I'm not sure exactly what needs to change. Am acutely aware of WP:COI policy so don't want to make edits directly. Do message me or otherwise get in touch to discuss. Thanks. HenryScow (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG, you added it, without any explanation here. Please help. I'm not sure either. The article is a fairly basic explanation of CRUK, in reasonable prose, which is perhaps what makes it read like PR? So what should we do? Certainly the sources are mostly primary, so the same info regurgitated by RS media from press releases will probably be regarded as preferable. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant sections, overuse of name, repeatedly saying that what it work on is cancer, general wordiness. Description of leading researchers instead of just links. "Temozolomide" a/c our article has a minor effectiveness, and some of the work listed, and almost all the scientists were supported by other agencies also
'world's Largest " is not justified by the sources: The Charities Direct ref is for 2009 and only covers the UK. The BBC's "the biggest independent cancer research organisation in the world." is from 2001. And it may not be true, because the ACS figure for 2012 is larger.
I fixed only some of this.
I know many or probably ,ost other organization articles are no better. I intend to get to them. Maybe ACS next. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cancer_Research_UK&oldid=1247465408"