Talk:St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070412041541/http://www.cccl.org.lb:80/home.htm to http://www.cccl.org.lb/home.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Photo of St. Jude

The photo of St. Judes on this page is being claimed fair use. However the justification on the fair use tag being used states that the image is only fair use "in the absence of free images that could serve such a purpose". It should be a relatively easy task for a wikipedian in the Memphis area to go and get a photo of the hospital. JeremyA 00:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it's not as easy as you think. The angle that photo was taken from indicates that it was taken from the top of a crane or other large structure. St. Jude is a massive complex, and it would difficult if not impossible (aside from renting some large machinery) to get a picture even remotely approaching the quality of the one currently in the article. - Jersyko·talk 00:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe the "other large structure" is a building that is located next to the Grizzly House (the short-term patient housing facility.) So I don't think it is that difficult to get that picture, although I don't know how accessible that particular building is. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Good point, though the angle won't be quite as good. In any event, a new picture could at least remedy the horrible resolution problem the current picture has. I don't know if the Grizzly House is accessible or not. - Jersyko·talk 13:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The Grizzly House is not going to have an accessible location other than a patient room, but no matter, because the building I'm referring to would block the view. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 16:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to get the exact same view for a replacement photo. Any photo that would serve the same purpose would do. If I still lived in Memphis I'd go and take one myself. JeremyA 23:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If I lived in Memphis I'd go myself, but it's pretty far to go from San Diego.  :-) —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Added information

This is my first time on this site, so please forgive me if I seem forward. I was reading the artical, which was very well written, and I wasn't sure if you were aware or not that Kay Jewelers isn't the only one of the Sterling Jewelers Inc. companies that contribute to St. Jude's. There are 12 stores under the Sterling name: Kay Jewelers, JB Robinson Jewelers, Jared, The Galleria of Jewelry, Osterman Jewelers, Shaw's Jewelers, Goodman Jewelers, Weisfield Jewelers, LeRoy's Jewelers, Rogers Jewelers,Friedlanders Jewelers, Belden Jewelers and Marks and Morgan Jewelers. We all sell plush stuffed animals every year, with 100% of proceeds going to St. Jude's. Princessann83 (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)CM

Move

I would like to suggest moving this article to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (Memphis) to meet the Naming conventions (places) standard. I am not entirely sure that this is necessary. However other hospitals in the state have names that are similar or the same to those in other states and need the parenthetical disambiguation to distinguish them. That leads to my main motive for asking about the move, do we have the article consistent with other hospital articles in the state and elsewhere? Or do we leave it as is because it is such a widely known place? Input please, anyone. Thanks
~User:Dan9186 1 November, 2007 01:12 (UTC)

No one protested and a minimum of 5 days was given so I went ahead and performed the move. If it needs to be reverted check the redirects because I updated them as well.
~User:Dan9186 7 November, 2007 05:15 (UTC)

I've moved the article to "St. Jude Children's Research Hospital" per Wikipedia:NCGN#Disambiguation. There is no need for disambiguation since there is no other hospital that goes by this same name. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Charge for care

This page notes that St. Jude's is the only pediatric research facility that does not charge for care. Shriners Hospitals for Children is a network of 22 hospitals across North America which do not charge for care, and nearly all these hospitals conduct significant research. I think this citation should be changed to reflect that fact. Ewachspress 14:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ewachspress is correct. The Shriners Hospitals and the Texas Scottish Rite (Masonic) Hospital for Children maintain similar policies. The Shriners Hospitals - unless there has been a recent change - do not, in fact, even accept insurance payments (private or governmental), seeking to assure that their medical care decisions will never be influenced by cost-benefit perceptions of third-party payors. Irish Melkite 12:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently, this change was never made. I just did it.

68.104.173.148 (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Figure Updates and More General Information

While looking through this page, I noticed that many of the figures presented were outdated. Therefore, I updated many of these numbers to reflect St. Jude currently rather than its statistics numerous years ago. Examples of this are its operating cost and percentage of every dollar donated that is applied directly to St. Jude's research and treatment. I also saw it necessary to provide more information about how the idea of founding the hospital was created, its mission, and the awards and achievements of both St. Jude and its staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khimmelberg (talk • contribs) 00:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

See Talk:Thanks and Giving - the part of that article covering the Thanks and Giving program is somewhat short (two paragraphs), and the rest of the article is about the hospital and a list of corporate partners (which should probably be cut down). I'd like to propose redirecting that article to this one and integrating this information into the "Funding" section of that article, which already includes some details about the Thanks and Giving program. This seems like a reasonably uncontroversial merge, but I figure there's no harm in checking for other opinions before I go ahead and do it. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Philanthropic Aid citations and updates

I fixed the missing citations in the Philanthropic Aid section and updated the statistics from Epsilon Sigma Alpha International and the Dream Home Giveaway to current numbers. It also appears that in some cases the text in this section directly matches text on the source pages, but I didn't make any of those types of changes.

(Apologies for making so many separate updates. I'd make a change and *then* notice yet another missing citation or wikicode error, but I wasn't using the preview function properly at the time.) Metheglyn (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Fundraising

St. Jude's Children's Research Center is using questionable practices in fund-raising. There is something called the "Mathathon" where children (as young as 6) are shown heart-rending videos of children with cancer and are encouraged to go out into the community and solicit pledges for doing math problems. This fund-raising is done with some very slick materials, to say nothing of the videos. I find it difficult to believe that Marlo Thomas actually knows about this.

Research shows that 23% of donations is spent on fund-raising. The Better Business Bureau allows up to 35%, which I consider egregious. .Kdewittjr 23:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is not meant for discussion of the article's subject, but rather for discussion of the article itself. Do you have any specific suggestions regarding how to change this article? · jersyko talk 00:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If wish to add conflicting information please contribute in proper context with the article. LostLucidity (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kdewittjr, Who are you to deem their fundraising practices "questionable" and "egregious"? That's just your opinion. And you have no idea of what Marlo Thomas knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherrysunburst (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC) P.S and your self-righteous statement that you "limit donations to organizations that spend well under 20% of donations on fund-raising" is completely irrelevant to the content of the article. In fact, all of your comments are pointless and irrelevant.

Let's try to have a less judgmental discussion about fundraising practices. [American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities] (ALSAC) is the enterprise that handles all fundraising for St. Jude (aside from NIH and some other research grants). When you see St. Jude fundraising, advertising, or events, the people behind it are paid by ALSAC, as are the costs for the advertising and events. Irrespective of what Marlo Thomas knows or doesn't know, some of the fundraising techniques used by ALSAC may be disturbing to some people, or even a vast majority of people. In reality, based on a thorough examination of the past seven years of for 990 filings, fundraising expense as a percentage of fundraising revenue is 33.5% (average of 7 years filing data) for ALSAC, but this ignores any contribution to fundraising from the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, or any dilution of fundraising costs through cost-sharing by ALSAC. For example, direct mail solicitations by ALSAC are printed on the back with some dense information about cancer, such that a good part of the cost of the direct mail solicitation is chalked up to 'public education and awareness about cancer'. Was 'to inform the public' really the intent of the direct mail solicitation -- of course not, but it does allow the accountants to make it look as if ALSAC's fundraising expenses were lower than they actually were. There are many more examples of these types of practices, such that we should take 33.5% as a 'lower bound' on the real cost ratio. Jay P. Levinson (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities

These are intertwined corporations without independent notability: ALSAC and St. Jude and issue a combined financial report and have the same board of directors, and ALSAC's funds are dedicated by its own bylaws to St. Jude. Choosing St. Jude Children's Research Hospital as the primary article because it seems to be the one used most often by the subject in the last 15 years. Also, the article St. Jude Children's Research Hospital was created first on 2004-11-06; the article American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities was created on 2005-05-18; some content from the St. Jude article was apparently copy-pasted to ALSAC article on 2007-04-21. --Closeapple (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Closeapple (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

These are fundamentally different entities and should be kept separate; they have separate Employer Identification Numbers, they have separate leadership, their policies and procedures differ, their pay scales differ, and most importantly they perform very different functions. St. Jude is a hospital and a research facility. ALSAC is a fundraising organisation. Each would have a vastly different NAICS. Simply because two business enterprises have the same Board of Directors (albeit with different individuals in different positions for each entity) would combine many Korean Chaebols into a single entity, such that we cannot use BOD membership as a criteria for merging entities. Being able to examine ALSAC and St. Jude as distinct and separate entities best serves the public interest in terms of clarity. As for the copying of material, the sole editor (Tara) is an ALSAC employee whose copying obfuscates ALSAC - that is, before my edits. Fortunately, IRS reporting requirements (that is, Form 990's) show two very different businesses. Given the controversies surrounding charities and their use of funds or policies, most recently Wounded Warrior Project with their New York Times expose and subsequent Senate investigation, it would seem that masking the behavior of ALSAC by combining its page into St. Jude would be a vast mistake. Jay P. Levinson (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

They don't seem like fundamentally different organizations to me: They seem fundamentally two functions in the same organization, with different corporations for internal legal advantages. That's like saying someone's arm is fundamentally different than their leg, so Babe Ruth ought to have two articles. EINs are issued like candy; of course, if they have two legal incorporations they'll have two different EINs. How do their policies differ? It looks like a legal technicality to me. Does one of them appoint the board members of the other? Truly separate entities don't issue a combined financial statement. And how would merging the two articles "mask" material? If they're merged, any behavior by ALSAC would be in the St. Jude article, right? --Closeapple (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

My apologies in advance for anything I say that might put you off - I have been studying these two for years. You are right that there are some "internal legal advantages" in the separation; for example, ALSAC is not held to Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs), so inefficiency or corruption in procurement are much more easily accomplished at ALSAC than at St. Jude. That comment aside, ALSAC and St. Jude are fundamentally different in what they do - a Sales and Marketing organization (ALSAC) and a Research Hospital (St. Jude) that behave in very different ways. One principal reason for them to be separate is to mask their actual cost ratios, although other reasons such as differing management expertise are also valid. Your analogy of "Babe Ruth's two legs" implies that each leg does the same thing - that is not the case here. The have different policies, very different standards (St. Jude must adhere to standards for a Hospital, and to Government standards as they are the recipient of NIH grants), and much different payscales -- ALSAC people are paid far more than St. Jude people for substantially the same type of work. Far from a legal technicality, each entity performs vastly different functions under separate (and sometimes feuding) management. These are a pair of closely held entities where neither enterprise appoints the board members of the other; board members are generally the progeny of the founding Syrian and Lebanese families, appointed by other board members. It is actually a public service that the two are separate -- in Wikipedia and in organization -- as anyone with substantial accounting knowledge can compare the two 990's (ALSAC and St. Jude in the same fiscal year) and get very different answers than the ones promulgated in the St. Jude article on Wikipedia. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and in this case, keeping ALSAC and St. Jude separate lets the sunlight in (part of my efforts in editing these pages for accuracy). As for combined financial statements, auditors must please their clients - any two unrelated entities (e.g. - NIKE and Microsoft) can issue a combined financial statement. Having a combined financial statement and annual report are also misleading; it leads to statements such as, "83.7% of every dollar received by St. Jude went to the current or future needs of St. Jude." This statement misleads donors, as it is really on the order of 52% of ALSAC annual revenue (taken in the name of St. Jude donations) that actually ends up at the St. Jude Hospital in that fiscal year (average of 7 years of 990's from ALSAC). Another $0.12 of ALSAC revenue is poured into a (slush?) "Fund" -- currently near $4.0 billion and controlled only by the same people: the members of the board of directors. So, having these entities separate -- in Wikipedia and in fact -- gives us a vast level of financial and operating visibility that would be masked in a joint article. With a joint article, you'll never find it, as crucial information won't even appear in the footnotes of a combined financial statement. If we put both Wikipedia articles together, the vast differences between St.Jude Children's Research Hospital and ALSAC would have other Wikipedia users howling for us to break them apart. Jay P. Levinson (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

If they're operating truly separately (e.g. often at loggerheads with each other) and have separate notability, then that's reason to keep them separate. But isn't a lot of that information already effectively buried by having a separate article, since most people will look at the St. Jude article and not see the ALSAC article? Both entities' finances will have to be discussed in some detail at both articles for the reader of either one to understand what's going on. Maybe you're already writing about those details in each article though. --Closeapple (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Closeapple. Yes, there are a number of us, actually, that are working to sort this out and make it clear to all parties, regardless of the page they land on. I serve as scribe (and not a very good one), but we'll be bringing clarity to both articles. One principal reason for retaining separation that I have not mentioned is the extreme disgust that many St. Jude people feel with regard to the behavior at ALSAC - see my comment about under "Fundraising" on this talk page for a bit more insight. As for what we've uncovered to date, I'm sorry to say that it may be rolled out rather slowly, as there may be criminal and civil penalties associated with what we bring to light -- not for us, but for ALSAC in particular. As the $4 billion (slush?) fund could operate the Hospital for about 8 years simply from the drawing down the balance, and likely forever if invested properly, there may be no impact to the Hospital's good work from whatever happens at ALSAC. This makes for my rather judicious, if circuitous, commentary. (Also, writing in American English is a strain). Jay P. Levinson (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Catholic charities

Does Catholic Church provide funds to St Jude. How long has Catholic Church contributed to this non profit. Why is this charity part of carthorse church? Raymond nardo (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

sourcing & objectivity

This article could benefit from additional sourcing and objectivity. For example, the section captioned "The Hospital" makes impressive claims but provides no sources at all. Reliably sourced information on outcomes and costs would help a lot. Alas this information can be difficult to find for any hospital, although it should be published for all hospitals.TVC 15 (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You're basically correct. The information in the article (and in that section) happens to be true, however it should be sourced better, as 4 of the 7 refs are a primary source. If anybody finds references to this information, I encourage adding them. To this end, I've added the primarysources tag to the article. -- Otto (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The "The hospital" section of the article uses subjective words such as "profound", "toughest" and this poses serious concerns about the objectivity of the article. The Elusive Penguin (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Alleged Nepotism?

I've been asked how St. Jude management and senior staff salaries compare to other similarly-situated hospitals? If these salaries are significantly higher, are the recipients related in some way (even beyond familial) to board members and other senior staff? Jan Steinman (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)