Talk:March of Dimes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 POV 2 Trademark and Logo 3 animal testing 4 Charitable Giving standards 5 Abortion 6 Discussion of Roosevelt's condition 7 Proposed Merge

[edit] POV

Given that the Director of Media Relations for this organisation has conducted several major revisions and edits, and from a look at the content, I think a thorough POV check and bias review is merited. There is no mention, for example, of funding into research also funded by the tobacco industry which finds "benefits" to nicotine in pregnancy, amongst others.

In general, too, the entire article is written and structured as a promotional piece, not an objective recollection of the organisation and its history.

Achromatic 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the Director of Media Relations is a priori a biased source, I don't in fact see a problem with the article itself. I'm scanning for superlatives, a lack of negative information, etc., but I see nothing that gives me much heartburn (other than the accounting note mentioned below). I note specifically that the article details the ups and downs of the organization in a very straightforward manner -- this looks an like even-handed approach to me. Maybe you could draw my attention to a specific sentence or two as biased and I might agree (but if they are biased, why not just be bold and clean them up).

Regarding co-funding of research with the tobacco industry, if you've got a tie that's substantial, put it in. I would ask a few questions, though, before risking adding an inappropriate red flag. How big and/or frequent was the co-funding of pregnancy research with the tobacco industry? Was it once? Or on-going? And did the March of Dimes participate in any of the studies that came to the other conclusion, the ones that won out in the end, which definitively established smoking as harmful during pregnancy? Maybe the March of Dimes broadly supports research into natal health issues and will co-fund with anyone who is willing to put money into research. If so, drop the issue. Given the March of Dimes' stated focus on minimizing birth defects and premature babies, I am strongly suspicious of any claims that they are in bed with the tobacco industry. I'd really look for some credible sources before accepting such an alarmist claim. But if there really is something rotten in Denmark, by all means include it. --- technopilgrim 06:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

POV doesn't appear to be there in excess to me there is some negative info, and a factual account. No other POV activity for over a month on the talk page, so I am removing the tags. Zotel - the Stub Maker 13:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark and Logo

The use of this trademarked logo is limited exclusively to the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, a nonprofit organization registered in the United States. The history of the March of Dimes is intimately connected with that of President Roosevelt, the campaign against polio, and Dr. Jonas Salk and Dr. Albert Sabin. We feel very strongly that no other organization should be listed on this page -- if it is necessary to include them, let them have their own entries in Wikipedia.

Michele Kling Director of Media Relations March of Dimes 1275 Mamaroneck Avenue White Plains, NY 10605

In that case the logo should be removed. (which I will do) dml 22:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] animal testing

needs to be mentioned

Please do not post any PETA/animal rights activist opinion materials on this page. That belongs in PETA's own entry.

Michele Kling, Director of Media Relations, March of Dimes.

If something is related to the March of Dimes, then it should go on this page. Animal rights-related criticisms of the March of Dimes do not come from PETA alone. --NoPetrol 03:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but note that the March of Dimes does not merit inclusion on the long People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals page. How serious can their infractions be if they don't deserve merit on the main PETA page? One thing that would not be appropriate is for the PETA folks to tag every Wikipedia article that is three degrees of Kevin Bacon away from a dissected mouse with an animal rights warning tag. That would be biased. --- technopilgrim 06:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charitable Giving standards

Please do not remove or alter the March of Dimes information about Accounting and Governance Standards again. This is current, accurate information.

Michele Kling, director of media relations March of Dimes

It is sufficient to state that it does so. It does not require this entire block, let alone twice: "The March of Dimes meets the Accounting and Governance Standards promulgated by the Better Business Bureau, National Health Council, Combined Federal Campaign, Independent Sector, as well as the IRS and all 50 States."

This borders on, if not is, self promotion and aggrandisement. Achromatic 02:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Here I agree with Achromatic that once is enough, and a shorter version is in order. Something like "The March of Dimes meets the Accounting and Governance Standards promoted by the National Health Council and other regulatory bodies". If a person wants the whole list of organizations that approve of the March of Dimes accounting system, it is more appropriate that they find them by visiting the MoD website. --- technopilgrim 06:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion

I have heard from several sources that March of Dimes supports abortion. At least in certain circumstances. I went to their website and asked and no reply was forthcoming. This info either needs to be confirmed or denied.

The information you heard is incorrect.

The correct information is that the March of Dimes is neutral on the issue of abortion. The March of Dimes does not encourage, fund, or support abortion, either directly or indirectly. The March of Dimes does not fund any abortion counseling or other abortion services for any individual. The March of Dimes specifically prohibits grantees who receive its funds from using these funds for abortion activities, abortion research, or directive advice on abortion in the course of the project.

Michele Kling

Director of Media Relations March of Dimes

If the March of Dimes doesn't have a position on abortion, the topic should not be added to this article. -- technopilgrim 06:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Roosevelt's condition

The fact that Roosevelt was believed to have polio is relevant to the article because the charity he founded was founded to respond to a polio epidemic. The fact that what he had wasn't really polio isn't relevant at all, but it has to go in because otherwise we mislead. Any more discussion than that of what he really had is completely irrelevant; the article specifically about his condition goes into all the detail the curious could want, but it has nothing to do with the March of Dimes.

To me, it looks like this edit detracts from the article by distracting the reader with something not relevant to its subject. Are you sure it adds anything to the reader's understanding of the March of Dimes? If not, would you consider reverting it? Thanks! — ciphergoth 08:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems relevant enough. As you stated, the charity was founded by Roosevelt because he was thought to have polio. But it turns out he probably didn't have polio. It's likely many people interested in the history of the March of Dimes will be interested in this, especially since it has been repeated so many countless times that FDR had polio. I agree that it does not merit more than a mention in the March of Dimes article, which it sounds like you agree to. It's just more accurate and clear to say "indicates it was Guillain-Barre Syndrome" or similar than the vague phrase "indicates otherwise". And yes, perhaps the reader might get distracted some, but is that so bad? If you read the article (or just about any significant article), there are many other items that could distract a reader and lead them elsewhere in wikipedia. Eddie Cantor, Jonas Salk, March of Time, etc. Wikipedia is intentionally heavily linked and cross-referenced. But after they read about FDR's illness (or some other concept), they'll return to reading about the March of Dimes. Dagoldman

It all depends on the test you apply before including something. "Relevant" or "of interest to the same readers" would include too much. By contrast, "might distract the reader and lead them elsewhere" would include too little. The proper test is "does it add to the reader's understanding of the subject of the article?". Cantor, Salk etc all pass this test, but Guillian-Barre syndrome doesn't, really. The heavy linking of Wikipedia is just the point - a reader who sees that and thinks "if he didn't have polio, what did he have?" can click on the link and learn all about it in an article that does the subject much more justice than our summary can.

However, you are quite right that the wording wasn't very clear. I've tried to reword it to ensure it's accurate and clear while staying as short as possible.

When I started editing the article, the discussion was very long - I hope we can agree it needs to be shorter than that :-)

BTW, top tip for Wikipedia discussions: if you set off your reply with three colons then it will be indented correctly - note that I've put one against your reply and used two myself. And if you sign with four tildes ~~~~ then your signature will include the date. Thanks! — ciphergoth 10:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your edit is good enough. Thanks for the wikipedia tips. I don't know why I thought it was three tildes. Dagoldman 05:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The present version seems good -- a quick mention with a hyperlink for the curious. Nicely done. --- technopilgrim 06:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merge

I have proposed merging Warren's World - A March of Dimes Advocacy Project into this article. I think it is a better alternative than proposing its deletion. The article itself does not warrant a stand-alone article as it lacks encyclopedic significance. I doubt every project of every non-profit organization requires its own article. Projects such as this one probably belong on the entry for the organization itself. Agent 86 22:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I see now that it might be better to merge Warren's World with Ontario March of Dimes, so I have removed the "merge" template. Agent 86 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)