Talk:Breast cancer awareness: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,386: Line 1,386:


:::Oh, sorry. I was just trying to not be abrasive or anything like that. I wanted to just point out that fact and let you do with it what you will. I would agree with changing to footnotes. [[User:Charles35|Charles35]] ([[User talk:Charles35|talk]]) 17:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
:::Oh, sorry. I was just trying to not be abrasive or anything like that. I wanted to just point out that fact and let you do with it what you will. I would agree with changing to footnotes. [[User:Charles35|Charles35]] ([[User talk:Charles35|talk]]) 17:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed change.
* Most people do not read the references section. Most people read only what is put right in front of them. Therefore they actually see "(Smith 2001)" and they see <sup>[1]</sup>, but they do not see the "Smith 2001" that is hiding behind the <sup>[1]</sup>. This is the primary reason why parenthetical citations are superior to ref tags for this article: it forces the reader to see that we cite the same articles and books multiple times, rather than letting him assume that 50 superscripted numbers means that we have cited 50 different publications. I oppose any formatting style that hides the names of the sources' authors behind superscripted numbers.
* This is the citation style most appropriate to its academic field (which is sociology, not medicine). It is commonly used in academic journals for this subject.
* The style is acceptable for FAs. [[Actuary]] and [[Irish phonology]] are both featured articles that use this style. The regulars at FAC actually know something about citations styles beyond what's most common on Wikipedia, and they do not oppose this style. (I have no intention of proposing this for even GA, because too few editors really believe that a neutral article should not reflect the unverifiable opinions they believe are held by the genral public or their social circle rather than only the views in published, reliable sources.)
* If you want hyperlinks between "Smith 2000" and the full citation, that can be implemented in the current style without adding ref tags. It's a usability trade-off: adding hyperlinks adds technical complexity that will prevent some inexperienced editors from trying to improve this article. Right now, all they need to know is how to type, not how to code Mediawiki links. To do ths, you just change "Smith" to "<nowiki>[[#Smith|Smith]]"</nowiki> and add an anchor at the citation. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


== Ownership ==
== Ownership ==

Revision as of 23:04, 22 December 2012

NPOV concerns

I've tagged the section Breast cancer awareness#The she-ro for NPOV concerns. At the very least, pretty much everything needs to be restated as claims made by critics of "breast cancer culture", rather than as objective facts. A complete rewrite might be better; then again, maybe the problem is inherent in the nature of the section (which currently reads like an academic essay) and the whole thing needs to get axed.

(By the way, I'm not saying the problem is confined to this section, but this is where I see it as most apparent.)

Thoughts? PhageRules1 (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a valid POV dispute is not our personal opinions about whether the published, reliable sources written by experts are right, but some indication that the section does not accurately describe what the experts have published on this topic.
All three sources named in that section agree with each other and with what the section says. I've never yet seen a reliable source that contradicts this section, e.g., by saying that society encourages women with breast cancer to be masculine, angry, selfish, and unconcerned about their appearance. Have you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just accidentally tagged (and then reverted) the whole article as NPOV. That's not quite the right tag, but this whole article is really poorly organized and essay-like. There are differing points of view regarding breast cancer culture, but they're all just thrown into this article in a quite non-encyclopedic fashion... I don't have time to tackle it at the moment. Perhaps I will come back to it, or some other adventurous editor can hop in. Oy. Sweet kate (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Actually, I'm pretty happy with the overall organization. The five major sections are:

  1. Marketing and branding
  2. Societal issues: Patients, considered individually and corporately; feminist responses
  3. Accomplishments, good (education, resources) and bad (fear)
  4. Categories of criticisms: Selling out, environmentalism, artistic
  5. Background information (History and Organizations)

I don't think that it is {{essay-like}}: it is not personal opinion or "written with personal comments on the subject of the article", to use the description from that template's doc page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is organized that way you describe, whatamidoing, but just because it is organized does not make it the way an encyclopedia should be organized. Those would all be great topics if the content was actually about those topics. All of the content is a criticism of those parts of the culture. None of it is informative. It is a restated essay. This article provides no actual information on the topic, just a critique of different parts of the culture, focusing on the content that you see fit. You are not the one who gets to pick and choose. None of us are.

However, we are all glad to hear that "Actually, [you're] pretty happy with the overall organization." I mean, as long as YOU'RE happy, then it's all good! Charles35 (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some inappropriate editorializing placed by an anon. They added nothing to the discussion and their placement made hard to tell that it was an anonymous editor who made them rather than the original editor. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss Neutrality, Weight, and Fringe Theory here

As discussed above, NPOV is a serious concern with this article. I am going to add a neutrality template to the article. Please discuss resolving the issue here. If you disagree, please don't simply remove the template. Instead, please discuss it here and give fair reasons for removing it. Because multiple editors have expressed concern, this template should not be removed until a clear consensus is reached. Charles35 (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WLU says that only one tag is necessary, removing the weight tag that was already here. So, in this section, we'll discuss weight and neutrality, and...

...I also decided to add a fringe theory tag (until WLU said only one). I decided this is relevant to this particular article because, in common with the weight tag, the article is unbalanced in its depiction of the weight that these opposing views are given in the real world - elaborated below

There is already a {{npov}} tag, a second is unnecessary since {{unbalanced}} is pretty close to the same thing. The current discussion page clocks in at 25,000 words. As a courtesy to other editors, please concisely summarize in this section why the page is unbalanced. Are there missing sources to verify a point of view? Are the current sources inaccurately summarized? Though this may seem unnecessary, it is pretty much the only way you will attract new editors, as you are currently asking them to read the equivalent of a 100 page book. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. This is for all three because the tags were mixed up. There are few (if any) sources that describe the opposing view from the one taken by this article - pro-awareness. There is very little content expressing this view. It is improperly weighted. New sources must be identified and added to the article so that new content can be added, and (the appropriate amount of) old content removed.
There is reason to believe it is improperly weighted: (copy/paste of above for completeness) the article is unbalanced in its depiction of the weight that these opposing views are given in the real world (both among the general population and in the literature). It doesn't give appropriate weight to the mainstream view. The mainstream view is pro-awareness. If it weren't, the general public wouldn't embrace awareness. If anti-awareness were the mainstream view, then the world would respond to the concerns expressed in the literature by stopping the awareness movement. Since this is not happening (yet, if ever), pro-awareness is the mainstream view. Maybe some day it won't be, but right now, it is. Lastly, the fringe material is not identified as such, and there is no indication that the mainstream view is different from the fringe view expressed in the article.
The over-weighted fringe view is considered, by some, to violate WP:NPOV. It expresses the one view, which is considered, by some, to not be neutral.
There is also concern that the current sources used are not accurately depicted in this article. Furthermore, the quality of certain sources is questioned (by some). Charles35 (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you make an argument about a balanced/unbalanced/minority/majority viewpoint. I don't think you yet grasp the Wiki-definition of WP:FRINGE, which is more of an extreme minority viewpoint. Drop it? Just a guess, but all your posts probably make everyone feel like they've been beaten by a stick. Biosthmors (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's true that "there are few (if any) sources that describe the opposing view", then the pro-awareness viewpoint is what we call WP:Unverifiable, and we cannot include it.
NPOV is measured according to the published reliable sources, not according to our guess of what the general public believes. After all, the general public believes all kinds of nonsense, and even when in possession of the facts, still makes irrational choices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know what fringe means in general. I am making a statement about some of the claims in here that I personally see as ridiculous and conspiratorial, like: Breast cancer culture values and honors suffering, selecting its she-roes by a "misery quotient" (Sulik 2010, page 319). Elizabeth Edwards, for example, personifies the breast cancer she-ro. Women whose treatment requires less suffering feel excluded and devalued. The suffering, particularly the extended suffering of months of chemotherapy and radiation treatment, forms a type of ordeal that initiates women into the inner circle of the breast cancer culture (Ehrenreich 2001).'
I'm not sure I understand what you mean there with the stick, Biosthmors.
WhatamIdoing, I don't have time to respond fully right now, but I'd like to say that the sources here are not an accurate depiction of reality (ie all the sources I've listed, plus more; a lot more). Charles35 (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many of the sources currently used in the article, or any of the academic or popular literature on the sociology of breast cancer awareness, have you read? You say "all the sources I've listed, plus more; a lot more" - it would help if you made a list of those sources, because I can only see the 2 links in the #this is ridiculous section above, from a slow glance through this entire page, nor the last few weeks of article-changes. Which articles/papers/books are you referring to, or basing your perspective on? —Quiddity (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Charles presumably refers to the URLs he spammed to my user talk page. Roughly speaking, they were routine news stories ("I'm wearing a pink ribbon for Breast Cancer Awareness Month!"), passing mentions ("It's NBCAM, so let's talk about how treatment has improved in the last ten years"), or primary medical research ("Mammograms work!"). I didn't check all of them, but I didn't find a single one that could be used for a non-stupid-sounding sentence (e.g., not "One doctor in Egypt wishes there was more awareness of breast cancer in Egypt"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see this till now. That's rude and not true. That is your opinion of some of them (the minority). We'll see when we get there I guess. Charles35 (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, please read WP:FRINGE. Fringe theories on wikipedia mean those not considered serious by the relevant scholars. Essentially if a peer-reviewed article or university press book discusses an idea in a serious way, it is not a fringe idea per WP:FRINGE.
As for neutrality, NPOV and appropriate balance is one of the hardest things to do on wikipedia - it requires keen awareness of the policies, but also the material. Adding one or two critical sentences to a descriptive paragraph in general would probably not be undue weight (which seems to be the relevant issue). The article does not immediately read like an excuse (i.e. a coatrack) to criticize breast cancer awareness or hatchetjob - but it does discuss perceived criticisms. My personal rule of thumb is "add information found in sources until you can't add anymore", to reach saturation. By sticking to scholarly sources, saturating the page usually ends up in a rough measure of appropriate discussion and criticism. As NPOV says, it is about what the sources say, not the opinions of editors. Our binding principle is verifiability, not truth (in other words - what is found in sources, not what is found in reality; absurd as it sounds, it generally works quite well). Another way to work through issues of neutrality is to find "counter-sources"; sources that criticize the initial sources or the specific points made therein. Mere editor opinion, particularly when the opinion is opposed to something published by Oxford University Press, is not sufficient unless there is a clear, strong and well-thought out and nearly unanimous consensus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, several things:
Quiddity, I have not read any of the ones in the article, but I have just yesterday started. However, that is no reason to discount my opinions (ad hominem). But I have a few things to say about you mentioning sociology. First of all, this article is not a sociology article (I see that it is officially considered one here, but that's wrong). In its current state, it is a sociology article, but it shouldn't be. Look at the name - "Breast Cancer Awareness." What about that indicates that it is exclusively sociological? There are many other perspectives that should be taken here (this is the heart of my total argument). First, there should be a general, informative view. There should simply be more objective and non-argumentative information here; info that is not biased; not 'taking a side'. This sort of info exists in every article on wikipedia. It does, to a tiny extent, exist here, but it is nonetheless severely lopsided. Additionally, there should be medical info here. Don't jump to the conclusion that medical info on BC should all go in the BC article (if that's the case, then all sociological info should go in the Sociology of BCA article. Here, there should be info about the accomplishments of breast cancer. Not 2 comparatively teeny sections that are half-full of subtle criticism and support of Sulik's arguments, but real, concrete achievements. Stuff like - without BCA awareness, this wouldn't have happened; BCA helped fund this; BCA raised this much money in 20xx; etc. That should take up the bulk of the article. I mean, that's what BCA is really about. That's what the focus of the article should be. If the focus of the article is feminist critique, then the article should be called "Feminist Critique of BCA. It's so incredibly lopsided. There should also be info about the goals of the movement; an in-depth positive analysis of the aims of BCA. The word 'mammography' is used 19 times in this article; 18 of those instances are critical. If mammography is so big and important, then don't you think there's a reason for that? Why is it so big? Maybe...because it is useful? This article should elaborate on that! If this article is meant to be about feminist critique, then that's what it should be called. Put a section on it in here with a link to a new FC article and make a new one that is actually about BCA. There are plenty of other topics that should be included here. Another one I can think of off the top of my head is history. This article does have a history section, but it is again, teeny, and again, mostly criticism. BCA is a very historic movement. Feminism was the original promoter of awareness. There should be more on that; more on the people who started it; more on its rise in popularity (from a non-argumentative, non-critical, objective stance); more on the actual events that occurred; more on the positive arguments through history, and how they evolved.
Also, I made this argument on WhatamIdoing's talk page - You will never find a sociological source that is pro-awareness. It just won't happen, by the nature of a 'sociological source.' If it's sociological, then why would it be praising BCA? Who would take the time to write a thesis or an article that is pro-awareness? That would be pointless. The point is to say what is wrong with something or what should be improved. In fact, for theses, you must be critical. You aren't allowed to write a thesis without providing your own, original criticism of a certain issue. You won't ever find a sociological source that is pro-awareness. It just won't happen. Does that mean you should ignore the pro side altogether? Absolutely not!
Here are the ones I was referring to. Not all are fantastic, but most of them are good enough to be used. I included the not-so-fantastic just because I don't want to go through (right now) and select the good ones -

List of sources

Appropriate

Not

Continued discussion

Creation science has been discussed in serious ways. Not only colleges, but even elementary schools have taught it. Have high schools taught radical feminism? No.
WLU, no offense, but I completely disagree with everything you said. NPOV & appropriate balance aren't even attempted here. One or 2 sentences? There might be one or 2 descriptive sentences; the rest is critical. It isn't even close to balanced. In my opinion, the article does read like an excuse to criticize (this is opposed to your opinion, so don't say merely one editor's opinion). Criticism seems like its only purpose, which is why I've said several times that if you changed the title to "(Radical) Feminist Critique of BCA," I would be fine with the current state of the article. The views in these sources are likely much less critical than their depiction here. If they are depicted correctly, then they simply aren't reliable sources. This view, in its current form (the degree of 'intensity') is just straight up crazy. Elizabeth Edwards initiated into the inner circle? It's a disgrace for this nonsense to be on wikipedia. How many people have voted to remove the 'she-ro' part on this talk page (before you 2 showed up)? A lot. Consensus. WhatamIdoing was the only one who disagreed. I will gladly add info from normal sources, but that doesn't change the fact that much of this article needs to be removed. Adding sane info would not make it an appropriate balance. You have an entire full-length academic essay on the she-ro! Nothing will amount to that. It is an extreme, inappropriate, minority view and it simply needs to be cut down to a sane amount. That rule doesn't sound absurd, but it isn't working here. This is not mere editor opinion, this is the opinion of most people in the world. You can find this higher up on this page, but I thought I'd repeat it here: Do you know what else was published by (Oxford University Press)? The Misadventures of Winnie the Witch. That's right. Winnie. The Witch. - http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/education/children/fiction/humour/9780192793645.do?sortby=bookTitleAscend&thumbby=10&thumbby_crawl=10&zoneCode=OXEDZC033#.UI8FtoUyHWY] Charles35 (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing a specific change to the article? Please WP:BECONCISE. Biosthmors (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

My reply to that massive spamming of sources is WP:MEDRS. Please become familiar with it. Linking to facebook is not an option. You may disagree with what I've said, but how does your opinion line up with the policies and guidelines I have referred to? Again, your opinion is far less important than the policies and guidelines. There is a definite reason to discount your opinion if it is not backed by a good source, a policy or guideline, or a really, really good and convincing, consensus-garnering rationale. Again, policies and guidelines document the consensus of the larger community, which over-ride individual editor opinion and are in turn over-ridden only by a well-thought-out rationalization and clear consensus from involved editors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not spamming anything. Quiddity asked for my list of sources. Those are my sources! Jeez. Not to try to sound cute, but, please assume good faith! And yes I understand facebook. That made up 2 of the 75 sources, though. I originally thought maybe a report of the facebook group might be useful, like the report that is already in the article about the "I like it on the floor" thing (which contains a lot of misinformation, by the way). Please don't assume the worst - again, I am trying to push my opinion over policies and guidelines! Please try to assume good faith... If I don't explicitly say "I want to override policy X with opinion Y, then don't assume that I am. Thanks. I don't appreciate being misrepresented. Sometimes I just give an opinion. Like, in a discussion, you know? Not everything I say is action-oriented. Often, I'm trying to just create a discourse. So that we can come up with something as a group, maybe? Brain storm?
If you're not interested, I'll gladly make changes myself. It seems to me that you are interested in making changes vs not making changes (specifically, for you, not making changes), whereas, me, I'm concerned solely with improving wikipedia. Whether that means adding or subtracting material is not relevant to me. I'm cool with both. But what makes me think bad faith is the fact that you don't seem to care about improving wikipedia. All you seem to care about is stopping change from happening.
Biosthmors - I am not proposing a specific change. I am proposing a vast amount of small changes, and I'll take whatever WhatamIdoing will 'let' me have. I can't choose one over another as more important. This is why I've asked to go through each sentence. I don't know where to start.
If I need to come up with something really specific, here's some thoughts: deem Sulik's book unreliable and remove material cited by it; if not remove, then reword the questionable material (this would apply to Sulik and other sources), add/subtract new sections and move material to the appropriate sections; add "Gayle Sulik believes..." or some other disclaimer to her (questionable) views (namely the opinionated ones, not the factual, if any factual exists) to identify the as ~fact. Charles35 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added titles to the bare-urls in your list of links (Here's a link to the original version). Hopefully that will make them easier to check, and potentially-use some of them.
I would recommend you go through the list, and either remove or use strikeout, on any items that are not usable or relevant in this article, such as the facebook groups, and most of the mayoclinic links.
I would strongly recommend that you read through some of the sources currently used in the article. Most of them are freely available online. Not reading the references places you at a severe disadvantage, as you're then only arguing based on your own opinions/perspectives. Reading them, will also show that many of the article-sentences you might object to, are supported by multiple references (but are not cited multiple times for reasons of WP:Overcite). IE. You need to understand the topic a lot better, if you're serious about proposing going through entire sections sentence-by-sentence. That means reading a lot more than just Wikipedia!
I would also emphasize that this article is about "Breast cancer awareness", which is clearly a social topic, and hence most of the analysis will be in the fields of social science (from Cause marketing to Gender roles). It would help if you read about these topics, and current academic foundations/perspectives in these fields.
Lastly, just as social scientists love to analyze aspects of reality, they also love to analyze each others' work (especially when that work or author become well-known). Finding criticisms of Sulik's work will be easy, if there are any. But you need to look for them, rather than just stating that you personally believe these sentences to be "crazy" and "radical" and "ridiculous" and "conspiratorial". (Try to avoid Loaded language such as this.). These aren't radical ideas, they're just expressed in academic language. Possibly that is why you have described the content as "anti-awareness", which is inaccurate - nowhere does anyone say that civilization should become less-aware of cancer (breast or otherwise) - the content is pointing out that social movements are complex, with dozens of intended and unintended consequences. —Quiddity (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of experience with social science. The discourse on BCA isn't all that different from the discourse on race, gender, sexuality, etc. The principles of symbolic interactionism and some other sociological theories implied here are pretty much the exact same in all of the discourses. But that is exactly my point - this article is not exclusively a social critique. It is not all about 'analysis' and an academic perspective. Like every article here on wikipedia, it's just an article! It should have 'just facts', ones that are 'just informative', ones that 'just describe reality', like events, accomplishments, plain facts. You won't find any criticisms of Sulik's work. And if you do, that's still no reason for Sulik being the bulk of the article. Sulik ≠ BCA. So Sulik + Criticizing Sulik ≠ the BCA article! Why do you (seem to) think that? You are talking about the article as if it is an academic essay. It's not. It's a wikipedia article. Your audience is not the SOCY338 professor; it's the 53 year old Mom, the 16 year old teenager, the 32 year old newlywed. Your audience is composed of students, dropouts, retirees, business owners, kids, computer programmers, middle-aged restaurant owners, and maybe some academics. Nowhere else on wikipedia have I come across an academic essay. This site is for all ages, all educations, all socioeconomic classes. This is not a journal, it's not a thesis, it's not a term paper, it's an encyclopedia. This content is simply inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This is why, all this time, I've been saying that the issue I take with the article is unrelated to sources. Charles35 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Length of time editing wikipedia does not correlate to degree of education. Anti-awareness just means against awareness, which is what Sulik is. The belief that we should become less aware would be de-awareness or un-awareness, perhaps? I don't think this is Sulik's view, but she certainly seems to be against awareness. Charles35 (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the researchers and none of the outright critics named in this article are "against awareness". They are against fundraisers saying "for the cure" and then spending the money "for advertising" or "for education" or "for non-curative screening"; they are against society imposing social rules about what it means to be a "good patient"; they are against excessive use of screening technologies (really only a problem in the US, since the European medical systems chose to follow the scientific evidence more than a decade ago); they area against political fights to promote worthless and harmful treatments; they are against mindlessness and thoughtlessness—but none of them are actually against "awareness".
I suggest that you go read the sources. Sulik's book is likely to be in your local public library. That's where I found a copy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics (attempt #2)

I'm going to make another list of things that I think we should discuss. I'm only going to focus on the larger, more obvious issues and try to leave some of the petty ones out of it. I think we will get a lot more done if we work together rather than just argue, as it seems like we're already starting to do! And I think after working through some of them, we should consider that potential section F&A was talking about (Business of BCA). Were you for that section, WhatamIdoing? I wasn't clear on that. I'll be updating this list as we go. Charles35 (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(If you could help out a bit on making sub-sections, I'd appreciate that. I don't know how to make it more organized)

Events

I've got to be honest and start with this one. I know we've discussed this a decent amount, but we haven't seemed to come to a similar understanding at all (plus it's the first one from the top):
NBCAM was begun in 1985 by the American Cancer Society and pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, which manufactures breast cancer drugs Arimidex and tamoxifen
So for this, if there's a good reason to include the drugs, I'm all ears, but presently, I just don't see it. To me, it sounds like the purpose here is more to point out the (potential) conflict of interest (which belongs in criticism, business, etc). That part of the sentence seems, to me, to be irrelevant to events. I think it should be saved for a different section.
These mass-participation events effectively signal to society that breast cancer survivors have formed a single, united group that speaks, acts and believes the same things, without any significant internal dissension (Sulik 2010, page 56). They also reinforce the cultural connection between each individual's physical fitness and moral fitness (King 2006, pages 46–49).
Here, I think a good point is being made and I think the point should stay. But I think it should be reworded somehow. Specifics:
'Signal' sounds artificial, to me. It sounds like the 'sender,' if you will, is being intentional and is doing it for a political cause, which is partly true - as a group, it is a political cause - but the way it's worded makes it sound like each individual is acting politically, which I don't think is true. Most individuals are there just to experience a community, to make personal connections and friendships, to learn how to cope, to get free food, etc. It's not a 'cause' in the traditional sense (like a civil rights movement, eg). Instead, the 'bearer' of the 'signaling' should be on the receiver instead of the sender (since this is an analysis). It's more fitting, in my opinion, to say something like, "through these mass-participation events, the individual BCA-ers have formed a coherent whole group.
"speaks, acts and believes the same things, without any significant internal dissension" - this is a little much, in my opinion. And while it is certainly related to events, I think this would be more appropriate in a designated sociological section. There isn't an good section for this right now, but I something like the "Social role of the woman with breast cancer" section. An idea might be to make a new "Social Analysis of BCA", and have "social role..." be a sub-section, with the she-ro and the BC culture, in addition to something on this topic. There's a lot of social analysis dispersed throughout the article in each section. Like you said, it would be wrong to lump it all together. But, like the she-ro section, I find these 2 particular sentences to be a little 'intense', enough to warrant its own section and cut it off from the rest of the material. ...Just a thought.
But anyway, I think the word "coherent" would make it sound a bit more 'polite' (I know I use too many 's and "s). If you were to say, "a single, united group that acts coherently and has common beliefs. The 'significant internal dissension' sticks out. It, again, goes back to the 'signal' thing - the BCA-ers aren't concerned with dissent and other political themes. Like I said, if this were the civil rights movement, that would be one thing...
As for the second sentence, I think it also makes a good point, which is exclusively on the topic of events, so it does belong here, in my opinion. However, it is just as critical, and should be toned down a bit. Do you agree at all?
I will add more soon Charles35 (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The link between AstraZeneca, the campaign and specifically the drugs does seem like something is missing. Skimming briefly, King does go into details about the links more explicitly on page xxi, discussing the company's careful avoidance of breast cancer prevention and environmental issues. It seems like this could be expanded upon to not only make the link more explicit, but to illustrate how the involvement of Big Pharma is ultimately less than pure charity. The issue doesn't seem to be the mentioning of specific drugs, the issue seems to be the less than disinterested role of one of the sponsors in promoting BCA. I agree that including this point in a different section may be a good option.
As a side note - this illustrates a general principle. If a statement in an article is unclear it could be a misrepresentation of the source (which needs to be corrected) or it could be an incomplete point from the source (which needs to be expanded). In future issues, you might find it fruitful to read the relevant source and see if the point it makes can be elaborated on more completely in order to improve the page.
The points about mass participation also sound like ideas that should be expanded on - but mostly by referring to the source specifically, not what we think the sentence is supposed to mean. I'll try to review the sources to see the core idea they are expressing on these pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean, we could always find a source that says that AZ does indeed manufacture those drugs. That's not an issue. It seems to me that you're saying all thoughts here must be authored by the sources; I'm not sure I agree. I feel that wikipedia editors do have a responsibility to decide what facts are relevant and which ones should be included. I think we should be able to string points and arguments together from different sources to make points that we think are important. Isn't that what we're kind of doing anyway? We are picking and choosing not only what sources are relevant, but what excerpts from those sources are relevant as well. So how is using multiple sources to make our own arguments off limits? Is it any different? Charles35 (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't insert our unpublished ideas or construct our own arguments per WP:OR/WP:V. We reflect reliable sources. We can use editorial discretion, but we don't consruct our own narratives (if that helps). Biosthmors (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that's a rule, but I see it done all the time... Charles35 (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using multiple sources to make up a new thought (one that isn't directly in any of the sources) is WP:SYNTH, and if you encounter it, you should fix it or tag it as a violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, last one for events:
Mere symbolism itself does not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives. However, it is an effective form of promoting the pink ribbon culture: fear of breast cancer, the hope for a scientific breakthrough, and the goodness of the people who support the cause. These supporters may feel socially compelled to participate, in a type of "obligatory voluntarism" that critics say is "exploitative" (Sulik 2010, page 250, 308).
While I do, again, think this is a little intense, the core point should nonetheless remain. However, I think it would be appropriate to add a positive thing about symbolism. Perhaps, it raises money? That money goes to x, y, and z? It helps individuals cope? It brings communities together? The issue I take here is that the section focuses mostly, if not exclusively, on the downside of awareness (in regard to events). It says nothing about the up side. Charles35 (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will also point to WP:OR and again to WP:NPOV; we represent ideas as found in sources, not according to editor opinion. As a wiki that can be edited by anyone, we generally can not set other pages as our standard to follow - that is what policies and guidelines are for. If you find other pages are problematic, feel free to correct them.
The issue is not whether AstraZeneca manufactures the drugs, this is a trivial point. The issue that King raises is AstraZeneca's involvement in promoting breast cancer awareness rather than prevention, possibly as a way of increasing sales of drugs to treat breast cancer. On page 81 King repeats and elaborates on this point, it might be a better page to cite.
Regarding the symbolism point, sources are needed before text can be added. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, of course. Do we agree, at least, that we should add positive material? I just want to make sure that we do before I go and give the effort of constructing sourced material. On the other hand, what about de-intensifying the material that is already there? In its current form, or in a less intense form, or even in a more intense form, it still reflects the source. This is why, all this time, I've said that a great deal of the changes I'm proposing have little/nothing to do with new sources. The material that's already there - do you think we can reword it to make it less intense? (I can't think of a better word for 'intense' - provocative? Radical? I dunno...) Charles35 (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article should be approximately as intense as the sources are. If other sources have different opinions (e.g., more positive opinions), then we should add what they say (e.g., more positive material), too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with "positive" material being added, I encourage it - providing it is appropriately sourced; high quality news/editorial sources for commentary, scholarly is better, and if any medical claims are made - MEDRS. If anyone can find more high quality sources to add on this issue, they should be added - but I would suggest checking on the talk page first. As my edits above noted, many sources provided to date were not appropriate.

My preference would strongly be to expand the neutral, informative or positive information rather than trimming down the "negative". One approach we could try would be attributing some opinions - as in "X person in Y source described BCA as Z". Depends, of course, on the source, and if certain points are especially contentious we could use direct quotes (though I personally dislike them). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does there become a point where a source is too intense to be considered reliable? Charles35 (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our criteria for reliability is oversight and reputation, not "intensity". The best way to deal with any controversial source is to find other sources that criticize the initial source for being partisan. If no source does this, that suggests that among relevant experts, the issue is not controversial. A good source to search for might be book reviews in scholarly journals. Again, we judge sources according to experts and reliability, not editor disagreement. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what if it just means that it isn't well-known enough to be criticized? You can't assume that each source has had an equal opportunity for evaluation. Charles35 (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question is irrelevant, because Sulik's book has been reviewed extensively and positively. See her website for a catalog of reviews. NB that there are three pages' worth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the criteria for source reliability is reputation and degree of oversight - not whether an individual editor finds it convincing. University press get their reputations by having books reviewed before publication, as well as by publishing books written by known scholars who are experts in their fields. Feel free to bring this specific example up at WP:RSN, where the list of positive reviews will be provided as proof of the source's reliability, but please do not use your own personal incredulity as a measure of whether a source is adequate or not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(WLU & WhatamIdoing - you got the picture with ((civil)...); I'd rather not leave that hanging around. I wrote it, and I know that you've responded to it, but nothing in your response has to do with the word 'civil', and it would be silly and trivial to put a strikethrough a single word, especially one in a title of a section. Plus, it's a single word; I'm not deleting the entire thing. I have edited my own comments before and removed a single word with no issues.)

Pink Ribbon

It encourages consumers to focus on the emotionally appealing ultimate vision of a cure for breast cancer, rather than on the fraught path between current knowledge and any future cures (Sulik 2010, pages 359–361).

Here, can I change "consumers" to "individuals"? I don't think it's appropriate to generalize all pink ribbon related actions to 'consumption'. Secondly, is fraught really necessary here? It sounds rather pessimistic, and I'm not sure that the picture it gives is entirely true. I wouldn't say the outlook for a cure is that bad, but I guess I could be wrong.

Wearing or displaying a pink ribbon has been denounced as a kind of slacktivism, because it has no practical positive effect (Landeman 2008).

Can we attribute this opinion to whoever gave it? I can't be sure if this is Landeman's opinion or someone (s)he quotes.

That's all for Pink Ribbon. Charles35 (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The pessimistic view on true, total cure for breast cancer is the dominant scientific position. Most individual women have a good outlook, but the overall disease does not. It's the difference between "your individual cancer can (probably) be cured" and "nobody will ever die from breast cancer again".
  • We use WP:INTEXT attribution when it's just one person/group who says something. This is a common enough complaint that saying it's "just Anne Landeman" is misleading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you are falsely equivocating "nobody will ever die from breast cancer again" with "future cure". It is actually rather obvious that, some day in the future, there will be a cure. But, this is irrelevant to my objection: you falsely equivocated "fraught" (the word I objected to) to the entire sentence. I don't see the sentence as pessimistic (as you claimed I did, and thus your objection rests on this), because, as you said, it's just a fact. But I think the word "fraught" itself is uncalled for and has a heavy pessimistic connotation that just is unnecessary and inappropriate. Elsewhere on wikipedia, you don't see words like "fraught" for simple, everyday, encyclopedic content.
See "Slactivism" section. Charles35 (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About 1400 Wikipedia articles contain the word fraught, so you do see that word in Wikipedia. I admit that it's not an elementary-school vocabulary word. You could use words like extremely difficult if you prefer.
However, what you've done is mislead the reader by allowing the reader to believe that there actually is a "true possibility of a timely future cure". There isn't. There will never be one cure for breast cancer, and there will probably not be a reliable cure for any class of breast cancer (i.e., 100% of women with invasive breast cancer of type ___ will be permanently cured of that breast cancer) any time soon. That's what the sources are saying, and it's not what you're saying. We have to follow the sources, and they do not hold out hope for "a timely future cure", if by "timely" you mean "during the next several decades". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't mislead anyone. You have a very limited understanding of the word "timely." What does "one" or two or three cures have to do with any of this? And how can you say there will never be a reliable cure? You don't know that. The possibilities are infinite. What I'm saying right now is no reflection of today (for the better or the worse). The possibilities are endless regardless of whether the outlook is bright or gloomy); either way, the possibilities are the possibilities. No sources think there will be a cure in the next few years. That's a bit ridiculous. No one thinks that. In fact, I am imagining a number around 300-500 years from now. "Timely" is a relative word and thus is fundamentally meaningless. Maybe we could change it to a fixed word? Charles35 (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither obvious nor certain that there will be a cure for breast cancer, either now or in the next five centuries. We can not say for certain either way, and we shouldn't try to predict or anticipate the future. But if we can end this discussion by picking another word, presumably one that's not also meaningless, great. "In the near future" or "within one's lifetime" are options, but we're limited by what Sulik says. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Within one's lifetime" would work. "In the near future" is also fundamentally meaningless. WhatamIdoing, I think you would be able to best address this. My version of Sulik's book doesn't have those pages so I can't look. Charles35 (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original sentence was this:

It encourages consumers to focus on the emotionally appealing ultimate vision of a cure for breast cancer, rather than on the fraught path between current knowledge and any future cures (Sulik 2010, pages 359–361).

Charles objects to describing the "path between current knowledge and any future cures" with the pessimistic term fraught, as in "difficult, complicated, burdensome, etc."

He would like to describe it in positive terms. The source does not describe it in positive terms. He proposes that we say that consumers focus on the happy vision "rather than the true possibility of a timely future cure considering current progress", except that "the true possibility of a timely future cure" (with its implication that the possibility has been proven true) is the happy vision that the pink stuff is promoting.

The goal here is to say this: Pink stuff makes consumers think happy thoughts about breast cancer being cured or prevented. Those happy thoughts are not warranted by the research. There is every reason to believe that breast cancer will never be totally cured or prevented. There is, in fact, every reason to believe that invasive cancer will always be with us, and that no matter what we do, there will always be cases of cancer that kill people, despite our best efforts.

That's the sort of depressing reality that the source says:

"However, the reality of breast cancer is difficult to grasp (i.e., unknown causes, increasing prevalence, medical uncertainty, no cure, many casualties). Likewise, the war against this mystifying enemy is equally hard to fathom and potentially too vast for anyone to imagine a clear plan of action....It focuses attention to the imaginary realm in which everyone envisions the ultimate end in mind, a future without breast cancer."

So there are all sorts of things we can say here, but none of them are uniformly positive. In fact, the purpose of this sentence is to highlight that contrast. We need a sentence that says, "Pink stuff makes consumers think happy thoughts about the end of breast cancer, but this is a problem, because it distracts consumers from the realistic, sad, frustrating, discouraging thoughts that are warranted by the current state of medical research." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, WhatamIdoing. The main problem you seem to have with my thoughts here is that I "would like to describe the fact in positive terms." The rest of your argument seems to play off of that: "Those happy thoughts", "none of them are uniformly positive", etc. I guess I was not clear. I absolutely do not want to portray the future as positive. However, I do not want to portray it as negative either. I want to simply give the facts and let the reader decide for him or herself whether that is a positive or negative thing. This is why I sought to do 2 things: (1) eliminate the word "fraught" because of its inherent pessimistic connotation, and (2) change the word "timely" to something that is not fundamentally meaningless and is an objective fact. That way, you are not in fact pushing any sort of interpretation of what the future holds (as WLU said, we should not try to predict or anticipate the future), but you are giving a straight, easy to understand fact. This allows the reader to form his or her own opinion about those facts, free from any sort of interpretation that we are not even at liberty to make.
The reason that I think it is unfair to use the word fraught is because there is no such thing as an objective morality. The future is the future. The "cure" (or whatever advanced form of treatment we are referring to) will come when it comes. If it comes in 50 years, then it will be in 50 years. If it comes in 2000 years, then it will come in 2000 years. There is nothing about the numbers 50 or 2000 that makes them "fraught". One person's "fraught" might be another person's "hopeful". They are just numbers. The adjectives that we ascribe to them are opinions, points of view.
I really do not think that it is right for you to try to predict the future. I will play devil's advocate here - assuming the human race will live indefinitely, there is literally no reason to believe cancer will never be "cured" (cure might not be the correct word, but I'm going to use it for convenience). There is no foreseeable extinction ahead (unless you count the big freeze or the Sun becoming a supernova or something like that, so theoretically, humans can achieve pretty much anything. Sure, cancer does seem to be engrained within us because of its fundamental relationship with DNA, but who says we won't ever be able to enhance DNA/RNA replication?
When I said the "true" possibility, I did not mean that there is a definite possibility or time period that we know of. I see how it can come across that way to both you and readers of the article. Therefore, I think that should be changed regardless. What I meant by "true" is more along the lines of "in reality," as in the "actual" possibility, the "real" possibility, the one that actually is, whatever it is. I just meant the correct truth in reality. I didn't mean that we know what that truth is. How does "the actual possibility" sound? Does that sound impartial? And I still wasn't sure - what would you like to do with the word "timely"? Thanks again. Charles35 (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source itself is describing an important contrast between what the pink brand encourages people to think about (happy thoughts) and the source's estimation of reality (depressing thoughts). We need to accurately present that contrast, so that the readers will see what the source is saying. We don't want to "let the [under-informed] reader decide for him or herself"; we want the reader to know what the sources say about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the phrasing to "It encourages individuals to focus on the emotionally appealing ultimate vision of a cure for breast cancer, rather than the reality that there is no certain cure for breast cancer, and no guarantee there will ever be such a cure". There is no "certain cure" for breast cancer, there are only treatments that vary in success depending on many factors. There is no certainty that such a cure will ever exist. We should not portray such a cure as "just around the corner" or extrapolate current progress (whcih is incremental and normally involves tiny increases in five-year survivability post-excision - not a guaranteed cure). We don't know either way. Sulik is indeed quite pessimistic, I think it misrepresents the source to make it seem like Sulik is claiming pink ribbons will produce a cure. That is certainly not her point. We should reflect the tone of the source, particularly when it is iconoclastic and attempts to be realistic in the face of unjustified optimism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping for the Cure

Some of these products are produced or sold by breast cancer survivors or charities for fundraising purposes.

This is extremely redundant. Obviously they are produced/sold for this reason. We are talking about BCA after all! And then it hit me - there is a cunningly hidden point being made here (not unlike the polyester argument): some of the products; not all. So, others are not made for this purpose? No. This is implying that some products are solely created for other purposes. This isn't true. Sure - some of the proceeds do go to necessary advertising for more fundraisers and paying the organizers as well as sponsors, legal counsel, rent, and other standard fees (a point fully elaborated in the article), but none of the money goes EXCLUSIVELY to other purposes. These fees take out a portion of the proceeds, but never ALL of them.

I was going to change it to simply, "These products are produced or sold by breast cancer survivors or charities for fundraising purposes." (remove "some of"), but then I realized how ridiculously redundant that was, which made me realize the deceit.

Upon further examination, there are even more issues here. This is a very confusing sentence, with a great deal of modifiers, which makes it very tricky to delineate what exactly is the truth here. To repeat the sentence: Some of these products are produced or sold by breast cancer survivors or charities for fundraising purposes. The issues here that must be clarified are:

some
produced or sold
survivors or charities
for fundraising purposes

With all of these variables, it's impossible to know what is really being said. Are some products produced for these purposes? Are they sold for these purposes? Are they produced AND sold? What is the point of separating the two? Are they produced by survivors but not charities? Are they produced by charities but not survivors? Are they sold by survivors but not charities? Are they sold by charities but not survivors? Are they produced and sold by charities but not survivors? Are they produced and sold by survivors but not charities? Are they sold by both? Are they produced by both? Are they produced and sold by both? Are only some produced by charities while none by survivors? Vica versa? What about the others? Even more importantly (with greater implications): if some are produced/sold for fundraising purposes, are others sold/produced for different purposes? What other purposes? Do the survivors produce for other purposes? Do the charities produce for other purposes? Do the survivors sell for other purposes? Do the charities sell for other purposes? Do both sell for other purposes? Do both produce for other purposes? Do both do both for other purposes? 'What is the deal here?

As you can see, this sentence is extremely problematic. For this reason, I am going to remove it until the correct meaning is found and the sentence is edited to make it more clear.

The first breast cancer awareness stamp in the U.S., featuring a pink ribbon, was issued in 1996. As it did not sell well, a semi-postal stamp without a pink ribbon, the breast cancer research stamp, was designed in 1998. Products like these emphasize the relationship between being a consumer and supporting women with breast cancer (King 2006, pages 61–79).

I don't see the point to this, or how it makes any sense. I don't doubt that this is in the source, but it needs to be elaborated on for the purposes of this article. There is no reason given to make the leap from BCA stamps to consumer = supporter. I think this should be taken out for now as it seems to be pointless and is just taking up space in a tediously long article/essay. Charles35 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So for that short paragraph, the first sentence is some general neutral info which is good. Then the second sentence is a critique, which is fine, but it doesn't really follow from anything or relate to the material in any way. However, the next paragraph is on a similar topic, and seems to be neutral as well. I think the critical sentence in the 1st paragraph should be deleted and the 1st sentence merged with the 2nd paragraph. What do you think, WhatamIdoing & WLU & Biosthmors? For reference, this is the second paragraph:

In Canada, the Royal Canadian Mint produced 30 million 25-cent coins with pink ribbons during 2006 for normal circu'lation (Royal Canadian Mint 2006). Designed by the mint's director of engraving, Cosme Saffioti (reverse), and Susanna Blunt (obverse), this colored coin is the second in history to be put into regular circulation (Royal Canadian Mint 2006).

That's all for shopping for the cure

"Some of these products are produced or sold by breast cancer survivors or charities for fundraising purposes."
This seems more like a line to contrast with the next paragraph where specific companies (rather than survivors) sell these products, and sometimes the money is not for fundraising purposes; rather it is for free "awareness advertising" and no donations are made to charity. I was thinking of addressing this by restructuring rather than rewording or removing; simply removing a paragraph break or putting this section at the end of the next paragraph would seem to work as it links the ideas (created by survivors for charity versus sold by companies for profit).
Seeing "deceit" in this sentence seems like egregious bad faith; at worst it seems like a fairly banal sentence that might be improved. There doesn't seem to be a "deal" here. I think that minor points like removing paragraph breaks and restructuring wording without changing content is probably not worth 500 words. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing "deceit" in this sentence seems like egregious bad faith - After the polyester argument, I'm on the prowl for other subtle misleading biased NPOV pushing. Charles35 (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the sentence. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that you've managed to tie yourself into knots over this. The sentence means what it says: "Some of these products are produced or sold by breast cancer survivors or charities for fundraising purposes."
So let me give you examples: Mary Jane, cancer survivor, makes greeting cards with pink ribbons on them, and she sells them to support her local cancer support group. That's "some of these products" (Mary Jane doesn't produce every pink thing in the world), "produced or sold by breast cancer survivors" (Mary Jane is both making and selling) and "for fundraising purposes" Got that?
Then there's the guy in China who sees a way to make a fast buck. Pink stuff sells in October. So he makes pink teddy bears. He's not a breast cancer survivor. He never says that it's to support breast cancer, and it's not. He keeps all the profits. He's just selling pink teddy bears. That's a case of a product not being "produced or sold by either a survivor or a charity, and it's not for fundraising purposes.
So: some of these products are produced or sold by breast cancer survivors or charities for fundraising purposes, and some of them are not. Some of these products are produced and sold by plain old businesses for the purpose of making a plain old profit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. The reason I'm suspicious of this sentence is because it is making such an obvious statement that it seems utterly pointless. That makes me think it probably is making some sort of indirect point. Like a "subliminal" advertisement, you know? So what do you think of: Some of these products are produced and/or sold by breast cancer survivors or charities for fundraising purposes, others for both profits and fundraising. I know that is a little awkward but it gets the job done in my opinion until someone will come along and fix it up. I am weary because the vagueness of this sentence has virtually endless implications. I don't care what exactly those implications are (notice they are negative here, yet I still want to specify them); I just want to make them clear to the prospective reader. It really isn't required of me to say this and justify it to you since you don't own the article, but I just read this source! For the third time! It gives multiple examples of companies making profits off of BCA. I was going to write: some...for fundraising purposes, others for profits, and still others for both," because that is a little more succinct, and personally, WhatamIdoing, I'd take your word for it that there are some people in China doing that. But seeing as it's not in the source, I'm not going to include it. So please take note that I did not omit that because of trying to create some "mythical" balance of weight. I actually wanted to include it, and it makes sense to, but I don't want to be yelled at for that, either. Charles35 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes we need to make "obvious" statements, because what's obvious to you isn't obvious to people who know less than you.
  • Click on these: [1]

[2] [3] Pink ribbon stuff, right? And not one thin dime from these sales ends up in the hands of a breast cancer organization. The companies producing these products are not doing it because they're survivors. They're not doing it to increase donations. They're doing it because other people and other organizations are willing to pay them cold, hard cash for stuff with pink ribbons on it.
So we can't say "for both profits and fundraising", because it isn't true that all of them do both (and the source doesn't say that all of them do both). What we can say (without bothering to add other sources) is that some are produced or sold by survivors or organizations, and other things are not produced or sold by survivors or organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business marketing campaigns, particularly sales promotions for products that increase pollution or that may cause breast cancer, such as high-fat foods, alcohol, pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies, have been condemned as pinkwashing (a portmanteau of pink ribbon and whitewash) (Mulholland 2010).
WhatamIdoing, I don't get what the issue is with changing "may cause" to "may be associated with". The second is accurate. The first is not. Look at the wiki pages for those chemicals: scientists to conclude that the presence of parabens may be associated with the occurrence of breast cancer, there is an association between phthalate exposure and endocrine disruption leading to development of breast cancer, [alcohol]] has been shown to increase the risk of developing...multiple forms of cancer. (not "cause", "increase the risk"). It isn't accurate to say that they "may cause" when scientists are saying that they "may increase the risk". And for the record, it isn't even "increase the risk," it's "may increase the risk". Anyway, if the source says that they cause BC, then the source is unreliable. However, the source doesn't even make this claim. The only chemical of the ones mentioned (which are alcohol, high-fat foods, pesticides, parabens, and phthalates) that the source even says is alcohol. And for that, it says, "Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies, and the Canadian Cancer Society advises that even one drink a day on average can increase the risk of breast cancer. Honestly, I don't want to be some sort of source buster. I'm all for keeping those chemicals and writing "may be associated with", because it is true that all of them are associated with BC, but I guess we would have to delete it if you must be so strict with the sources. Charles35 (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alcohol is a proven, direct cause of breast cancer. It's not just wimpily "associated with": if you want to increase your risk of breast cancer, then get drunk.
More pointfully, the critics aren't complaining about promotions that are "associated with" cancer but not "causing" cancer; they are complaining about promotions for products that cause (or that the critic believes will cause) breast cancer.
The causative nature is central to the critics' complaints. Living in a wealthy country is "associated with" breast cancer, but promoting immigration isn't going to bother the critics, because immigration doesn't cause breast cancer. The things that are being criticized are the things that the critics believe will cause breast cancer, not things that have a correlative, but not causative relationship with breast cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard time believing critics don't care about links. In any case, the source says "linked to", so.... Look, I could have deleted 75% of that sentence. The source doesn't even mention pesticides, parabens, or phthalates. But I don't want to be some sort of "source buster". I'm willing to work with it because we all know that pesticides, parabens, and phthalates have in fact been linked to BC. It says so on their wikipedia articles. You didn't tell me that. I went and found that. I'm not taking this polarized side so don't even try to suggest that. Saying "cause" instead of "linked" has much more severe repercussions than adding "parabens and phthalates", so I'm not willing to go ahead and skip over that to edit it in. Honestly, I doubt we'll find a source that says "cause". All of the wikipedia pages say "linked". But I have no problem with trying. I'm going to do a quick search now. If I find anything, I'll report back. Charles35 (talk) 07:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From cancer.org: The use of alcohol is clearly linked to an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Sorry. I don't think it gets any better than cancer.org. Charles35 (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It gets a lot better than cancer.org. See "The occurrence of malignant tumours of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, oesopha- gus, liver, colorectum and female breast is causally related to the consumption of alco- holic beverages."[1]
  1. ^ =Alcohol consumption and ethyl carbamate [[International Agency for Research on Cancer Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans (2007: Lyon, France) ISBN 9789283212966
Alcohol is a Group 1 carcinogen for breast cancer, on the same list as asbestos and uranium and tobacco. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources saying alcohol prevents cancer? "Linked to cancer" usually doesn't mean "protects against". I've changed the wording to "contributes to", which is the same thing. "May be associated with" is far less clear than "contributes to" or "causes". "Causes" is quite strong and given the inability to dose women with large amounts of alcohol in a controlled experiment, we're never going to get "causes". "Contributes to" seems adequate. Charles, do you honestly think those sources mean anything other than "increases the risk of cancer" when they say "linked to"? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisements

Some marketing blurs the line between advertisements and events, such as flash mobs as a form of guerrilla marketing. Advertising campaigns on Facebook have encouraged users to use sexual innuendo and double entendres in their status updates to remind readers about breast cancer. In 2009, the campaign asked women to post the color of their brassieres, and in 2010, the campaign asked women to post where they keep their purses, resulting in status messages such as "I like it on the floor" (Kingston 2010). These campaigns have been criticized as sexualizing the disease (Kingston 2010).

This paragraph is simply wrong. The facebook event was not an advertisement of any sort. It was not guerrilla marketing. The paragraph doesn't even mentioned the product being advertised. It was simply pure awareness and a fad/trend/meme. Nothing else to it. I'm tempted to remove the whole paragraph but I wanted to get everyone's opinion first. Charles35 (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would like to, I don't see any way to fix this paragraph, since it is in the "advertisements" section, and the event simply wasn't an advertisement. Does anyone have any ideas? It could be moved to another section, but I can't think of one that would be appropriate... Charles35 (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the source? It calls this a "viral crusade" and "stealth campaign". The whole point of this paragraph is to say that not all advertising campaigns involve traditional advertisements. So congratulations: you understood that it's not a traditional advertisement. The Facebook campaign is, as the paragraph says, an example of "Some marketing [that] blurs the line between advertisements and events", i.e., not a traditional advertisement, even though it gets the message out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood me when I said "The paragraph doesn't even mention the product being advertised." I said this rhetorically to show that the campaign was not an advertisement. I didn't believe that the source did an inadequate job describing the campaign. No I haven't read the source. But I use facebook, so I've got some first hand experience (please, link me to WP:OR, as if I didn't already know; I'm just talking here, not trying to make changes based on "single editor opinion", so please relax). I am obviously not objecting to the article's statement that this was a conventional campaign (because it clearly doesn't even say that). Thanks for the congrats though. Like [comment] (WP:NPOV is not about...), you've boiled my argument down to one point and then even told me what my own point is. You completely misrepresented my words.
"it's not a traditional advertisement" and "Some marketing blurs the line between advertisements and events" - In reality, I am objecting to the labels used here. The facebook thing was not trying to sell anything. There was no product, no market, no good, no nothing. It was simply an "unconventional" form of awareness. So, using the word "marketing" to describe it is definitely false. There was no market (ie no forum for buying and selling goods) and no exchange being made. It is also not what one in modern society would typically refer to as an "advertisement". This is, technically, an acceptable label because you could say it is advertising BCA, but it does a pretty mediocre job because it implies the exchange of good. The only word used so far that makes good sense is "event." I am objecting to this solely because I feel it is in the wrong section. If it belongs here, I think it should be in a different section as it is, in my opinion, not exactly an advertisement. It is more fit for the "Events" section, in my opinion. Charles35 (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These really are advertising campaigns. Not all advertisements promote a product. Many promote the brand or the organization. The Facebook campaign promoted the BCA brand. The target market was women who are, or will be, the right age to benefit from breast cancer screening. This is an advertisement for the brand, and it's a good example of an unusual, line-blurring advertisement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's more like an event. You could make the same case that all of the events are advertisements too. Their purpose is the same - to promote BCA. Since this has no product, it is closer to and better explained as an unorthodox event to an unorthodox ad. And again, we are talking about the average reader. When your reader thinks advertisement they associate a product. Please see the discussion in "FAQ at top of page" section. There are other points. Charles35 (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media

Until the mid-1990s, nearly all of these stories were written from the perspective of the expert, who doled out advice.

In my opinion, "doled out advice" violates WP:NPOV and has an unwarranted negative connotation. I'd like to replace it with, "...who gave advice." I'm sure that "who doled out advice" is an accurate depiction of the source. But, considering the fact that "doled" and "gave" are synonyms (albeit with a relatively high degree of difference) and syntactically both get the same job done, "gave advice" is also an accurate depiction. But, it isn't POV, which leads me to wanting to edit it in to the article. I am going to do that now. Please discuss here if you disagree. Charles35 (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think doled out accurately reflects the tone of the source, which was criticizing patients' limited access to information at that time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be acceptable to quote the source then, but "doled out" is not an encyclopedic tone. And it violates WP:NPOV, in my opinion. Charles35 (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's unencyclopedic about it? It's not slang. It appears in professionally written encyclopedia articles like these. I think it's perfectly encyclopedic.
The phrase means "distributed in small amounts; small portions shared out of a meager resource." Can you think of another way to say this? Keep in mind that the point here is to communicate the fact that patients were getting very little information, and only the information that a medical professional believed was appropriate for them (e.g., would help the patient comply with prescribed treatment). WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those two things were essays and weren't on wikipedia. Doled out has a definite negative connotation. I see why you want something with a little more substance than "gave out". Browsing through thesaurus.com, there are a lot of good words, such as apportioned, allocated, dealt, handed, shared, but I can't think of many that fit the context of giving advice. What do you think of provided? How about "provided limited advice"? Presented might work too. Charles35 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't essays. They were professionally written, formally published, real-world encyclopedia articles.
"Provided limited advice" (or even "very limited") communicates approximately the same idea, I think. I suspect that readers will have the same reaction to it (namely, aren't we glad that we're living in the information age instead of having to rely on tiny drips of information from experts), so I don't really see any advantage to changing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately my preview of Sulik cuts out in that seciton, but I have requested a copy from the library. If the intent of the book is to emphasize the limited, paternalistic nature of oncologists to their female patients, then "doled out" or some other phrasing that emphasizes this seems warranted. If Sulik takes the perspective that the advice given before the current model of illness narrative took hold was harmful or disingenuous, then the page should reflect that. And from my understanding, a large part of the politics of breast cancer was the rejection of paternalistic medicine that did not provide female patients with an honest summary of the actual situation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let you get the book and see for yourself, rather than trying to sway your view of the source on this point. I just wanted to note in re paternalism that I believe it was Olsen who told the story of the oncologist who recommended a mastectomy on the grounds that the patient didn't "need" her breasts any longer, since she was too old to be breastfeeding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breast cancer as a brand

people who support the "pink brand" identify themselves as members of the socially aware niche market, who are in favor of women's health, screening mammography, positive thinking, and willing submission to the current mainstream medical opinion (Sulik 2010, page 22).

Almost none of that is in the source, including, but not limited to: "pink brand" (in quotations), identify, niche market, screening mammography, (especially) willing submission, and opinion. I'm not going to remove it all, though. I just want to get rid of "willing submission to the current mainstream medical opinion". "Willing submission" is unwarranted and radical. "Current mainstream medical opinion" is implying that you shouldn't subscribe to that, which might have terrible effects on people's lives (ie people might be swayed to not go to drs). It says "faith in medical science". "Medical science" is different from "medical opinion". One is a science, which includes the advancement of understanding and potential treatment options. The other is a medical practice, which calls on medical science, but doesn't necessarily utilize all of its findings. That distinction should be made clear. Charles35 (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Positive thinking" is pretty much pointless and isn't in the source, so I'm going to remove that too. And I am getting rid of "identify" because that puts agency/responsibility on the individuals and isn't in the source. Medical science is a research science. WP:BLUE. Please don't revert because of that. There is no reason to other than bad faith because it is so minor and it makes sense. If you must get rid of it, take the small effort and don't revert the rest of the edit. Thanks. Charles35 (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about "willing submission to the current mainstream medical opinion" that indicates you shouldn't see a physician. The point here is that the pink culture encourages people to (blindly) accept mainstream medicine and discourages complaints about how limited the current state of that treatment is.
IMO mainstream medicine is the best thing going, but that doesn't change the fact that it will seriously fail half the women with invasive breast cancer. It's possible that if we had less "faith" and more "questions", we'd have better treatment. Certainly a willingness to question previous treatments, like radical mastectomies, has led to significant improvements.
I also think that positive thinking is important. Multiple sources identify and criticize what I'll call the "cult of positive thinking" as being common problem in the breast cancer circles. In the particular context, though, the pink ribbon market is filled with people like you: people who believe that, someday, nobody will die from breast cancer ever again, even though all the research indicates that this ideal is not actually achievable. So "positive thinking" is an accurate description of blind faith that scientific research will be able to solve 100% of problems, including problems that the scientific research says it cannot solve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The establishment of the brand and the entrenchment of the breast cancer movement has been uniquely successful, because no countermovement opposes the breast cancer movement or believes breast cancer to be desirable (King 2006, page 111).

"...believes breast cancer to be desirable." - Really? Come on. That little phrase right there greatly undermines the reliability and gravity of this article. It is extremely radical and ridiculous. Obviously no movements find cancer desirable. It kills people for crying out loud! This is just uncalled for and is a stain on this article. I'm removing it whether it's in the source or not (which it probably isn't considering "unwilling submission"; and if it is, the source is unreliable because that is a ridiculous claim). WP:IAR Charles35 (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase indicates why there is no counter-movement, it's not radical in my opinion. Yes, obviously no movements consider breast cancer desirable - and that is why there is no counter-movement. I see it as an obvious, but important point. I've replaced it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want this here? Since you acknowledge the obviousness of it and how it goes without saying, why do you consider it an important point? The sentence is saying that the BCA movement has been uniquely successful. And then it gives the fact that there is no movement that desires BC as a rationale for why it is successful. That makes absolutely no sense. Even if there were no such thing as BCA, there would still never be a movement that considers BC desirable. So it isn't like the fact that there is no movement that considers BC desirable is a reflection of how successful the BCA movement is. It is completely unrelated to the BCA movement. It really says absolutely nothing about the BCA movement, and therefore is irrelevant and just taking up space.
Not to mention it sticks out like a sore thumb and it is completely out of line and inappropriate. By simply saying this, you are implying that this is a bad thing. Thus, you are saying that there should be a movement that considers BC desirable. This is a horrible thing to say and it taints this wikipedia article and reflects horribly on wikipedia in general. Your less than average reader is going to read this and be like, "what the hell? Why are they saying this? Is breast cancer actually a good thing? Maybe I should tell my (dying) mother to stop going to the doctor because it's actually a good thing. I bet the doctors and awareness people are just lying to her to support their business and get kickbacks."
I'm going to remove it again. Charles35 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You made your point with "no countermovement opposes the breast cancer movement". Just leave it at that. Charles35 (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most countermovements arise not out of the idea that we should oppose this movement, but out of the idea that we should oppose the aims of this movement. So if you believe that deafness is good, then you don't oppose just the inclusive education movement itself; you oppose the whole point of inclusive education, which is to have Deaf children spend proportionally less time with Deaf people and more time with hearing people. You would support residential schools for Deaf children, you would oppose cochlear implants, you would support sign-only instruction, and so forth. And in providing opposition to the ideas, you fulfill an important purpose in the competition of ideas in the marketplace, encourage the inclusive-everything supporters to refine their ideas, and give people viable options: if I have a Deaf child, do I follow the pro-inclusion movement or the pro-Deaf-identity movement, or even a third movement that takes bits from each?
That source of opposition isn't going to happen with cancer. There's no countermovement, because the primary source of countermovements isn't available. This has practical effects on the existing BCA movement: no countermovement means no spur to innovation, no reason to do better, none of the benefits from competition. Our existing BCA movement would be better if it encountered some opposition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The breast cancer brand is strong: people who support the "pink brand" are members of the socially aware niche market, who are in favor of improved lives for women, trust medical science and believe in a future without breast cancer (Sulik 2010, page 22).

WLU, why do you insist on having "trust medical science" without including "research" somewhere in there? I'm sorry, but the only option I have is to assume bad faith. It seems like you want to deceive people into thinking "medical practice" when they hear "medical science" instead of the actual "science" of medicine (ie the research driven scientific, academic study, not the practice of medicine). Not only is that wrong, but it might influence people away from medicine, which is unethical. I'm going to edit it to "trust biomedical science". Sure, it doesn't say that in the source, but we all know that that is what Suilk means. There is no reason to be so stubborn about your "source rule" unless you are in bad faith. It is the right thing to do to inform the reader of what exactly we are talking about here. "Biomedical science" is, for all intents and purposes, the same exact thing, because all medical science involves biology. But the "bio" prefix specifies that we are talking about the academic/research discipline, not the medical practice. Charles35 (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still find your arguments unconvincing, perhaps because sometimes I miss obvious points and appreciate the "oh, well, of course" that accompanies even an obvious statement. There is nothing wrong with being explicit, but one can gain from it, and it is useful because it points out why there is a lack of a counter-movement. One speaks to fact, the other speaks to reason. So I've replaced it again. Your hypothetical "less than average reader" may appreciate being led to points that appear obvious to you.
"Research" does not cure breast cancer, except for limited patients. "Medical research science" is nonsensical. "Scientific medical research" is something, but ultimately it is medical science that cures because it is application. "Medical research science" simply doesn't make sense. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the fight over this particular point is off-target, because if either of you ever read the whole book, you'll see that the distinction between medical science and medical practice is unimportant to the pink culture. The culture supports trusting your own personal mainstream medical doctor, not just trusting the mainstream medical researchers.
And Charles, I believe this has been pointed out before, but we don't ever "emphasize or de-emphasize verifiable facts so that readers will make the "right" choice in the real world". WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WLU (1st paragraph), I don't understand most of your comment, particularly the first paragraph. If you are referring back to the "believes breast cancer to be desirable" thing, then I'll say that you very clearly made the point with "no counter-movement". The desiring BC, regardless of the intention, comes off as extremely radical and very inappropriate.
WhatamIdoing, I appreciate you pointing out that rule, and while there is some of that influencing this point of mine, it also is influenced by the simple fact that I think it should be made clear. When I first read this sentence, I thought "trust in medicine" (ie trust in doctors). Then, just yesterday I believe, after working on this for what - a month and a half now? - I realized that this is talking about the research-driven science. Sure, the distinction may be unimportant to the pink culture, but in this sentence, Sulik is talking about the science, not the practice.
WLU (2nd paragraph), correct - research does not cure breast cancer. But research does find or discover a cure. When we are talking about "trust [in] medical science", we aren't talking about trust in doctors to cure individuals, we are talking about trust in the science of biology/medicine to find a cure for cancer (as in the disease itself, not the disease in a set of individuals).
Personally, I don't think "biomedical science" is appropriate here. Do you have any ideas on how to make it clear to the reader while still maintaining high precision? This is the sentence again, for reference: ...who are in favor of improved lives for women, trust biomedical science and believe in a future without breast cancer. Since the last 2 clauses (trust science & believe in future w/out BC) refer somewhat to the same thing (a cure), what if we were to consolidate the 2? What do you think of this?: "...who are in favor of improved lives for women and trust medical science to find a cure and create a future without breast cancer." That is still relatively highly precise in depicting the source, but it also makes the meaning very clear. It says the exact phrase that Sulik uses - "medical science". No "research" no "bio-", nothing.
WhatamIdoing, do you have any thoughts on "find BC to be desirable"? My point is that the sentence currently ties the "unique success" of BCA to the fact that there is "no countermovement that finds BC desirable". The problem is (well, aside from the fact that that is a crazy thing to say) that the two are not related in reality. The success of BCA happened on its own. It is not "because" of the lack of a countermovement finding BC desirable. One way to look at it is that, if there were no BCA movement, there would still be no movement that finds BC desirable. Another way argument I will show formally. This will be in the form of reductio ad absurdum. The current argument is that since there is no countermovement (A), the BCA movement is successful (B). So, an equivalent formulation of that says that if A were to exist, then B would not be successful. That is a conditional (if A, then not B; or A -> ~B). Now, assume that A does in fact exist (so, assume that there is a countermovement that finds BC desirable). Would ~B result? Would there the BCA movement lose its success? No. Of course not. Nobody would stop supporting BCA because the countermovement is ridiculous and silly. People would look at the countermovement the same way they look at Scientology, if not worse. So, is (A -> ~B) true? No, it isn't. Charles35 (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to make sure this was clear - this doesn't mean that it is illogical to say that countermovements in general have nothing to do with it. It just means that countermovements founded on the idea that BC is desirable have nothing to do with it. For instance, it might be logical to say that countermovements that oppose corruption might have made a difference in BCA's success. Charles35 (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BCA might be equally successful at some things, if a countermovement existed, but it would not be equally successful "at the establishment of the brand and the entrenchment of the breast cancer movement" if it had competition. A countermovement would prevent the "pink brand" from so completely owning BCA. This sentence is about two specific areas of success, not overall success. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I disagree but whatevs I'll give it to you. I think it's simply bizarre to even mention people enjoying any form of cancer, or any fatal illness in general. It's provocative, radical, and insulting to a rather sensitive subject. On a different note, I saw that you also reverted "linked to" back to WLU's "contribute to". I am very confused as to why you both are pushing for something that isn't in the sources. The sources say "linked to". I don't care if you have a 2-1 consensus on that. Your precious sources, WLU, say "LINKED TO." 107.0.32.54 (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys change it again without citing a source that accounts for all of the changes (ie if the source says alcohol but not the others, then separate them), then I will have to make a section on the Admin incidents noticeboard. Charles35 (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ANI is the wrong forum, as you've been told there.
  • The requirement technically is that it be possible to verify the information in some reliable source, not that the existing citation use the exact words. I've proven above that it is possible to verify the information in the best-quality sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Social role of the woman with breast cancer

allows people to choose support for awareness as a personal identity or lifestyle.

This sentence is saying that people can choose BCA as their personal identity or lifestyle. It gives no limiting modifier, so you are left to assume that BCA is their primary identity or lifestyle. I think a more accurate way of saying this is: allows people to incorporate support for awareness into their personal identity or lifestyle.

People can, and in fact do, choose BCA as their primary identity. Many orgs' best volunteers live and breathe BCA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's primary identity is BCA. Your identity as Charles or Whatamidoing comes way before it is "breast cancer awareness". And that's just your name. There are plenty of other identities. What is wrong with "incorporate...into their..." It's more accurate, makes more sense, and doesn't take anything away from your point. What are the chances that you oppose literally every proposed change? This feels like a presidential debate, not a shared effort to improve wikipedia. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that change. The only difference is that it makes more sense. Not saying the way it's currently written makes no sense or is wrong. I'm just saying that this makes more sense. It's an addition. Not a subtraction. Think about it - you say that people can, and do, choose BCA as their primary identity. Well, "incorporate" covers both those that choose it as their primary and those who choose it as a less important one too. It's not like your idea is lost or anything.
That's your personal opinion. It is not reality. Cancer patients, HIV+ people, infertile women, and other people with significant medical issues really do adopt their disease as their primary identity. I don't believe that it's healthy, but it does happen.
The sentence, however, doesn't say that people are adopting it as their primary lifestyle or identity. It only says that they are adopting it as a lifestyle or identity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The She-ro

First, in my opinion, this section needs to be cut into at least 2 paragraphs. This isn't critical. It just is a lot of material for one paragraph.

In the sentence that speaks of Gayle Sulik's analysis, it would probably be a good idea to mention that the "she-ro" is a social construct, and that it isn't as if all "she-ros" present an aesthetically appealing, upper-class, heterosexual feminine appearance and rationalizing the selfishness of treatment as a temporary measure. I mean you can't say that there is a set of people in this world who have all used the exact same rationalization, who are all upper-class, who are all attractive, who are all straight, etc. This is a social construct and we are talking about a representation or the epitome of the manifestation of a "she-ro". The paragraph reads like a Marxist-esque "grand storyline" that sociology tries to avoid. WP:TONE crossed my mind...

Lastly, many of the citations use upwards of 20+ pages. Could you try to be a little more specific so that it is more realistic for someone to go into the text and find the exact pages? For example, you've got Sulik's 225-272 (47 pages) and 279-301 (22 pages), and that's just this section. I don't think it would be too difficult to cite the specific pages for have-it-all superwoman.

If you just want to know whether a given exact word is in the book, then you can ask your favorite book search engine. But if you want to know whether the whole sentence is DUE, appropriate, and accurately reflects the sources' whole ideas, rather than whether it cpies an isolated word, then you really do have to read the entire relevant section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will read the entire section. But that will take some time. If a word, which happens to be a relatively extremely rare word (we're talking about "superwoman" here), isn't supported by the source, then I'd like to take it down faster than it takes me to read 50 pages. If you can't do it, no biggie. But if you have it on hand and you happen to remember, I'd appreciate it =) Note: I don't mean just for "superwoman". that was just an example.
The word superwoman appears twice in the book (not counting the index). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
who aggressively fights breast cancer through compliance with mainstream medical advice.

"Compliance" here is uncalled for. It's not like doctors are holding her at gunpoint and forcing her to comply. She chose to listen to this advice, and often times medical opinions may be in contradiction with each other (ie "second opinion"). If this occurs, she must actively choose her advice. I'm going to put "fights BC through mainstream medicine." Please discuss here.

the she-ro is diagnosed early due to rigid adherence to early screening recommendations.

Likewise, I am going to delete "rigid". It's simply uncalled for and inappropriately harsh.

rationalizing the selfishness of treatment as a temporary measure and feeling guilty that it forces her to put her needs momentarily above the needs of others or due to her perceived inadequacy in caring her family or other women with cancer.

This is WAY over the top, almost as bad as "finds BC desirable". And it's not technically a run-on sentence but it's really difficult to read. I don't think I the right person to try to edit this because . WLU, since you've made a lot of good edits for material like this, would you be able to take a look at it and let me know what you think?

You still haven't read the source, have you?
Guilt is a huge theme in real survivors' stories.
The breast cancer culture (as you would know, if you read the source) attributes survival to complete, rigid, no-exceptions adherence to screening, and not merely "medicine" but to compliance with medical advice. It approaches something of a superstition: there are women who blame their unfavorable cancer stage at diagnosis on having gotten their mammogram just one or two months later than they believe they should have. Similarly, it's not "the field of medicine" in general that saves them; it is their choice to precisely follow their doctor's advice that saves them.
You need to get a copy of this book and start reading it, one page after another, until you get to the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay this "have you read the book" thing is not that important. NO, I haven't read the book yet. I'll let you know when I buy it if you want me to. But you don't need to read the entire book in order to make edits on wikipedia. I'm not going to read the book beginning to end like that. I am going to read excerpts. But why does it really matter? Are you interested in my reading habits? We're talking about edits, not editors.
I understand the superstition idea. Trust me, I am assuming that the ideas in this material are an accurate reflection of the sources. But "compliance" and "rigid" just aren't necessary. This article isn't called Pink Ribbon Blues. Sure we can use Sulik's source, but the article ≠ Pink Ribbon Blues. Her ideas already take up an undue amount of the article, and sometimes it isn't in an encyclopedic tone. Her ideas are still here, but without some words like "rigid" and "compliance", it sounds less like a Marxist literary narrative that sociologists condemn.
You said guilt is a huge theme in real survivors' stories. This sentence has a lot more than guilt going on. It's got selfishness, undermining family members, rationalizations. It is a severe sentence. Charles35 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from the book, which does indeed emphasize discipline (i.e. rigid adherence). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the book, or even just the last half of it, you would realize that those are the main points. Actually, if you just read the table of contents (start with chapter six), you'd realize that those are major points. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences

Like the section above it, "Consequences" should probably be broken into 2 or more paragraphs.

The effort of maintaining the role of a she-ro can be stressful.

This is uncited POV.

Once again, the absence of a citation at the end of that very sentence is not proof that the material is uncited. This is what we call a topic sentence. It summarizes the material that you find (and find explicitly cited) later in the same paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite occasional efforts at memorials, such as displaying the names of women who have died, these women's experiences are not validated and represented.

I don't see the point of such as displaying the names of women who have died. It is rather obvious, unnecessary and out of place. Not only is it obvious, but it just isn't really all that relevant or worth mentioning. The obviousness and pointlessness is making me suspicious of some sort of polyester type of argument going on here.

We give examples of other events, so why not this one? There are all sorts of things that they could do, like lighting candles or releasing balloons or planting trees. It happens that displaying the names of dead breast cancer patients is the one that they most commonly choose. Why not say so? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Displaying the names of people that have died? What does that mean? Like, making a poster that says "Kerry, Stephanie, Jean"? When I first read it, my best guess was that it meant displaying the names of people on their gravestones. Then I thought: well, considering the names of everyone that has died are written on their gravestones, this is pointless. I understand why someone would add it though. The point being made is that "well, it's not like they didn't do anything. They gave them a funeral." That's supposed to make the reader think "oh, well everyone gets a funeral. That's nothing special. Wait. They didn't do anything else special for the BC victims?!?! That's wrong!" Instead of things like that, why not just be like "usually, nothing special is done for BC victims"? Regardless of the intentions of whoever put it there, when you read something that is so obviously trying to elicit a reaction like the one I just illustrated, it comes across as deceitful. And deceitful is bad, because it's misleading. However, I might be totally interpreting this wrongly because honestly I am not sure what exactly "displaying names" specifically means.
It's usually a knockoff of the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt. It might be a poster, a permanent sign, labels on certain decorations, or whatever seems manageable. The point is that the people who live get major attention at events, even standing ovations, but the people who died usually get nothing, or at the very most, get their names displayed in a corner somewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are, instead, ignored and shunned as failures...

Like "perceived inadequacy", this is over the top and uncalled for. WLU, do you have anything to say about this? Charles35 (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's true, and it's in the source. Why do you think reality is "over the top and uncalled for"? Are we supposed to pretend that the breast cancer culture doesn't ignore and shun women who are dying just because you find it uncomfortable to believe? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See this is the problem. Let's hypothetically presuppose for a moment that they are indeed ignoring and shunning. You can't generalize that it is for x reason. You don't know that. You aren't talking about any specific women here, so in reality this little "theory" is nothing more than a hypothetical/literary narrative that isn't based on reality. What if they were ignored just because they were mean? Or because nobody even knew who they were in the first place? Or they could be shunned for a different reason than because they have "failed". What gets me most is that the way this narrative is written makes it sound like these are intentional behaviors, as if all the conspirators got together and decided to do this like school girls in a clique. The problem that I have is that it is presented as a fact and it really is a false generalization that sociologists love to hate and is simply a fictional narrative that sociologists prefer not to buy in to.
I might have a little more patience for this if it were to read "they tend to be ignored and shunned..." If you were to present it as an occurrence and a tendency instead of a calculated thing that happens in every single case, then, in my opinion, it might not be over the top. Or, if you presented it this way and didn't use rude words like "shun", then I might not consider it over the top. But when both are done, then it definitely feels over the top, rude, uncalled for, inappropriate, etc. Charles35 (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally might not "know that", but the source does know why dying women are shunned, and it says so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

Women are far more likely to die from heart disease or stroke than from breast cancer

  Deaths from heart disease or stroke (50%)
  Deaths from breast cancer (5%)
  Other (45%)

WLU, I was actually looking for a graphic element, to break up the "gray blur" aspect. The {{pie chart}} template is kind of big, but perhaps you'd like it better? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to construct one with third party software and add it as an image file (.jpg). (disclaimer) If that sounds dumb or makes no sense, please know that I am not a computer person in the slightest. Charles35 (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in theory that would work. The disadvantage is that it wouldn't be editable in the future (e.g., if the numbers change or are determined to be wrong). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reversed the values to try to get the BC deaths to stand out more (success! I think) and so it would appear at the top of the chart (failure!) but I do like it a bit better; even better would be a breakdown of that remaining 45%. A table might be even better, it could start at the top % and work its way down until it got to BC (highlighted in bold or red) or whatever the bottom of the table is. Also, caption at the bottom would look nicer. The size is good though - definitely breaks up the paragraph wall. No matter what, we're better using "endogenous" software than we are constructing something less flexible I think. A graph would be good too, if we could show change in deaths due to BC over time, perhaps relative to other deaths. Need a source though!
The main reason I changed it was because it wasn't rendering properly using my version of explorer, which is an accessibility issue that should be addressed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women are far more likely to die from heart disease or stroke than from breast cancer

  Deaths from breast cancer (2%)
  Deaths from heart disease or stroke (32%)
  Deaths from other cancers (10%)
  Deaths from lung diseases (7%)
  Deaths from injuries (6%)
  Deaths from digestive diseases (3%)
  Deaths from neuropsychiatric disorders (5%)
  Other (35%)
The colors are associated with the diseases, so they need to stick with their stats. Someone's going to look at this and think half of women die from breast cancer.
The numbers in the second box are worldwide rather than developed world (which is where the 5/50 numbers originate). I took them from List of causes of death by rate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A table might be better then, here is an example with made-up numbers. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Causes of death in women
Cause Percentage
Other 35%
Heart disease 25%
Lung cancer 10%
Breast cancer 5%
Choking 3%

Oh, wow, that pie chart is good. Nice job. Are those #s made up too? Or just the table? I can find numbers for those if you want. Charles35 (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I took the numbers in the second pie chart from List of causes of death by rate. They are worldwide, all-age death rates. As such, the rate of heart disease and cancers is understated compared to the developed world (because we don't die of infections nearly as often as people living without sewers do). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody else like the table? WAID, is there a way of automagically rendering bar graphs? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GRAPHS lists {{Bar chart}} and {{Bar box}}. You might look at those. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heart attacks
 
 40%
Accidents
 
 20%
Lung cancer
 
 8%
Breast cancer
 
 5%
Other
 
 27%
Causes of death in women
Causes of death in women
Cause of death Percentage
Heart attacks
40
Accidents
20
Lung cancer
8
Breast cancer
5
Other
27
Here's what the other options are, and there is also {{Vertical bar chart}} (but I couldn't get it to work and apparently it doesn't meet accessibility guidelines). I still think the table, with a bit of tweaking, could be the clearest option, but what do others think? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NBCAM's purpose

About this change to make it "less definitive":

Here's what the cited source says: "The aim of NBCAM from its inception has been to promote mammography as the most effective weapon in the fight against breast cancer."

That sounds pretty definitive to me. In fact, that rather suggest that the only purpose of NBCAM is promoting mammography. Is that how you read that sentence? I recommend clicking the link and reading the whole paragraph in context. You'll learn something about AstraZeneca's generosity in the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does it for me here, and, oddly enough, what Sulik herself writes, is that we are talking about the "official" NCBAM. This has been my argument the whole time: you are talking about an organization's goal. You are talking about the NCBAM as legislated by whichever company created it. But, there is sooooo much more to October in regards to BCA than the "official" founder. For each individual, the month of Oct. is not some goal written down on a piece of paper. It has to do with all the things I've been mentioning - community, coping skills, free food, awareness for things other than mammography. You can't honestly tell me that every person walks into each fundraiser thinking "Okay, game plan: we are going to make everyone so aware of mammographies." Overall, the function (ie the purpose) of NCBAM is not just awareness of mammographies. Sulik herself writes "official." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 23:13, November 13, 2012‎
Yes, there are many events in October (and other times of the year), but NBCAM itself is a specific organization. Think of it as "National Breast Cancer Awareness Month™", not as "a month in which breast cancer awareness happens to be promoted".
The official NBCAM is the dominant one, because basically all the big players are formally a part of it, and between them, they run most of the events. Some of the technically unaffiliated events are doing the same things, and the ones that have a different aim are definitely in the minority.
The other problem with your line of thinking is that you're considering primarily the perspective of the attendees. The purpose of an event (no matter what type of event) is determined by the event organizers, not by the attendees. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, an explicit source is needed. This point has one, published by a university press. The purpose of the founder of one campaign is a noteworthy item. Nobody is precluded from adding more purposes provided appropriate sourcing can be found. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Can we at least add the word 'official' somewhere, to make it clear that this is the official organization we are talking about, not the organic social phenomenon? Charles35 (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a go, we'll see how we like it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up, again, on the edit summaries: You cannot say that "The ACS set forth the purpose" unless you have an actual source that says the ACS did this, rather than the completely independent organization created by the ACS and AZ did this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, instead of dangling it over my head like that, why don't you please just tell me who actually did set it forth? I reviewed the source yet again but I don't think I can definitively say what the organization is, so I'm going to change it to "the organization that runs the NBCAM..." Charles35 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is redundant, but at least accurate. NBCAM == the organization that runs NBCAM. Think of it as NBCAM™, not just a generic month in which breast cancer awareness is frequently promoted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is how I think about it (thanks to you educating me of it). But it isn't about what I think. It's about the average reader. When the average reader reads this, he or she thinks "the entire purpose of the month, the main reason that my Mom talks about it to her friends, is because of mammograms." This is why I keep stressing that this material is for an encyclopedia, not an academic journal. You need to make it clear to your average reader. Charles35 (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that official events dominate the month, and that many unofficial events have the same goal, then the readers' interpretation of the original sentene would be correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ at top of page

The FAQ itself is biased. You are presupposing that your position is the correct one. Read it out loud and listen to it. You are not even considering the possibility of the alternative perspectives being correct. Nor are you representing them fairly. They are not just the "views of the everyday public". These views have been thought out carefully and not even views on breast cancer awareness. They are views on the appropriateness of your critique (although, you have excluded relevant material in favor of breast cancer).

I urge you to take that down. It is not fair, and it gives everyone who visits the page an immediate bias. Why do they deserve to hear your opinion first? It's quite simply a piece of propaganda. You put it up there - like you do the material on this article - as if it is complete and utter fact. There's no question about it! Those naysayers are simply uneducated!

Please remove it.

And, since I got no response from the last comment I made, I will take that as a "go ahead and edit the article". Charles35 (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAQs are used when inexperienced editors tend to use personal taste as a reason to remove valid, sourced content. Often this occurs when the editor in question personally disagrees with the information, finds it personally offensive, or in some other way feels that their personal opinion trumps a reliable source. It does not. FAQs like that are used to forestall such inappropriate edits and removal of content. There is no problem with adding information and sources that discuss the positive aspects of breast cancer awareness - the FAQ is meant to prevent people from removing appropriate content. I don't see any issue with the FAQ such that removing it is a necessity, though I can see how it would be useful at forestalling zealous editors who do not understand content policies like WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I do not support removing it.
Please feel free to add more information if you can find appropriate sources, but please be careful when editing what is already there, and please do not remove large volumes of critical text outright. And of course, your edits may still be undone. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is unfair. You falsely equivocate "new editor" with "you don't know what you're talking about". It's very insulting. Your "status" clearly feels threatened. And it's misleading. It isn't you that's overzealous? Pushing radical nonsense? Of course not! And it puts a false picture in peoples' head before they come to the table. It supports your power. WP:OOA I have very little patience for this blatant corrupt authoritarian cronyist censorship anymore. Charles35 (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to add more information if you can find appropriate sources - I don't need sources to make the edits (until I get to the adding-new-material stage). There was a process that was done incorrectly. When the author wrote this article, (s)he "translated" the material from the sources to the text here. (S)he did so incorrectly. (1) (S)he added inappropriate material (eg inner circle, the she-ro (et al) essay); (2) (s)he didn't attribute opinions (eg slactivism); (3) (s)he added false material (I just started reviewing the sources, and I have already found discrepancies); (4) (s)he was misleading and biased (eg wearing polyester saves no lives); and (5) (s)he put material in improper sections. None of that requires new sources. I am modifying already sourced material to make it appropriate for encyclopedic standards. I could add all the new material I want (and I will), but that doesn't change the faulty material that's already there. Charles35 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So me pointing out that new editors do not understand wikipedia's somewhat counterintuitive meaning of "neutral" is insulting, but you think accusing other editors of "blatant corrupt authoritarian cronyist censorship" is fine?
How is the material inappropriate? You have spent a lot of time on this talk page, but your actual edits produce pretty minor changes that honestly I don't think most people would spend much time arguing about. If you are saying a source blatantly doesn't verify a point, then be specific about which source and which point (or more accurately, edit the page with that in your edit summary). Your lengthy walls of text include large amounts of speculation - when you should just see what the sources say and see if the attached text matches instead of trying to guess what is really being said or the "motivation" behind the text. Throwing around words like "deceit", "joke" and "corrupt" just irritates people. Calm down, lay off the accusations, check the sources and shorten your posts. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting upset by your persistent condescending tone and actions and your ad hominemic tendencies. It's clear that you respond differently to the same edits when I make them and when others make them. You revert the smallest of my edits because I don't have a "source" (edits that have nothing to do with sources), yet someone removed "status symbol". If I removed that it would have no question been reverted in no time with no explanation other than "get sources" even though the reason given has to do with neutrality. But since I'm a "new" editor, you have a different reaction. I thought it was edits, not editors? The focus on length of time editing wikipedia is not only irrelevant because I do understand the issues, but is bigotic (if that's a word) and dogmatic. It's ad hominemic. Charles35 (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, you do need sources. Really. You either need the existing sources, so that you can say, "See? This cited source doesn't actually say what you said it did!" or you need new sources, so that you can say, "See? Someone else has a different take on this." Without sources, you can't prove that there is a single error anywhere in this. All you can do without sources is prove that one guy on the Internet personally believes that there's a problem with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't fret. I will be consulting the sources. I will be reviewing all of Sulik's material, and possibly Ehrenreich's. And then I will be adding new material with new sources. But first, I want to correct a process that I believe was done incorrectly. It's called "constructing an encyclopedia. I am currently working under an assumption that all of the material here is true (except for things I know are false, like the idea that the facebook thing was a marketing ploy). Charles35 (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing is not enough, wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If you "know" because you read it somewhere, that's fine - cite the source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The facebook thing wasn't (exactly) an advertisement (ie for a marketable, financial product - the common use of the word "ad"), and it certainly was not marketing. It's the truth. Anyone else that uses facebook can vouch for me. WP:BLUE. Please, link me to WP:NOTBLUE, because I haven't read it yet. Too late, I actually have. BTW - in this case, it is not easier to find a source than to argue over it. Where are you ever going to find a source that says the facebook thing wasn't an ad? If they're writing about the thing, why would they take the effort to specify that it isn't an ad? You think you're going to find: "In 2009, a facebook meme emerged in which several women posted the color of their bras. Note: this was neither an advertisement nor a reality tv show."???? Charles35 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point to WP:PROVEIT - unsourced information can be removed by anyone, and it's up to the replacing editor to reference it. And it's a policy, not an essay. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Why do you have to "point" to anything? Just ask anyone that uses facebook. But alright, fine. You win. Keep the false material up here on wikipedia. If it means you win, then it's worth it.

On second thought: http://allfacebook.com/facebook-bra-color_b9596; trueslant.com/lisacullen/2010/01/11/who-started-the-facebook-bra-color-campaign-guy-claims-its-him/. I doubt two blog posts are good enough to override Kingston's article, but who knows? Maybe you can think of something to convince yourself to override your own rule to remove material that we already know is false....

In either case, the exact same info is included 2 sections above this - "Pink Ribbon" section - "...and compared to equally simple yet ineffective "awareness" practices like the drive for women to post the colors of their bras on Facebook." ; "Advertisements" section - "Some marketing blurs the line..." - Why have this twice? Since we both know it wasn't an ad, why not just move the second, more detailed info to the first spot? That way it's still here, which is exactly what I wanted to accomplish in the first place, instead of deleting it altogether. But that way it wouldn't be repeated (or false). Charles35 (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this FAQ is very much contrary to Wikipedia's spirit of continuous discussion and consensus-building as it suggests to editors who are new to this article that their viewpoints will not be tolerated. While I agree that the arguments against the breast cancer awareness movement should be included, I strongly disagree that this article reflects the tone of the preponderance of mainstream sources. As I have examined the cited newspaper articles today I've found that many of them include BOTH criticism of organizations such as Komen as well as responses to that criticism. Yet this article presents only the critical viewpoint. Here are some examples:

Before I changed it, this article included criticism of Ford's promotion but didn't include a response from Ford. It included the viewpoint that many companies use cause marketing for shallow reasoning but it didn't include the viewpoint from prominent advertising people that cause marketing is only effective when it represents a sincere belief on the part of the company.
Before I changed it, this article included an attack on this movement for promoting consumerism without a response from Komen.
The article includes attacks on the breast cancer movement for ignoring environmental causes of breast cancer but it doesn't include that Komen made a million dollars in grants last year to study environmental causes (see their last annual report) or that they specifically addressed this issue in a scientific report covered in the Washington Post.
The article includes criticism of companies like AstraZenica on the basis of conflict of interest, but it does not include any reply from those companies (such as the one found in the cited Tampa Times article)

I also have concerns about undue weight, about the article stating opinions as fact, and about the article describing what are essentially social science constructs as if they are universal truths. The other cases where I have seen talk page FAQs (for instance Israeli-Palestinian conflict) seek to inform editors of a consensus that has been arrived at through extensive discussions on policy. It is clear from this talk page that the policy issues here have NOT been settled and that there are valid policy-based reasons to question why this article is so critical. To suggest at the top of the page that there is a definitive answer to that question is against the spirit of policies such as Wikipedia:Consensus can change and WP:OWN. GabrielF (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:GEVAL issue: unlike newspapers, we don't pretend to be "even-Steven" or provide a right of reply. We provide both sides when both sides have equal support in independent sources. They don't, in this case (unlike in major geopolitical disputes), so we don't.
Put another way, on Wikipedia, the views of academics are far more important than the views of self-serving corporate spokespersons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're cherry-picking sources that support a particular ideology and then pretending that other sources are not valid. You're welcome to advance this position but it is inappropriate to put a note at the top of the talk page telling others that their opinions are not valid. I can see no policy basis for the FAQ and plenty of policy reasons against it. GabrielF (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a FAQ is to provide the initial answers to frequently asked questions. This question has been asked several times, and it has been answered with basically the same information every time, namely that the core content policies absolutely and directly require that we ignore "views of editors" and "views of the general public" and write only the "views of the published reliable sources". There is a significant gap between the "views of the readers" and the "views of the published reliable sources" on this subject, and the FAQ accurately explains why the contents of the article surprises the readers. Providing basic answers to common questions is what you're supposed to do with a FAQ.
I am not "cherry-picking sources that support a particular ideology". There simply are no WP:Independent secondary sources that say the modern state of breast cancer awareness is a flawless thing. There are very significant complaints, and the criticisms appear in all high-quality sources. Some of the criticisms IMO aren't warranted (e.g., IMO it's silly for people to demand that Komen focus on basic research; medical research should be done by an org that is good at that kind of work, and Komen should be left to get on with the work that they're actually [extremely] good at), but the criticisms are common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if you look at social science research, then what has been published about this movement has been highly critical. However, the conclusions that these critics draw are relevant to fields outside of social science. Questions they ask are relevant to public policy (how should public resources be allocated?), medicine (which methods of prevention are more effective? what factors cause this disease?), marketing and advertising (how effective is cause marketing?). The discourse about the breast cancer awareness movement that is taking place in these fields is very different than what a review of only the social science research suggests. For instance, advertising experts interviewed by the NY Times present a much more nuanced picture of the effectiveness of associating a product with breast cancer research: they suggest that the public is cynical about these campaigns and is smart enough to distinguish between opportunistic marketing and a deep commitment on the part of a company. Similarly, the Institute of Medicine, which is about as authoritative source as you can get, differs significantly from breast cancer critics on the question of whether chemicals cause breast cancer. The criticisms are common, but they do not dominate the discourse on this topic. GabrielF (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to have other disciplines involved, but you've misunderstood the IOM report (didn't actually read any of it, did you?). The IOM's 400+ page report did not say that they believe "chemicals" don't cause breast cancer. It was also not "research" in the sense that our readers understand that term. The IOM merely re-read the previously published research on the topic, which provides inadequate proof of a connection—inadequate precisely because the critics are right that relatively little work has been done to discover non-genetic causes of breast cancer, and very little work has been done to determine whether environmental pollution (your "chemicals") are a significant cause. ("Environmental" in cancer-research terms means "anything that is not genetically inherited". Background cosmic radiation, diet, infections, etc. are all "environmental".) The IOM report spends 19 pages outlining the research that still hasn't been done on this subject. The IOM report, in short, doesn't disagree with the critics in the environmental breast cancer movement. It says that they're right: there's an enormous amount of work to be done.
So you're trying to frame this report as biomedical research, which it isn't, and as a sign that Komen is doing something major about environmental causes, which they aren't. Sure, Komen paid for the summary and meetings, which was great. But that sum is less than 0.05% of the money Komen has spent over the years. More than 99.95% of Komen's money went elsewhere. All you've really done is prove that the critics and independent secondary sources are right: Komen doesn't focus on this particular area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you're trying to frame this report as biomedical research, which it isn't, and as a sign that Komen is doing something major about environmental causes, which they aren't.
This is your own POV on the issue. It has appeared here on this article in several instances UN-SOURCED, in inappropriately harsh language, especially in the Achievements and Environmental sections, much of which I deleted the other day. One portion you immediately reverted and cited with 50 pages from Sulik's book. Can you please be more specific so that I can actually verify it? If you are taking info from 50 different pages and creating your own conclusion from that, that is, and you told me this, WP:SYNTH.
namely that the core content policies absolutely and directly require that we ignore "views of editors"
A few things on this: mysteriously, we aren't required to ignore the (un-sourced) views you agree with, including polyester (used in the manner it was in this article), inner circle, pesticides parabens & phthalates, "stricter environmental legislation, that might prevent the disease entirely", AZ being a "giant", "the mainstream breast cancer culture being focused on a cure for existing breast cancer cases, rather than on preventing future cases," BC organizations being "prejudiced" against reliable forms of treatment because "a reliable form of prevention would deplete their future supply of dedicated volunteers", and many, many others.
You say we should ignore the views of editors. I imagine you are talking about a group of people that generally opposes you (including everyone that has ever posted on this talk page before I got here), myself included. What you fail to recognize is that our views DO in fact matter. Our views are very valid. Your issue is that you see our views as views on content, when in reality they are views on policy. I won't speak for others, but I don't have a content-driven agenda; I just want to make sure this article is not biased or misleading. Usually when one so quickly does something like presuppose that other's views are content-driven, they are liking them to their own views. So in reality, they are making a statement about themselves.
we don't pretend to be "even-Steven"
This is the epitome of my issue with the FAQ - you dont even consider the possibility that providing a more balanced viewpoint might actually be justified. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But you don't even stop to check. You jump right to "we dont give equal weight when it isnt called for". THAT is my problem with this FAQ.
There is a significant gap between the "views of the readers" and the "views of the published reliable sources" on this subject
No there isnt - I, on the whole, disagree with the sources (specifically Sulik and Ehrenrich and maybe King). You, and some other editors here, agree with the sources (that you opine are valid). One of us has to be right, no? Again, you haven't even taken the time to consider the possibility that my the people that disagree with you might just have valid views too. You buy in to the false dichotomy where it's "pro vs anti", "Komen vs the good guys", "published independent sources vs overzealous editors". The world isn't this black&white. Views can oppose each other yet still be valid at the same time. And that's how it often is. More importantly, there are also third choices. Non-aligned views; neutral ones. They are still views, and they are still valid. For instance, I believe there should be more neutral info on this article. It shouldn't just be "opinion x, argument y, opinion z, argument n, opinion b, fact d, argument c," with one fact per 3 opinions and 3 arguments. It should be more like "fact a, fact b, fact c, opinion d, fact e, fact f, fact g, fact h, fact i, argument j, fact k...." You get the picture. The "fact / opinion" ratio in this article should be much, much higher than it currently is. I hope that explanation makes sense.
There simply are no WP:Independent secondary sources that say the modern state of breast cancer awareness is a flawless thing.
This is the same lying by ommission (intentional or not) seen in polyester argument. NOTHING is flawless. Nothing is perfect. There are problems with everything. Yet when you presuppose the notion that something is flawless, when it doesnt live up to that, you play it off as if it is 100% flaw-full. It's another instance of black&white thinking. It isn't a dichotomy of perfect vs flawed. For example, there are no "WP:Independent secondary sources" that say democracy is flawless, yet, does the democracy article show this much hatred and demonizing?
you act like komen defense isnt valid because of conflict of interest:
This issue has come up several times on this talk page. You need to consider Komen's defense of itself because NOBODY is going to bother to do it for them. It's the nature of the world. People care about, talk about, defend, themselves! Do you see people taking the time to publish defenses of the Catholic Church, for example? No. The only ones that do are the Church itself or those paid by the Church to do so for them. Everyone has a conflict of interest, including the academics. They wouldn't be writing if it weren't going to earn them a doctorate. Don't they have a conflict of interest as well? They only publish criticism. It's sociology for crying out loud! That's how all of sociology is - racism, sexism, distribution of wealth, oppression. It's all inherently negative. If these people wrote defenses, do you think there would be any point to it? What do you think their professors would say? "Uh... this isn't exactly what I had in mind, but okay..." Doctorates in fact MUST have original takes (which are, the overwhelming majority of the time, critical; ie in social science, at least). You can't just defend an organization and use the arguments that are already out there. And almost all of the pro-arguments have already been presented. But there's no limit to coming up with criticisms.
Similarly, the Institute of Medicine - GabrielF, this is what ive been trying to push the whole time. Apparently, only critical social science sources are allowed. Another instance of black&white thinking: this article is social science; the BC article is hard science. That's the end of it. There is a clear line of demarcation. No if's and's or but's about it. This is, as usual, false, like most black&white thinking. Charles35 (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow. I see much of it was taken down. I didn't know that when I wrote the above. Charles35 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that Komen is not a major player in environmental research is not "my POV": everyone, including Komen, agrees with this.
  • The reason I cited 50 pages is because Sulik's book contains an entire chapter on that subject. Summarizing an entire chapter (or an entire book) into one or two sentences is permissible, and you can easily verify the material by reading the entire chapter.
  • All the stuff that you assert is "un-sourced" (e.g., that critics worry about parabens, that AZ [the seventh largest pharma company in the world] is a "giant") is WP:Verifiable. NB that "verifiable" is not synonymous with "immediately followed by an inline citation".
  • There is a significant gap between the "views of the readers" and the "views of the published reliable sources", and the fact that you disagree with the sources is proof of that.
  • Independent sources do defend others against inappropriate criticism. For example, plenty of non-Catholic sources defend the Catholic Church when they believe it is unfairly criticized. Plenty of independent people defended Shirley Sherrod when she was unfairly criticized. We shouldn't rely entirely self-serving, non-independent sources. If nobody except "me" defends my actions, then we should present the facts as being everyone against "me". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have rephrased the lead into the FAQ and replaced it at the top of the page. I think it is quite important as the average reader may come to the page expecting it to be happiness and sunshine, then be quite concerned over someone daring to venture criticism of what is supposed to be pink and fuzzy and happy. This is an important point to make - the essence of scholarly criticisms of BCA is that the mixed optimistic-pessimistic reality is being over-ridden by the unstinting insistence on happy thoughts. The criticisms are made in highly respected, highly reliable sources. FAQs exist to cut off efforts to sanitize pages of perspectives by deleting material and sources that individual editors do not like. The FAQ should remain because it lays out the criteria for material - sources, not personal opinions. Is there anything incorrect in the principles the FAQ discusses? Are objections based on policies and guidelines, or personal tastes?
I have no objection to GabrielF's addition of sources; looking over his edits, they do provide valuable information that was missing. As I have said several times - the efforts should be directed at expanding what is missing rather than tearing out what is reliably sourced on the basis of ill-founded objections based on personal taste. Breast cancer awareness has been very helpful in raising awareness, improving screening (though that itself is problematic), fundraising for research and related topics - but as Sulik and other sources say, it often does this at the expense of extremely rigid roles and expectations that can be harmful and painful to some sufferers. The page reflects this, as it should. If editors feel the page is inappropriately imabalaced towards criticism, then certainly the page would be improved by the addition of reliable sources emphasizing the positive aspects of BCA. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The side you are against has valid concerns. Many people have agreed that they are valid. The FAQ suggests that they are not. It's not okay for you to exercise that sort of power. Charles35 (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The FAQ is there to ensure editors edit according to reliable sources, not personal preferences. That seems highly valid given the disputes on this page so far. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified the FAQ to remove the implication that this article is "properly balanced". I am okay with explaining to new editors that the criticisms that have been listed are based on reliable sources. I agree that the arguments made by Ehrenreich and other critics are notable and should be covered. However, I do not believe that there is a consensus that the way in which the article currently covers these issues is balanced and conforms to policy. I do not believe that it is appropriate to suggest to new editors that the current form of the article is "properly balanced" because it implies that the issue is closed and I don't believe that to be the case. GabrielF (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WAID has re-modified the FAQ, and I do prefer the point she re-introduced (that a NPOV article may surprise lay readers) to remain. I see Gabriel's point as well, even as I believe the appropriate action is expansion rather than deletion (which I've said before). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time

I'm out of time for now, but this has some serious grammar problems, in addition to removing relevant material and not being any clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slacktivism

Charles, please put pinkwashing slacktivism into your favorite web search engine. I get more than 8,000 hits. Now, does that sound like "Anne Landeman said this", or does that sound like "quite a lot of people said this"? You are misleading the reader by pretending that only one person has said this, and even a trivial effort on your part to check the facts would have prevented that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accountability should be taken for the opinion, and it shouldn't be presented as fact (ie it was a Did you Know? fact. What a joke.). It's not that I didn't put any effort. You are supposed to back up controversial claims with a critic's name. A claim can still be controversial if it is commonly held; this one is surprising to hear. I would consider it controversial. It is certainly controversial to the average reader. Don't want to give fuel to your ad hominemic fire - I find it controversial because I think it's radical; but that's beside the point, because this is about edits, not editors. Charles35 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources say X is fact, but only unreliable sources say Y, which contradicts X, then Wikipedia states X as fact and need not mention Y. Y might be worth mentioning in a "Society and culture" section or something similar, depending upon how much attention it receives from reliable sources. I hope that helps. Biosthmors (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it realistic that we will find a source that says that it isn't slactivism? If a source bothers to use such a specific, not-well-known, and critical term like "slactivism", won't it almost definitely be critical? Why would any pro-BCA source mention this?
Although, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean, since we're talking about an opinion (ie multiple people have denounced). Could you please elaborate? I'd like to understand. Charles35 (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm pretty busy, so I don't know how much time I can devote to this talk page, but what specific change are you proposing? Biosthmors (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add Anne Landeman, *among others*, denounces...as a type of slackivism." *not necessary*.

Also, looking through the rules on this, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says that biased statements like this one should be attributed. Saying "...has been denounced" might be construed as plagiarism, but more to my point, is an unsupported attribution WP:WEASEL. The sentence is a biased opinion, like the example given - "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." If we said Barry Bonds instead of John Doe, almost everyone would agree, but it is still a biased opinion (like F&A's movie example). No matter how much consensus there is in the lit., it is still a biased opinion. In fact, it actually is presented with more substantiation, hence WP:SUBSTANTIATE. It looks better if it is attributed to a reliable source. That way, overzealous editors like myself will not mistake it for an WP:OR with a WP:NPOV.

Also, this is close paraphrasing, which should have an in-text attribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_is_needed). Another one (in the same link) is: Other: Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text. I'm not positive this supports my argument, but I think it does. Objecting to "Other:" ≠ objecting to this whole argument. Charles35 (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help me if you followed this format (and maybe I should write this up in a Wiki-essay)
1. Quote the text you don't like
2. Briefly explain the perceived problem
3. Propose new text that fixes the perceived problem
Anything you can do to make sure we don't plagiarize/too closely paraphrase would be great! Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. The practice of blindly wearing or displaying a pink ribbon without making other, more concrete efforts to cure breast cancer has been described as a kind of slacktivism due to its lack of real effects (Landeman 2008).
2. This should be attributed in-text because it is an opinion, is biased, uses weasel words, is close paraphrasing, lacks substantiation, might be construed as plagiarism, etc. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV WP:WEASEL WP:SUBSTANTIATE WP:NPOV,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_is_needed)
3. Anne Landeman, among others, has described the practice of blindly wearing or displaying a pink ribbon without making other, more concrete efforts to cure breast cancer as a kind of slacktivism due to its lack of real effects.
There's nothing wrong with that. This discussion is becoming polarized like Obama and Romney for no good reason! Charles35 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. Thanks! I have no problem with that edit. =) Biosthmors (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I come off rude here, but why did you revert all of those edits?!??!? Where do you want to discuss them? I don't see what's wrong with any and you didn't give a reason...? Charles35 (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No that doesn't sound rude. I know it can be frustrating to have ones work reverted. I thought what I did was relatively minor, though. Start a new section for each proposed edit? Follow that "silly" little format that worked so nicely above? Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, here is a source that claims slactivism has benefits, even naming wearing a ribbon as an example. However, it's the facebook post of a non-notable person, making it the kind of unreliable source can't use to contradict a reliable one.
Another option is finding more sources to expand the description of the pink ribbon campaign itself. Right now the section is about half context and half criticism. Looking over the critical bits, I can't see a way to trim it down, nor do any of the statements seem egregious. Seems quite reasonable to point out that merely buying a ribbon does little to actually help breast cancer.
If these are the kinds of relatively minor changes that are needed in this article (attributing an opinion is hardly a substantial change to the page), does it really need the {{npov}} tag at the top? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may not qualify as a need but it's a justification. Maybe soon we'll be able to remove the tag. Biosthmors (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the section is about half context and half criticism. - The first two sentences are descriptive; the rest is critique.
I can't see a way to trim it down - Who could blame ya.
nor do any of the statements seem egregious - do they ever...
Seems quite reasonable to point out that merely buying a ribbon does little to actually help breast cancer. - Of course it does.....
The issue here is UNDUE WEIGHT. Sure, this stuff may make some sense, but is it really appropriate to write an entire novel about how horrible BCA is? What is the point of adding a few paragraphs of positive material to a ridiculously long article? It will just get swallowed up in the hatred. I'm sorry, but I can't understand your preoccupation with negativity. Literally nothing you say is positive. You just want to bash BCA and bash BCA and bash it some more. To add to this sea of criticism, you just added more about the facebook bra thing. The article reads like a cracked out feminist. I love feminists and feminism, and I would love for the ideas to be here, but not when they're cracked out. It's like an angry psychotic feminist screaming and yelling about how horrible BCA is, leaving no room for anyone else to have a say, beating it through your head that if you like BCA, then you must be the devil!
Sorry for the rant, but I am so in awe as to how you don't see the overwhelming avalanche of negativity here. I am literally shocked each time you add more and more and more and more criticism. Apparently, it need not read like an article. It need not be organized or have any point. It simply need be a collection of obscene criticisms. I sincerely wish for you to see the positive side of things and collaborate with the world instead of telling it how bad it is. You want to help BCA? Don't just continue scorning it, tell us how to fix it. Tell us what you would do instead. Come up with a solution instead of another problem! Charles35 (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, "angry psychotic" should be taken as a compliment to feminism. I am referring to an article that is extremely unbalanced. One side has devoured the other. Should I call the devouring side "feminist"? Now that would be insulting. Feminism is not like this. Feminism is calm, cool, collected. I am saying that this sort of article contains uncouthly raw, rude, and unrefined feminism, in a very angry form that I can best personify as stimulant psychosis. Had I simply called this devouring "feminism" - that would be insulting. Charles35 (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) I (again) recommend that you try to not use loaded language, and extreme exaggeration, in an attempt to get across how strongly you feel. We do understand. However, descriptions like "angry psychotic feminist" are completely detrimental to civil discussion.
2) Watch the trailer for this National Film Board of Canada documentary, Pink Ribbons, Inc..
3) I think you should read these pieces by someone who has breast cancer [4], [5], [6], and glance at these articles [7] and [8], and definitely this [9].
4) ALL perspectives that are relevant, should be written about. Adding useful/reliable/cited information about how pink ribbon advocates are trying to inspire hope, and collect money to be used for research, (and how effective/ineffective they are at this) would be good. But the other perspectives are equally relevant/true/important/widespread. Editors above do keep encouraging you to add information; so far you've mostly been focusing on personally-criticizing the BCA-criticisms (which are perhaps more widespread than you are currently assuming). —Quiddity (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's my honest opinion of what the article sounds like. What can I say? Why do you say "trying to" do those things? They aren't inspiring hope? They aren't collecting money for research? None? I don't think the criticism aren't widespread. I don't think that there aren't thousands of people who think this. Trust me, I do. You can give me more and more links to stories that I'd love to read, but I already understand. It's a bit condescending that you think I don't. The fact is, for each person who hates BCA with a passion, there's probably 100,000 people who love it. UNDUE WEIGHT.
Do you honestly think that, in order to stabilize due weight (theoretically), we should just add more and more and more material and approach infinity? Do you think that the more material there is, the more accurate the weight will be? And at infinity, when every source in existence is used (again, theoretically), it will be completely balanced to perfectly reflect the world? Because that is what you are saying. There are two problems here. The first is that it's, practically speaking, ridiculous to make an article this long. Not only is it tedious to write, but, more importantly, it's tedious to read. The readers are what matters here. Second, that still is not a fair representation of the world - it's a fair representation of the sources. When sources tend towards a certain viewpoint for practical reasons (eg because no critical sociologist is ever going to take the time to praise BCA), an infinite amount of sources will misrepresent the world. Charles35 (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said "intending to" instead of "trying to". My poor choice of words!
I think the individual people are definitely intending on purely positive results, and many people will react positively to many of the campaigns and awareness efforts and communities that are created (eg the top link under #Appropriate). I think the corporate branding efforts have a mixed intent, partially to support a good cause, and partially to associate their brand with a good cause. I think many individual cancer sufferers will never be appreciative of anything that reminds them of the topic, in day-to-day life, because they find it inherently depressing, and don't want to be "cheered up" and similar sentiments. I think it's amazingly complicated. I think it can all be summarized, imperfectly, in a featured article, given enough time and eyeballs and effort. I think featured articles are generally very long - Too long for most people - but that's the nature of "comprehensive" overviews of complicated topics. X%(?) of readers just read the introduction paragraph(s), in any given article.
On the subject of numbers, I'd be very interested to see research on that, and given the N.American propensity for "polling", I'm optimistic that it might even exist. How many people (both general public, and cancer sufferers) do react negatively to pinktober and other BCA efforts?
I look forward to learning more. —Quiddity (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:SUBSTANTIATE are both redirects to the same section of WP:NPOV

Again, I can't see anything that strongly needs to be taken out of the section in support of some sort of false balance. The link between wearing a pink ribbon and posting bra colours on facebook is explicit, and while it might also fit somewhere else on the page, it does work in this section in my opinion. I also don't see this section as "biased" as it's not saying "people who just wear the pink ribbon but don't do anything else are monsters who should be beaten", it merely points out quite accurately that simply wearing a pink ribbon doesn't cure breast cancer. Regarding the balance of description and critique, again a great way to improve the page and address issues of balance is by finding and adding sources that identify the positive effects of wearing a pink ribbon - not by removing valid, sourced critiques in favour of mythical balance. Surely if Charles feels so strongly about the wearing of pink ribbons, he can find references to support its benefits? I think this would be an excellent addition to the page. If such sources can not be found, then perhaps this is also illustrative. Saying the entire page is a discussion of the horrors of breast cancer awareness is a caricature in my opinion, it does discuss BCA, it also points out that many of the activities are not the feel-good, easy wins that they are portrayed as. The page should not be about how great BCA is, it should be about BCA, including what scholars on the subject think about it. I also don't think it's a hate-filled rant - while it's definitely not unstinting praise of the actions taken to support breast cancer awareness, the entire page does not take the position that all breast cancer awareness is harmful or bad. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:SUBSTANTIATE are both redirects to the same section of WP:NPOV - I included both because they mean slightly different things.
Again, I can't see anything that strongly needs to be taken out of the section in support of some sort of false balance. ; not by removing valid, sourced critiques in favour of mythical balance. - You cheat an implied presupposition here. If its mythical and false, then why would you attempt to balance it in the first place? you never gave any thought to the idea that it truly is unbalanced, so of course you arent going to find anything to cut down. You make a tautology (similar to a contradiction) in saying you can't see anything to cut to create a false mystical balance. Well, if the balance is false and mythical, then why would you even look for something to cut? Your entire argument is flawed because you presuppose that the balance that I believe is necessary is false and mythical. It's a tautology. Tautologies are invalid. See here.
it merely points out quite accurately that simply wearing a pink ribbon doesn't cure breast cancer. - Ahh, the infamous polyester argument (or is it nylon?). This is so incredibly basic that it goes without saying. There is no point of even writing this. Obiously ribbons cannot cure cancer. It's a disease! 5 years olds realize this. Maybe mention it once, in the entire article (it doesn't even deserve that, but whatever). 2 or more times is redundant and pointless. It's like saying that books don't give you knowledge. Obviously they don't - they're just pieces of paper!!! But reading them does give you knowledge. Do you see the "paper argument" in the article on books? No.
monsters who should be beaten - This is very extreme. Again, you imply a presupposition. You are saying that, in order to be biased, the article must make this ridiculous claim (or something on its level). You are making a logical error that turns the conversation for your advantage. Anyone who reads this is going to think, "Oh, wow, that's a good point. The article says nothing this ridiculous. It can't be biased!" When in reality, things much smaller than "monsters who should be beaten" can be very biased. I don't appreciate this sort of conversational cheating.
Surely if Charles feels so strongly about the wearing of pink ribbons, he can find references to support its benefits? If such sources can not be found, then perhaps this is also illustrative. More of the good old polyester, eh? There are many falsities here. First, I don't feel strongly about wearing pink ribbons. I've never even touched a pink ribbon in my life! I don't care about pink ribbons, or BCA really to be honest. I care about wikipedia and the intellectual world. Please don't misrepresent me. Secondly, this is yet another instance of cheating. I see you chose your words very carefully (I've heard this exact argument before; embedded in the exact same words). You didn't say anything you can be held accountable for. You didn't say something like "If Charles feels so strongly about BCA...he can find references to support the movement", you said "If Charles feels so strongly about wearing pink ribbons, he can find references to support [the] benefits [of wearing ribbons]]. Very, very clever. You know very well that there will never be a reference that supports the benefits of wearing ribbons. That's silly. More of the same polyester argument...
I think this would be an excellent addition to the page. - No accountability for this because I will, of course, never find it.
he can find references to support its benefits? - Don't worry, I will! This is what I'm trying to do: 1) (no sources) - disclaim, remove inappropriate material, reword, and move between sections. 2) (Sulik and possibly Ehrenreich) - Tag/remove all of the false material that is not in these sources (I've already found some). 3) (new sources) - Add new material.
The page should not be about how great BCA is - Nope, it certainly should not. It should just be about BCA, and not biased in either direction. I totally agree!
including what scholars on the subject think about it. - Yeah, but the key word here is including. This article is exclusively a scholarly take on it. But not just any scholarly take - a critical sociologist's take. It should be more than that. It should have simple, non-scholarly, impartial information. Pure description. This article, considering its length, which is obscene might I add, is severely lacking in that regard. Additionally, there should be other types of scholars that weigh in here! Medical scholars, perhaps? If this is purely sociology (and critical theory at that), then it should be called "Sociological Critique of BCA". Medical info should be presented here. One good way to make positive info that I can picture is adding achievements of the movement. Currently, about half of that section is positive while the bottom half is negative. It's by far the most positive part of the page (which isn't saying much). But it is very superficial. It says nothing with substance; no actual achievements, just broad vague sociological notions.
the entire page does not take the position that all breast cancer awareness is harmful or bad. - Approximately 60-95% of the page does take a negative position. WhatamIdoing helped me make a rough estimate. The lowest possible value was 60%. My estimate was about 90%. Does that sound like a good balance? Charles35 (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you seem to never address the lengthy academic essay in the center of the article. Why should there be an essay here? I thought this was an encyclopedia. This is the culprit for the article's obscene length. I vote to cut it down and rephrase it. Or just remove it. Charles35 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re ":The page should not be about how great BCA is - Nope, it certainly should not. It should just be about BCA, and not biased in either direction. I totally agree!" -- WP:NPOV is not about making articles "non-biased in any direction", and is not about giving exactly-equal quantities of space to each perspective. It is about making articles reflect the available reliable sources. That's also what the FAQ at the top of this talkpage is trying to explain. Sources sources sources! Sources are to Wikipedia, as location is to retail/realestate.
Re: "Medical info should be presented here." -- Medical info is in the article(s) on breast cancer. This article is about awareness/advocacy/activism/culture/social-movement, as the title and intro section clearly explains.
Re "Achievements of the movement" -- Yes, that's what I keep suggesting that you concentrate on/research. —Quiddity (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you persist in explaining the rules to me. I already knew that. I already understood that. But, explaining them to me over and over again gives the impression that I don't understand regardless of if I do. I never gave any indication that I believed that WP:NPOV means we make an article free of criticism or praise. I never gave any indication that I think that the exact same amount of words should be devoted to both sides. So please stop telling me that. First I will say this: I believe the amount of words devoted to each "side" (I'll touch on "sides" further down) should reflect the sources. This is obvious. We aren't going to give equal weight to fringe theories. (although, inner circle is a fringe theory. Sure, Sulik's book as a whole receives approval from oversight, but that specific thought is a "fringe thought". It is a conspiracy theory, no question about it.)
There are two issues with this type of thinking. One, I disagree on your idea of what sources are appropriate here. But more importantly, the biggest issue with this sort of thinking is that this entire article, this entire discussion, this entire talk page is founded on a false dichotomy. This little discourse seems to believe that the article is composed of "pro-awareness" vs "anti- (or against, suspicious of, critical of, weary of, what have you) awareness". This is not true. This article should be for the most part (that is, obviously, ≥50%) neutral, purely descriptive info.
As for the sources and material appropriate here. There is no reason for medical info to be not allowed here. There is no rule for such a clean cut like that. It's much more complicated. Maybe we have a different idea of what "medical info" means. If you are thinking things like descriptions of gamma rays in radiation treatment, lists of anti-emetics, info about dopamine or histamine antagonism, that isn't what I mean. I mean things like, "$x raised by organization y resulted in funding for research project z" and then some explanation of what z is and why it is important. That is certainly appropriate for this article. It need not go into massive detail, but a brief overview can't hurt. And compared to some of the material that's already on this page.... Anyway, I consider that medical info. Please let me know what you think of that, because when I start adding info here, that is the main thing I want to focus on, because, in my opinion, that's the biggest and most important thing you can say about BCA; I mean, it's the entire point of awareness to begin with. I hope you find that consistent with the title and intro. 107.0.32.54 (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you undertand the rules, if we had a common understanding of them, we wouldn't need to keep explaining them. For instance, I, and others, shouldn't have to keep pointing out that the idea that there is a mythical balance out there we should find is a false one. We reflect the sources. If a reliable source discusses an idea, it is a valid inclusion whose inclusion should be supported - not opposed because an editor thinks that the article is too critical. If the majority of reliable sources that are critical, that fairly clearly demonstrates that the general expert opinion is critical. Again, build what you think is missing, don't try to take out what you disagree with. I'll not bother to reply to the rest of your post because it is rhetoric and hair-splitting, and thus an invalid reason to change the page. Nobody is forcing you to spend all your time on the talk page, please feel free to spend it on google scholar instead. Or spend time listing specifics rather than pointing to the middle of the page and saying you don't like it. Or spend time expanding the amount of purely descriptive information. Or spend time referencing how much money the pink ribbon campaign has raised every year since its inception. All great information - please, verify and include it. If you can find a reference that explicitly links the pink ribbon campaign to the discovery of herceptin then that is great information to include - but the reference comes first. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WLU is right: Charles, you don't understand the rules here. Consider these two things you said:
  • The fact is, for each person who hates BCA with a passion, there's probably 100,000 people who love it. UNDUE WEIGHT.
  • Second, that still is not a fair representation of the world - it's a fair representation of the sources.
The fact is, Wikipedia doesn't care what the average person loves or hates. It only cares what the reliable sources say. If the article is "a fair representation of the sources", then we're done here. That's our job. Here's the first sentence of the policy you cite most often: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Notice those last four words: "published by reliable sources". Only the views "published by reliable sources" count. Views held by regular old people don't count at all. The policy says this: "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." So it doesn't matter if 100,000 people love or hate BCA. It only matters what the views "published by reliable sources" say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god. You are completely missing my point. I am not trying to add material that isn't consistent with the balance that currently exists in the sources. I am currently working under the assumption that the material here is correct, and accurately portrays the sources here. I am certainly talking about how I think it is "too intense" (and other things like that), but that is not how I am currently working. They are separate things. Right now, I am currently correcting un-encyclopedic material. That's it. Biased, misleading material. That is all I am doing right now (in general, there might be a few exceptions, such as facebook). I am not trying to add new views. AT LEAST NOT YET. When I talk about this stuff - due and undue weight, that is just talk, RIGHT NOW. I do certainly think it's a problem, but nothing that I am doing right now is based on "due and undue weight". That will come later, when I consult Sulik and possibly Ehrenreich and then finally add new material with new sources. Notice WLU's observation about all of my edits thus far: "your actual edits produce pretty minor changes that honestly I don't think most people would spend much time arguing about." WLU did not see the subtle yet very important bias/misleading-ness/etc that I sought to eliminate. Some examples of un-encyclopedic material are the polyester argument, inappropriately harsh language (eg "giant" - has negative, biased connotation) the she-ro essay (it's not an "article" - it's an "essay"), etc. You don't need sources for that. I'm cool with the polyester argument. I know that it is in the source, and thus it's fine by me if it's here in the article. But I'm not cool with misleadingly disguising it as a different argument and using it to make a stronger claim with much heavier implications.

Do you not understand that probably 95% of the stupid things we are talking about are entirely hypothetical? I am just defending my viewpoints, and you are just telling me that they are wrong. We aren't even talking about any actual edits here. The only reason I keep explaining myself is to defend myself, not to defend any of my edits. I am defending my own reputation, because the deal on this talk page seems to be: editors, not edits instead of: edits, not editors. So we can keep arguing about this, but honestly we aren't even arguing about anything but pointless ideas. Those ideas might become important if I or anyone else decides to actually act on them, but so far, the vast majority (disclaimer: I won't say "all") of the edits I've made are not based on weight or neutrality or other theoretical notions of these rules. All of my edits up to this point, and in the near future, (ie until I look at sources) will be under the assumption that all material here is reflective of the sources. Right now, I am solely trying to eliminate misleading, biased and un-encyclopedic material. Meanwhile, I have tried to establish some discourse on topics like neutrality and weight. That seems to have propagated into this enormous issue. I apologize for that. I will not try to add material that is un-reflective of the sources. Pinky swear. Charles35 (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Misleading" on wikipedia pretty much means "the source doesn't actually verify the information", or perhaps "the source is unreliable". Since your assumptions are that the material is correct and accurately portrayed, from a wikipedia perspective there's not much else to do. Your definition of "unencylcopedic" doesn't seem to line up with wikipedia's definitions, because it seems to be based on your personal disagreement or misgivings. Unless the sources are unreliable or incorrectly summarized, there's not much to be done besides adding new info. Certainly minor wording changes can be made, but they should still accurately reflect the source - and if you've read the source and are accurately reflecting it but simply choosing a synonym, there's no need to bleed out the talk page and chances are your edits will not be undone.
The she-ro section is not an essay, it is a summary of a set of ideas mostly expressed by Sulik. A quick search on google scholar didn't turn up a lot of discussion using that specific term. Given it is based largely on a single source, it seems reasonable that it could be shortened. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mere symbolism paragraph

I'd like to call attention to the following paragraph:

Mere symbolism itself does not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives. However, it is an effective form of promoting the pink ribbon culture: fear of breast cancer, the hope for a scientific breakthrough, and the goodness of the people who support the cause. These supporters may feel socially compelled to participate, in a type of "obligatory voluntarism" that critics say is "exploitative" (Sulik 2010, page 250, 308).

There are several issues here. The first sentence is clearly not supported by the source. On page 308 Sulik says that "the culture's use of women's voluntarism for the cause can be exploitative" not that it is exploitative. Further, Sulik does not say anything along the lines of the first sentence - in fact on page 307 she identifies a positive contribution of the breast cancer awareness movement - that patients are able to develop relationships with women in a similar position. "These relationships enabled women with breast cancer to access informational instrumental, and emotional support that was not available to them in other settings. Breast cancer advocacy made such support and interactions possible." GabrielF (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose we change it? The only specific I'm hearing is changing "that critics say is exploitative" -> "that critics say can be exploitative". And then possibly adding some positive material about the value of the relationships enabled by BCA? Is that what you were thinking? Are there other things you'd like to change? Charles35 (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this point my preference would be to dump that paragraph. GabrielF (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm going to delete it now. If anyone feels differently please revert and let us know why. For the record, this is my rationale for supporting your idea: personally, I don't have strong feelings about the content either way. But that info has been repeated multiple times on the page (eg Despite these positive associations, the simple act of wearing a pink ribbon alone and promoting it as a symbol for breast cancer has not been credited with saving any lives, and I think that there is way too much material in that article in its current state, so I would support your move to delete it. Charles35 (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll draw WAID's attention to this section, it's possible the book makes a clearer argument on one of the pages I can't see in my preview. I haven't read the entire book, so we're better off talking to someone who does in case it's a matter of an incorrect page range or different edition. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statement comes partly from page 308, which says,
"Breast cancer advocacy made such support and interactions possible. However, pink ribbon culture makes use of survivor relationships to keep breast cancer in the public eye, fortify the culture, raise funds, and maintain the status of breast cancer as a women's health epidemic. Pink ribbon culture is not unlike other types of voluntarism that make the most of civic responsibility and goodwill. In the context of breast cancer advocacy, the gender system, the branding of the illness, the cancer industry, and women's limited sense of entitlement to care, however, the culture's use of women's voluntarism for the cause can be exploitive."
So the first thing to note here is that Sulik says "exploitive" rather than "exploitative", so it's not properly a direct quotation and shouldn't be marked as such (or should have the spelling changed to match the cited source). The index lists it without the temporizing "can be": Under "cause, social, breast cancer as", one of the entries is "as exploitive", not "as possibly exploitive". Multiple direct statements that exploitation of volunteers is actually happening, not that it merely could happen, appear in the book.
And what follows the above quotation (immediately, in the same paragraph, and going on for a couple of pages) is the story of "Melinda", whom Sulik identifies as someone who was actually exploited. Sulik says,
"After awhile, however, [Melinda's] voluntarism started to impede her efforts to find balance in her life and take care of herself. Melinda emphasized this point when she began to recount all of the speaking engagements, interviews, and volunteer work she had been doing during the 2 years prior to our interview: [long list] It was good to be able to share with people ... but ... after a while I said, “This is not okay. All of a sudden I'm just so busy again.” Melinda felt personally responsible for sharing her story because she believed that in the African American community “a lot of people are in denial.” She did outreach at work and at her church, but Melinda believed that she “got good press” because breast cancer organizations (and media outlets) are trying to increase diversity.
"The public spotlight was added pressure. She had been unable to work for 14 months due to treatment and complications and had a difficult transition returning to work due to fatigue. Then she kept getting calls to speak and participate in breast cancer activities. She said, “I did not want to be the poster woman for breast cancer".... "It's been a struggle." The sisterhood assumes no responsibility for exploiting Melinda's goodwill; she had to bear the burden of setting boundaries on the sisterhood's intrusion. Such negotiations are a regular part of the survivor experience..."
So Sulik directly identifies "Melinda" as an example of a person who actually was exploited, and directly says that this exploitation is "a regular part of the survivor experience". Therefore I think it perfectly fair to say that obligatory voluntarism is exploitive (according to critics), not merely that it is hypothetically possible for this to happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the book edition found in the references section starts that quote [one page earlier than the one WAID is quoting. Not sure what to do about lining them up.
If other sources make this point as well, they're worth including IMO. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sulik says

"Sociologist Gayle Sulik uses the term "she-ro", derived from hero, to describe the social role expected of a woman with breast cancer. The term is used in breast cancer circles...

Okay, either this is something that only Sulik uses, in which case it deserves WP:INTEXT attribution of the term to her, or it's generally used in breast cancer circles, in which case it doesn't get in-text attribution to a single individual. I recommend that you go with the "thousands of ghits" model, but you need to pick one and stick with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WLU made that edit, in case you were aiming that at me. I believe it should be attributed to Sulik simply because it should be identified as an opinion / social paradigm / commentary instead of a fact. I honestly don't care if it's Sulik or someone else, but someone's name should be there both to show that it is an opinion and to back it up with a reliable name. You want to support and substantiate the claims. It's not like we're saying "Blogger Gayle Sulik uses...", we're saying "Gayle Sulik, a real, profesional, reliable sociologist uses..." What if it were changed to "Sociologists, including Gayle Sulik, use the term..."? Would you prefer that? You could use a different name, but it seems like she is the head honcho of the she-ro theorists. Charles35 (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did find several examples of the term in various sources, but Sulik is one of only two that I could find that used it analytically, and she certainly seems to have spent the most time and effort defining and expanding it. While the term is used in various breast cancer (and other) circles, Sulik should be attributed for her extensive work in analyzing it. That the term exists and is used doesn't need attribution, but Sulik's analysis should be attributed IMO. I've adjusted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, I knew who made those changes.
WLU, your adjustment removes the absurdity. I think it's unnecessary to mention Sulik in text (it should be obvious enough from the citation), but there's nothing wrong with it if you prefer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started that re-write anticipating a significant cull, but finished seeing my edits making relatively small changes only. I don't really have an issue with removing Sulik's name, but since she is primarily responsible for the sociological deconstruction it does make sense to give her credit. She is less a head-honcho than she is a scholarly pioneer in a relatively understudied area. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WLU, I think you're edits were really good. It cut down the length very nicely, resulting in a better balance, while still getting your points across. Charles35 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status symbol

I want to call attention to the following:

Some of these, like pink ribbons and awareness bracelets, have no purpose other than as a type of status symbol that displays the wearer's interest in breast cancer.

I changed this text to say:

Some of these, like pink ribbons and awareness bracelets, have no purpose other than to display the wearer's interest in breast cancer.

Describing a pink ribbon as a "status symbol" implies that it is used to denote a person's social position or status. Clearly this is a value-laden term in contravention of WP:LABEL. I am certain that many people who wear these would say that their purpose is to show support or appreciation for the plight of a loved one rather than to promote their own status. Clearly in this case policy dictates that a less contentious term be used. GabrielF (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Status symbol" has two meanings though, one of which is related to conspicuous consumption, the other related to symbolic interactionism - how people signal and interpret meaning through symbols. Under the second definition the meaning seems propos, but the link itself is to an article that cites both meanings without an indication of which it is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second meaning (which I would argue is not distinct from the first) is not appropriate because it implies a value judgment - that what people want to signal is that they are in some way better than others. This clearly falls under WP:LABEL. GabrielF (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I see the two as quite distinct, but since we have one article for both terms, and there's no way of anchoring to the second, then I see the value of rewording. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Status symbol isn't about who is "better". It's about who is signalling their values and identity. That symbol might make people think better or worse of you.
Furthermore, it's not a contentious WP:LABEL on par with terrorist, extremist, fundamentalist, etc., so that guideline doesn't apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see WP:LABEL applying, but I do think "status symbol" carries the connotation of conspicuous consumption rather than "signaling to those in the know", if that is the intent the original source. If the second meaning is what is meant, then I think a definition or prose summary is a better choice than an easily misunderstood wikilink. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that both meanings can be accurate reflections of the sources. They spend a lot of time discussing the role of pink consumption. It's maybe not "conspicuous consumption", which implies a level of rubbing your nose in it ("I'm so wealthy I carry a different thousand-dollar handbag every day of the month"), but it's the same sort of consumer status symbol that the latest iPhone or hybrid car is: I'm cool and connected and good with technology, so I have the new iPhone, or I love the environment, so I drive a Prius, or or I care about breast cancer and women, so I buy pink things (at least in October, when people are watching). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see value in returning perhaps not status symbol to the article (because I do agree it is too easily misunderstood) but the idea that it's about signaling interest. Actually, the current version is OK for me, but I'm open to an alternative that makes the point a little clearer. Have to see it first, I definitely understand the concern with the original version. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the current version adequately expresses the fact that the wearer is signalling interest, as WLU points out. Introducing the phrase "status symbol" clouds the issue. My dictionary defines "status symbol" as follows: "a possession that is taken to indicate a person's wealth or high social or professional status". It can certainly have a more subtle meaning than that, but I do think using the phrase "status symbol" gives a negative connotation about the wearer and it doesn't seem necessary to me to use that term. GabrielF (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inner circle

Charles objects to the phrase inner circle on mystical grounds. We need to stick with the basic construction here for reasons of logic:

  • Anyone can join the breast cancer culture/pink culture, merely by choosing to support it.
  • You cannot be initiated into something that you're already a part of.
  • You can be initiated into a more central or "higher" part of it.
  • This sentence is about the breast cancer culture's system for initiating women into the more central or "higher" part of the culture.

Ehrenreich cites an expert on initiations, whose work identifies three basic types of initiations: to become an adult, to become part of a "secret" group (like the Masons), and to become a shaman. Breast cancer culture deals with the middle one, so Charles' intuitive reaction was accurate.

The exact phrase inner circle appears in Sulik's book, which I think makes it an appropriate choice for the wording of this idea that suffering initiates women into the "higher" part of the culture, but I'm open to other options. Any proposal, however, needs to indicate the separation between being a normal supporter and being one of the true initiates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True initiates?! Are you serious? That is a metaphor. It isn't true. Charles35 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the source is talking about. You can be "part of" the breast cancer culture, but only the women with breast cancer, who have been "initiated" are part of the inner circle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, and guess what? Your clever 3RR trick doesn't apply:
[edit warring] is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. Inner circle is appropriate, as Ehrenreich makes clear in the quote. Inner circle doesn't just signal conspiracies and mystical initiations, it's an appropriate (and verifiable) metaphor for achieving the status of "survivor", which is a "privileged" position within a lot of movements (apparently including breast cancer support groups). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) it isn't identified as a metaphor (until the quote), which is the biggest problem here.
2) bizarre metaphors violate WP:UNDUE, (yet at the same time, you support this weird metaphor while believing that a single pro-Komen sentence is undue. WOW). Charles35 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Since abstract concepts like "cultures" never contain physical circles, I think we can trust that our readers are smart enough to figure out that "inner circle" is a metaphor rather than a physical object.
  2. If the reliable sources make a big deal out of something, then mentioning it is not UNDUE, by definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) are you kidding. An actual physical circle is not something anyone would even think about other than those making ridiculous arguments to maintain their ~NPOV. I don't trust readers to understand that you don't mean there is a conspiracy of a group of evil connivig cunning BCA-ers. But, of course, I do trust them to figure out that we don't mean a line with a non-zero 2nd derivative :) 19:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
2) No. Material that violates WP:UNDUE is considered in the context of the article, not just the source (ie 2 paragraphs in the article is undue). Charles35 (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see an issue here that needs adressing. I don't think the current content is undue weight and I think it's an obvious metaphor easily understood by anyone who reads it - not to mention the existence of wikilinks. I do see a lot of unpleasant accusations that I'm not a fan of. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"might contribute to" "cause" etc.

Well, I just proposed some new wording that might be agreeable. Any reasons why it isn't? Biosthmors (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support so we can move on to more substantive concerns like removing the {{pov}} template. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^Not in the slightest. We're going to a noticeboard. You're all really showing your true colors today. Charles35 (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Charles is stating that I'm misrepresenting the source(s) by making that edit, which is entirely possible, as I haven't read the source. It just seemed to be a middle ground between versions. Charles, noticeboards want to see talk page discussion first. Can you address this issue? Can you prove to me with a quote that my edit misrepresented the source? Biosthmors (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've quoted it multiple times, in edit summaries, and on this talk page, and on ANI. First of all, since I went ahead and found the sources for ALL of these chemicals (you're welcome. I don't feel very appreciated for that), here is the wikipedia articles for them. "High-fat foods", or fat, or related articles (I checked several. again, you're welcome) say nothing about BC. But the rest do:

...scientists to conclude that the presence of parabens may be associated with the occurrence of breast cancer, there is an association between phthalate exposure and endocrine disruption leading to development of breast cancer, alcohol has been shown to increase the risk of developing...multiple forms of cancer.

That said, before we even talk about the wording in the source, let's not forget that the source is ONLY' talking about alcohol. Yet, you all choose to ignore that because you want to throw em all together and censor the world by telling everyone how evil BCA is (Stalin style).

You consider yourselves sociologists? You consider yourselves liberal? You consider yourselves democrats? This type of strong-arming is disgusting and it's the kind of stuff you condemn everyone else for in your rants about "power relations".

Now, on to the source, which uses the phrase "linked to": Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies...

However, being the nice guy I am, I tried to work things out to make everyone happy while still following the rules, so I decided to read the rest of the paragraph, which states:

the Canadian Cancer Society advises that even one drink a day on average can increase the risk of breast cancer.

So, being that nice guy, I added "increase" to the paragraph too. But no, that wasn't good enough for them. They need it to say "cause", forcing their triple editor opinion onto the article without a source, something they have no problem condemning others of:

Mere editor opinion, particularly when
over-ride individual editor opinion and are in turn
we represent ideas as found in sources, not according to editor opinion.
Again, your opinion is far less important than the policies and guidelines.
There is a definite reason to discount your opinion if it is not backed by a good source,
That's your personal opinion.
feels that their personal opinion trumps a reliable source
the criteria for material - sources, not personal opinions.
not our personal opinions about whether the published, reliable sources
not personal opinion
Fundamentally, it's one editor's personal opinion about the True™ purpose of breast cancer awareness programs
reporting his own personal, non-expert opinion as if it were a verifiable fact
I mean, other than confirming from your personal opinion
e.g., your personal opinion.
insisting that your unverifiable and under-informed personal opinion be the basis for
Wikipedia isn't interested in my personal opinion.
an editor's personal opinion about whether any given fact
it is about what the sources say, not the opinions of editors. Charles35 (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking your time, however I don't understand why my edit (at the beginning of this thread is inaccurate). Alcohol is a cause. Others are just suspected. What's the problem? Biosthmors (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't understand what is confusing. You said: I think Charles is stating that I'm misrepresenting the source(s) by making that edit
From my above edit: Now, on to the source, which uses the phrase "linked to": Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies...
What's not to get? Alcohol is NOT a cause, according to the sources cited. Look, I'm not trying to push my POV that alcohol doesn't cause BC. I am just trying to represent the source accurately because there is a big difference between cause and linked. I even went and searched for a source that says alcohol causes to no avail. If you find one, great! I'm all for it. Just cite it and then make your changes. But the source that is currently in the article says "LINKED TO" why does nobody understand that? Charles35 (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That aside (a matter for the breast cancer article, but risk factors are causes), all the article says is "critics believe". Can you prove to me whether or not critics believe alcohol is a cause? Biosthmors (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence in question currently reads: "...increase pollution or that critics say cause or possibly contribute to breast cancer, such as alcohol, high-fat foods, some pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies...")
  • From the cited source:
  • "KFC sells products that are salt- and fat-laden, and injected with hormones, and they are the subject of a lawsuit in California about a potential carcinogen that they use in the processing of their chicken," King tells CTV.ca."
  • "King notes a number of studies have linked air pollution to breast cancer so encouraging people to buy more gas is not going to help."
  • "Among the "pinkwashers" that Breast Cancer Action warns about are car companies, some cosmetics and personal care products companies whose products contain chemicals linked to breast cancer, and a number of chemical companies"
  • "Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies, and the Canadian Cancer Society advises that even one drink a day on average can increase the risk of breast cancer."

And that's just the cited source, not what's actually WP:Verifiable when you consider all the reliable sources. By policy, articles are limited to what can be verified in (at least one) reliable source, not to what has actually has been verified in the exact source already cited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Biosthmors: No, I can't, which is why I said that I don't need a source to revert your edits, but you need one to make your edits. You say that you should be able to write "critics believe", yet you don't have any sources that cite critics as believing such a thing! Apparently the rules are reversed now. It's "find a source to delete material" instead of "find a source to create material". Or likewise, it's "included in the article until proven false" instead of "false until proven true". I can see how this might get confused for a dispute on the actual content. But I'm not saying that critics don't believe this. I'm saying that YOUR critic, the one in the source, doesn't believe it. So why oh why is it okay to put your opinion in the article just "because it's true" and "because you can't find any critics that don't believe it." Well, do you know of any critics that do? NO. Until you find one and cite it, this should be removed from the article.

Sorry for the rant. Charles35 (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WhatamIdoing, by policy, "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". So, you need to cite your source because at least I am challenging it. And, right. Your sources say "linked". Both for the cosmetics, AND the alcohol. So, "linked to the development of" is perfect. It is completely reflective of the sources, and it also specifies that we aren't talking about a negative correlation (ie prevention), we are talking about a positive one (development). Stop polarizing. Wikipedia isn't about winning. THE SOURCES SAY LINKED. If they meant contribute, they would have said contribute. End of story. Charles35 (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, BURDEN requires me (or someone) to provide an inline citation. It does not require me to do so by any particular deadline. I have already provided you with the most authoritative possible source for declaring that alcoholic beverages cause breast cancer, not merely that they are "linked to" breast cancer. I haven't typed it into the article yet, but you know that it exists. Why do you still persist in saying that alcoholic beverages don't cause breast cancer? Do you know more than the World Health Organization's experts? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a real behavioural issue is thought to be present, talk pages are not the appropriate venue.
If you consider the entire page to be about how "evil" breast cancer awareness is, that appears to be your own issue. The page that I've read uses reliable sources to discuss breast cancer awareness and includes reliably sourced criticisms of the same - which per WP:NPOV is appropriate. I understand that you may personally not like some or all of the page contents, but that does not matter since wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Please focus on this, rather than ascribing motives to other editors based on the fact that you dislike what sources say.
This whole discussion could go a lot faster if you stopped accusing other editors of having an agenda and just sought appropriate dispute resolution. For instance, you could seek a request for comment on this issue. Or stop caring, as I have, since this is an incredibly minor, hair-splitting point that has wasted far too much time already. The difference between "linked to", "cause" and "contribute to" is semantically speaking, pretty minimal. I can live with all three. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone who reads this, the following statement made by WLU is not true: I understand that you may personally not like some or all of the page contents, but that does not matter since wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.
WLU, I don't care what you think, so don't even bother replying as doing so will be of the sole purpose of undermining my reputation. I am trying to protect that. WLU's statement is incorrect. I'm not going to waste my time explaining why, as I have done so several times. I'm not going to say that WLU as a person cares more about editors than edits, because that would be stooping to her his level of trying to comment on editors, but in this sentence, this seems to be where her concerns lie. They are false. WLU, I would prefer, for the nth time, for you not to comment on me as a person. You don't know my "personal" preferences, intentions, or anything else about me, and I find your unsolicited comments ironic considering the alcohol issue. Charles35 (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a dude, so be sure to adjust your thinly-veiled accusations accordingly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I've actually assumed that the whole time and didn't know that since you never spoke up about it. My bad. Since you "have stopped caring", I will edit "cause" out. Sorry, but I care about the integrity of wikipedia. And since this is likely to be challenged, it must reflect the source, which it doesn't. Charles35 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I interpret "Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies, and the Canadian Cancer Society advises that even one drink a day on average can increase the risk of breast cancer" as meaning critics do think alcohol is causative. Biosthmors (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they meant causative, don't you think they would have said "cause" instead of "linked to"??? And the studies are the important part, not the CCS, because apparently the ACS is worthless as well. You can't have it both ways. That's cherry picking. You can't accept info from the societies when it supports your theory but not when it doesn't. So anyway, there is a difference between linked to and cause. Cause is the strongest possible explanation for correlation. Linked to is a weaker explanation, yet it still gets the point across that the relationship is positive, not negative (ie it is correlated with development, not protection). So that argument is useless, especially because we are talking about critics. If they meant protection, then they wouldn't be critics after all! So, the argument that linked to might imply protection is ridiculous and because of how obvious the meaning of linked to is, all I can assume is that you (not specifically you, Biosthmors) are pushing your own opinion that it causes BC.
This seems over in my opinion. I'm going to edit in linked to. Charles35 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WLU, I like your edit a lot. I hope we have come to an understanding. Charles35 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King and precautionary principle

I am having trouble verifying the citation for the following:

These organizations benefit the most from corporate sponsorships that critics deride as pinkwashing, e.g., polluting industries trying to buy public goodwill by publishing advertisements emblazoned with pink ribbons, rather than stopping their pollution under the precautionary principle (King 2006, pages 1–2).

On pages 1 and 2 of King's book, she discusses how Komen specifically has benefitted from corporate sponsorships, but she does not mention anything about pinkwashing, pollution or the precautionary principle. She describes how companies "buy public goodwill" but her portrayal is more nuanced. Google shows no results in a search of the book for the words "pinkwashing" or "pollution". Can whoever added this please advise? GabrielF (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I read the pages in question (note though - the google book links were added by me, they may reflect a different pagination than the paper copy originally used) and didn't see this. Some basic searches (pinkwashing, pollution, goodwill) didn't turn up anything either. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TONE

WLU, I saw you mention symbolic interactionism. I pointed out that the same author of that theory had another brilliant idea that is extremely relevant to this article. Since this is, as I have been informed, a sociological article, no more, no less, I figured we should probably use the most up to date, most advanced, and just all around best sociology. This sort of sociology is considered almost unanimously better than more elementary sociology. One of the main concerns about Marxism and other archaic critical theories from the olden days is that they tend to generalize, lump, and otherwise falsely categorize the world. Metanarratives, today, are almost considered pseudo-science by acclaimed sociologists like Goffman, Foucault, Seidman, Latour, Bauman, and others.

Bruno Latour does a great job at giving the problems with grand storylines (these aren't my words but they fit quite coincidentally):

“critical theorists” are aiming at the wrong target
they sound like conspiracy theorists
gullible criticism isnt much worse than gullible belief
critical theories are designed to start a war
Critique “moves away” from fact (into fiction, presumably)
Critics should focus on construction, not deconstruction*
Critics should not be nihilists, pessimists, or stoics

Needless to say, it's probably a good idea to avoid such temptation in constructing an article on such a sensitive issue with such a wide audience who, for a good chunk of the article, probably doesn't even know what you are talking about.

Okay, the above was partially facetious, but seriously - does anyone have any justifications for why such a harmful tone should be allowed here? Should we delete or rephrase material that takes such a tone? I mean if we are talking about oversight, that list of sociologists says that the approach taken by many of the sources here is extremely flawed. It doesn't get much more authoritative than Goffman and Foucault. But please, you're the sociologists (I assume), not me, so if what I said is incorrect, please say so. Charles35 (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


(*) I thought this was especially relevant (construction vs deconstruction) because of one of my objections to this article that I brought up to WhatamIdoing way back at the beginning of this debate (copy/pasted below). I said that the article tells you all of the horrors of awareness, the pharmaceutical industry, and evil corrupt doctors, which is one thing. But then it forgets the part where it tells you what to do instead. That's a whole nother thing. So women should boycott doctors and medicine? Okay, then what should they do instead? It doesn't even bother to mention any of the other (facetious) proven to be effective treatments for breast cancer such as shamanism, astrology, scientology, witchcraft, diet and exercise, breathing exercises, acupuncture, home remedies, snake oil, shark cartilage, crystal healing, urine therapy...(/facetious)

I don't see a reference to a specific edit here, nor do I see a source addressing the problems with sociological criticisms of BCA. We may agree or disagree on principle all we want, but pages must be based on specific sources that directly address the page. I have no problem incorporating reliable sources that attack and tear apart Sulik or King's book-length discussions of the topic, but they must come from sources, not editors. If you want any sort of agreement from me, you must point to specific edits or sections and accompany suggestions with specific sources.
Articles should not tell someone what to do, per WP:NOT#HOWTO and WP:MEDICAL. Breast cancer awareness should not discuss in/appropriate treatments, that is for breast cancer treatment.
As for what we should do - we should accurately summarize the contents of reliable sources, both pro and con. If we are missing sources discussing the positive aspects of BCA - find and add them. If we are missing sources that criticize Sulik's take on BCA, find and add them. I do not believe it is approprate to remove sources or summaries of sources because of personal disagreement. Tone can be adjusted, but must remain faithful to the original source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is the specific proposition: we should remove Sulik and friends from this article due to the fact that they take a faulty, archaic approach to sociology that modern, more advanced sociology says is poor theory. I didn't give a source because I am not making an edit based on the material. I am challenging not the reliability of the sources, but the fact that they don't live up to the standards of good sociology. If you want me to find sources for this, I (easily) can. But I thought that sources were for adding material, not subtracting (ie it would be pointless to write "Foucault and Goffman and others criticize Sulik's approach, because they aren't criticizing Sulik specifically, not to mention the fact that they came a few decades before her. However, sociology doesn't get much more advanced than postmodernism. Postmodernism is strongly against "grand storylines" and "metanarratives". I will find you sources for that if it means we can remove some or all of the stories in this article. Charles35 (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Sulik is a reliable source written by a recognized expert published by a highly respected publishing house. The fact that you personally dislike their approach is not a valid reason to remove the source from the article. If you can find reliable sources that apply these criticisms to Sulik or other sources, this would be a valuable addition to the page that I would support including. If these are generic sources that address their particular methodology, feel free to add them to sociology. Unless they address breast cancer awareness specifically, they are not appropriate here per our policy on original research. Note that even if you find such sources dealing specifically with Sulik or BCA, the preferred approach is not to remove them outright - it is to supplement material sourced to Sulik with these criticisms.
Our standards are if a source is reliable, not the standards of good sociology as applied by a single editor. Feel free to bring up the book at the reliable sources noticeboard for an outside opinion, but I have absolutely no doubt that it will be judged more than acceptable. Again, personal incredulity of one editor is rarely a reason to change a page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And writing about the benefits of urine therapy or scientology isn't WP:HOWTO. It's simply offering other valid scientific treatments for the disease. I mean, after all, it's probably a good idea, if you are going to hate on medicine, to say what the effective alternatives are. Even if it were a violation of WP:HOWTO, this would just be wikilawyering because it is extremely unethical to (falsely, in many cases) condemn medicine with the implication that people be weary of drs (which in turn leads to less people seeking treatment) without offering effective alternative forms of treatment to save their lives, like home remedies and crystal healing, all perfectly valid. Charles35 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WLU, 2 words: broken record. This isn't my personal opinion. This is arguably the 2 most respected experts of the 20th century's personal opinion, which trump Sulik any day of the week. Charles35 (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you keep repeating the same errors and ignoring the same policies and guidelines, I will keep pointing to them. For instance, the opinions of the most respected experts of the 20th century are irrelevant to this page unless they talk about breast cancer awareness, per WP:OR. If you dislike this, you can try to change the policy to allow original research, attempt to garner a local consensus to allow your personal views to be incorporated (which I will oppose since I think it is bad practice) or you can leave wikipedia contribute on an alternative outlet. Or you can accept it and move on, realizing wikipedia will always include reliably sourced information that we dislike and personally disagree with. I think the discussion of dissociative identity disorder should not include the traumagenic model because Piper & Merskey's alterative explanations are more convincing and align with the neurology of memeory - but I live with that stupid idea being on the page. Because those are the rules. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, it's a WP:SYNTH violation. That's what Wikipedia calls reading Sulik and reading Latour, and even though Latour doesn't actually say anything at all about Sulik or breast cancer awareness, you decide that Latour is commenting on Sulik's methodology (which, BTW, you still don't know what Sulik's methodologies are, because you still haven't read what she wrote).
Also, your complaint that the critics provide nothing positive or constructive is wrong. They provide multiple positive actions that they believe should be taken, including (but not limited to):
  1. Breast cancer organizations should reject money from tainted sources;
  2. Potentially cancer-causing chemicals should be banned until proven safe;
  3. Awareness education efforts should promote only what works medically, not what brings in the most donations (e.g., stop promoting breast self-exams);
  4. Breast cancer organizations should be candid in their fundraising efforts [and choice of names] about how much money goes to biomedical research and how much goes elsewhere; and
  5. Breast cancer organizations should focus on prevention rather than on screening.
Those are all positive, constructive points. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw WP:SYNTH coming, and I agree with you that it is a form of that violation. I don't want to change the WP:OR rule, WLU, so please, for the (n+1)th time, STOP IT. In fact, I am going to make a section at WP:BETTER about banning grand storylines except in articles about grand storylines as a violation of WP:TONE. Charles35 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you'll gather enough consensus for that to last very long, and even so the essay at WP:BETTER is not policy. Even if you managed to ban "grand storylines" there, it has no more weight than the amount by which editors are convinced by it. For instance, I am still unconvinced of its merits, and do not think Sulik should be eliminated as a source because of criticisms of sociology as a whole. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't convinced that grand storylines are bad? I thought you were a sociologist? What merits are you unconvinced of? It seems like you want poor sociology to be in this article. I saw you mention symbolic interactionism. You obviously are familiar with Goffman. He leads the pack against grand storylines. I don't necessarily think Sulik should be eliminated as a source. I think that her material should not be presented in grand storyline form, whether it is or isn't presented that way or not in the source. I know one of your Commandments says "if the source presents it this way, then we will too", you don't need to remind me. But when grand storylines are obviously poor sociology, I believe we as editors have the responsibility to get a consensus to present the same valid ideas in an improved way, especially since we are all competent enough to know to do so. Charles35 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breast cancer culture

Health care professionals are sources of information, but the rightness of their advice is not to be seriously questioned.

This is NPOV and sounds a little bit like direct advice (ie "you shouldn't question them"). I'm going to change it to "the BC culture does not question them". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)

You have missed the point. The point in the source is not merely "the BC culture does not question them", but also that "the BC culture tells patients not to question them". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point. I heard that loud and clear. Charles35 (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You did not write a sentence that says this. You wrote that the culture does not question them, not that the culture tells patients not to question them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The emphasis on cheerfulness allows society to blame women for developing breast cancer

I'm changing this to "allows women to feel blamed". Society doesn't actively blame the women. It just (supposedly) creates a paradigm in which women might feel blamed. But there is no actual active blaming going on. Charles35 (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that change does is introduce poor writing style. You've moved unnecessarily into the passive (because society can and does blame people), you've missed the idiom (people feel condemned, not blamed), and you've introduced a grammar error (subject–verb mismatch). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you hear yourself? I could fix an apostrophe and you'd have 4 different problems with that. Honestly you're discouraging me from editing wikipedia. It seems like nobody is allowed to make any edits but you. All material is wrong unless it's been passed through you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)
Please remember to sign even small comments on the talk page.
If you actually fixed an apostrophe, I'd certainly agree with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The cure for cancer was therefore psychotherapy

I am adding the date for this and creating some links to psychosomatic illnesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)

The existing sources say that it was prevalent through at least the 1970s, and that this discredited idea informs the current (=2012, right now) beliefs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Breast cancer culture values and honors suffering, selecting its she-roes by a "misery quotient" (Sulik 2010, page 319).

This is over the top, taints the article like inner circle and countermovement, undermines wikipedia's credibility, etc. Can you please add some more material about the "misery quotient". Currently there is no info about it except for the context of Ehrenreich's Illuminati shoot-off. It just sounds kind of like a term that whoever added it is proud of and thinks is clever but there's nothing to really say about it. Since there's really nothing to say right now, I'm going to change it to get rid of the term yet keep the idea (amount of misery they have experience). This gets rid of the empty term but keeps the idea. Please don't reinstate without adding some material about it to make it a worthwhile mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry that you don't like it. Go read the source if you want more information about it. There's no point in removing a memorable term. Good encyclopedic writing does not mean using the most boring, forgettable language you can devise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Empty, pointless, provocative and shock-inducing terms that are meaningless due to a lack of explanation are poor encyclopedic material. Some readers might not recognize the (fringe) theory here and might believe that people are actually calculating a quotient based on suffering and misery to select women to consider sheros. Charles35 (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing at all provocative or shock-inducing about the term itself. It is surprising, at least to those who haven't thought about it, that people honor suffering, but that surprise will remain no matter what words you use to describe it.
Also, a term can't be "empty" if it conveys meaning. If it doesn't convey meaning, then it's impossible for it to be provocative or shock-inducing. People are not provoked or shocked by meaningless words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Honoring suffering" is different than a "misery quotient". The word "quotient", as I'm sure you already know, at the most fundamental level, refers to the answer of a division operation. Thus, the term, in any context, implies a "calculation". When you say "misery quotient", you are saying that someone is calculating misery. This is not true. Plain and simple. It sounds like some shocker term used by some sensationalist Fox newscaster. Charles35 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I say that it is meaningless because there is nothing "extra" about it that couldn't be accomplished with a less severe term. There's no point of adding this sensational term that means nothing more than "values suffering and misery", as you put it. It implies that there is more to it and that it represents a whole construct. This may very well be true, but the article speaks of no such construct. This is why I said at the beginning of this that I would find the term acceptable if you were to elaborate on it and explain the rationale behind it. But if there's nothing else said about it, and it could be accomplished with less suggestive and severe words, then we should use something like "values suffering and misery". Charles35 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that "quotient" is "severe". I do believe that it adds something "extra": it is memorable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
women with breast cancer who express anger or negativity are corrected and disciplined by other women with breast cancer and members of the breast cancer support organizations

"Disciplined" is a little severe. I'm not going to change this but I'd like to call attention to it and see if anyone else has any thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)

I think it's accurate in its severity, and also in its precise meaning, which is more closely aligned with training than with retribution/punishment. See part of what Sulik says: "Women have been “kicked out” of support groups and chat rooms for being unenthusiastic, angry, or depressed. Some women have told me that their doctors reprimanded them for having a negative attitude if they questioned medical authority or voiced concern about treatment." That's a pretty severe reaction to the normal stages of grief. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing unattractive — such as going out in public with a bare, bald head if treatment causes temporary hair loss — transgresses the approved, upper-class style of pink femininity and provokes shaming comments from strangers.

This article continually focuses on only the negative. Ehrenreich doesn't say anything about "shaming comments from strangers" or "appearing unattractive", or "sentimental kitsch" (all of which I am removing), and actually has very different things to say than this article claims. This article poses the "spiritual transformation" in a bad light as if it is hypocritical et al negative things and engages in some serious cherry picking. Ehrenreich thinks it's much more neutral and even positive. Read this paragraph, which I thought was refreshing to read:

Not everyone goes for cosmetic deceptions, and the question of wigs versus baldness, reconstruction versus undisguised scar, defines one of the few real disagreements in breast-cancer culture. On the more avant-garde, upper-middleclass side, Mamm magazine -- which features literary critic Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick as a columnist -- tends to favor the "natural" look. Here, mastectomy scars can be "sexy" and baldness something to celebrate. The January 2001 cover story features women who "looked upon their baldness not just as a loss, but also as an opportunity: to indulge their playful sides . . . to come in contact, in new ways, with their truest selves." One decorates her scalp with temporary tattoos of peace signs, panthers, and frogs; another expresses herself with a shocking purple wig; a third reports that unadorned baldness makes her feel "sensual, powerful, able to recreate myself with every new day." But no hard feelings toward those who choose to hide their condition under wigs or scarves; it's just a matter, Mamm tells us, of "different aesthetics." Some go for pink ribbons; others will prefer the Ralph Lauren Pink Pony breastcancer motif. But everyone agrees that breast cancer is a chance for creative self-transformation -- a makeover opportunity, in fact.

I'm incorporating some of it. I'm deleting the entire sentence because Ehrenreich says nothing of the sort (that I can find). If you disagree, DO NOT simply revert. Take the effort to add the material back because reverting will take away the material I added. Charles35 (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't repeat sources multiple times every time an idea is mentioned. You need to go read Wikipedia:Citation overkill#Needless repetition of citations. All the stuff about being "unattractive" is cited earlier in the article (Sulik, page 35–45). For an example of shaming comments from strangers, read the anecdote on page 345. That's an egregious example. See page 262 for another example of the type of rude remarks made by strangers. The book is sprinkled with examples of this unfortunate behavior. If you know anything about disabilities, you'll know that rude, embarrassing, degrading, and shaming remarks are par for the course.
On the other hand, Ehrenreich says quite a lot about sentimental kitsch. The word sentimentality appears in the very first paragraph: "Almost all of the eye-level space has been filled with photocopied bits of cuteness and sentimentality: pink ribbons, a cartoon about a woman with iatrogenically flattened breasts, an "Ode to a Mammogram," a list of the "Top Ten Things Only Women Understand" ("Fat Clothes" and "Eyelash Curlers" among them), and, inescapably, right next to the door, the poem "I Said a Prayer for You Today," illustrated with pink roses." She later talks about "suffocation by the pink sticky sentiment embodied in that bear and oozing from the walls of the changing room."
If you were to describe Ehrenreich's reaction, I suspect that words like these would figure in your description:
  • overdone or excessive,
  • sentimental,
  • appealing to low-brow or popular tastes,
  • low quality (e.g., "photocopied bits"), and
  • decorations of questionable artistic value.
And if you'll go look up the word kitsch in a dictionary, you'll find those very words used to define it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You act as if I haven't read these rules. I've read that page several times over. Thanks though. I added a lot of good info that you thoughtlessly reverted. Don't do that. If you need to have "kitsch" in the article, please, as I already warned, do not revert all the other things I added. You didn't give the article a "makeover". You just reverted it back to your edition. You cherry pick too hard. And you need to repeat sources when the material has been challenged. Sorry. This is why I've said ref tags are easier, but no... Charles35 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't thoughtlessly revert so much as a comma. I have good reasons for every single change that I made. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't have good reason for many of them. I wish you'd try working with instead of against and cooperate since this is becoming very unpleasant. Charles35 (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your opinion of my reasoning, of course, just like I'm entitled to my opinion of your "reasons" for excluding memorable phrases, preferring the passive voice, and desire to water down the viewpoints of the reliable sources to make the article sound positive and optimistic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The material I added was good and was completely accurate considering it was mainly a quote from a source that YOU chose. Why did you have to add more material in response? It's as if you were trying to discount the material I added. There was no reason to add even more negative material. Why can't you be the least bit positive? This article already has all of your mean thoughts made many times over. It is a big cherry that has been picked. I was very pleasantly surprised to read more of Ehrenreich's article. Charles35 (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ehrenreich's description of responses to baldness, e.g., by getting tattoos, is a minority viewpoint. We can include it, but getting tattoos is not actually common (and frequently can't be done for medical reasons). Most women who lose their hair due to treatment buy wigs or wear scarves and hats to hide it. There are whole programs at most of the major cancer organizations to pay for the supplies, fit women for wigs, and otherwise support them in hiding their baldness. There are none that advocate for tattoos, and few that actually provide support to women who want to go bald. While individual women do make these choices, the culture (=what this section is about) does not endorse that choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide quotes that support the material that you say is un-sourced. I don't necessarily not believe you. If you provide quotes to the supporting texts, then maybe I would, but I couldn't find anything in Ehrenreich's article that supports those sentences (I'm talking about kitsch and baldness). If you're trying to convince me that your Sulik citation from earlier in the article applies here, then I say that you shouldn't repeat the material. Almost every point in here has been repeated several times. Charles35 (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the page focusses too much on the negative aspects of BCA, feel free to expand the page with reliable sources that illustrate its positive and beneficial nature - if Ehrenreich has such sentiments, it's an adequate source to use. Also, Charles, please stop assuming every single change that is made is motivated by spite. It is not. The experienced editors who you are working with are taking pains to discuss why they make the changes they do, and reviewing them diff-by-diff. Consider that other editors also believe this page is very unpleasant to edit, in large part because your talk page postings are accompanied by a significant number of accusations of bad faith. For instance, I see absolutely no evidence that accusing WAID of having "mean thoughts" in anyway improves the page, or does anything but add acrimony. You can change that by working from the assumption that your fellow editors simply disagree with you - and a civil discussion or neutral request for comment is the best way to deal with these disagreements. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, I don't recall saying that there is any unsourced material related to kitsch or baldness. Can you help me figure out what you're talking about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The going out in public, unattractive bald head, and shaming comments from strangers were not in the sources. If you find them, please let me know. But please do not add the material back in the article and cite it with pages 260-310. Since this has happened multiple times, and since last time it happened it wasn't in the 10 page range you gave, either, I would appreciate it if you would just quote the source or give the exact page number for each claim before you add it back into the article. Oh, and kitsch is fine, you're right there. Charles35 (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's start with basic wiki-functioning: if you run across a sentence that says "Blah blah blah—foo foo foo—blah blah", and you personally believe that the "foo foo foo" bit is unverifiable, then you shouldn't be removing all of the "blah blah blah" along with it. You can, however, add a {{fact}} tag to just the "foo foo foo" bit. The reason that we use such tags is so that people have an idea of what you're talking about.
Do we agree that the "Appearing unattractive...transgresses the approved, upper-class style of pink femininity and provokes shaming comments from strangers." part is adequately sourced? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. As I have repeated several times, Sulik says nothing about (1) "shaming comments", (2) "appearing unattractive in public", and (3) "baldness". PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not go and cite 10 more pages from a different part of the book to support this. You did that once before when the material didn't support the source, and when I went and checked the new pages, they didn't support the source either. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE simply quote the text from Sulik that supports the sentence if you want to cite different page #s. Charles35 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what else you could be referring to (with "foo foo foo"). Those are the only parts of the sentence. There is nothing else to challenge. No part of the sentence appears in those pages of Sulik. Charles35 (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sulik discusses shaming comments by strangers on page 261-2 in my version of PRB. The search inside feature for some reason is not turning up page 261 where it states "I regularly heard women's concerns about self-image and social interactions that reinforced feelings of shame." (emphasis added) Which is odd, normally I can see a snippet of a non-previewed page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, WLU, this has been stated multiple times. If "shaming comments" is in the source, that doesn't make it okay to also add "appearing unattractive" and "baldness". Also, "social interactions" are certainly different and of lesser form than "shaming comments". "Social interactions that reinforce feelings of shame" can be entirely non-verbal, like most human communication. Also, the source says nothing about "strangers". "Social interactions" could be talking about friends and family members even.
Would you be able to change the text to say "Social interactions often result in feelings of shame"? How does that sound to you? Does it cover everything while still keeping integrity with the source. Charles35 (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and when I have time to check the rest of the text for references to baldness and lack of attractiveness, I will do so. Page 262 discusses specific shaming comments, by strangers. If you don't trust my assessment of the source, feel free to get and read the book itself, WP:COPYVIO precludes us including lengthy quotes, and I don't want to bother typing them out. Based on the skimming I've done of some sections of the book, I would not be at all surprised if it verifies this text. I will revisit the section (again) when I have the time to read the pages in detail. This feels like a tremendous amount of effort and hairsplitting resulting in minimal actual changes to the page, few of which really seem to add a lot of value. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The text I proposed is 8 words. That's not long. It's also not close enough to be considered a copyright violation. Those are important changes. Charles35 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that "Social interactions often result in feelings of shame" explains the content of the social interactions. Some social interactions, namely those about the woman's treatment-disfigured appearance, provoke shame. Other social interactions, and quite possibly most of them and therefore not necessarily those happening most "often", do not provoke shame. That's why appearance needs to be connected to the shame here.
(WLU's statement about copyright violations is his explanation of why he's not typing up whole pages from the book so that you can see what the source says. It's not about your proposed addition to the article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section I read definitely linked the feelings of shame to the survivor's appearance. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this section, WLU? Your changes must be verifiable. Also, like my last comment, I have no idea where you guys are with this sentence. I see you added page 262 to the citation, WhatamIdoing. Can you say what part of that page supports this sentence, how you were able to link the two together reasonably, etc? Again the key components are (1) shaming comments, (2) appearing unattractive in public, and (3) baldness. Can you let me know what page 262 says (the relevant part)? Thanks. Charles35 (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breast self-examinations

Charles, we already talked about the ineffectiveness of breast self-examinations. There are half a dozen good sources in that article that prove that they're actually harmful to low-risk women. You agreed back at the end of October that this was the case, saying "Sure, I was wrong (at least I can admit it) about 'official' breast self-examinations." So why do you now want to have that minor fact sourced in this article? I can: the sources are sitting over at the BSE article and could be copied over any time you want. But is that really helpful to the reader? I don't think so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are talking about...? Charles35 (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, that quote is taken out of context. I was wrong about one specific point about self-exams. Charles35 (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah: you were wrong about whether or not BSEs are effective. You read the article and discovered that they are not effective. I suggest that you go read it again, so you can re-discover this fact. Once you've re-read the material about the massive, randomized controlled trials and the fact that they produced more harm (e.g., extra exposure to carcinogenic radiation in healthy women) and no good, then come back here and tell me whether you actually want to have sources copied over for the fact-tag about BSEs not working. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You read the article and discovered that they are not effective. I suggest that you go read it again, so you can re-discover this fact. I hope you got all your repressed anger out. Feel better? The quote is still out of context. My argument was not that they were effective. It was that they can't hurt when you have a proper doctor taking the fact that it was a BSE into consideration. But I removed the tag. Again, wasn't trying to do anything malicious... Charles35 (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the hope of making this stick, so it won't come back again in a few weeks: BSEs hurt women even when you have "a proper doctor taking the fact that it was a BSE into consideration". A proper physician orders more radiological studies and more biopsies on healthy women who perform BSEs than on healthy women who do not. That's why so many major government and professional organizations have done a complete about-face on the question in the last few years. BSEs harm women even if they have proper physicians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DR/N

The current Dispute resolution Noticeboard filing has been opened and is awaiting comments and replies from those participating. If the dispute has been settled and resolved, please let us know at the filing.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be closing this DR/N in 24 hrs if no further comment by other participants is made, and suggesting further discussion take place here on the talkpage, with an RFC suggested for any content disputes still ongoing ( if they are ongoing with no further input by anyone else). Thanks and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping. RfC will likely happen soon. The inner circle quote was removed, and the text presents it as a metaphor. At least we have some decent success. Charles35 (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the "inner circle" point because it is a valuable and evocative metaphor for what BC survivors pass through - both in terms of their health and pain, and in terms of the social capital it results in. A more extensive comment can be found here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about the compromise of deleting the quote, and identifying it as a metaphor? The quote wasn't there at the beginning, at it was added to over-satisfy the concern that the idea wasn't identified as a metaphor. The quote is undue weight and the metaphor itself is bizarre. Keep the idea. Sound good? Like you said, you added the quote in response to my objection. You may find my arguments unconvincing, but I find yours unconvincing as well. Thus, compromise. Charles35 (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel strongly about it, but overall I think that the quote adds something useful to the article. I don't think that it's undue weight. Three sentences plus one brief quotation on a major question (of social status as well as social capital; I wonder whether we could WP:Build the web to that article here?) is not really undue weight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the quote, as I've said. I do not think it is undue weight, I think it is, as I have said, illustrative and evocative. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's great. On the other hand, I don't prefer it, and I think it's undue weight. Why is it that you believe your opinion matters more? Why don't you give any weight to the opinions of others? Charles35 (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think your opinion matters more? Where have other editors weighed in and given their explicit opinion on the matter? I'm open to starting a new section and requesting opinions, and if that doesn't work, starting a request for comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my opinion matters more, which is exactly why I've suggested a compromise, several times. Why do you project your own beliefs and desires onto me? I'll repeat, for the nth time - my opinion matters the exact same as yours, WLU. Understand? Charles35 (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to make the inclusion of the quote an explicit section at the DRN, or would you prefer a RFC on this talk page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you want. A section at DRN sounds good with me. Charles35 (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A RFC has been left at the DRN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

As a minor note, when the two sides are "include the quotation" and "do not include the quotation", there really isn't a meet-in-the-middle compromise. The quotation is either there or its not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cassileth

Cassileth's paper is fine, but Charles' description of it is inaccurate (e.g., that the "underlying concepts predominated understanding in psychiatry through the 1970s, when books such as Roger H. Garcia's "Cancer."a psychogenic illness" were published", which doesn't support a claim that it ended in the 1950s [Charles' first edit], or that it continued through the 1960s [second edit]). Also, it doesn't actually say anything relevant that isn't already in Olson and Sulik both. So should we bother triple-citing the fact that the psych field used to think that a bad attitude caused cancer, or do we think that two citations for that fact is enough? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I didn't see that part. You can delete it entirely if you want. Please assume good faith about it though. I wasn't trying to do anything malicious. Thanks. Charles35 (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any harm in removing or leaving, whatever results in fewer edit wars. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

If this article is relatively stable, as in all agree not to do edit war-ish things, I think someone should boldly nominate it for good article status. Biosthmors (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see this article passing GAN at this time. I would object on item #4 (neutrality) and #3b (staying focused) of WP:WIAGA and I would want to take a very close look at the use of sources. GAN might be a useful process for improving this article, but it seems like there are already efforts underway on the talk page and at DRN. GabrielF (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please tag specific instances you are concerned about with Wikipedia:TC#Inline_with_article_text_5? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged a few things. I also have more structural concerns about the entire article - sections about the history of the movement and the accomplishments are relatively bare bones and are pushed to the bottom while criticism is common throughout. There is a very heavy reliance on a small number of sources and I'm not sure that this article represents the nuanced position that some of these sources are taking. These concerns have been raised elsewhere so I won't dwell too much on it in this talk page section, but I do feel that passing GAN would be very difficult at this point. GabrielF (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? To have structural concerns one should have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of the literature. Please add your knowledge of neglected sources? Feel free to add more inline citations. I think they encourage constructive editing. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment more right now, but please see the DRN for a lengthy discussion of why I feel the "mere symbolism" paragraph is problematic. I appreciate your edit, but it does not address the fundamental concern. GabrielF (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. Gabriel, I feel like I've read your comments regarding 'mere symbolism' at DRN, but you don't have any signed contributions on that page. I'm not trying to be a dick (though I am being a bit lazy), could you provide me an anchor or something else so I can reread your comments? Thanks.
Also, I am again re-iterating something I've said many times - the page can and should be expanded with noncritical or praising sources if they can be located. Sources discussing the history of the movement and its accomplishments would be excellent additions to the page. Does anyone have any? So much talk page text has been dedicated to criticizing what are undeniably reliable sources but I've yet to see those critics supply non-critical sources that could be used instead, which is a shame. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page is getting a bit messy so I understand perfectly if you didn't see my signature, but please look at the text at the very bottom of the Breast cancer awareness discussion at DRN - there is a lengthy comment by me, a reply by Amadscientist and then a reply by me. GabrielF (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. Can you clarify your fundamental concern here? Biosthmors (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the confusion, but my concerns with this paragraph are laid out in detail at the DRN and I think it would be best for us to discuss them there so that we don't have two simultaneous discussions on the same paragraph in two different locations.GabrielF (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the double-hockey sticks was I reading, it's right there. My apologies, thanks for clarifying. Maybe I hadn't noticed I was looking at an old version? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

She-ro post-treatment

After treatment, the she-ro regains her femininity by using breast reconstruction, prosthetic devices, wigs, cosmetics, and clothing to present an aesthetically appealing, upper-class, heterosexual feminine appearance and by maintaining relationships in which she can nurture other people (Sulik 2010, page 42, 374).

While Sulik certainly does talk about this, she doesn't say anything about a shero. I'm going to delete it for now because I don't think there's something else I could do with it that you would find acceptable. I wanted to just take the word "shero" out of the text and phrase it as "many women regain", but I figured no non-shero material would be allowed. I encourage you to either do that or put it in a different section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)

Per the talk page guidelines, please put new discussions at the bottom of the page. They are far more likely to be seen there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sulik speaks at length about the ideal, culturally approved, archetypal woman with breast cancer, which she terms the she-ro. This sentence is talking about the culturally approved response after treatment. Why do you say that "she doesn't say anything about a shero"? Sulik doesn't need to use the exact term for us to know that she's talking about the she-ro here. Sulik says on page 101 that the she-ro "embodies pink femininity" and in that section goes on to talk about reconstruction, prosthetics, high heels, etc. Page 42 is just in the first section discussing aesthetics (start on page 35) and pink femininity in the book, not the only place that it comes up. Sulik is obviously talking about the she-ro at that point; she just isn't using the term on that exact page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming that she is talking about the shero construct. If you can do this here, then you can basically take any sentence in the entire book and throw shero in there. That would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. If the text doesn't explicitly state such a conclusion, then we cannot state that conclusion in the text, especially if it's been challenged or likely to be. Charles35 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SYNTH requires two different sources, not words taken from two different pages in the same source to express an idea that the source talks about repeatedly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Original research is when we express novel ideas. Using our editorial judgement to organize text is something different. Please read WP:OR, again? Biosthmors (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She uses the same kinds of words, plus the term she-ro, on other pages in the book. I have added some (NB: not "all"; for example, the relationship between appearance and heterosexuality appears at least four times in the book) of those pages to the sentence for your convenience. (You may now start complaining about WP:Citation overkill.) If you'd bother to actually read the source, rather than searching for keywords, you wouldn't even think of challenging this statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With this method, you can take anything out of Sulik's book and put it in the shero section. Nothing goes in shero if Sulik doesn't call it shero. I didn't search for anything, actually. I perused all of the pages. In fact I've never searched for anything. I don't think you can search on google books, just like you can't copy/paste text. In those pages, she isn't talking about shero. She doesn't use the word, which is a requirement for shero talk. This is because this isn't any old construct, this is the shero construct. Shero is such a specific word that if you don't use it with material, then you can't consider it shero material. When you have the section titled "shero", everything in the section must be shero material. I have no problem with keeping the material in a different section, but you can't put it in the shero section if it isn't shero material. Charles35 (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I was wrong about WP:SYNTH, technically, but you still can't call anything Sulik says "shero". If she doesn't come to that specific conclusion, then we can't either. Charles35 (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the edit summary here makes any sense. Biosthmors (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those sentences are great wikipiedia material. They should be in the article, but it is wrong to put them in the shero section, because Sulik, in the pages that those sentences cite, is not talking about sheros. With such a specific topic, Sulik must be addressing it as part of the shero construct in order to put it in the shero section and phrase it with "the shero regains her femininity". Sulik doesn't say that sheros do this. The author of that material is coming to a false conclusion that is never stated in the text. Also, at least half of those pages are talking about things unrelated to this topic. Shero is essentially a loaded term in this case which means and implies much more than what Sulik means when she talks about the Reach to Recovery program. She is talking about specific measures offered by a program, not "sheros"Charles35 (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then please WP:PRESERVE them instead of removing them. How do we know Sulik is not talking about she-ros? Might that be a potential false conclusion? Biosthmors (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She's talking about the Reach to Recovery program and mentions the Look Good Feel Better program as well, not "sheros". Charles35 (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are those two things mutually exclusive? (Forgive me I haven't read Sulik.) Biosthmors (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because she just isn't talking about the shero social construct. You can't just pull any random thing from her book that you'd like and throw it in the shero section. Only the sources should make decisions like those. I hope that someone puts it in a different section. But it isn't acceptable to keep the material and then cite the pages in which she actually mentions the shero construct. It doesn't change the fact that in these pages and with this material, we aren't talking about the shero construct. Charles35 (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because you say so? Same book, same author. You don't know what Sulik was thinking when she wrote that. She could have been thinking about the she-ro unless you demonstrate otherwise. Biosthmors (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know what Sulik was thinking when she wrote that. - Neither do you? That's the point. The burden of proof lies on the person who is for adding the material, not on the one who is against. It's like asking someone to cite a source in order to remove material. It just doesn't make sense. You need to demonstrate that she was talking about shero. And as far as I can tell, you can't, because she wasn't talking about it. Charles35 (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're wrong. In general, I trust WAID's editorial judgement to discern when Sulik is mentioning the she-ro (but I await their comments to confirm their position on this issue). I don't believe there is a burden of proof required to use good sense. It's part of summarizing sources. When you summarize, you might not state what the author said, but you present it in a way that accurately reflects the meaning. Biosthmors (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

It's all about the ideal breast cancer patient, and what the culture puts forward as the ideal for breast cancer patients. In other words, it's all about the she-ro, even if Sulik does not use that exact term on every single page in the book. Charles just seems hung up on the terminology, which he dislikes. Some of his first-ever comments (even before he registered an account) were about a desire to remove all mention of the she-ro, which he thought was "rubbish". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you have to connect the dots to "pink femininity". On page 101, Sulik says the she-ro regains pink femininity; elsewhere, she defines pink femininity as being upper-class, white, straight, etc. We just translated the term for the reader. If we hadn't, then I expect Charles would put forth the same complaints that he has about the untranslated "misery quotient", e.g., that the reader can't be expected to know that the women aren't buying pink paint by the gallon.
In short, you're only going to understand the sourcing behind this sentence if you read the entire book, or pretty close to the entire book, and not just one page here and there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excuse. If Sulik isn't talking about shero, then we shouldn't be either. If she doesn't explicitly say that it is a part of the shero construct, then it isn't. None of us, whether we've read the book in its entirety or not, are at liberty to make such connections. She is talking about the actions of a single program, not those of the "shero" culture. When you take that liberty for yourself, you set the precedent that allows you to take anything in Sulik's book and throw it in the shero section. We shouldn't rely on editor discretion in such a way. Having read an entire book cannot set any editor apart from other editors. Charles35 (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not hung up on the terminology. I'd appreciate if you stopped saying things like that, and saying that I use the "find" command when I read Sulik's book. I have never done that. You actually have no idea how much I've read and I'd prefer for you to keep your comments about me to yourslf. If shero was just a simple word, then I wouldn't be making a big deal about it. But shero isn't a simple word. It's a term that has a lot of background that is implicated each time the term is used. It is an entire construct, and, being a construct and all, has an entire foundation. For the record, I actually didn't make that rubbish section. Someone else did. It was there when I got here.
Most importantly, Sulik isn't referring to sheros! She is talking about the services that are provided by Reach to Recovery, which you are not at liberty to generalize to all "sheros regain femininity". Charles35 (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody get Sulik on the phone? Honestly. Maybe one person can email her once in a respectful way. And I'd prefer it not be Charles, because he isn't the most experienced around here out of the bunch. Ask her if she'll release it under CC-BY-SA and post it here? Best. Biosthmors (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are points at which it is adequate to source an entire book and make links like these across sections is good writing and editorial judgement. But you've got to read the whole book to do so, these points are necessarily rare, and often are not easy to support with a quote. I've got a copy, but I won't get a chance to read it cover to cover until Christmas or later. I can fact check challenges to specific items if the page range isn't too long. However, as noted before, there are multiple editions, which makes verification a little more problematic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism and the breast cancer wars

Advocates have said that breast cancer is special because society's response to it is an ongoing proof of the status of women and the existence of sexism (Olson 2002, pages 195–202; Soffa 1994, page 208).

This doesn't really make sense, semantically speaking. Could whoever wrote this edit it? It's a confusing sentence. Charles35 (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to tag with[clarification needed]. Biosthmors (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear to me, so I don't know what to clarify. What do you think it says, or should say, or might be misinterpreted as? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I read it, it sounds like it's saying that BC is special due to the fact that it serves as proof of sexism. Is that what it's supposed to say? I just wanted to confirm, I'm not trying to do anything malicious. Charles35 (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying who the advocates are might help, but the point it seems to be making is that the lesser care and standard given to breast cancer prevention and treatment (and survivors) indicates breast cancer is somehow less important than other types of cancer. Not having read the sources, would "test" be a good substitution for "proof"? The latter implies a current state of affairs, the former indicates the potential for this state of affairs to change. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would agree with "test". But again, that is not having read the sources. Either way, the sentence is really confusing. Are you sure it's supposed to say that the importance of BCA is the fact that it serves as proof? It doesn't have any more importance than that?!?! Charles35 (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Breast cancer was a test case for medical patriarchy, and one of the areas where feminist activists took great pains to become more involved in treatment and decision making. Soffa indeed specifically describes the condition as a societal test case for sexism. My preview for Olson doesn't cover the page range specified, but I would not be surprised if it made such statements. May I suggest you get a copy and review the page range? If you think the source is misrepresented, it's really up to you to find the source and demonstrate this, claiming you don't think the text is appropriately verifed based purely on personal disbelief isn't valid. I have attempted to clarify the sentence. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, you're right: breast cancer is special to feminist advocates (not necessarily medical/treatment/cancer advocates; WLU, I think we'll need to fix your recent attempt to label the advocates) because society's response to breast cancer proves that society is still sexist. In other words, it actually means what it says and what you thought it said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a go at changing it, I'm not averse to my prose being ruthlessly edited. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

recent changes

WLU, can you get rid of this change? I'm not sure why you removed part of the quote. But it was a good quote and it's completely valid material. [10] Charles35 (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten though I think the inclusion of three specific examples by three individuals is bad writing and I don't think the quote really helps the page. I may remove. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove. It's a valid quote. I like the fact that it is giving real life examples of some positive things. This article has an abundant amount of examples of negative things. Why not balance it out a little? You say I will meet no opposition when I try to add positive material, yet whenever that happens, you go to lengths to limit it and reword it to appear more negative. I find this especially ironic since this is a source that you like very much. Charles35 (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like a quote is being added merely because another quote exists, which isn't really a great way to write a page. The important point is that some women use their treatment to transgress boundaries, challenge their expected role as patient and use the situation as a chance to re-invent and play with their appearance. The idea is there, I don't see the quote as enhancing it and I don't want to play horse trading over quotes. I'll see if it grows on me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but if it doesn't "grow on you", that doesn't allow you to simply remove it because you don't own this article. The quote is valid material. If you care about my reasons, I put it there not because there is another quote, but because that is very memorable and specific - "tattoos of panthers and frogs". I didn't think I could do a decent job at summarizing it. It's fantastic positive material. Charles35 (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, I'm not sure if this is in the source - "...like a blue toy car, is unthinkable" - I object to "unthinkable". WhatamIdoing quoted Ehrenreich's sentence. I can't seem to find that quote right now, but if I recall correctly, it does talk about blue toy cars, but says nothing about as strong as "unthinkable". Could you change it to "is not seen" or something like that? Charles35 (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but you don't get to add it because you also don't own the article. Again, this is editor judgement and if editors disagree it can be kicked to DRN or RFC. The quote is related to the subject and from a reliable source - but the decision to include it (whether it is "valid") is editor judgement. For me the most evocative and positive part of the quote is the refernce to the sensuality one woman feels about her baldness - but again it's a quote of three individual women's experience which makes it much less compelling to me. While Sulik and Ehrenreich are making broad generalizations about the shame experienced by women transgressing feminine ideals and the overall culture that has an initiation-like approach, this is three women's experiences quoted directly.
To find the context of the toy car reference, search for "matchbox" and read the whole paragraph. "Unthinkable" is a reasonable choice of words, but I've reworded. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WLU, I think you legitimately do not understand how entitled you think you are to this article. Arguing with you is literally pointless. Charles35 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the quotation, as long as the unusual responses aren't presented as normal.
I do find it a little weird to read here that head tattoos and shock wigs are "positive". Tattoos carry a significant stigma in most of the world, and shock wigs are supposed to be shocking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know if you really see what "positive" means here (although, on second thought, I wouldn't really use the word "positive" to describe this, so I guess we created a false dichotomy didn't we?). Anyway, it's not positive in the sense of positive thinking or optimism or moral values or something like that. It's positive in the sense that it portrays BC patients in a independent, strong, fulfilling light, as opposed to the rest of the material, which we consider "criticism" and generally deem it "negative". Charles35 (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can't even begin to catch up on all of the above material that has been posted lately. Maybe you guys have a good reason for this, maybe you don't, which is why I'm asking. I still don't think it's okay to say "the shero regains her femininity". Again, Sulik, in the text, is talking about the services offered by Reach to Recovery. She said nothing related to a social construct (ie shero). So, is it just that you are really proud of that sentence, or is there a real reason (other than "you haven't read the book so you wouldn't know - that doesn't count)? Charles35 (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sulik is talking about what society wants and expects from the ideal patient (a feminine appearance). The name she later gives to the ideal patient is the "she-ro". It is therefore exactly the same thing, even though she doesn't use that term on that exact page, because she doesn't define the term until later in the book. At this point, it's still the ideal patient, without the particular name. But it is exactly the same thing. The only thing that changes as the book gors on is that she introduces a new term for the ideal patient, and then uses them interchangeably.
    Society does not want survivors to have a radical, butch, or independent appearance. The societally approved options are traditional feminine (full makeup, nice hairdo, pink/frilly/flowery clothing, and two breasts) or for younger survivors what you might call "modern feminine", meaning sexy (definitely two breasts). That's who society provides free breast prosthetics through these programs rather than free head tattoos.
  • You'd already know all this if you read the book. It will almost certainly be available at your local library. Worldcat lists more than 800 libraries that carry it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point. You said that shero = ideal patient. I assumed that in my post. Since shero is a social construct, and it is identical to "ideal patient", then "ideal patient" is a social construct as well. The entire point of my post was to say that she is not talking about a social construct. Drop your "stopping searching for the word shero" act. The part of my comment that said this -> She said nothing related to a social construct. My point is that she isn't talking about a social construct, shero or non-shero. Sulik is talking about facts. She is describing the Reach to Recovery program. If you are translating info about this program, you can't say "the shero regains her femininity." No. The individuals who used the Reach to Recovery program may very well have "regained their femininity", but she speaks of no such shero, or any sort of ideal patient or other social construct. I have it right in front of me. It's pretty cut and dry; there isn't much interpretation. Charles35 (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the she-ro/ideal patient is not just a social construct. The source does not say that the she-ro is just a social construct. That's your own original belief.
Sulik is not describing just the Reach to Recovery program on those pages. Sulik is describing what the existence of, and aims of, the Reach to Recovery program tell us about what the culture's requirements for breast cancer patients are. In other words, Sulik is telling us what R2R's existence proves about the she-ro. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shero is a social construct. You change your mind on these issues every 3 days. Everyone agrees that it's a social construct, and it should not be presented as fact in the article. Charles35 (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The she-ro is not just a social construct, and social constructs are facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WLU, I remember you making this edit a while ago. The sentence makes no sense, grammatically speaking. I see no way of fixing it. I thought about deleting it but I don't think that's necessary. Could you fix it?

The practice of blindly wearing or displaying a pink ribbon without making other, more concrete efforts to cure breast cancer has been described as a kind of slacktivism due to its lack of real effects (Landman 2008), and compared to equally simple yet ineffective "awareness" practices like the drive for women to post the colors of their bras on Facebook (Borrelli, 2010)
There is no grammar problem here. The sentence, stripped to its bare structure, says "The practice has been described as X and compared to Y." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Added some pictures, any thoughts? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. The chemo/fingernails one was not the size recommended by the MOS; I've set it to the automatic size. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation concepts

This keeps being a problem, so let's deal with it head-on. Citations are provided to support material in the article. Citations are not supposed to be provided every time you repeat information in an article. This kind of thing:

Elephants are large land mammals[1]... Elephants' teeth are very different from those of most other mammals[1]. Unlike most mammals[1], which grow baby teeth and then replace them with a permanent set of adult teeth, elephants have cycles of tooth rotation throughout their entire lives.

1. Christenson, Chris. (2010) An exhausting list of mammals

is stupid. We don't do that. It's generally enough to cite a given piece of information once per an entire page.

So Charles has recently asserted that this sentence:

Symbolism itself does not improve health, but it is an effective form of promoting the pink ribbon culture: fear of breast cancer, the hope for a scientific breakthrough, and the goodness of the people who support the cause.

contains unverifiable information about the pink ribbon culture, because the citation at the end of the paragraph, which is supposed to cover the new material in the paragraph, rather than the material that is just being repeated (for clarity's sake) from earlier in the article, does not support the claim that the pink ribbon culture involves fear, hope, and moral goodness.

I agree: the citation for the new material in this paragraph does not happen to support the old material. It's not supposed to. You are supposed to be smart enough to say, "Gee, I remember reading about hope, fear, and moral goodness just two sections ago; I'll bet that the source for that particular phrase is elsewhere in this article."

Now, if we are really not able to cope, then we can have an RFC and find out whether the community really wants every mention of the words "fear", "hope", and "goodness" to be separately cited in this article. But I hope that this won't be necessary, because we already have well-established and respected advice pages that tell us not to do that (the elephant example is taken from one), so I believe that the RFC would only be a waste of other editors' valuable time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing. Your citation methods are questionable. They blur the lines and they make it difficult to tell which material is cited. There are obvious POV issues with this article. And the fact that you revert or change just about every single edit that anyone makes to this article says something here. You can't have everything the way you want it. If the material is challenged or likely to be challenged, you must have a direct citation. Trust me, nobody is challenging material as simple as "elephants are animals". I only challenge material that concerns me with regards to WP:NPOV. And it seems like you think you own this article. You don't. Charles35 (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have to supply inline citations to support material that is likely to be challenged. But you do not have to supply that citation every single time that material appears in an article. You only have to supply the citation once.
You assert that nobody is challenging material as simple as "elephants are animals". Actually, someone once WP:CHALLENGEd a statement that the human hand normally has four fingers and a thumb. And just like here, the challenged material only has to be cited once, not every time that the material appears on the same page.
Like I said, if you want to have an RFC to find out whether the community actually means what the community says about this at the MINREF page, then please let me know. In the meantime, I believe that you're smart enough to know that when "fear", "hope" and "goodness" are cited earlier in the page, that they really are cited in this article, even if those page numbers are not copied to every single instance of those words (which, you know, I could do if you wanted... but do you really think that would help the reader? Because whether or not I duplicate the page numbers from the earlier citation at that particular point in the article, the phrase is verifiable and your WP:CHALLENGE will fail). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's inexpedient for me to read all of that, but I'll tell you this - if it was just "people are afraid of breast cancer", then yeah sure that's pretty obvious; I have no problem with it. But when it's "the pink ribbon culture cultivates hysterical fear of the disease for selfish financial gain", then I have a problem with that and I want to see a citation. Charles35 (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that the "culture cultivates hysterical fear of the disease for selfish financial gain". It says that the culture includes a fear of breast cancer. And if you will go read the article, you will see that this is discussed several times, and the citations are already there.
Alternatively, you can go search the text of the book and find that the exact word fear appears on no less than 38 pages (more than 10% of the book's text), and that there is a major section discussing this cultural values triad on pages 133–145. But if you really, really want, I am perfectly capable of adding those page numbers for the third(?) time to this article. Personally, I don't believe it's necessary.
But your removal of two-thirds of the triad is wrong. Here's the sentence:
it is an effective form of promoting the pink ribbon culture: fear of breast cancer, the hope for a scientific breakthrough, and the goodness of the people who support the cause.
Notice the colon (punctuation). We are not promoting "the pink ribbon culture and moral goodness; we are promoting the pink ribbon culture which is a belief in fear, hope and goodness. Your revision (deleting fear and hope) is wrong and biased because it singles out one co-equal aspect while removing the ones that you dislike. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unconventional referencing style

The parenthetical referencing version of an in-line style used in this article has been raised previously, e.g. here, as unconventional although I do accept that the articles use of referencing is internally consistent. One editors view that the style being used here makes it easy for the reader to see that one author is being cited more than once is sound. However, I contend that this style is not using the power of linking to its full effect nor is it allowing the reader to easily see how often a given author is being cited within the article.

To see what I mean, examine the notes section of this article. You can quickly see that the editor has cited Johnson 1893 and Warren 1997 many times with some Peacock 1965 and others. In addition, clicking on the linked circumflex alongside (e.g.) reference "37 ˆJohnson 1893, p. 16" (in this version of the article) takes the reader to that place in the text, in this case at the end of the sentence "The rioters had in the interim stolen a wagon and horses from Mr Henry Tansley and equipped it with fowling guns front and back". Remaining with citation 37 in the text, the target for the linked number 37 is the notes section. Remaining in the notes section, the target for the linked "Johnson 1893" of "37 ˆJohnson 1893, p. 16" is "• Johnson, C (1893), An account of the Ely and Littleport riots in 1816, Littleport: Harris" in the bibliography.

I suggest that the use of a more conventional in-line style might make it easier to get this article featured in the future. A quick look at five featured articles on medicine reveals that four use footnotes, a more widely implemented version of an in-line referencing style: Acute myeloid leukemia, Tourette syndrome, Huntington's disease and Menstrual cycle. One of the five examined uses shortened footnotes: Birth control movement in the United States. I am not aware that any of the current 6,498 featured articles use parenthetical referencing, although I am sure someone will correct me.

Converting this article to use shortened footnotes would be very easy and could even be accomplished in one edit by asking an expert in the use of regular expressions. Each occurrence of a reference, e.g. (King 2006, page 2), would be replaced by an {{sfn}} template, giving e.g. {{sfn|King|2006|p=2}}. Such a reference is auto-linked to the existing reference (bibliography) section. The article is already configured with a notes section, which is where {{sfn}} would put the references. In all other respects the article would be unchanged although I might suggest changing References to Bibliography. Even easier would be converting (King 2006, page 2) to <ref>King 2006, page 2</ref> with the disadvantage that this method does not produce a link to the bibliography from within the notes section.

Your thoughts?

--Senra (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The hyperlinks are valuable. GabrielF (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know, the main argument against changing the citation style is that it would violate WP:CITEVAR, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Basically, we shouldn't change the style unless we have consensus. This is a sound reason to "not change the citation style without a consensus", but I don't see it as a reason to "not change the citation style". As far as I can tell, there is no argument for why parenthetical is preferred over footnotes. The main argument I've heard is that parenthetical is preferred, and we should not change it without a consensus due to WP:CITEVAR. Charles35 (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your circumlocutory response has me baffled, Charles35. Do you Agree or Disagree with my above proposal? --Senra (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I was just trying to not be abrasive or anything like that. I wanted to just point out that fact and let you do with it what you will. I would agree with changing to footnotes. Charles35 (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the proposed change.

  • Most people do not read the references section. Most people read only what is put right in front of them. Therefore they actually see "(Smith 2001)" and they see [1], but they do not see the "Smith 2001" that is hiding behind the [1]. This is the primary reason why parenthetical citations are superior to ref tags for this article: it forces the reader to see that we cite the same articles and books multiple times, rather than letting him assume that 50 superscripted numbers means that we have cited 50 different publications. I oppose any formatting style that hides the names of the sources' authors behind superscripted numbers.
  • This is the citation style most appropriate to its academic field (which is sociology, not medicine). It is commonly used in academic journals for this subject.
  • The style is acceptable for FAs. Actuary and Irish phonology are both featured articles that use this style. The regulars at FAC actually know something about citations styles beyond what's most common on Wikipedia, and they do not oppose this style. (I have no intention of proposing this for even GA, because too few editors really believe that a neutral article should not reflect the unverifiable opinions they believe are held by the genral public or their social circle rather than only the views in published, reliable sources.)
  • If you want hyperlinks between "Smith 2000" and the full citation, that can be implemented in the current style without adding ref tags. It's a usability trade-off: adding hyperlinks adds technical complexity that will prevent some inexperienced editors from trying to improve this article. Right now, all they need to know is how to type, not how to code Mediawiki links. To do ths, you just change "Smith" to "[[#Smith|Smith]]" and add an anchor at the citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

Whatamidoing, the things you do are becoming a big problem. You don't let anybody else edit the article. Everytime anyone makes a change, you freak out and revert every single word. You even reverted my change from "one-quarter" to "25%". I'm sorry I made that change. I don't see why it's such a big deal. But you don't let anyone else edit the article besides you. You aren't allowed to do this on wikipedia. It's against the rules. Please step aside and let others edit this article. You are of course free to have your input and make changes within reason, but you freak out everytime someone makes a change and revert all of the changes. I'm asking you to stop. Please realize that we aren't trying to destroy your work. Also, you citation methods that you prefer are questionable which raises more concerns. Lastly, you push information that isn't in the sources you cite, which isn't allowed and is a key feature of ownership. I'm asking you nicely to stop it. Charles35 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I explained why I changed even that seemingly unimportant change as being potentially misleading to the reader. I don't freak out when you make changes. I believe you are trying to improve the article. The problem is that most of your attempts to improve the article are not actually improvements.
My citation methods are standard on Wikipedia, and there isn't anything in this article that isn't in the sources I've cited. Per standard citation methods, though, there are facts in individual sentences that aren't supported by the page number cited at the end of the sentence, because we normally only cite a given fact the first time it appears in an article. That keeps us from having to provide a citation every time the word "mammal" appears in Elephant, or, in this case, every time the words "fear", "hope" and "goodness" appear in this article (which is a lot, in case you haven't looked). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::....until I challenge it. Charles35 (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, when the material is already cited elsewhere in the same article, your challenge fails. You can't say that the fact that an elephant is a mammal is cited in the first section, but now I'm going to "challenge" that same fact in the next section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we are just talking about "fear hope and goodness", then okay I understand and I would agree with that. But I am weary about setting precedents like these. Charles35 (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if we change to footnotes? Charles35 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for the same reasons already explained to you in detail last month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the point is that you discourage everyone from editing this article. Wonder why the DRN thought there was a user retention problem? You put in an RfC and some new users come only to find you reverting all of their edits. Now we probably won't see them again. You ask for help, and then it's unwelcome? Notice how every single editor to get involved here thinks this article has problems? Charles35 (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't started any RFCs. Very few new users except you have ever attempted to edit this page. I have not asked for help from you or any new editor. And I don't notice that anyone who has bothered to read the sources believes that the article has problems. See, e.g., WLU's recent comment that just from reading the first chapter of Sulik, he's discovered that I have actually correctly represented her book in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking that this article would be better off if both main editors left it alone. This article is a POV nightmare (the main editor seems to think that "childish kitsch" is a neutral term (I put that in quotes in the text, mistakenly thinking that no Wikipedia editor would use those terms), and this talk page is even worse. TLDNR. Actually, I did read a bunch of it, and I've come to the conclusion that this article would be better off if both main editors left it alone. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kitsch is discussed at length above. Did you read the source? Did you consider the actual definitions of the word kitsch, e.g., overly sentimental and low-quality? It's a very accurate summary of the actual source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't matter, as exciting as that section is. It's not a neutral word, and your style of writing does not reflect a source, it reflects you. You should start just about every sentence with "Sulik says", really. If non-neutral language were used, our article would make clear that this is someone's position. Whether that position is valid or not is another matter--I happen to agree with Sulik--but it should not be presented as neutral fact. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies - I am only editing material in the context of text-source integrity. I am not pursuing other collaborative means as we unfortunately have not been successful so far. I think it's a pressing issue that much of the cited material does not reflect the source, so that is all I'm focusing on.
WhatamIdoing, can you please tell me why you don't want footnotes instead of parenthetical? I am still not quite sure. Please be explicit. Charles35 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I am done with the talk page general discussions. It's going to lead us nowhere but more discussions. Sorry for taking up bytes. No more. Maybe I'll leave some words here and there but I will let others lead and lay low for a bit. Charles35 (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media

This section has issues. It starts off "although more women die from lung cancer..." Seriously? Are we really starting off a section on breast cancer with a fact about lung cancer. Better yet, are we really starting off a section critically when the main purpose of this article is not to be critical? Charles35 (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Charles, this is not the way to go. You keep harping on individual points, getting yourself and others riled up. If you can't stop editing, do something more helpful, like at some noticeboard. An RfC would be a good idea, but you might find yourself under scrutiny as well. I'm telling you, though, this continued commentary will not improve the article or your own standing--if it weren't late, I'd ask right now for both of you to be topic-banned from the article. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well I wasn't trying to make that a personal attack or anything. I was just trying to get their opinion and draw their attention to it as they seem to be devoted to improving the article. However, I just checked the citation there and none of that paragraph is in the source... Charles35 (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • On this talk page there's 339,765 bytes of that. If you want to make something of it, start an RfC: shit or get off the pot, as some would say (not me, of course). This is going nowhere--the two of you are just wasting electrons. Tell you what, ask Bbb to look at my possibly sarcastic and overblown comments; I saw a note on your talk page. Ask them if they think I have a point. I am going to come back to this place (and the article history) in a little while to see if this continues in the same vein, and if it does, I'm going to do something about it: this is not productive. Sorry, but this has to stop at some point. Nothing personal against either one of you. Drmies (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breast_cancer_awareness&oldid=529355219"