Talk:Breast cancer awareness/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Breast cancer awareness. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Get rid of "she-ro"

There is way to much to read above regarding the term. I just looked at the article, and the term is glaringly unencyclopedic. I move to strike it from the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, not a lot of support. :) I'm going to slowly walk backward out of the room now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

^ Hmm? Apologies, it's just that...I don't think people understand the gravity and the massive impact this article could have on even a single woman's life. I just don't think it's okay to let people die because you like your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.32.44 (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That neologism sounds clunky in my personal opinion, but Wikipedia isn't interested in my personal opinion. The term figures prominently in the sources. If you don't want to read Sulik's book (I certainly wished through at least the first half that it read like a novel), then see book review and some of Sulik's blog posts, like this. It's also used non-ironically by breast cancer patients. My favorite web search engine tells me that "Team She-ro" is raising money "for breast cancer". Several sites have a "She-ro of the week" or similar feature. It's a new term, but it's a verifiable one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You are right. My post was not very well thought out. Sometimes I just do a quick google search and scan the article and look for number of refs. I saw urban dictionary 1st hit, two book refs in the article section, which seemed to be about supporting the term more than anything, and thought this post might sort things out. But yes, it's a term alright. I should have red more. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The referencing style used in this article

I have become so used to the inline citations on other Wikipedia articles I have read that now I find the parenthetical style used in this article to be somewhat jarring. Have there been any previous discussions about changing this article over to an inline-citations style? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There have been discussions about using the same source but citing as if it were a different source, effectively creating an illusion that a single person's opinion is widely shared and taken to be fact by the community. I'm not quite the expert on the ways citations work on wikipedia; just offering that in case it makes any difference to what you just said. Charles35 (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an WP:Inline citation style; it's not a WP:FOOTNOTES or "ref tags" style.

I think that WP:Parenthetical citations work better when you're dealing with many different citations to the same books, but on different page numbers. It also helps the reader notice that the same book is being cited repeatedly. "(Olson 2002, page 120)" and "(Olson 2002, page 450)" are the same book, but would be different numbers under the ref tags system. Every source listed in the reference section is cited at least twice in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point. ^ But if there's any other reason why this might be misleading, Shearonink, please let us know! I just find it a little unsettling that this article happens to be questionable and happens to use unconventional citing methods... Charles35 (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, you're right WhatamIdoing, it is an inline citation style, just not the type I'm used to, the kind with <ref> tags. I actually read up on the different inline citations yesterday around Wikipedia somewhere...the parenthetical/Harvard style used here is perfectly acceptable and is within Wikipedia guidelines, since the article is internally consistent. Shearonink (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Other sources

Some of the sources in this category at Google Books might be useful for developing this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Szabo, Liz (October 30, 2012). "Sexy breast cancer campaigns anger many patients". USA Today.
Morran, Chris (October 18, 2012). "NY Attorney General Calls On Breast Cancer Charities To Be Transparent About Where The Money Is Going". The Consumerist.

Two more (non-academic) potential sources. —Quiddity (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding an edit war

Charles, WhatamIdoing, why don't we hold off on changing the article until we can come to some sort of agreement? — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 21:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's change the citation style to endnotes. It's impossible to tell what material is cited and what is not cited. I have been advised by multiple people on the editor helping chat channel to change to endnotes. I will get started on that immediately. I understand why you want to hold off on changing the actual content, which I will agree to. But everyone who has chimed in here says to change the reference style, so I'm going to go ahead and do that. That is commonly taken to be the first step in re-constructing the article because it makes editing the article easier because you know what material is cited and what material isn't. Charles35 (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I will need some help doing this because I am not an expert on the technical side of citation. I also don't know how to make it so that multiple numbers cite the same source, which is necessary to avoid the illusion. Charles35 (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I encourage you to ask your apparently inexperienced helpers on the chat channel why they believe that violating the WP:CITEVAR guideline is appropriate. Changing an established citation system in an article requires a positive consensus on the article's talk page.

Also, it won't help. Putting ^[1] at the end of a sentence isn't going to tell you anything more about which things are sourced than putting (Smith 2000) at the end of the same sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It isn't personal preference. It has to do with the fact that parenthetical citations make ownership easier by blurring the lines between cited and non-cited material. There is community consensus. Everyone agrees. Look on this talk page - how many people have suggested the change? All of them were driven away by your response - another instance of WP:OOA. You don't make all the decisions here. We are changing it to endnotes. Charles35 (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Your changes are a violation of the guideline. There is no community consensus to change this article's citation style.

And, again, it doesn't "blur the lines between cited and non-cited material". You're talking about putting exactly the same citations in exactly the same place. The only thing that changes is the appearance of the citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because the it is the APPEARANCE that is blurred. Everyone knows that parenthetical increases the ability for ownership. There is community consensus (everyone that has commented on this page, besides you). Because you are the only opponent, and there are serious concerns about you and WP:OOA and WP:NPOV, you shouldn't be a part of this decision. Charles35 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Since it is now inconsistent, and endnotes make up more of the page, it is actually a violation of WP:CITEVAR to NOT change them all to endnote. Please proceed. If it makes no difference to you, then you shouldn't have a problem with it :) Charles35 (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: The citation style for this page is endnotes. This is in place because parenthetical citations enable WP:OOA, and, by extension, WP:NPOV, among other concerns. Please do not change the style. Doing so would be a violation of WP:CITEVAR unless there is community consensus for the change. Charles35 (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the inconsistency you manufactured does not result in a change to any particular style. I suggest that you go ask the folks at WP:CITE whether you get to make these changes over my objections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I will reiterate - the citation style for this article is reference tags. Please do not change this without community consensus. Doing so is a violation of WP:CITEVAR. Concerns about your WP:OOA and WP:NPOV are pending. Charles35 (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No, there was no consensus for your guideline-violating, anti-consensus change.

Nobody on this page supports your change. Shearonik, for example, says that parens are "perfectly acceptable". (The comments of people on the chat channel don't count, per Wikipedia policy. Only on-wiki comments count.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to switch from footnote to parenthetical or vice-versa. Switching for the sake of switching is unnecessary. There are no improvements to the verification of material by replacing parentheses for citations. Claiming "community consensus" seems odd since the "community" doesn't seem to have weighed in.

Also, please reduce the massive walls of texts, they make the page unreadable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Who are you? Why did you chime in just now (I'd like an answer to this, please)? Do you know any of the people on this channel? Just wondering. Again, parenthetical citations enable WP:OOA more so than reference tags. Why would you want that when there are serious WP:OOA and WP:NPOV concerns at play here? It only makes sense. If you don't think there is 'technically' consensus (even though multiple people have expressed this view over the past several months/years), then WP:IAR. It is for the best of wikipedia for reference tags to be used, because it makes WP:OOA more difficult. And if it really makes no difference to you, then why do you want parenthetical so much? I gave a solid reason for reference tags. You claim they are the exact same. So let's just go with ref. tags. Charles35 (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted a description of this problem at WT:CITEVAR, so that the people most familiar with that set of rules could have an opportunity to review this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see this until now. You knew they would come here and support you. That is against the rules. Shame Charles35 (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a serious proposal and I think it's reasonable and something you guys might agree to. You guys both like parenthetical, for whatever reason that is. Can we make it ref. tags for now, while we are editing the article, so that it is more clear which material is cited and which material isn't? And then, when we are done editing it, we'll change it back to parenthetical. Does that sound good to you? If it doesn't, I can't think of a reason why other than you don't want to make it clear and aid the editing process. So what's it going to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:HARVARD style citations are one of the standard formatting options that Wikipedia uses.

I agree that this style is the original one used in this article (since the very first edit).

I agree that it is potentially clearer to the reader (for the reasons WhatamIdoing gave above).

The rest of the reasons given for changing styles (parenthetical style=OOA and NPOV problem, everyone agrees, makes it clearer which sentences are cited) are either incorrect or spurious.

If anyone wants to improve the raw-functionality, then change the plain text to use {{Harvard citation}} templates instead. —Quiddity (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ownership goes both ways - for instance, I could claim you are exhibiting ownership of the page for insisting on, and edit warring over first changing, then reverting to, a completely different citation style. Claiming Smith, 2009, p. 25 is worse than^[1] followed by ^{1^}Smith, 2009, p. 25 in the references is, for lack of a better word, questionable. I'm not sure how either relate to WP:OOA (ownership) or NPOV. If you have to dig back months and years to find support for the idea - that suggests to me that you're stretching. The guts of CITEVAR, the only policy really relevant if we're talking about citation styles, is that you don't change citation style just because you like one or the other. Footnote versus brackets offer no advantages. My personal preference is for {{sfn}} but not so much I'd edit war over it.

Claiming this is somehow related to NPOV or OOA, and that either are justification for an edit war, is specious at best and disingenuous or strategic at worst. I see no merit to your claims. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, I'm just wondering - why did you all happen to be showing up at the same time, just when no one in particulars view has started to be dethroned. Second, ref. tags are more clear because they make it obvious what material is cited and what isn't. Usually, ref. tags are put after each sentence. So the sentences that have no reference tags are not cited. Whereas with parenthetical citations, they are put at the end of a paragraph. It's impossible to tell if all of the material in the paragraph is part of the citation, or only some. So, for the process of editing, can we change it to ref tags? And then, gladly, change it back? Or, I'll consider any sentence that does not have a parenthetical citation at the end of the sentence as not cited. Either of those is fine with me. Let me know. Charles35 (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't care enough to answer, particularly since it has no bearing on the complete lack of reason to change the citation format en masse.

You have made your point. Several editors have stated that this contradicts CITEVAR, and that they find your arguments unconvincing. So no, I won't be changing everything back to ref tags, and you shouldn't either. You considering a sentence unsupported by a parenthetical citation to be unsourced is absurd, we don't require every single sentence to have a footnote, so there's no reason to have a parenthetical and no reason to force your idiosyncratic preference on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a preference. You're being as authoritarian as no one in particular. All the established members are allowed to keep the content that they've personally authored on wikipedia, and whenever one of the natives gets restless, you team up and don't let anything happen. I suggest no one in particular finds a WP:ALTOUT for his or her work. This is so not in the spirit of wikipedia. Shame

we don't require every single sentence to have a footnote - for some reason I doubt this. On other articles, there are endnotes after each sentence, and you can ^{[citation needed]} any sentence that doesn't have a ref tag. Why can't you just do that until we figure this out? - Hah it did the tag. You get what I mean.

It's not appropriate to remove comments after someone has already replied to them.

The advice about how frequently to provide citations is at WP:MINREF (especially the "Citation density" section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

They're my comments and I'd like them gone. One of your friends threatened to ban me. He/she said my comments irritated him/her. I don't want to be banned! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 23:15, November 6, 2012‎

Please stop removing talk page comments, it is disruptive. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I came to this discussion because WhatamIdoing's userpage is 1 of the 7615 pages (currently) in my watchlist. I'd been ignoring the BCA discussions at her talkpage for many days, as they were to do with article-content, which I don't have time to properly research. But then the discussion changed to reference-style, which I do already know something about, so I started reading, and chimed in here. Reference style is a simple issue, and it seems that Carl (CBM) is explaining it clearly, at your talkpage. So that's good. :)

Content-wise: From reading bits of the discussion above, and at various userpages that it has spread to, the 1 element that keeps jumping out is that you (Charles35) don't seem to have read the majority of the sources that the article is based on - Nor are you suggesting new sources that should be used. There are many misunderstandings, based upon this core problem. You keep arguing with the content that the sources comprise of - But, all Wikipedia does is to summarize other sources, which is what this article does currently (eg the "she-ro" elements).

If you object to the sources currently used (eg Sulik) then find a source which critiques Sulik, or a source which provides a counter-perspective. Eg. here are some sources which directly cite Sulik's book.

Hope that helps. —Quiddity (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing's userpage is 1 of the 7615 pages (currently) in my watchlist

I don't know how you manage. I've cut back to just over two thousand pages and still can't keep up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's only 200 changes average, per 24 hours - a lot of stubs and template-documentation pages and such, not a lot of discussion forums currently. Using WP:popups makes checking diffs very easy, so the morning vandalism-check goes pretty fast. —Quiddity (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You will not find a source that is a direct critique of Sulik. It's just infeasible. Does that mean her work shouldn't be challenged...? And so you just happened to decide to a few minutes after the first hint of overthrow? Charles35 (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Sources, answered below.

Re: Timing, as I said, it was when the discussion about citevar started, that I became interested. I don't know anything about BCA-specifically, so could not usefully contribute to the discussions prior to that. —Quiddity (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AstraZeneca

When discussing AstraZeneca's involvement in Breast Cancer Awareness Month, noting their role in treating breast cancer is normal for all sources and ought to be included in this article just like it is in the vast majority of sources.

Searching for the string "breast cancer awareness month" AstraZeneca gives me 38,100 ghits. The same thing, adding just the name arimidex (only one of the drugs in question), produces 28,700 ghits. That means that three-quarters of the sources are calling out at least one of AZ's drugs.

Wikipedia's policies require us to follow the sources. We should follow the sources by supplying this appropriate and source-supported context, instead of trying to bury the facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is that that piece of information is irrelevant in this case. You are free to include the drugs manufactured by AZ when it is relevant. But in this case, it is not. Please add it to the up-&-coming BCA and Business section. Thanks Charles35 (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If three-quarters of the sources mention it in this context, then it is relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, change it for now. Go ahead, you can have it. When we get to that part of the article, we will decide. Charles35 (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you should self-revert, so that there will never be any question about your agreement for the change at this point in time. (Naturally, anyone's opinion about how best to handle something might change in the future).

I also suggest that you try creating your proposed "business" section on the talk page. That's a very common approach on Wikipedia if there are any concerns about a major section being contrversial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. After F&A chimes in again. It was his idea in the first place. And I'm pretty sure we'd like to (I would at least) establish all of the changes before any are implemented. That way, nothing will be lost in the confusion of the changes. I wasn't sure - are you agreeing with the new section? If so, it looks like we are making strides! :)Charles35 (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with it. I just don't really care (at this point in time). I'm giving you a choice; please don't tell me what to do. Charles35 (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

He/she said that because they are consistent, not because of any actual reason. Originally, actually, he/she disagreed with you, until you told him/her off, just like everyone else on this talk page. Read through it - every single word is a criticism of the issues in this article. And every single word is responded to by you. After your response, all of the other people ran away and never looked back. I won't let ownership go on any further. Not on my watch. If you have community consensus, go ahead. You didn't have community consensus to change it to parenthetical in the first place. I remember when you did this. I was too new on wikipedia to know to call you out. Charles35 (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Charles, your account is less than two weeks old, and this article has used parenthetical citations since its very first edit, over a year ago. You can't "remember when I changed it" because it has been this way since it's first day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And would you look at that it hasn't changed one bit ever since. Most articles on wikipedia do. They are usually collaborative efforts. Every once in a while you run into an article that is under false ownership, like this one (you haven't even tried to deny it). Charles35 (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I remember when you changed it 2 weeks ago - "...someone improperly changed the citation style a little more than 24 hours before your first edits. It's been switched back to WP:Parenthetical citations..." - I forgot about the 24 hours part. My bad. Charles35 (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The actual POV problem here

There's nothing wrong with discussing viewpoints, provided that they're a) relevant to the article and b) not presented as fact, and not given undue weight. What we hear in this article are two types of criticisms: those that pertain to negative secondary effects of the breast cancer awareness movement, and those that pertain to the movement failing to meet its own goals.

The former type fails to meet the relevance criterion: This article does not claim that increasing awareness of breast cancer will help reduce littering or combat the consumer culture. Furthermore, while finding a cure for breast cancer is a goal of the movement, it is not the primary goal (according to the article's lede paragraph), so a failure to cure breast cancer is not, in and of itself, an example of the movement failing to meet its own goals, and thus not relevant to this article.

The latter type of criticism, on the other hand, is relevant to this article. Essentially, this page provides extensive documentation of feminist and social criticism of the breast cancer awareness movement, and of criticism of corporate involvement. Most of the business-related views are a) more based on objective fact and b) explained in far more neutral terms; all they lack is a bit more balance (which I'll address presently). The views relating to cultural perception, however, are where we find a legitimate POV issue. To quote WP:YESPOV, "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice." Here are a few examples of relevant, informative views being presented as fact:

"[NCBAM events] also reinforce the cultural connection between each individual's physical fitness and moral fitness." (Events)
"The pink ribbon is associated with individual generosity, faith in scientific progress, and a "can-do" attitude. 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." (Pink ribbon)
Pretty much the whole "Social role of women with breast cancer section," such as

"The careful presentation of feminine qualities, such as emphasizing a feminine appearance and concern for others, restores the woman to her proper gender role by balancing the masculine qualities the women display in responding to breast cancer, such as taking an active role in decision-making, being 'selfish' by putting their immediate needs before others', and bravely 'fighting' cancer." (The "she-ro")
"The effect of the she-ro model is to reduce the stigma of having breast cancer, and to increase the stigma of being overwhelmed, depressed, anxious, abrasive, or unattractive as a result of having breast cancer (Sulik 2010, page 45). The culture celebrates women who display the attitude deemed correct, and declares that their continued survival is due to this positive attitude and fighting spirit, even though cheerfulness, hope, and displaying a cosmetically enhanced appearance do not kill cancer cells." (The "she-ro")
"Breast cancer thereby becomes a rite of passage rather than a disease." (Breast cancer culture)
"Mainstream pink ribbon culture is also trivializing, silencing, and infantilizing." (Breast cancer culture)
The "booby campaigns", such as "Save the Tatas" and the "I ♥ Boobies" gel bracelets, rely on a cultural obsession with breasts and a market that is already highly aware of breast cancer (Kingston 2010). This message reflects a belief that breast cancer is important not because it kills women prematurely, but because cancer and its treatment makes women feel less sexually desirable and interferes with men's sexual access to women's breasts (Sulik 2010, page 347)." (Breast cancer culture)

These are all valid opinions held by reliable, respectable sources. They are nonetheless opinions. The "she-ro" point, for instance, actually violates the policy on neologisms, which states "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Now, of course, the "she-ro" point is just a section, not an article, but it is still a neologism, with a weighted meaning, being passed off as an objective (or highly notable) term. And the other opinions, while most definitely held by notable authorities on the subject of this article, are being phrased as widely-held fact.

All in all, to avoid giving undue weight to critics of the breast cancer awareness technique, in an article whose primary goal should be to describe the movement, which can be accomplished entirely through non-opinionated sources, we should attribute and specify all opinions. I feel that this would be best accomplished by creating one section entitled "Businesses and breast cancer awareness," which would discuss all aspects of the role of businesses in breast cancer awareness, including both praise (identified as such) of their improvement of breast cancer awareness and criticism (identified as such) of hypocrisies or misrepresentations; and another section entitled "Feminism and breast cancer awareness" (of which "Feminism and the breast cancer wars" could be a subsection), which would discuss all aspects of feminist perception of breast cancer awareness, including both praise (identified as such) of the movement's success in improving the public image of women with breast cancer, and of women in general (inasmuch as such praise exists), and criticism (identified as such and heavily summarized from its current form) of ways that the movement either creates or makes use of stereotypical impressions of women.

(If other editors see better way to deal with the problem, I'm not at all implying that my suggestion is the only way to deal with it. What's more important is identifying said problem, which I hope that I've done in a persuasive manner.) — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your time catching up with and responding to all of the content with this article. I have several thoughts about what you said. A lot of the things I agree with; some of them I don't. But I'm hoping we can come to a shared understanding on the things we disagree on, including with whatamidoing and the things she believes. So here are my thoughts:

I agree with your criteria for expressing viewpoints. I think there are a few more things to add though, and this goes for all content, not just opinions: All viewpoints must be in the correct section, and they must be worded properly in a non-misleading & objective way (this is similar to your "not presented as fact", but is slightly different).

As for the criticisms we see in this article - I think the first one you mentioned makes up the bulk of it. I don't see the second one though. I don't think there is any organization that can effectively 'sum up' the goals of BCA in a way that makes it able to be criticized. The movement is not a coherent, planned, unified body; it is a social phenomenon that is the sum of all the little pieces (ie each person) that makes it up. You can't delineate a goal that each person has in mind. You can certainly criticize the goals of a single organization, but you can't generalize that to the entire movement. When you say, This article does not claim that increasing awareness of breast cancer will help reduce littering or combat the consumer culture, I think WhatamIdoing will agree with me here - are you saying that since the goal of BCA has nothing to do with littering and consumerism, then you can't criticize the BCA movement for not attaining those goals? I think that the purpose of the criticism with respect to those phenomena is that, regardless of the intentions of the movement, it nonetheless has those effects. If it has those effects, then, whether it is intentional or not, those effects should still be addressed. It's like saying that, since the motor industry did not make cars with pollution in mind (at least not until relatively recently), we shouldn't assess it based on the effects it might have on global warming (for instance). But we should address them, in my opinion.

I like the examples you gave. There were only a couple I wasn't too sure about: "The careful presentation of feminine qualities..." - as whatamIdoing pointed out, this is referring to the ideal she-ro, so it is, technically, allowed (the way I see it). I still would say that the content is a little too strong, which makes it inappropriate for the article. It should be brought down so it is less questionable or scrapped altogether, in my opinion. You don't need a source to tell you that. It solely involves the translation of the content from the source to the article and the proper way to construct an encyclopedia rather than an essay. Lastly, I agree that the last quote is problematic. It is way out of line, very provocative/radical, and sticks out as immature and inappropriate, specifically cultural obsession, breast cancer is important not because it kills women prematurely (it certainly is not asserting such a belief), and "but because cancer and its treatment makes women feel less sexually desirable and interferes with men's sexual access to women's breasts." It is just way too radical and essay-like to be on wikipedia. I don't think it matters if it reflects Sulik's view. If this is Sulik's view, then her book is not a reliable source, because this is just too much.

I wanted to let you know that I very much agree with what you said here: "the she-ro...with a weighted meaning, being passed off as an objective (or highly notable) term. And the other opinions, while most definitely held by notable authorities on the subject of this article, are being phrased as widely-held fact." and here: "...primary goal should be to describe the movement, which can be accomplished entirely through non-opinionated sources, we should attribute and specify all opinions. - Amen to those.

When you said, "...creating one section entitled "Businesses and breast cancer awareness," I think this is a good idea. I would like to add that the criticism about the pharmaceutical companies (AZ) and other conflicts of interest should go in here. When you talk about "...another section entitled "Feminism and breast cancer awareness...which would discuss...praise (identified as such) of the movement's success...", I think more material should be added to the article concerning feminist praise of the movement. I don't see a single sentence about that here, and it's important to point out that the movement was originally a feminist movement (and still is), and that feminists are the main proponents of BCA, not exclusively opponents.

Lastly, an idea of my own - I don't have a problem with keeping some of the she-ro part. But I think that all of the she-ro material should be in the she-ro section. The article in its current state has she-ro material in sub-section "Breast Cancer Culture," where is shouldn't be since 'she-ro' isn't a well-established and totally free of doubt concept. Charles35 (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a side note for a point of fact about Wikipedia's policies: We are actually required to present some viewpoints as being facts, e.g., the viewpoint that guided imagery does not cure cancer. In general, a viewpoint that is (1) put forward by scholars or other serious sources and (2) not contradicted by any similarly high-quality source is put forward as a viewpoint-that-is-a-fact rather than as a viewpoint-that-is-an-opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but it is a fact that guided imagery does not cure cancer, so I don't exactly understand how that applies. And the viewpoints we're talking about are not accepted as being close to facts and are not uncontested. It is more appropriate to convey it as an opinion. The public deserves to know the reality here. Charles35 (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There are actually people who sincerely believe that guided imagery cures cancer. That's their viewpoint; the mainstream and scientific viewpoint is that it doesn't work.

Unless and until you can produce a source that disagrees with the multiple, high-quality, scholarly sources already listed in the article, then these are facts and are uncontested in Wikipedia's system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I did. I'm sorry you don't see that. There isn't anything I can do here anymore. The secret police will purge me if I continue. (metaphor, of course. please take it as a joke) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that both of you need to quit evaluating the article in terms of what you (magically?) "know" and start finding sources. For example, I'd love to see some feminist praise for the BCA movement as a social movement (we've already got praise for its achievements, e.g., earlier diagnosis). Let me know if you find any, okay? Because I haven't, and it's Wikipedia's policy to assume that if a diligent search fails to produce any such sources, then those sources don't exist and therefore your guess about what those sources 'ought' to say cannot be considered in a determination of bias in an article. The policy is verifiability, not best-guessability.

We may need to clarify the issue about "goals" vs "achievements". This is what's fundamentally behind that criticism (which is all over the place): "Komen for the Cure" rakes in millions of dollars each year, and spends very, very, very little of it on anything that could be a cure. So to use the less-politely phrased approach to this criticism, Komen is a bunch of big, fat liars. They say, "We are raising money to find a cure for breast cancer" (ask anybody who makes a donation what they believe their money will be spent on), but they spend almost all the money on everything else except cure-oriented research. (They're not unusual in this regard; the American Cancer Society, for example, wants to prevent cancer, but spends 99.3% of its budget on something else.)

Rather than going on, let me repeat what I said above: if you cannot find a source that disagrees with the high-quality sources in the article, then we have to assume that our existing, high-quality, scholarly sources do represent the mainstream viewpoint and that their viewpoint is sufficiently dominant that it should be presented as a fact rather than the personal opinion of a long list of scholars. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read all of that. But I read the first and last lines. Ms. WhatamIdoing, we are not talking about sources here, for the most part, and we aren't even talking about implementing any changes (yet). So please be patient. We are going to reach a consensus. And I have identified several sources (very high quality ones - one of most respected medical journals in the world) for us to use. There will be more if they are required. Charles35 (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said, WhatamIdoing, the problem is not that the sources don't make compelling arguments, but rather that they make arguments that this article represents as fact. Can we at least agree, for instance, that the passages I've listed here need to be clearly identified as opinions? — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 13:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No, we cannot agree that the passages you've listed here (e.g., that awareness leads to greater uptake of mammography services or that most of the money raised ostensibly "for the cure" goes towards education and screening rather than research or prevention) need to be clearly identified as opinions. Unless and until you can show in a published reliable source that these are just opinions rather than facts, then we should not label them as such. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, we'll worry about those later. What about this one? "Breast cancer thereby becomes a rite of passage rather than a disease." (Breast cancer culture) Can you, with a straight face, tell me that that is a fact? Charles35 (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I can say that breast cancer is a rite of passage with exactly the same, straight face as I can say that a bar mitzvah or high school graduation is a rite of passage: 100% of sources that mention that issue say that it is a rite of passage, and 0% of sources say that it isn't. I follow the sources.

Even if I weren't dedicated to following the sources, I'd still believe this to be reasonable: the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer is routinely described as a life-changing experience. That's pretty much the definition of a rite of passage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest in arguing with you over the validity of these opinions; I merely wish for the article to not present them as facts. You contend that they are facts because they are held by all reliable sources. Now, regardless of whether or not this is true (I have no idea if it is; I'm not highly well-read on this topic), an inherent aspect of the NPOV policy is that nothing is declared to be a fact unless it is demonstrably true, can assumed to be true for the purposes of the article, or is by far the simplest explanation. What you say would be true if the reliable sources to which you're referring were scientific studies or articles in well-regarded newspapers. But it's not true when we're dealing with social critique and cultural commentary. Analysis, no matter how unanimous, is not fact: We do not write that Plan 9 from Outer Space was a bad movie (even though it was and is universally held as such), that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a good president (even though he won all but two states in his final election), or that, even, Breast cancer is a bad thing. Rather, we state that these opinions are held, and we explain the rationale for these opinions at a length proportional to their support. To quote WP:IMPARTIAL, "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized." We cannot debate how widely these views are held (even if they're held unanimously) until the article reflects that they are, in fact, the views of cultural observers, and not the conclusions of objective analysts. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 20:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

an inherent aspect of the NPOV policy is that nothing is declared to be a fact unless it is demonstrably true...

Actually, the explicit policies—see both NPOV and NOR—is that an editor's personal opinion about whether any given fact (or alleged fact, if you like) is "demonstrably true" or "the simplest explanation" is irrelevant. Editors are required to assume that facts asserted in high-quality sources are actually facts, unless and until the editors find a published, reliable source that indicates that these facts are just opinions.

So, for example, it is a fact that mammograms provide both benefits (longer lives) and harms (increased exposure to cancer-causing ionizing radiation, needless biopsies and surgery on healthy women). It is a fact that the USPSTF and ACS no longer recommend annual mammograms for normal-risk 40-year-old women. It is an opinion, however, that their recommendation is (your choice: good, bad, appropriately scientific, purely political, going to kill women, proof that the country is going to Hell in a handbasket, etc.). The way that we know that the recommendation itself is a fact is that 100% of the sources we've consulted agree on this point. The way that we know the opinion is not a fact is that many the sources disagree about how to characterize it.

That's how to do this type of analysis on Wikipedia: forget everything you thought you knew, and line up your sources. What you get from looking strictly at the sources is what you're supposed to put in the article. You might reflect on the meaning of this sentence in the DUE section of the NPOV policy: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to represent any viewpoint here, WhatamIdoing. In fact, I'm inclined to agree with many of the sources who criticize some of the effects of the breast cancer awareness movement. And you raise several good points. I have no problem with this article's citing factual evidence that supports a specific viewpoint more than it supports another – e.g. the costs and benefits of mammograms. Honestly, I agree with essentially everything you just said. But you still haven't addressed my main point, namely that the sources you cite are not, and do not purport to be, presentations of fact, but rather arguments for specific opinions. My father was a columnist, and I know he would have never let another reporter cite one of his columns as fact, simply because he was a reliable source. There is a difference between being a reliable source and being a presentation of a fact. As I said, we should treat these viewpoints just like we treat movie reviews: notable, definitely, but not equal to totally objective statistics and descriptions. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 00:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Statistics and descriptions are not always totally objective, and "total objectivity" is not required of facts.

What you're calling an opinion is a description of social reality. For example: The she-ro (pop culture's ideal breast cancer patient) makes having breast cancer less shameful (e.g., compared to 1956, when Alice Roosevelt Longworth secretly had a mastectomy), but makes failing to cope gracefully more shameful (e.g., compared to 1970, when Alice Roosevelt Longworth publicly joked about having a second mastectomy). Those are the facts: having breast cancer used to be more shameful, but if you curled up in bed and cried for a month, nobody thought your reaction was truly unreasonable. Now, it's less shameful, but if you cry every day for a month, people think you have a bad attitude or a psychiatric problem. That's not just someone's opinion; that's an extensively documented fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my previous post, an extensively documented piece of social commentary is not the same thing as an objective truth about a society. Once again, I go to the example of a movie: It is extensively documented that when people watch The Godfather, they tend to say "This was a good film." It is extensively documented that when people watch Plan 9 from Outer Space, they tend to say "This was a bad film." You can back this up with reliable sources in the form of Metacritic averages, IMDb scores, and books written on both films. It would be nonetheless improper to write in The Godfathers article that it was a good film, or in Plan 9s article that it was a bad film.

I don't see why we need to argue about this so much. All I ask is that we agree to stop presenting opinions as facts, and probably shorten the summary of the opinions as well. I'm not pushing an opposing POV, and I'm not pushing for any major removals of content. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether a movie is "good" or "bad" is a judgment call, an artistic opinion. Whether or not people with cancer feel ashamed of having cancer is not an opinion. It's a measured fact, using validated psychological methods. Do you understand the difference between these things? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please inform me of the valid psychological instrument used to measure 'shame' in women with breast cancer. How do you measure shame? What exactly is shame? Is there a 'shame chemical'? Is shame a social construct? If so, then how do you measure a construct? Do you measure each thought in every person's brain in the entire world and add them all up and divide by pi to find the shame quotient? How is that valid? Is there a concrete objective sense that we can even understand the concept of shame? NO, there isn't. It's just silly. The phenomena is 1000000x more complex than you could ever hope to understand. This is not a fact. It's not really an 'opinion' per se either. It's a social commentary; a storyline. It's more akin to non-fantastic (ie real-world) fiction. It's no more possible to objectively understand than F&A's example with the movie. Although, they aren't quite the same. She is trying to find a predictable pattern to other peoples' opinions (ie the experience of shame), which is impossible. It should be presented that way, assuming it's even logical to include this novel in the article (which it isn't). Call it an opinion because there's no better word that the reader can be expected to understand. Charles35 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple tools for measuring shame, including the GASP scale and the Internalized Shame Scale.

It's what "she is trying to find", because multiple researchers have all come to the same conclusions. I suggest that you actually go read the sources, and the lists of sources that they cite, instead of just guessing about what the researchers have done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Trolley

Okay, here's a specific change I'd like to make. I can't think of a way to slightly reword it to fix the connotation, because the material has too deep of a bias. It actually doesn't really make any sense at all. I'm talking about the caption for the trolley advertisement, which reads:

This trolley advertisement promotes cosmetics company Avon Products, Inc. and breast cancer awareness. Because of the brand's strength, the advertisement is easily recognized as a promotion for breast cancer awareness, even among people who cannot read the Japanese text.

Everybody is going to associate that advertisement with BCA, not for the reason given, but because there is 50 sq. ft. pink ribbon smack dab in the center of the trolley! Think about it - nobody is going to think "hmm, it says Avon in the right hand corner, but the rest is in Japenese... What is that giant pink ribbon for? Hmm....oh, I know! They sponsered a BCA ad last year, it must be for breast cancer awareness!" It just makes no sense. Obviously when you see a giant pink ribbon, you think BCA. You don't see the word Avon, think BCA, then notice the pink ribbon which is 100x larger than the word Avon. I understand the point you are trying to make about the marketing strategy of association with the movement, but it just doesn't really work here. You could say, "Because of ads like these, Avon products has associated itself with BCA movement." That might work. I was going to change it to this, but I thought it would be too drastic of a change to not get reverted. Charles35 (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the point: The pink ribbon itself constitutes the most recognizable logo for the breast cancer brand. The advertisement doesn't say (nor does the caption), "Oh, the Avon brand, so it must be breast cancer..." It says, "Pink ribbon! Must be breast cancer!" The fact that this particular breast cancer ad is from Avon is largely irrelevant. It's the "pink ribbon brand", not the "Avon brand" that people are going to notice here. And that's what the text says: This ad promotes Avon and BCA, and because of the [breast cancer/pink ribbon] brand's strength, everybody knows this ad is about breast cancer, even if you can't see or comprehend the text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay I see what you mean now :) It's not biased like I had originally thought, but I think it's a little difficult to follow. I would clarify what you mean with the word brand. Conventionally, people think of Avon products as a brand more so than breast cancer. The way I read it, and I think the way most people would read it, is that Avon is associated with breast cancer before seeing the ad, and since it's an Avon ad, you realize that BCA must be involved. I'd suggest changing it slightly to make the meaning more obvious. I see why you'd think it's already obvious, but to the average reader, who isn't thinking in terms of "BCA = brand" to the extent that you are, it isn't that obvious. I've been confused by it this whole time. Charles35 (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps inserting either pink ribbon or breast cancer before "brand's strength" would help. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think both of those would do the job. We should go with whatever you think is more true to the content. From my understanding, 'pink ribbon brand' makes more sense than 'breast cancer brand,' but either will do. Charles35 (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

WP:GRAPHS lists {{Bar chart}} and {{Bar box}}. You might look at those. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Marketing and branding
Societal issues: Patients, considered individually and corporately; feminist responses
Accomplishments, good (education, resources) and bad (fear)
Categories of criticisms: Selling out, environmentalism, artistic
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

At this point my preference would be to dump that paragraph. GabrielF (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Have a go, we'll see how we like it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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://wiki.riteme.site/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)

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)

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://wiki.riteme.site/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)

~~Ah, yes. Thanks! I have no problem with that edit. =)~~ Biosthmors (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [1], [2], [3], and glance at these articles [4] and [5], and definitely this [6].

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)