Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:27, 30 November 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Breast cancer awareness article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions As stated in the English Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The prominence among individual editors or the general public is not considered relevant. This article, like all articles, should include all relevant facts, opinions, praise and criticism that can be verified in reliable sources according to their prominence. Why does this article contain so many criticisms of breast cancer awareness? These criticisms are prominent in the published reliable sources about the breast cancer movement. Many scholars and mainstream media have heavily criticized prominent aspects of the modern breast cancer awareness movement, including: non-profit organizations that solicit donations "for research" or "for the cure" but actually spend the money mostly on non-research purposes, like support groups or advertisements; businesses that sell cancer-themed items to "support breast cancer" without disclosing how little is ultimately donated; media-driven stereotypes of women, especially the use of sex to promote breast cancer awareness and the reinforcement of the idea that breast cancer matters because it reduces women's sex appeal; healthcare businesses that have over-sold the benefits of screening mammograms and downplayed its harms; and people who expect women with breast cancer to behave a particular way, such as to act brave even when they are feeling very frightened.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Hematology-oncology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Breast cancer awareness appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 January 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that wearing a pink ribbon for breast cancer awareness has been denounced as a form of feel-good slacktivism that saves no lives? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2011/January.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Breast cancer awareness article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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)

Dissent

I'm not sure why an editor thinks that acknowledging dissent is POV, but the citations in that section and elsewhere—and, honestly, the entire last third of Sulik's book—support the statement as written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"While the pink ribbon culture is dominant, cracks in the façade of unity show through." is not acknowledging dissent. It is making an argument. So is the "compliant optimism, aesthetic normalization, and social pleasingness that the pink ribbon culture promotes." claim.©Geni 18:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, it's an argument that is made (at length) by the cited source, not by any Misplaced Pages editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Then you need to present it as an argument made by that source. So for example "X argues that while the pink ribbon culture is dominant, cracks in the façade of unity show through." Or "Artists in responding to what they see as a façade of unity have done X".©Geni 21:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be appropriate if Sulik were the only reliable source making the claim that breast cancer culture emphasizes conformity, but she's not. For example, Ehrenreich also makes the same claim (both in the source cited and in her book Bright-sided, which isn't cited in the article.) The emphasis on conformity is acknowledged by multiple sources, some of whom think that it's a good thing (e.g., politically inclined groups, who believe women with breast cancer will get more resources if they "speak with one voice").

I don't think that your second statement is accurate. I think (based on what I've read) that the artists are responding not to the "mandatory" appearance of unity, but to their individual, personal experiences (which happen to be quite different from the "party line"). That is, the artists' truthfulness shows the falsity of the "you must be happy, hopeful, and helpful" feeling rules that the culture imposes on women, but I haven't seen any sources that claim the artists are trying to show that the culture is false. Instead, the sources indicate that the artists are trying to be authentic and truthful, and that to do this they have to resist the falseness of the culture. It's more like an unintended consequence than a direct response to the cultural imperative for public unity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

^^ do you realize that everybody thinks you're wrong? WP:OOA you don't own this article. you scare everyone off. this is against the rules! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 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:

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

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

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, 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) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Purpose

I'm removing this:

Because there is no cure at this time, awareness is the primary way to decrease the number of people who die from breast cancer. Breast cancer patients who had a family history of breast cancer, and were therefore more aware of the risk factors of breast cancer, are more likely to detect the disease early and also had a higher survival rate, than those who did not have a family history of breast cancer (Verkooijen, 2011). The results from this study demonstrate the purpose of awareness and how it can lead to early detection. Oftentimes the purpose of breast cancer awareness becomes unclear because people become caught up in the pink ribbon campaign and the media-oriented aspects of breast cancer awareness. The true purpose of breast cancer awareness is to make women aware of the risk of breast cancer, so that they can detect symptoms of breast cancer as early as possible.

• Verkooijen, H.M. (2009). "Impact of a positive family history on diagnosis, management, and survival of breast cancer: different effects across socio-economic groups". Cancer Causes and Control. 20 (9): 1689–1696. doi:10.1007/s10552-009-9420-1. PMID 19701688. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

because I just don't think it's salvageable. §Fundamentally, it's one editor's personal opinion about the True™ purpose of breast cancer awareness programs, backed up by a primary source on survival rates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, you are not the dictator of this article. This is the only dissenting opinion here - the rest is YOUR opinion, which is not even the majority opinion on this issue. You represent less than, at most, 15% of the people. The opinion, which you have done your best (and done a very good job) to censor, is the majority opinion. And yet, it makes up, at most, 5% of the approximately 15,000-20,000 words on this page.

Oh my God. And not only do you scare off everyone who disagrees, but the only rational word left in this article gets exterminated like those political dissenters in Soviet Russia ;)

You are allowed to include your interpretations, but nobody else can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"Fundamentally, it's one editor's personal opinion about the True™ purpose of breast cancer awareness programs backed up by a primary source on survival rates." Are you serious? Are you just completely blind? It's not that you frantically scramble to delete all dissenting views on this page because you have a personal grudge or a financial gain from doing so, it's because you legitimately do not see how ridiculous your behavior is. Only an editor in serious, serious denial could, like Stalin, censor everything that is not their personal opinion without even providing your OWN primary sources or original research! Sulik's book is not research, it is her opinion! Plus, not only does it have no research, it is impossible to even be researched. None of your claims are falsifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.32.44 (talk • contribs) 01:21, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

This article should be scrapped and rewritten or just deleted altogether

This is not an appropriate wikipedia article. It should be titled "Feminist Criticism of Breast Cancer Awareness" instead of "Breast Cancer Awareness." It is extremely misleading and is not an encyclopedia article. It is an opinion article. It does not reflect general knowledge that wikipedia attempts to provide. It is Gayle Sulik's opinion - that's it. It is not in the slightest bit objective.

This article was clearly written by Gayle Sulik, as almost every paragraph cites her book and the words are very clearly hers, unless there's someone else in the world who took it upon him or herself to read her book and then go write a 15,000 word essay exclusively on it and title it "Breast Cancer Awareness." It is a promotion of her book, and it needs to be removed immediately.

There are numerous substantial issues with it:

It is all but giving medical advice, asserting the notion that cancer is a social construct and discouraging people to go to doctors. This advice could hypothetically destroy millions of lives.

It is very misleading - first, it cites Sulik's book 49 times, which gives an illusion that there is substantial evidence and research to back up these claims. This is not how wikipedia works. If you cite the same source, you keep citing it as "2," "2," "2," "2," "2," "2," "2," and not "72," "73,"......"102," "103." It creates a false illusion that the content is backed by several sources. This article has 105 citations. 87% of them refer to the same 4 sources. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. Just because Sulik wrote a book and copy/pasted it does not make it evidence. Her book is a novel. It is not a research paper, or a study, or an informative work. It is an opinion. And it deserves no place on wikipedia. Second - the section on "She-ro" is very inappropriate. Sulik again uses her credentials as a means of establishing an illusion of authority. She has no knowledge of etymology, and creates a false dichotomy between 'hero' and 'she-ro.' She is creating the idea that 'hero' is a sexist word and refers to men. The 'he' in hero has nothing to do with men. This is content that could very well belong in her book or a work of fiction, but it has no place on wikipedia.

Lastly, this article makes myriad serious, wide, and questionable claims. None of her work, which is promoted as feminist critical sociology, is scientific. None of it is falsifiable. None of it has evidence or research to back it up. It is simply speculation or entirely fictional. It puts forth numerous radical ideas and views which it takes no accountability for. She uses terms like 'some women believe..." or "this may cause some women to..." or "in some cases..." There is no evidence for these claims, and she gets away with it by putting words like "some," which allow her to take no accountability and let her off the hook. All of that information needs to go. Or it needs to be backed up with research. Or, at the very least, an alternate opinion should be provided. Just because she has a PhD does not make ANY of it the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.32.44 (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

When you're citing different pages, you can't just repeat the footnotes. But that was a minor problem that has been corrected; 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, which has the happy advantage of making the relative use of the sources be much more obvious to the reader.

I am curious why you say that the article presents cancer as a social construct. People and their behaviors always happen in a social context, but the cancer cells themselves do not. I thought that statements like "cheerfulness, hope, and displaying a cosmetically enhanced appearance do not kill cancer cells" pointed out the difference between how society deals with the patient (e.g., shaming women who are angry) and the biological reality (e.g., that pink ribbons don't kill cancer cells). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Page protected

I am not a medical person, I'm a linguist. Having read the article, I feel that there may possibly be some bias or WP:UNDUE. I've taken some emergency action by reverting the POV (whether it is relevant or not, editor comments are not allowed in mainspace) and semi protecting for a short period. This article is of dubious notability, but not being an expert on the subject and with no access to the hardcopy sources I cannot unfortunately undertake a systematic clean up. Could regular editors of this article or the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine please take a good look at it without predjudice to stubbing, CSDing, PRODing, or sending it to AfD. Many thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kudpung

I don't disagree with protecting the article. It clearly is not appropriate to put something like that on the article, but I felt it was necessary in order to bring some attention to it without it getting immediately reverted.

On a separate note - being a linguist, what do you think of the word "she-ro." It it appropriate to make a dichotomy with the word "hero?" Doesn't that sort of dichotomy imply that "hero" is masculine? Does you think the "he" in hero refers to a man? I'm certainly not an expert, but I believe the word "hero" is just a root; it has no pre- or suffixes, as far as I know. I just think it is false and misleading to let people believe that "hero" is a sexist word, and that the "he-" refers to men.

Plus, there's already a word for that - heroine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.32.44 (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is exactly the place to discuss the content of the article. User:WhatamIdoing does some excellent work on medical articles and I'm sure she will chime in here. As the accounts of many contributors may be already confirmed, it is unlikely that the semi-protection will do much - it was done, understandably, to prevent what you did. You are most welcome to create an account which will provide you with many more benefits, but you won't be able to edit semi protected articles until your account is 4 days old and you have made 10 edits with it.

The word hero comes via Latin from Greek hērōs. Many languages have a similar word. Strictly, the the feminine version is of course heroin, also from the Greek. I'm not sure about the coined word she-ro, it does not appear to be listed in any quality dictionaries or any that I have written and/or published. The only mention I found was shero (without the hyphen), but the source is not reliable. I suppose the word can be used in the article if it is used in one of the print sources, and referenced.

1. "Urban Dictionary". Retrieved 25 October 2012.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• "...man of superhuman strength or physical courage..." Typical. Just like History, and don't get me started on "therapist". :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Heroine: a woman admired or idealized for her courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities. (Oxford American Dictionary) See also Merriam-Webster. Therapist does not appear to have any gender specific connotations, although the German , for example, a language that has a greater extent of genderised vocational nouns, has the feminine form Therapeutin :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah touché my friend. The female version is far nicer. :) As for therapist, I just threw that one in there because rape usually goes one way, and most male therapists I've met have been rather creepy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We are using she-ro because the sources use she-ro. If they didn't, then we wouldn't. As it happens, Sulik is using this term to highlight a gender role issue. The she-ro is both feminine (must try to look pretty during chemo!) and masculine (must be aggressive and selfish ).

Linguistically, I suspect that the term was used to describe a certain type of comic book character well before anyone thought of applying it to women with breast cancer. But folk etymology has a poor track record, so word origin is probably best left to a scholar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously pink ribbons don't kill cancer cells, nor do blue ribbons, or green ones, or even purple ones. Red ones though have a special drug in it. Apparently the inner circle is harvesting its power for exploitation and personal gain, using it to make people think that the chemo is killing their cancer. But in reality, it's just the ribbon they're wearing! It's mind-control tactic introduced by the Martians. It was adopted by the church of Scientology is 1968, but was stolen by the inner circle, with financial support from the Illuminati, shortly thereafter, right from under Tom Cruise's preincarnation's nose, . It has been in their hands since then, but recently the Feminizers caught wind of it, and have been trying to expose it ever since.

Really though, just because Sulik's Harry Potter prequel is a 'source,' and is probably technically a reputable one, does not in any way mean that it is one that it is correct, or that it is the opinion of anyone else but her, or that it should be heard. If you used every reputable source in the world, wikpedia would be a mess of articles and would contain one, loads of misinformation and two, loads of contradictions. Who made the rule that this is a strictly about social pathology and financial corruption? Why can those be the only points being made here? What about just 'social' and just 'financial?' Why does it have to be all negative? And why is no alternative opinion allowed?

I give up on this. Go ahead continue to censor the world and not let anyone else have a say with your big opinion. But just because nobody's trying doesn't mean they agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not all negative. Go look at the Achievements of the breast cancer movement section. Look at the History section. What's negative there? There's only a single sentence of criticism in the Breast cancer as a brand section, and most of the marketing sub-sections are similarly limited in their criticism.

Sulik's book, by the way, was published by Oxford University Press. Every chapter ends with a lengthy bibliography. She received a National Endowment for the Humanities research fellowship in 2008 for this work. She's a former professor and a full-time researcher. This isn't just some "technically reliable book". This is a—perhaps the—major scholarly work on the subject. And, importantly, she's not the only scholar who holds this position. You might not have noticed, but there are even top-quality sources written by men named in this article, and they agree with Sulik about the problems in the breast cancer culture. In fact, there isn't a single independent scholar who disagrees with her conclusion that breast cancer culture has some problems with conformism, fear mongering, and victim blaming. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

1) "...there are even top-quality sources written by men named in this article..." How is that relevant? Yet another example of sexism in feminism. If a man is a feminist that strengthens the argument? Why is it any different for a man to be a feminist compared to a women?

2) Honestly if I were you I would take out all that stuff about the inner circle. And the trolley photo is clearly an ad for breast cancer awareness. But it is not the brand behind it which makes it clear, it is the giant pink ribbon right in the center of it. The caption, which should be being objective, serves the purpose of strengthening Sulik's argument by adding negative connotation to pink ribbons.

3) I was fully aware that her book was published by the Oxford University Press. Do you know what else was published by them? The Misadventures of Winnie the Witch

http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/education/children/fiction/humour/9780192793645.do?sortby=bookTitleAscend&thumbby=10&thumbby_crawl=10&zoneCode=OXEDZC033#.UI8FtoUyHWY

4) If no scholarly sources have plain and simple information independent of opinions (which I highly doubt), then non-scholarly information must be given. I looked this up - sources cannot be original research, and we might prefer it to be scholarly, but if there is no scholarly info, non-scholarly sources are allowed (I also saw that all info must be presented with a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW). If all information comes from a biased source (ie a source that makes an argument, as all info presented by someone making an argument has inherent bias - accepted fact taught even in intro social science courses), then NON-SCHOLARLY sources need to be consulted in order to provide pure data and info on the topic. All encyclopedia entries must contain factual descriptions/info/data. You can't honestly tell me that all info in these articles must be a part of an argument. This would make for an extremely biased (inherently) article! What about descriptions, plain info (ie info that is irrelevant to arguments), stats, lists, etc? This should make up at least 3/4 of the encyclopedia entry.

5) You are never going to find a scholarly (social scientific...you probably could a medical one) source which is vouching for breast cancer awareness. The inherent properties of a scholarly source result in this. Scholarly sources are almost exclusively critiques. The author has set out on a mission to write a paper/thesis/manifesto/etc with the intention of criticizing or providing a new opinion on a particular issue. Nobody decides to write a paper which makes no oppositional claims. Nobody writes a paper with the purpose of simply confirming or presenting arguments that have already been established or are already the prevailing opinion, or simply to confirm facts. What would be the point of the paper? You aren't even allowed to write a thesis on something that has already been thoroughly discussed without providing their own new alternate, oppositional, or critical opinion/account of a topic. You can't take the side of somebody else. Otherwise it won't be accepted as a thesis. This is a requirement.

This is what makes an encyclopedia different from a scholarly journal. Papers, theses, and articles are designed to make an argument, to make a statement about the way the world should be. Yes, papers and theses will obviously present some factual information merely because it would be impossible to make an argument without doing so, but their underlying goal is to make an argument. They pick and choose which facts are relevant to their argument. The overall goal of an encyclopedia, however, is to present factual, non-biased, and objective information on the subject. It should be mainly informative, and, yes it SHOULD also contain arguments. But these arguments should be presented in a factual way. Counter-arguments should be offered, and given the same weight. The point of including arguments is to present opinions, as you said, but it is with the purpose of, "this is what some people think, but others believe this:" The goal of an encyclopedia is not to make an argument; it is, through information and arguments, to present a conclusion which it is itself void of arguments; the conclusion is solely factual. This article does not do that. It provides an argument and displays it as a fact. The conclusion of the paper is something along the lines of 'Breast cancer awareness is a bad thing.' Almost never do you see "Sulik believes..." or "others think..." This gives the reader the impression that this information is the TRUTH. This is what breast cancer awareness truly is. It's not anything else; it is THIS. The conclusion of this article is an argumentative conclusion, not a factual one; this is appropriate of a journal or a book like Sulik's, but not an encyclopedia.

6) It doesn't matter how qualified Sulik is. She is obviously very intelligent and she has produced strong material with a strong bibliography, but a personal issue of her's gets in the way of her effectiveness in conveying that information independent of her own take on the issue. Perhaps too subtly for some people to recognize, she includes little words and phrases here and there which slightly shift the way the information comes across in favor of the way she wants the world to understand it. Since you identified those 11 sections as being free or relatively free of bias, I will identify all the info which has some bias, and bold each biased part. I know that you are smart enough to see out what about it is biased. However, this does not change the fact that the article is severely disproportional; like I said, the feminist perspective does have its place here, but it seems to have overstayed its welcome. I will give you the the benefit of the doubt and say that those 11 sections are 'feminist-free.' So, after subtracting (most of) the computer code, images and captions, see also, notes, references, further reading, etc, the article has 6846 words. After subtracting all 11 of those sections you mentioned, the resulting document had 4107 words. This is a single opinion. If you were to say there's 2 opinions, and NO factual info, this opinion should be 50% of the article. If you were to include factual info, it shouldn't really be higher than 33%. If you were to be realistic, it should probably be around 15%. In reality, this opinion takes up 60% of the article (which is with the benefit of the doubt - in actuality, it's probably more like 90%).

In any case, here are the biased parts. Some criticisms that I didn't put here are actually very good and do indeed belong in an encyclopedia because they are free of a (negative) opinion, such as: "Most events are well-received, but some, like the unauthorized painting of the Pink Bridge in Huntington, West Virginia, are controversial." This points out a criticism in a factual and objective way. If it were to say that this was a sexist scandal, for instance (I don't know the actual incident but this is just an eg), then it should say, "Gayle Sulik claims that this was a sexist scandal," not "this was a sexist scandal." See the difference?

Text

I want to add at the beginning for anyone reading this: The point of this has gotten muddled. I was bolding the parts that I thought were critical because WhatamIdoing had claimed that none of it was critical. So half of these arguments we've been having are pointless because I've been defending multiple different points.Charles35 (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Marketing approaches

"Increased awareness has increased the number of women receiving mammograms, the number of breast cancers detected, and the number of women receiving biopsies (Sulik 2010, pages 157–210). It has also shifted the stage at which breast cancers are detected, so that more tumors are discovered in an earlier, more treatable stage.

• Setting up Sulik's argument. Those are not the most important results of awareness.
  • What exactly do you believe is the most important result, if increasing the proportion of cancers diagnosed at an earlier, more treatable stage isn't it? And you might read the official National Breast Cancer Awareness Month website: they have always said that their #1 purpose is to increase the number of women receiving mammograms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

    Ah, you are equating increasing the proportion of cancers diagnosed at an earlier, more treatable stage with mammography. I'd just like to note that, on your talk page, you said it was wrong to equate awareness (or, in anticipation of being 'technical,' a description of awareness) with mammography. And two, the NBCAM is not the sole authority on awareness. Charles35 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

    You are complaining that it says "Increased awareness has increased the number of women receiving mammograms". This is true. Nobody disputes this. This fact is the primary mechanism by which awareness leads to medical benefits. (NB: "leads to" is not the same as "equals".) So why do you say that this is "not the most important results of awareness"? What do you think is more important than saving lives? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here because I don't remember exactly what this is talking about. What I mean is that I don't remember why we are talking about the "most important result," because that isn't even in the text. I'm assuming it was probably in the context of this excerpt. But I think I get the gist. First, I think it's important to note that a larger concern is "It has also shifted the stage..." That little phrase is setting up Sulik's argument. This is a similar string of words used many times later during her more forthright critique. It is misleading because you are giving the reader your argument when he/she isn't expecting it. You have essentially went inside the part that is supposed to be not biased and not argumentative and not an opinion, and set the foundations to make your argument work better. This is a form of censorship (think Brave New World or 1984), and no question it is unethical.

Next, with the part you are talking about, I'm basically saying that this sentence is limiting the 'results' of increased awareness to those things listed. You are telling the reader that these are the most important (ie the ones worth mentioning) results, when that is just your opinion. Some might argue that simple 'awareness' is a more important result. Some might argue that the increase in societal desire for a cure and the amount of money being spent (both directly by the fundraising or indirectly as a result of more people being 'aware' - and you can be 'aware' without really being 'aware' ie knowing the extent of significance et al) is more important. You are telling the reader that these are the results he/she should be worried about, and that the other stuff isn't all that important. That is your opinion. Many people don't consider mammagrams to be the most important part of awareness. You could argue that simple awareness results in more people being aware which results in more funds, which results in more mammograms, among other things. So not everyone thinks that mammograms-and-that's-it is the most important. That is your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)

No, it's not my opinion. The belief that increased awareness leads to higher rates of mammography, which in turns leads to breast cancer being diagnosed earlier, which in turn leads to fewer women dying—and that this is the most important outcome for breast cancer awareness, the sort of important outcome that really ought to be identified as a goal and a major success story from the breast cancer movement—is the opinion of various experts who have written WP:Reliable sources, including the experts at the fundraising organizations.

I cannot imagine how the fact that breast cancer is being diagnosed earlier, on average, sets up anything at all about Sulik's arguments. Sulik cares about how women with breast cancer are treated by each other and by society. Sulik doesn't really deal with biology, e.g., whether it's a good thing for breast cancer to be diagnosed earlier. And you probably didn't notice, but all the sources that address this issue agree: more awareness results in more mammograms, which results in fewer dead women. It's not "just some radical feminist". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my God. Please quit this. I was not offering that reporting his own personal, non-expert opinion as if it were a verifiable fact. Furthermore, you warped my words into something they are not. Not only was I offering them ~ as a 'reputable claim' or content that should go on the article, that wasn't even what I said! That is your skewed and biased interpretation of what I said which you made for the sole reason of making me look bad! Where are you getting this nonsense? Huh? Because your false claims about my actions are really starting to make me piss me off! And it's just another diversion away from the point! I was not not doing that at all. I was giving a hypothetical opinion to make a point. The only result of you saying that bs about 'reporting shit' is that you are making me look bad and putting false words in my mouth. I hope you read this fast because I'm going to just delete what you said.

That obviously sets up Sulik's argument. A great deal of her argument focuses on the negative effects of mammograms. More mammograms, or stressing the fact that there are more mammograms (especially when she writes about it with a connotation suggesting that the amount is increasing to gluttonous proportions) means Sulik's idea makes more sense.

Good for Sulik. Too bad this article DOES, partly, deal with biology. You're (skewed) image of the purpose of this article thinks that it's all about feminist critique. That is not true! The article has to do about awareness. Changes in the research, treatment, management, and statistics involving the success of those things are completely relevant to the article, more so than feminism. Feminism has its place, but it is the minority here.

Breast cancer receives significantly more media coverage than other prevalent cancers, such as prostate cancer.

• Just happened to choose the prominent men's cancer? More likely part of the argument.
  • No, "Just happened to choose" what the reliable sources happened to choose. This is a common comparison. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes and it is a common comparison for that exact reason, which I still contend is misleading. I didn't check the source, but I trust you :) so you're right here. Charles35 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Because breast cancer awareness receives so much attention, and has become such a large scale campaign the actual purpose of the campaign can become hidden. People talk about the "fight" against breast cancer, but the awareness campaign is not about the cure.

• "People talk about..." Are you kidding? Very unencyclopedic and simply a personal opinion.
  • You're right, I should have reverted that when it was added by someone else, but then you'd complain that I didn't ever let anyone else add anything to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess you do when it's convenient for your point. Charles35 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Text (events)

Events

The month-long campaign has been called Pinktober because of the proliferation of pink goods for sale, and National Breast Cancer Industry Month by critics like Breast Cancer Action.

• Okay, but not in the second sentence.
  • Why not? How else would you describe that group? How else would you contextualize that term? You and I are native English speakers and know that those terms is supposed to be slightly funny and rather derogatory. Someone from Asia or Africa won't know that. We therefore need to tell them that there are terms used by critics, not a term used by supporters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

    Sure, but put it ~ in the second sentence. Put your critic term somewhere lower. After a non-critical term, perhaps? Charles35 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

    So you want it to say "National Breast Cancer Industry Month", but you don't want the reader to know that this is a derogatory name used exclusively by critics? Why should we bury the fact that this is a critical name? If we don't flag this immediately as being an insulting term, then we risk readers accidentally believing that this is a legitimate alternative title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

    I don't think we're on the same page. All I'm saying is just put all the criticism stuff towards the end. That's how it's done on wikipedia. The article you own is no exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)

    Isolating criticism at the end is not how it's done on Misplaced Pages, as WP:CRITICISM directly says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

    Yes. I understand that. I meant at the end of the paragraph... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

NBCAM was begun in 1985 by the American Cancer Society and pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, which manufactures breast cancer drugs Arimidex and tamoxifen. The primary purpose has been to promote mammography and other forms of early detection as the most effective means of saving lives.

• Not in the 3rd sentence. Including this an obvious bias. Also, claiming to know the 'primary purpose' is just not true, not to mention this is not the primary purpose.
  • NBCAM themselves say that this is their primary purpose. You're just assuming that this is criticism. It's not: they are deliberately doing this, because they honestly believe it to be valuable (and, within limits, it is!).
    "Astrazeneca giant" gives me three-quarters of a million hits on my favorite web search engine. This is a normal description for them. It's relevant to point out why they care about breast cancer. You wouldn't expect some company that just makes antibiotics to sponsor this, would you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

    No, I wouldn't expect that. But pointing out why they care about breast cancer has little to do with the actual events, first of all, and second, should be lower on the page. Be decent and let the first paragraph be pure. Giant is unnecessary, and could surely be used somewhere else where a negative connotation is appropriate. I've heard millions of people use that word, when they are denoting a negative connotation. The month might've been started by NBCAM, but they don't = the month. The month has purposes outside of that organization. Functioning as a community, perhaps? Charles35 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

    Sure, October has other purposes. Halloween, for example. Breast cancer events in October, however, are all associated directly or indirectly with NBCAM. Most of the big ones are officially affiliated with the NBCAM organization.
    I don't see anything indecent with pointing out that a company that treats breast cancer also supports NBCAM in a big way. Neither do they; they seem quite happy to have their name associated with this major publicity event. And if you want want me to take seriously your novel assertion that there is some other, non-early-detection-related primary purpose to NBCAM, then you'll need to provide a proper WP:Reliable source to back up your odd claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You really need to stop with this. I make 5 points, you address 1, and then you act like that proves that all of my points are wrong. First, it doesn't even prove (usually) that the point you addressed is wrong. Second, there are still 4 other points!

You shouldn't use the word giant here. A ~ connotation is not appropriate here. Also, including the bit about the drugs is just as bad. This is so indecent. You aren't pointing out that a company that treats breast cancer also supports NBCAM in a big way, you are implying that there is a big fat unethical conflict of interest with an enormously disgusting-consumer connotation. That is not appropriate. It is appropriate in the criticism section. And it has nothing to do with the actual events itself. Your little analysis of the reasons for the events should be limited to 5-10% of the paragraph. The bulk of it should be about the actual events. You know, like that non-argumentative descriptive info I was talking about? Like, examples of the events? Like that one source that you said was pointless because it was about a single person? Well, you got to give a picture of what the events actually look like. What they're actually composed of. That is the primary purpose of wikipedia, not to make arguments. This is so incredibly biased I think you might be just lying.

This is just getting silly. I can't believe you don't see how faulty this logic is. You are saying that NBCAM = ACS & AZ. IT DOESN'T. It = all of the people that are in some way related to it. So to say that you know the primary purpose for all of these people is ridiculous. You know the primary purpose for the ACS, not for the entire movement! Yet you word is as if you are talking about the entire movement. I was not claiming that community is THE primary purpose; I was offering a rhetorical example (hence, 'perhaps?'). So your talk of novel assertions and odd claims is misdirected. I don't know the primary purpose. And neither do you! That is impossible to know. It's just way too complicated and claiming you understand is over-simplifying an enormously complex issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)

I am not saying anything of the sort, but all the reliable sources are saying that NBCAM is an organization founded by ACS and AZ's predecessor. And you know what? Normal people don't really seem to think that there's anything bad about the fact that these two corporations decided to start an event to promote mammography, because mammograms save some women's lives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that they founded and that the started NBCAM. But they still don't = NBCAM. They might = the organization, but they don't = the month itself. They don't = the movement. It is not specific to pieces of paper. It is composed of words and feelings and thoughts of the people that are involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Participants solicit donations to a breast cancer-related charity, in return for their promise to run, walk, or ride in the event.

• Why include 'their promise?' Why not just '...running, walking, or riding...' Are you trying to say that some participants do not actually engage in the activity?
  • I'm sure that some of them don't, partly because some of them die in between deciding to participate and the actual race day. Most pledges these days are paid in advance of the race, so it is actually the promise of participation that produces the money. I can also tell you that charitable organizations expect 10% of future-paid pledges to be reneged on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

    Okay, so what are trying to do, point out that victims die pretty often? That's just rude. Be decent. You're implying that they died on purpose or something to that effect. It probably reads differently to you for whatever reason, but that's how it reads to everyone else. Charles35 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

    No, we're just trying to be precise: the promise to participate is what actually gets the money out of the donors' pocket.
    Most people consider promises to be positive things, so I'm a little mystified by why you think this is critical. It's like you believe that breast cancer supporters are markedly less likely to keep their promises than normal people. In fact, Sulik indirectly suggests that they are more likely than average to keep their promises, since the pink ribbon culture encourages people to be good (in the sense of being morally good) and strong-arms them into volunteering. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

    I'm pointing this out because it sticks out like a sore thumb. That is so pointless and irrelevant that it is obvious you are trying to make a point. No one would ever include 'promise' if there wasn't some implicit point trying to be made. Yes, they are generally positive things but you say it as if there is a lie going on. I do not think that at all! I take offense. You on the other hand don't seem to be very fond... I was actually pointing out that that is what you're implying. Don't flip it on me. Don't act like Sulik's being nice either; she's saying that they are being forced into doing that.Charles35 (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

These mass-participation events effectively signal to society that breast cancer survivors have formed a single, united group that speaks, acts and believes the same things, without any significant internal dissension.

• More negative connotation and setting up of Sulik's argument.
  • What's negative about signalling? It means "credibly conveying some information about yourself to another party". What's negative about being unified? Major organizations like Komen believe that this is a good thing, and it's extremely effective for them in the political realm. Breast cancer patients don't get disproportionate treatment and research benefits by putting forward a dozen conflicting ideas. They win because they speak with one voice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

    Your use of 'signaling' implies that this whole thing is so cold and human-less, when in fact it's quite the opposite. These charities have some of the best communities you could ever hope for. Saying that they are signaling is implying that they are some planned organization which is putting up a show for some intention. They are just people living life. Not everyone has economics in mind all the time.
    THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET AT^^^^^^^^^^^ Charles35 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

    No, the use of signal means that we're talking about social communication here, which is not the least bit cold or human-less—and not just any old social communication, but specifically credible (believable, trustworthy, valuable) communication. If you wanted to use synonyms that a young child would understand, we could equally well say, "These mass-participation events effectively tell society..." Or we could rephrase it in politician-speak: "These mass-participation events effectively send a message to society..." But it's kind of nice in an encyclopedia to occasionally get to use grown-up words, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

    Also, what difference does it make if "These charities have some of the best communities you could ever hope for"? I mean, other than confirming from your personal opinion that Sulik is right when she says that the women in the pink ribbon culture value goodness, niceness, and so forth, how does their goodness matter here. We're saying that a mass-participation event "sends a message" to society (and specifically to politicians). A mass-participation event involving a bunch of desperate, screaming, disruptive ACT-UP folks also signals a united voice, without necessarily being "some of the best communities you could ever hope for". The fact that nice people are involved in the mass-participation event doesn't change the mechanism by which a mass-participation event has an effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You are just proving my point. I agree, that means the exact same thing, which is what I am saying is misleading. They aren't 'telling' or 'sending a message.' They're just people living their life. There is no reason to include that sentence unless you're trying to "implying that they are some planned organization which is putting up a show for some intention." You are, as usual looking at it so pessimistically. This article doesn't need to be about the 'mass-participation effect on society' or any of that jazz. The whole thing doesn't need to be a manifesto. Let some (or if you want to be nice, all) of the event section be about the actual events. Save your analysis and critique for the analysis or critique section. The 'sending message' is not that important here. It's one small detail.

My point and Sulik's are way different. Again, don't try to manipulate my words into making me think I'm actually agreeing with her. I think they're good people, end of story. You/Sulik/samething are saying that they value that stuff AND that there is something wrong with it. They are being forced into valuing it, and their valuing is pathological or something along that line. You know it as well as I. Stop pretending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)

When twenty-seven thousand people all show up, wearing a particular color of clothes, at the same time, to do the same thing, in the US capital (to give only one example), they are not "just living their lives". They are engaging in a particular form of publicity-generating activism. They went to a lot of work to make those events happen, and their efforts should not be written off as some everyday, normal, pointless thing. There is a point to these events, and publicity for the cause is a major part of the point. This is even more true than average when these events happen in the nation's capital. They might as well be carrying signs saying, "I vote for politicians who support the cause". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Okay I think I see some logic here. The point is contingent on the subject being mass-participation events. Okay, I agree with that. But a few things. They way it's written indicates that this is their exclusive (key word) purpose, which is simply not true. And the 'internal dissent' thing sticks out like a sore thumb, like the 'promise.' It is clearly meant to make a point, and it feels really awkward in the text. Can you see how that seems misleading? You don't typically come across such awkward phrases on wikipedia. An anomaly like that indicates that it was put there purposefully for some reason... Charles35 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

They also reinforce the cultural connection between each individual's physical fitness and moral fitness. * More negative connotation and setting up of Sulik's argument.

• • This is a major argument in Sulik's book and in others. It's something of an American thing, I suppose. (Quick word association: do most people believe "fat" and "lazy" go together?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

    As usual, this is not a description of the events, it is A criticism. The entire article shouldn't be one big critique, and the critique part should all be together, not getting its misogynist pessimistic stain on everything else. Charles35 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

    Criticism of the events must be part of any valid, complete description of the events, just like criticism of the Flat earth idea must be part of any valid, complete description of that discredited idea. Criticism should not be isolated in a single section; Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style and guidelines very strongly discourage that approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style and guidelines very strongly discourage that approach. - somehow I doubt that's the whole story since you just brought this up now. Addressing that 1 point, again, doesn't prove my other 5 are wrong. Disclaim, remove, reword, and balance sections AND content. Also, you keep mentioning all these rules you supposedly know. Give me a link to each of them, or (like you with the sources) I will just say 'you're wrong' 'you're wrong' 'you're wrong' 'you're wrong' 'you're wrong'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)

    I told you this last week. Perhaps it was one of the many things I told you that you directly refused to read, because it was too long and complicated for you to bother.
    Now, of course, you complain that I'm not answering every point, even though you won't read my answers to all your points if I waste my time answering them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

    Are you comparing BCA to that nonsense idea? I'm not going to tell you what is wrong/illogical there, you're smart enough to figure it out. Yes, criticism should be a part, which is why I've said over and over that your opinion deserves a voice here. But it shouldn't be the only voice. You refuse to talk about that. And you blindly say 'get a source, get a source, get a source.' Well, I got a source (many), and you still have a problem with it. You'll always find some problem, and will always tell me something is wrong and that I need to find something else. I don't believe you anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

    No, I don't think that BCA is like Flat earth.  However, it is a simple point for comparison, since everyone knows that the idea is thoroughly criticized, and so it is a good example of how Misplaced Pages handles criticism (i.e., not by isolating it in a separate section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Typically, one-quarter to one-third of the money donated is spent on advertising and organizing the event itself.

• More setting up. These sentences weren't put here by accident.
  • What exactly does this set up, and would you mind telling the unregistered editor at the article about Komen that nobody cares (or at least that you don't care) how much money is being spent on fundraising events? S/he's making a pest of himself by complaining that Komen isn't disclosing enough information about this exact point. And be sure to tell groups like the Better Business Bureau that it's unimportant, too. Every program I've seen that assesses charities for proper management considers these numbers, and significantly exceeding these levels (which are considered quite good in the industry; perhaps you didn't know?) is a source of scandals. One of the AIDS bike rides, for example, was spending 90% of the total revenue on advertising and organizing the event. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

    It clearly comes from her book, as the same wording is used later in the article. Why include that twice? Scrap this and keep the explicit, non-misleading part. Charles35 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

    Do you see the name at the end of that sentence? I'm talking about the bit that says (Ehrenreich 2001). The purpose of that little parenthetical citation is to let you know which source the fact comes from. In this case, you might notice that the answer is "not Sulik". It therefore clearly doesn't "come from her book". As for "the same wording" being used later, no sentence that contains the word spent in the entire article is supported by Sulik's book. You need to quit assuming that every word and every idea that you dislike comes from Sulik's book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you for pointing that out. I was wrong. I didn't have a problem with Sulik until I saw that every (or most) of the issues here come from her book. I started generalizing. My bad. I don't exclusively have a problem with her. I have a problem with poor content; whether it comes from her or from Ehrenreich, I don't really care. That wording and that fact / reworded fact occurs a few times in the article.Charles35 (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

    "Bad content" on Misplaced Pages means something like "content that is not found in a proper reliable source". Given that this content is found in a proper reliable source, then I don't know why you believe it's bad. Do you think that the 25–33% numbers are wrong? Do you think that money is not "spent on" expenses? What's the factual problem here? Or do you just have a stylistic issue? Misplaced Pages doesn't use WP:WEASEL words to hide simple facts like "advertisements cost money". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

These symbolic actions do not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives. However, they are effective forms 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).

• This speaks for itself, and it doesn't belong in the "Events" section. It belongs in criticism. Info on events should JUST be info on events. Not scholarly opinion. JUST info.
  • If real women feel significant social pressure to participate in these events, even though some of them don't really want to, why shouldn't we consider that verifiable fact to be information related to the events, and therefore appropriate for inclusion in the section about the events? Surely you don't believe that this is information about buying stuff with pink ribbons on the label, or how much media attention they generate, or whether some organizations have cozy relationships with polluters. Where would you put this information about why some women participate in events, if not in the section about the events? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

    Honestly I wouldn't really want this info anywhere on wikipedia because it sounds like it's coming from a paranoid fanatical conspiracy theorist. It's inappropriate and rude, and controversial and questionable, and unethical. You're only addressed the second sentence because you see that that is the least questionable part. Notice how I bolded parts of the entire thing? The first sentence is totally general and unrelated, which is why your point of how it's related didn't include it. It is still somewhat related, but that's to be expected, as it's about BCA. But it's more related to a different section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)

    So the reliable sources talk about social pressure to volunteer and to donate—at length, mind you—but you don't like it, because it doesn't line up with your preconceived belief that 100.0% of the thousands of supporters are doing it solely because they really, really, really want to, and not even a little bit because their mother/sister/wife/friend expects them to? Well... as always, if you can produce a proper reliable source that says this, then we can and should adjust the article. But so far, 100% of the proper reliable sources I've read say exactly the opposite, and so it's WP:DUE to say so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

These symbolic actions do not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives.

• not related (by that I mean less related than to other sections). Additionally, this is flat out false. These have saved many lives and improved treatments. I know about your as-basic-as-it-gets argument, you don't need to point to it. But, if that's your reason for this claim, then your argument is as false as the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)
  • Really? Please give me an example of a symbolic action that has saved a life or improved a treatment. What's the number needed to treat for wearing blue jeans to work as part of Lee National Denim Day? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• • The point of this has gotten muddled. I was bolding the parts that I thought were critical because you had claimed that none of it was critical. So half of these arguments we've been having are pointless because I've been defending multiple different points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

However, they are effective forms 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.

• again, not related enough to warrant inclusion in this section; too general and applicable to every section (thus, if it's applicable to each, then it should be in criticism section). Not to mention, it's a rude/inappropriate/questionable/indecent/biased claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)
  • The events are highly effective at promoting pink ribbon culture (and also at promoting the organizations that sponsor the events, but that's a separate issue). If the events are highly effective at doing something, then it is highly relevant to mention that thing in the section on the events. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• The last bit is related, and it is appropriate here, ESPECIALLY because it's at the end. I like how you said may feel...' and 'critics say.' It's also solid, strong content (with the obligatory voluntarism part; I like that, personally). I still think it's a little abrupt and too strong, but it's not way out in left field. I'd be fine with this staying. The only problem I have though is ''These supporters...' It should say 'Some supporters...'Charles35 (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with "some supporters", although that word sometimes attracts a complaint about weasel-wording. Based on what I've read, we could probably justify saying "many supporters". It is, of course, a bit complicated: it's very likely that "most", and possibly even "nearly all", supporters have felt at least a little social pressure to participate, e.g., a friend who just assumed that you wanted to participate rather than actually asking you, or an event organizer who really needed another participant and was willing to twist arms to get you on board. But I think that only "many" have ever felt truly "socially compelled" (an irresistible level of pressure) rather than "some pressure", and that most of those people don't feel that high level of pressure all the time. Consequently, at any given point in time, only "some" are likely to be feeling "socially compelled" to participate, even though "many" have been socially compelled at least once in their lives.
    Or perhaps it really is more people than that: there is likely to be a small group that feels socially compelled to engage in major events, which is what I was thinking of originally, but for trivial symbolic actions, like wearing a pink ribbon sticker because someone personally handed a sticker to you and asked you to put it on, you could have a really sizable number of people who feel socially compelled to "participate" in something they'd rather ignore. It doesn't take much social pressure to reach the level of irresistible social compulsion for a trivial thing like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Text (ribbons)

Pink ribbon

It may be worn to honor those who have been diagnosed with breast cancer, or to identify products that the manufacturer would like to sell to consumers that are interested in breast cancer.

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 (Sulik 2010, pages 359–361).

Promotion of the pink ribbon as a symbol for breast cancer has not been credited with saving any lives. Wearing or displaying a pink ribbon has been denounced as a kind of slacktivism, because it has no practical positive effect (Landeman 2008). Critics say that the feel-good nature of pink ribbons and pink consumption distracts society from the lack of progress (Sulik 2010, pages 365–366). It is also criticized for reinforcing gender stereotypes and objectifying women and their breasts (Sulik 2010, pages 372–374). -- "...the marketing sub-sections are similarly limited in their criticism." YEAH RIGHT. How is any of this relevant to "Marketing?" Clearly ribbons don't save lives; is that a joke? Think: "Bullets don't kill people, humans do." Denounced? By who? PERSONAL OPINION, NOT OBJECTIVE. Consumption? Lack of progress? That just isn't true; there is progress. Pink ribbons themselves can't save lives, but they objectify women? Hmm...

Shopping for the cure

Some of these, like pink ribbons and awareness bracelets, have no purpose other than as a type of status symbol that displays the wearer's interest (not support?) in breast cancer. Others are everyday products that have been repackaged or repositioned to take advantage of cause-related marketing, such as teddy bears, clothing, jewelry, candles, and coffee mugs (Ehrenreich 2001). These blended value objects offer consumers an opportunity to simultaneously buy an object and make a tiny donation to a breast cancer organization. Some of these products are produced or sold by breast cancer survivors or charities for fundraising purposes (Ehrenreich 2001). - Why keep using 'consumers?' Clearly trying to make an implicit point. Why can't large donations be made?

Manufacturers also produce products with pink labels or pink ribbon logos that promise to donate a sum of money to support the cause (Levine 2005). The donation is typically capped, so that it is reached after a low level of sales, although in some cases, the company is providing only free advertising for a selected charity (why is this a bad thing? At least they're doing something, for FREE). Although advertising costs are rarely disclosed, companies often ('often' allows no accountability to have to be taken for lack of research to back this claim up) spend far more money advertising "pink products" and tie-ins than they donate to charitable organizations supporting research or patients. For example, in 2005, 3M spent US $500,000 advertising post-it notes printed with a pink ribbon logo. Sales were nearly double what the company expected, but the campaign resulted in only a $300,000 donation (Levine 2005). - None of this has to do with "Shopping for a Cure" and none of it is any different from the "Pink Ribbon" section. The one example given is acceptable, but it serves the purpose, along with modifiers like 'often' 'typically' 'low' 'some' 'rarely' 'far,' of allowing these claims to take NO accountability. Very unethical.

Pink products have also been condemned as promoting consumerism, materialism, and environmental degradation. Critics are also concerned that the ubiquity of pink products may mislead people into thinking that significant progress (allows no accountability if 'insignificant' progress is made) has been made, and that small, individual actions, like buying a breast cancer-themed product, are sufficient (Stukin 2006). - why would anyone promote environmental degradation? Again, NOTHING to do with "Shopping for a Cure" (SFC), and belongs in criticism section. Nobody thinks they are sufficient - cancer still exists.

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

Business marketing campaigns, particularly sales promotions for products that increase pollution or that encourage the development of breast cancer, such as high-fat foods, alcohol, pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies, have been condemned as pinkwashing (a portmanteau of pink ribbon and whitewash) (Mulholland 2010). Such promotions generally result in a token donation to a breast cancer-related charity, while exploiting the consumers' fear of cancer and grief for people who have died to drive sales (Landeman 2008). Critics say that these promotions, which net more than US $30 million each year just for fundraising powerhouse Susan G. Komen for the Cure, do little more than support the marketing machines that produce them (Stukin 2006). Who is 'critics'? 'Generally,' 'little' - all 3 allow for no accountability. No research to back up all of those as causes of breast cancer.

Two significant campaigns against pink consumption are the National Breast Cancer Coalition's "Not Just Ribbons" campaign, and Breast Cancer Action's "Think Before You Pink" campaign. NBCC's "Not Just Ribbons" which opposed the hypocrisy of people and businesses who use pink ribbons to promote their products or themselves, but ignore or oppose substantive issues, such as genetic discrimination, access to medical care, patient rights, and anti-pollution legislation (Sulik 2010, pages 366–368). "Think Before You Pink" encouraged consumers to ask questions about pink products, e.g., to find out how much of a donation was being made (Sulik 2010, pages 369–372). - Belongs in criticism.

Text (ads)

Advertisements

Many corporate and charitable organizations run advertisements related to breast cancer, especially during National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, in the hope of increasing sales by aligning themselves with a positive, helpful message (King 2006). - as if that is their sole intention.

Some marketing blurs the line between advertisements and events, such as flash mobs as a form of guerrilla marketing. Advertising campaigns on Facebook have encouraged users to use sexual innuendo and double entendres in their status updates to remind readers about breast cancer. In 2009, the campaign asked women to post the color of their brassieres, and in 2010, the campaign asked women to post where they keep their purses, resulting in status messages such as "I like it on the floor" (Kingston 2010). These campaigns have been criticized as sexualizing the disease (Kingston 2010). - This is true and is a valid point, but you fail to recognize that this WAS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT. It was a facebook trend. You are implying that it was the willful result of a corrupt organization, which is NOT TRUE AT ALL.

The typical participant in the breast cancer movement, and therefore the advertisers' target audience, is a white, middle-aged, middle-class, well-educated woman (King 2006, pages 110–111). - White (race) has nothing to do with it. Black, hispanic, asians are equally desired targets. Otherwise this is valid.

Some corporate sponsors are criticized for having a conflict of interest. For example, some of the prominent sponsors of these advertisements include businesses that sell the expensive equipment needed to perform screening mammography; an increase in the number of women seeking mammograms means an increase in their sales. Their sponsorship is thus not a voluntary act of charity, but an effort to increase their sales (King 2006, page 37). The regulated drug and medical device industry uses the color pink, positive images, and other themes of the pink ribbon culture in direct-to-consumer advertising to associate their breast cancer products with the fear, hope, and wholesome goodness of the breast cancer movement (Sulik 2010, page 206–208). This is particularly evident in advertisements designed to sell screening mammograms. - this is a valid concern but there is no basis to claim 'Their sponsorship is thus not a voluntary act of charity, but an effort to increase their sales.' And, voluntary? Direct-to-consumer? What is indirect-to-consumer? How is that relevant? It increases negative attitude for no apparent reason. There is no basis for claiming that advertisers want to associate with 'fear, hope, and wholesome goodness.' You could say that Sulik's book gives evidence, but that would actually discredit her book, because it would be impossible to provide evidence for that. This makes her book look unreliable.

Despite having been determined to be ineffective in low-risk and average-risk women, many charities still advertise breast self-examinations as a means of simultaneously raising awareness, encouraging early detection, and increasing the visibility of their organizations. - there is nothing wrong with this. Sure, it may be ineffective, but it takes LESS THAN 5 SECONDS, AND THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE, MONEY BEING SPENT, RESOURCES USED, ETC. And it isn't ineffective; it might have little effect, but non NONE.

Media

Although more women die from lung cancer, breast cancer receives far more attention in women's magazines than any other cancer. Until the mid-1990s, nearly all of these stories were written from the perspective of the expert, who doled out advice. Since then, the illness narrative, describing the personal experiences of individual patients, has become more prominent. (Sulik 2010, page 133).

Embedded marketing, branded content and frequent feature stories amount to free advertising for the brand and for the organizations that support it.

• The first sentence should not be a criticism, unless it's in criticism section.
• Lung cancer is irrelevant to this section.
• 'Doled out advice' is merely a personal opinion, which is impossible to verify. This makes Sulik look unreliable.
• Constant use of 'brand' is viciously giving unwarranted negative connotation. Save that for criticism section.

Breast cancer as a brand - The whole idea of this section is a criticism. It should be a sub-section of criticism section.

People who support the "pink brand" identify themselves as members of the socially aware niche market, who are in favor of women's health, screening mammography, positive thinking, and willing submission to the current mainstream medical opinion (Sulik 2010, page 22). - Choosing to name these things is setting up Sulik's argument. These people do not identify with 'screening mammographies' - that is one thing, of hundreds, that they support. It is no more relevant than 'self-examinations,' et al. positive thinking is unwarranted because there is nothing special about it. It is (unfairly) used to support Sulik's argument. This might be appropriate in a different section where it is not misleadingly given as a FACT. Willing submission is just inappropriate, implicitly states that such action is wrong, which gives implicit advice that one should not go to doctors - UNETHICAL. And it is untrue. No evidence to say that; did Sulik do a study where these people 'willfully submitted' to outrageous advice, or something along that line? NO, she didn't. I don't have to read the book to know that.

The brand ties together fear of cancer, hope for early identification and successful treatment, and the moral goodness of women with breast cancer and anyone who visibly identifies themselves with breast cancer patients. This brand permits and even encourages people to substitute conscientious consumption and individual symbolic actions, like buying or wearing a pink ribbon, for concrete, practical results, especially collective political action aimed at discovering non-genetic causes of breast cancer (Sulik 2010, pages 133–146). - This is extremely biased and totally uncalled for.

• The main purposes of the 'brand' are not 'fear' hope for early identification, and 'moral goodness.' Again, this is setting up Sulik's argument / part of her argument. Those are the purposes that SHE chose to identify, and are in NO WAY a reflection of reality. Sure, they MIGHT (no evidence) be purposes, but they are not the MAIN purposes or the ones worth identifying (unless you're trying to make a point - BIAS).
• 'Visibly' is inappropriate. That is NOT people's intention.
• The 'brand' does not encourage that; OUR SOCIETY & CAPITALISM do. You are putting all of the fault on the 'brand,' which is not only untrue, but just silly (makes Sulik look bad). What, do you expect people to all strive for political action? These people have jobs, and OTHER THINGS TO DO WITH THEIR LIVES. Stop making them out to be the devil.

The establishment of the brand and the entrenchment of the breast cancer movement has been uniquely successful, because no countermovement opposes the breast cancer movement or believes breast cancer to be desirable (King 2006, page 111). - This is ridiculous and makes the anti-awareness cause look stupid. Why would anybody desire breast cancer? And including this bogus piece of info is implying that there should be a countermovement, and for some reason, there isn't one. Workings of the inner circle, perhaps?

Achievements of the breast cancer movement - This section is actually objectively well written and free of bias.

For example, saying, "Supporting breast cancer was seen as a distinctively pro-woman stance for public officials to take" is well written for an encyclopedia. It didn't say "Supporting...is a distinctively pro-woman stance that public officials take." This would be a questionable claim. Coincidence that it is in one of the only sections that is not based on Sulik's Harry Potter prequel? I think not! Along the same lines, the paragraph makes a logical transition with, "This has resulted in better access to care," and then it gives a concrete example to back it up. This is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sulik's material is radical, overly-eager, and unencyclopedic. If this were one of Sulik's sections, you would see something like "Politicians exploited the fact that it is not a risky view in order to gain higher resources for care, all because they were working with AstraZenaca and the inner circle for personal profit!" This goes to show that either Sulik is an unreliable source, or the person who used her book to write the article is unreliable. Either way, her material should be cut or it should be CONSOLIDATED (especially) and re-written (necessarily).

Increased resources for treatment and research

Although, there are a few off-hand remarks, like: Breast cancer advocates have successfully increased the amount of public money being spent on cancer research and shifted the research focus away from other diseases and towards breast cancer. Most breast cancer research is funded by government agencies (Mulholland 2010). Breast cancer advocates also raise millions of dollars for research into cures each year, although most of the funds they raise is spent on screening programs, education and treatment. - The 'shifted...' claim is inappropriate and irrelevant. That is not an achievement of the movement, it is a result. Government agencies have nothing to do with achievements. Specifying 'cure' is untrue (money is meant for other things too), and is essentially a lie designed to make a point. Combined with 'although,' it implies that the advocates are themselves lying and deceptively cheating, which is simply not true, and is used to make a point that awareness is bad.

The high level of awareness and organized political lobbying has resulted in a disproportionate level of funding and resources given to breast cancer research and care. Favoring breast cancer with disproportionate research may have the unintended consequence of costing lives elsewhere (Browne 2001). In 2001 UK MP Ian Gibson said, "The treatment has been skewed by the lobbying, there is no doubt about that. Breast cancer sufferers get better treatment in terms of bed spaces, facilities and doctors and nurses" (Browne 2001). - Again, NOTHING TO DO WITH ACHIEVEMENTS.

History

"Breast cancer has been known and feared since ancient times." - No need for 'feared.' You don't see that word so much in other diseases/awareness articles. 'Fear' is insignificant in discussion of breast cancer in ancient times. There are much more important things relevant to the disease in ancient times. It is included solely to remind readers of Sulik's argument, which uses the word as part of its overall strategy. No surprise this is a Sulik section.

"With no reliable treatments, and with surgical outcomes often fatal..." - disproportionate, unwarranted negative attitude. Again, used by Sulik/Sulik-supporters to strengthen her argument by reminding readers of negative connotation. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC ARTICLE.

With the dramatic improvement in survival rates at the end of the 19th century—the radical mastectomy promoted by William Stewart Halsted raised long-term survival rates from 10% to 50%—efforts to educate women about the importance of early detection and prompt action were begun. - inappropriate and unneeded. Again, used to strengthen Sulik's argument. Somehow I doubt that early detection was important enough in the Halsted-era to be mentioned here, and it has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph - radical mastectomies.

Early campaigns included the "Women's Field Army", run by the American Society for the Control of Cancer (the forerunner of the American Cancer Society) during the 1930s and 1940s. Explicitly using a military metaphor, they promoted early detection and prompt medical intervention as every woman's duty in the war on cancer. - yet again, early detection was not that important (if at all) back then. There were no mammographies, which you (and I don't use 'you' to refer just to you, Whatamidoing1, I'm just being lazy) so strongly tie to early detection. Give us a reason why this is worth mentioning so many times. Otherwise there is no reason to believe that it is meant for any purpose other than promoting Sulik's argument. Also, mentioning the ACS and 'every woman's duty' is used to associate early detection with the ACS and their slightly-tyrannical and agenda-driven social pressure. It put in history section to show that this agenda (ie working with pharma companies) has been building for the last century.

I'm sure the military metaphor existed, but was it that important, or was it included by Sulik because it worked well with her portrayal of the ASC as tyrannical? Many coincidences here. Not saying all of them were done on purpose, but at least some of them were.

Later taken over by the American Cancer Society, it provided post-mastectomy, in-hospital visits from women who had survived breast cancer, who shared their own experiences, practical advice, and emotional support, but never medical information.

• 'Taken over' is a bit harsh. It might be (syntactically) true, but is it appropriate for this sentence? Is 'subsidized' or 'adopted' more appropriate? Or was it used to strengthen Sulik's military metaphor? Did they take it by force? Was it bloody? I mean, come on, let's be honest people here.
• 'But never medical information' - what is that supposed to mean? Actually, I think we all know exactly what it means. It does not, at all, fit with the rest of the sentence. It stands out like a personal grudge ;)

And that is only the 40% that you identified as not biased. I'm done here. You cannot just pick and choose which rules to follow, which facts to consider and which ones to ignore, under the guise of 'reliable primary sources only and no original research.' We both know there's so much more to it than that. In constructing a wikipedia article, the way that those 'sources' are presented is 75% of the job; choosing the right sources is 24% of the job; the source itself is 1% of the job. And some of it needs to be good non-argumentative sources that present straight facts, unless your argumentative sources are so diverse that they cover all opinions AND facts alike. This article has around 7 sources - not enough for that. I believe that you are a good person and you will do the right thing. I hope that, if it isn't you personally, whoever wrote/defends this article will look past their personal opinions toward this issue and understand the greater picture. The feminist argument has a place here, and in my opinion, deserves its own article, with a section here and a link to the main article. Otherwise, the only right thing is to put all of it in a single section, titled 'Feminist Criticism.' If you want me to re-write the article, I will be happy to. Actually, I am not at all an expert on this, but I would be happy to help construct an article on feminist criticism of breast cancer awareness/movement. But I am done showing you how ridiculous, wrong, unethical, inappropriate, etc this article is. Either way, I suggest you take out the conspiracy theory. It makes your argument look childish and eccentric. It is libelous, and it is a glaring, immature blemish on this page and a disruption to the ideas trying to be conveyed.

Charles35 (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You just don't know what you're talking about. Reliable sources are allowed to engage in original research; Wikipedians (that's you and me) are not. The definition of "original research" in WP:NOR is material that was never published by a reliable source, e.g., your personal opinion. Articles must be neutral, but they must not pretend that all viewpoints are equally valid (see the WP:GEVAL section).

You don't know much about breast cancer, either. Breast self-exams do not take five seconds; they take ten minutes in someone who knows what s/he's doing, and they do not work, if by "work" you mean anything related to saving lives in normal-risk women. This has been proven in two massive, well-designed randomized controlled clinical trials. (They work just fine if you define "work" as "increase the sales of radiology machines" and "increase the number of biopsies performed on healthy women".) It's not "ridiculous, wrong, unethical, inappropriate, etc" to admit the facts about these things.

I suggest that if you want to talk about improving this article, that you actually go to a library, check out one of these books, and read it. Then, if you still think it's inappropriate to point out facts like breast cancer was actually frightening back in the day when the treatments were seriously damaging (far more than they are now) and half the women died, then we can talk.

And notice that I'm not insisting on scholarly sources: multiple non-scholarly sources are already cited in the article. What I am insisting on is that you produce an actual, published, independent, reliable source—any published, independent, reliable source—rather than insisting that your unverifiable and under-informed personal opinion be the basis for the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, first things first:

• The thing about original research makes absolutely no difference to what we're talking about here, but if you want to continue being illogical and get all ad hominem, be my guest. If you'd like to twist my words and say that I said, "all viewpoints, valid or invalid, should be given equal consideration," go right ahead. Why would I say that? Then you would get things like, "Breast cancer awareness has been denounced as a form of slacktivism..." - things that totally don't belong on this page. That is one person's opinion (you?), who is able to have it on wikipedia becausae they wrote, "some have said." Obviously I think that two equally valid opinions belong on wikipedia. You don't need to be so literal; likewise, I never claimed that pieces of polyester (ribbons) can kill cancer cells.
• Sure, I was wrong (at least I can admit it) about 'official' breast self-examinations. Even so, they have no negative effect when they are properly considered by a knowledgeable doctor (what doctor would make a diagnosis on a self-exam?; they could easily just examine the breast themselves), and additionally, doing a 5-second exam couldn't hurt, now can it? (again assuming that the patient isn't administering her own radiology, a licensed doctor is, after careful consideration). But again, that makes no difference to what we are discussing here.
• When did I engage in original research?
  • Even so, they have no negative effect when they are properly considered by a knowledgeable doctor
    You're still wrong. BSEs increase women's exposure to cancer-causing radiation, increase biopsies (expense, infection risk, psychological harms), and result in overtreatment for healthy women (about a third of early breast "cancers" go away on their own). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, and when a good doctor takes into account the fact that it was a self examination (ie one that is NOT done by a medical professional), and replicates the 'examination' him/her-self, then the only effective effect of the self-exam was to bring that women to the doctor. So unless you consider wasted co-pays and bills to insurance company harmful, it's not a bad thing. Charles35 (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• I gave you the reason you will find no reputable scholarly source in favor of awareness. You will find no source in favor of racism (not to liken awareness to racism, but it's the same principle), but that shouldn't stop you from putting an informative description of what racism is in the first place, should it? This article shouldn't have superfluous information on a different topic (feminist criticism).
  • Just for fun: "The positive ways in which White individuals are affected by racism (also referred to as the benefits of racism) are numerous and widespread and include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) access to society's resources, (b) advanced educational opportunities, (c) life within a culture that delineates one's worldview as correct, and (d) a sense of entitlement."
    It seems that just about everything is in the scholarly literature, even an explanation of how racism is beneficial to some groups. (I seriously doubt that the source overall favors racism, but I don't know.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Yes, that is still from a negative, critical stance, though. Although I think you probably do, you seem to not understand what I am saying. That source is pointing out the negative effects of racism by saying how they DISPROPORTIONALLY benefit one part of society. This is a critique. It isn't considering a pro-racist viewpoint. It isn't saying why people are racist in the first place, and what their rationale (however wrong it may be) is.

The things I am talking about have nothing to do with outside sources. They have to do with the structure, the presentation, and the use of those sources. Notice how I made my personal opinions separate from this conversation? In this discussion, you again and again give relevant facts, as if that is what we are talking about. We're not. I don't care about what your massive research proved about self-examinations. That is just your way of refusing to acknowledge the topic at hand. We are talking about the proper way to make an encyclopedia entry - without bias, with objectivity, without carefully constructed word choice in order to convey info in the way you want the world to read it, and all the other things I talked about, and even gave you specific examples of.

I will take your unwillingness and refusal to acknowledge any of the things we are actually discussing, any of the specific examples that I spent two hours writing, the fact that the article is 60+% feminist criticism, the basic difference between a journal and an encyclopedia, and the other 9 paragraphs and 11 sections worth of solid arguments against your worldview as a justification to yourself so that you can continue censoring and doing whatever else it is you do here. I will take your logical errors and ad-hominemic eruption of irrelevant facts as your way of diverting the real issues with this discussion and article that you have finally realized are obviously legitimate. Good to see that you've, at the very least, considered the possibility of your incoherent theory of the world which you feel obliged to make everyone hear being incomplete. No one can edit this article without hearing about it from you, huh? And once you revert their edits, they just give up don't they? You scare them away. I saw it happen with every edit since I started watching this page, including the last one with Carptrash. Never before have I seen an owner of a wikipedia page. Usually it's a collaborative effort, not a dictator calling it a collaborative effort while reverting every edit they don't like. This has nothing to do with expertise in the field of breast cancer, it has to do with the proper way to make an encyclopedia article. This just isn't right, and someone's got to stand against your false dictatorial authority. If this is something you care about so much, YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE DOING IT.

You have a choice - you can play fairly and give me a reason why each of those specific examples I gave you have nothing wrong with them, and delete (or let me) the ones that are invalid, or you can continue dictating and playing favorites because you know wikipedia better than I do, have the ability have my account deleted or something like that, and have more time on your hands to revert my edits (I'm not even going to try).

Charles35 (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this second space, that was helpful. Charles35 (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages somewhere...the parenthetical/Harvard style used here is perfectly acceptable and is within Misplaced Pages guidelines, since the article is internally consistent. Shearonink (talk) 01:54, 6 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 Misplaced Pages's voice." Here are a few examples of relevant, informative views being presented as fact:

• " 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages: 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_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 Misplaced Pages 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 followed by 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) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_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) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_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 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 (UTC)

Please stop removing talk page comments, it is disruptive. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Discuss Neutrality, Weight, and Fringe Theory here

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

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

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

There is already a {{npov}} tag, a second is unnecessary since {{unbalanced}} is pretty close to the same thing. The current discussion page clocks in at 25,000 words. As a courtesy to other editors, please concisely summarize in this section why the page is unbalanced. Are there missing sources to verify a point of view? Are the current sources inaccurately summarized? Though this may seem unnecessary, it is pretty much the only way you will attract new editors, as you are currently asking them to read the equivalent of a 100 page book. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. This is for all three because the tags were mixed up. There are few (if any) sources that describe the opposing view from the one taken by this article - pro-awareness. There is very little content expressing this view. It is improperly weighted. New sources must be identified and added to the article so that new content can be added, and (the appropriate amount of) old content removed.

There is reason to believe it is improperly weighted: (copy/paste of above for completeness) the article is unbalanced in its depiction of the weight that these opposing views are given in the real world (both among the general population and in the literature). It doesn't give appropriate weight to the mainstream view. The mainstream view is pro-awareness. If it weren't, the general public wouldn't embrace awareness. If anti-awareness were the mainstream view, then the world would respond to the concerns expressed in the literature by stopping the awareness movement. Since this is not happening (yet, if ever), pro-awareness is the mainstream view. Maybe some day it won't be, but right now, it is. Lastly, the fringe material is not identified as such, and there is no indication that the mainstream view is different from the fringe view expressed in the article.

The over-weighted fringe view is considered, by some, to violate WP:NPOV. It expresses the one view, which is considered, by some, to not be neutral.

There is also concern that the current sources used are not accurately depicted in this article. Furthermore, the quality of certain sources is questioned (by some). Charles35 (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, you make an argument about a balanced/unbalanced/minority/majority viewpoint. I don't think you yet grasp the Wiki-definition of WP:FRINGE, which is more of an extreme minority viewpoint. Drop it? Just a guess, but all your posts probably make everyone feel like they've been beaten by a stick. Biosthmors (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's true that "there are few (if any) sources that describe the opposing view", then the pro-awareness viewpoint is what we call WP:Unverifiable, and we cannot include it.

NPOV is measured according to the published reliable sources, not according to our guess of what the general public believes. After all, the general public believes all kinds of nonsense, and even when in possession of the facts, still makes irrational choices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I know what fringe means in general. I am making a statement about some of the claims in here that I personally see as ridiculous and conspiratorial, like: Breast cancer culture values and honors suffering, selecting its she-roes by a "misery quotient" (Sulik 2010, page 319). Elizabeth Edwards, for example, personifies the breast cancer she-ro. Women whose treatment requires less suffering feel excluded and devalued. The suffering, particularly the extended suffering of months of chemotherapy and radiation treatment, forms a type of ordeal that initiates women into the inner circle of the breast cancer culture (Ehrenreich 2001).'

I'm not sure I understand what you mean there with the stick, Biosthmors.

WhatamIdoing, I don't have time to respond fully right now, but I'd like to say that the sources here are not an accurate depiction of reality (ie all the sources I've listed, plus more; a lot more). Charles35 (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

How many of the sources currently used in the article, or any of the academic or popular literature on the sociology of breast cancer awareness, have you read? You say "all the sources I've listed, plus more; a lot more" - it would help if you made a list of those sources, because I can only see the 2 links in the #this is ridiculous section above, from a slow glance through this entire page, nor the last few weeks of article-changes. Which articles/papers/books are you referring to, or basing your perspective on? —Quiddity (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Charles presumably refers to the URLs he spammed to my user talk page. Roughly speaking, they were routine news stories ("I'm wearing a pink ribbon for Breast Cancer Awareness Month!"), passing mentions ("It's NBCAM, so let's talk about how treatment has improved in the last ten years"), or primary medical research ("Mammograms work!"). I didn't check all of them, but I didn't find a single one that could be used for a non-stupid-sounding sentence (e.g., not "One doctor in Egypt wishes there was more awareness of breast cancer in Egypt"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Charles, please read WP:FRINGE. Fringe theories on wikipedia mean those not considered serious by the relevant scholars. Essentially if a peer-reviewed article or university press book discusses an idea in a serious way, it is not a fringe idea per WP:FRINGE.

As for neutrality, NPOV and appropriate balance is one of the hardest things to do on wikipedia - it requires keen awareness of the policies, but also the material. Adding one or two critical sentences to a descriptive paragraph in general would probably not be undue weight (which seems to be the relevant issue). The article does not immediately read like an excuse (i.e. a coatrack) to criticize breast cancer awareness or hatchetjob - but it does discuss perceived criticisms. My personal rule of thumb is "add information found in sources until you can't add anymore", to reach saturation. By sticking to scholarly sources, saturating the page usually ends up in a rough measure of appropriate discussion and criticism. As NPOV says, it is about what the sources say, not the opinions of editors. Our binding principle is verifiability, not truth (in other words - what is found in sources, not what is found in reality; absurd as it sounds, it generally works quite well). Another way to work through issues of neutrality is to find "counter-sources"; sources that criticize the initial sources or the specific points made therein. Mere editor opinion, particularly when the opinion is opposed to something published by Oxford University Press, is not sufficient unless there is a clear, strong and well-thought out and nearly unanimous consensus. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, several things:

Quiddity, I have not read any of the ones in the article, but I have just yesterday started. However, that is no reason to discount my opinions (ad hominem). But I have a few things to say about you mentioning sociology. First of all, this article is not a sociology article (I see that it is officially considered one here, but that's wrong). In its current state, it is a sociology article, but it shouldn't be. Look at the name - "Breast Cancer Awareness." What about that indicates that it is exclusively sociological? There are many other perspectives that should be taken here (this is the heart of my total argument). First, there should be a general, informative view. There should simply be more objective and non-argumentative information here; info that is not biased; not 'taking a side'. This sort of info exists in every article on wikipedia. It does, to a tiny extent, exist here, but it is nonetheless severely lopsided. Additionally, there should be medical info here. Don't jump to the conclusion that medical info on BC should all go in the BC article (if that's the case, then all sociological info should go in the Sociology of BCA article. Here, there should be info about the accomplishments of breast cancer. Not 2 comparatively teeny sections that are half-full of subtle criticism and support of Sulik's arguments, but real, concrete achievements. Stuff like - without BCA awareness, this wouldn't have happened; BCA helped fund this; BCA raised this much money in 20xx; etc. That should take up the bulk of the article. I mean, that's what BCA is really about. That's what the focus of the article should be. If the focus of the article is feminist critique, then the article should be called "Feminist Critique of BCA. It's so incredibly lopsided. There should also be info about the goals of the movement; an in-depth positive analysis of the aims of BCA. The word 'mammography' is used 19 times in this article; 18 of those instances are critical. If mammography is so big and important, then don't you think there's a reason for that? Why is it so big? Maybe...because it is useful? This article should elaborate on that! If this article is meant to be about feminist critique, then that's what it should be called. Put a section on it in here with a link to a new FC article and make a new one that is actually about BCA. There are plenty of other topics that should be included here. Another one I can think of off the top of my head is history. This article does have a history section, but it is again, teeny, and again, mostly criticism. BCA is a very historic movement. Feminism was the original promoter of awareness. There should be more on that; more on the people who started it; more on its rise in popularity (from a non-argumentative, non-critical, objective stance); more on the actual events that occurred; more on the positive arguments through history, and how they evolved.

Also, I made this argument on WhatamIdoing's talk page - You will never find a sociological source that is pro-awareness. It just won't happen, by the nature of a 'sociological source.' If it's sociological, then why would it be praising BCA? Who would take the time to write a thesis or an article that is pro-awareness? That would be pointless. The point is to say what is wrong with something or what should be improved. In fact, for theses, you must be critical. You aren't allowed to write a thesis without providing your own, original criticism of a certain issue. You won't ever find a sociological source that is pro-awareness. It just won't happen. Does that mean you should ignore the pro side altogether? Absolutely not!

Here are the ones I was referring to. Not all are fantastic, but most of them are good enough to be used. I included the not-so-fantastic just because I don't want to go through (right now) and select the good ones -

List of sources

• Does utilization of screening mammography exp... - PubMed - NCBI
• The influence of socioeconomic dis... - PubMed - NCBI
• Recent breast cancer trends among Asian/Pa... - PubMed - NCBI
• Ethnicity and breast cancer: factors infl... - PubMed - NCBI
• Social determinants of Blac... - PubMed - NCBI
• Responding to the challenges of breas... - PubMed - NCBI
• Influence of demographic factors, knowledge... - PubMed - NCBI
• Beliefs related to breast cancer and b... - PubMed - NCBI
• Reliability and validity of the breast c... - PubMed - NCBI
• Reliability and validity of Champion's Healt... - PubMed - NCBI
• Breast cancer screening controv... - PubMed - NCBI
• Reduction in breast cancer ... - PubMed - NCBI
• Systematic review: the long-term effects of f... - PubMed - NCBI
• Decreasing women's anxieties after abnorm... - PubMed - NCBI
• Screening mammography for frail older women... - PubMed - NCBI
• Additional double reading of screening ma... - PubMed - NCBI
• Effect of recall rate on earlier screen d... - PubMed - NCBI
• Breast cancer disparities in South Carolina:... - PubMed - NCBI

Appropriate

• Elgin Community College counselor spreads word on breast cancer - chicagotribune.com
• Breast Cancer Research: 10 Things We've Learned About The Disease So Far This Year
• Jacksonville News - Town Gown Ambitious JSU students stage fashion show in support of Breast Cancer Awareness Month - these three articles could be used in very limited ways to cite specific information about BCA in specific communities, but are not generally about BCA
• Breast Cancer Awareness - Online Articles: National Council on Strength and Fitness - borderline usable, but I would expect most if not all of the information to be more reliably sourced to journals and scholarly books

Not

• Cost-effectiveness of MRI compared to ma... - PubMed - NCBI
• Cost effectiveness of mammography screening for Chine... - PubMed - NCBI
• Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screenin... - PubMed - NCBI
• Breast cancer screening policies in devel... - PubMed - NCBI
• Effect of screening for cancer in the Nordic coun... - PubMed - NCBI
• Screening younger women at risk fo... - PubMed - NCBI
• Screening mammography and public health policy: the n... - PubMed - NCBI
• - PubMed - NCBI
• Screening for breast cancer. - PubMed - NCBI - all above about screening, not breast cancer awareness
• Mammography in symptomatic and a... - PubMed - NCBI from 1989, way too old, not about awareness, about post-screening care
• * Guidelines for screening for breast can... - PubMed - NCBI - way too old, about screening guidelines, not awareness
• Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography:... - PubMed - NCBI about comparing types of screening, not about awareness, and a primary source
• Long term breast cancer screeni... - PubMed - NCBI a primary source and not about awareness, and from 16 years ago
• BCA month, Curelauncher - facebook not a WP:RS for much beyond existence of the page
• Mayo clinic page on breast cancer, Mayo clinic donation page, Breast Cancer — Diagnosis and Treatment at Mayo Clinic, Mayo Clinic - Breast Cancer Awareness: Mayo Experts Discuss Risk, Treatment, Side Effects and Coping Skills, MayoClinic.com Store: The Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Book, treatment centre, treatment centre, treatment centre, Male breast cancer - MayoClinic.com, New book guides women with breast cancer - MayoClinic.com, Atypical hyperplasia of the breast - MayoClinic.com, HER2-positive breast cancer: What is it? - MayoClinic.com, Inflammatory breast cancer - MayoClinic.com, Recurrent breast cancer - MayoClinic.com, Invasive lobular carcinoma - MayoClinic.com, Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) - MayoClinic.com, Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) - MayoClinic.com - though pages from the Mayo Clinic would be low-level WP:MEDRS for a page on breast cancer, none are specifically about breast cancer awareness with content that could be used on this page.
• Breast Cancer Awareness.com doesn't look like a MEDRS, just general information; might be something else on the page but probably includes information better found in actual MEDRS
• 10 Greatest Things About Breast Cancer Awareness | Adventured - some sort of social networking site? Not a MEDRS and not much actual content on this page.
• Breast Cancer Medical Journals appears to be a personal webpage? Not MEDRS and doesn't seem to list only journals dedicated to breast cancer, let alone BCA
• BMC Public Health | Full text | Community-based intervention to promote breast cancer awareness and screening: The Korean experience
• Effect of media coverage and physici... - PubMed - NCBI
• Factors influencing elderly women's mammography ... - PubMed - NCBI - primary sources
• Prostate cancer disparities in South Carolin... - PubMed - NCBI - substantially about prostate cancer, not breast cancer
• Informed decision making before initiating scr... - PubMed - NCBI - primary
• Beliefs and expectations of women under 50 ... - PubMed - NCBI - primary
• Decision-making processes for breas... - PubMed - NCBI - primary
• Plans to stop cancer screening tests among ... - PubMed - NCBI - primary
• Effects of personal characteristi... - PubMed - NCBI - primary
• Psychosocial correlates of mammography scre... - PubMed - NCBI - primary
• Cancer screening behaviors of low - PubMed - NCBI - primary
• Report of the International Workshop on S... - PubMed - NCBI - from 1993
• Quantitative interpretation of age-specif... - PubMed - NCBI - from 1995

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

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

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

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

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• B-Class hematology-oncology articles
• Unknown-importance hematology-oncology articles
• Hematology-oncology task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class sociology articles
• Unknown-importance sociology articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles