Wikipedia

Talk:Breast cancer awareness/Archive 3

< Talk:Breast cancer awareness
Latest comment: 11 years ago by WhatamIdoing in topic Media
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Discuss Neutrality, Weight, and Fringe Theory here

Latest comment: 11 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

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) Wikipedia's rules:simple/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)
I didn't see this till now. That's rude and not true. That is your opinion of some of them (the minority). We'll see when we get there I guess. Charles35 (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Charles, please read WP:FRINGE. Fringe theories on wikipedia mean those not considered serious by the relevant scholars. Essentially if a peer-reviewed article or university press book discusses an idea in a serious way, it is not a fringe idea per WP:FRINGE.
As for neutrality, NPOV and appropriate balance is one of the hardest things to do on wikipedia - it requires keen awareness of the policies, but also the material. Adding one or two critical sentences to a descriptive paragraph in general would probably not be undue weight (which seems to be the relevant issue). The article does not immediately read like an excuse (i.e. a coatrack) to criticize breast cancer awareness or hatchetjob - but it does discuss perceived criticisms. My personal rule of thumb is "add information found in sources until you can't add anymore", to reach saturation. By sticking to scholarly sources, saturating the page usually ends up in a rough measure of appropriate discussion and criticism. As NPOV says, it is about what the sources say, not the opinions of editors. Our binding principle is verifiability, not truth (in other words - what is found in sources, not what is found in reality; absurd as it sounds, it generally works quite well). Another way to work through issues of neutrality is to find "counter-sources"; sources that criticize the initial sources or the specific points made therein. Mere editor opinion, particularly when the opinion is opposed to something published by Oxford University Press, is not sufficient unless there is a clear, strong and well-thought out and nearly unanimous consensus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, several things:
Quiddity, I have not read any of the ones in the article, but I have just yesterday started. However, that is no reason to discount my opinions (ad hominem). But I have a few things to say about you mentioning sociology. First of all, this article is not a sociology article (I see that it is officially considered one here, but that's wrong). In its current state, it is a sociology article, but it shouldn't be. Look at the name - "Breast Cancer Awareness." What about that indicates that it is exclusively sociological? There are many other perspectives that should be taken here (this is the heart of my total argument). First, there should be a general, informative view. There should simply be more objective and non-argumentative information here; info that is not biased; not 'taking a side'. This sort of info exists in every article on wikipedia. It does, to a tiny extent, exist here, but it is nonetheless severely lopsided. Additionally, there should be medical info here. Don't jump to the conclusion that medical info on BC should all go in the BC article (if that's the case, then all sociological info should go in the Sociology of BCA article. Here, there should be info about the accomplishments of breast cancer. Not 2 comparatively teeny sections that are half-full of subtle criticism and support of Sulik's arguments, but real, concrete achievements. Stuff like - without BCA awareness, this wouldn't have happened; BCA helped fund this; BCA raised this much money in 20xx; etc. That should take up the bulk of the article. I mean, that's what BCA is really about. That's what the focus of the article should be. If the focus of the article is feminist critique, then the article should be called "Feminist Critique of BCA. It's so incredibly lopsided. There should also be info about the goals of the movement; an in-depth positive analysis of the aims of BCA. The word 'mammography' is used 19 times in this article; 18 of those instances are critical. If mammography is so big and important, then don't you think there's a reason for that? Why is it so big? Maybe...because it is useful? This article should elaborate on that! If this article is meant to be about feminist critique, then that's what it should be called. Put a section on it in here with a link to a new FC article and make a new one that is actually about BCA. There are plenty of other topics that should be included here. Another one I can think of off the top of my head is history. This article does have a history section, but it is again, teeny, and again, mostly criticism. BCA is a very historic movement. Feminism was the original promoter of awareness. There should be more on that; more on the people who started it; more on its rise in popularity (from a non-argumentative, non-critical, objective stance); more on the actual events that occurred; more on the positive arguments through history, and how they evolved.
Also, I made this argument on WhatamIdoing's talk page - You will never find a sociological source that is pro-awareness. It just won't happen, by the nature of a 'sociological source.' If it's sociological, then why would it be praising BCA? Who would take the time to write a thesis or an article that is pro-awareness? That would be pointless. The point is to say what is wrong with something or what should be improved. In fact, for theses, you must be critical. You aren't allowed to write a thesis without providing your own, original criticism of a certain issue. You won't ever find a sociological source that is pro-awareness. It just won't happen. Does that mean you should ignore the pro side altogether? Absolutely not!
Here are the ones I was referring to. Not all are fantastic, but most of them are good enough to be used. I included the not-so-fantastic just because I don't want to go through (right now) and select the good ones -

List of sources

Appropriate

Not

Continued discussion

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

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

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

Breast cancer as a brand

Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion
people who support the "pink brand" identify themselves as members of the socially aware niche market, who are in favor of women's health, screening mammography, positive thinking, and willing submission to the current mainstream medical opinion (Sulik 2010, page 22).

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Sulik says

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

Specifics (attempt #2)

Latest comment: 11 years ago29 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

Events

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

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

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

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

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

Pink Ribbon

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

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

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

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

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

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

The original sentence was this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shopping for the Cure

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
Some of these products are produced or sold by breast cancer survivors or charities for fundraising purposes.

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

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

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

some
produced or sold
survivors or charities
for fundraising purposes

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's all for shopping for the cure

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

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

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

Media

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Until the mid-1990s, nearly all of these stories were written from the perspective of the expert, who doled out advice.

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

I think doled out accurately reflects the tone of the source, which was criticizing patients' limited access to information at that time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
It might be acceptable to quote the source then, but "doled out" is not an encyclopedic tone. And it violates WP:NPOV, in my opinion. Charles35 (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
What's unencyclopedic about it? It's not slang. It appears in professionally written encyclopedia articles like these. I think it's perfectly encyclopedic.
The phrase means "distributed in small amounts; small portions shared out of a meager resource." Can you think of another way to say this? Keep in mind that the point here is to communicate the fact that patients were getting very little information, and only the information that a medical professional believed was appropriate for them (e.g., would help the patient comply with prescribed treatment). WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, those two things were essays and weren't on wikipedia. Doled out has a definite negative connotation. I see why you want something with a little more substance than "gave out". Browsing through thesaurus.com, there are a lot of good words, such as apportioned, allocated, dealt, handed, shared, but I can't think of many that fit the context of giving advice. What do you think of provided? How about "provided limited advice"? Presented might work too. Charles35 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
They weren't essays. They were professionally written, formally published, real-world encyclopedia articles.
"Provided limited advice" (or even "very limited") communicates approximately the same idea, I think. I suspect that readers will have the same reaction to it (namely, aren't we glad that we're living in the information age instead of having to rely on tiny drips of information from experts), so I don't really see any advantage to changing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately my preview of Sulik cuts out in that seciton, but I have requested a copy from the library. If the intent of the book is to emphasize the limited, paternalistic nature of oncologists to their female patients, then "doled out" or some other phrasing that emphasizes this seems warranted. If Sulik takes the perspective that the advice given before the current model of illness narrative took hold was harmful or disingenuous, then the page should reflect that. And from my understanding, a large part of the politics of breast cancer was the rejection of paternalistic medicine that did not provide female patients with an honest summary of the actual situation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll let you get the book and see for yourself, rather than trying to sway your view of the source on this point. I just wanted to note in re paternalism that I believe it was Olsen who told the story of the oncologist who recommended a mastectomy on the grounds that the patient didn't "need" her breasts any longer, since she was too old to be breastfeeding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breast_cancer_awareness/Archive_3&oldid=1211858202"