Talk:Dressed to Kill (book)

Proposal to expand the summary section with list of tests noted in the book

Continuing from my prior talk page entry, I propose that I make one edit at a time with full WP guidelines and policies noted for each change. That way any other editor can identify what WP guidelines and policies they believe I am violating one change at a time so there is no confusion.

My first edit will be to expand the summary section to include information provided in the book about other studies. This list is noted in my last talk page entry and can be seen in this prior revision of the page. I will be following these WP guidelines:

1. WP:CONTROVERSY which says to describe the controversy. Since the controversy includes whether there is any scientific proof of this link between bras and breast cancer and a key part of the book covers the other tests noting the link, I believe including that list of other tests identified in the book is a legitimate and supported change by WP guidelines for controversial topics.
2. WP:NOTCENSORED which says as an encyclopedia we should not exclude material simply because some people think it might be objectionable as long as it is not violating any other guidelines.
3. WP:MEDRS noting that those guidelines do not control the summary section of a book review article, but certainly cover the critical responses section (which I have not proposed any change yet).
4. WP:WEIGHT and WP:CHERRYPICKING which both discuss talking about both sides of the controversy, specifically the tests around the link. We should ensure that both the summary and critical response sections include all the known tests around this topic, which is central to the book. If I have left off any, anyone is welcome to add them.
5. The controversial book review article The Bell Curve, already having gone through arbitration, shows us the Synpsis section of the article provides very detailed information on the key points noted in the book. Other FA and GA controversial book reviews noted in my last entry shows similar summaries of the book.
6. Secondary source guidelines for medical information is very important. This summary section of the book actually is a secondary source for the entire list of studies noted in the book (excluding the authors' own study of course). One of the studies in the list is actually a secondary source on its own, having looked at numerous other studies and drawing conclusions about those studies.

I believe the change I propose to make is in full compliance with the WP policies, MoS, and guidelines. I believe this would be a good-faith edit to improve this article and better present the controversy itself and a summary of the book as is done in all WP book review articles.

If anyone disagrees, I would appreciate a list of WP policies, MoS, and guidelines they believe I am violating with this change. § Music Sorter § (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

A list of the studies cited in the book would be a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which says "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

A list of every study cited in a book counts as "data". Your proposal does not comply with the policy requirement to put this kind of list "in context with explanations referenced to independent sources".

(BTW, WP:CONTROVERSY is an essay, not a guideline; WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy, as well as being irrelevant, because nobody's saying that this content is "objectionable or offensive‍" as those terms are used in that policy.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the summary section of a book review article

There is a clear consensus to exclude this list of studies, medical articles, and patents discussed in the book. Editors cited WP:IINFO, WP:MEDRS, WP:PROFRINGE, and WP:UNDUE to support exclusion.

Cunard (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the summary section of a book review include supporting studies, that critics claim don't exist, but which are discussed in the book? § Music Sorter § (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This RfC has also been posted on:

• Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Books
• Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Medicine

Survey

• Yes. The current article identifies and quotes critics who state there are no studies which support the book's theory. Yet the book includes a list of independent studies, medical articles, and patents which support the book's theory. As part of the article's summary section of the book, I believe the article should include this information (see originally proposed content) to maintain WP:WEIGHT and prevent WP:CHERRYPICKING relative to the critical response section. Note that these studies were all independently sourced and the book actually serves as a secondary source to those studies, a key tenant of WP:RS. Also, WP:NONFICTION recommends including a synopsis that highlights the most important elements of the book, which I believe includes the debated studies. § Music Sorter § (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• No, this article specifically should not include this blow-by-blow account of everyone who has ever agreed with this myth, which I assume is the point of this RFC. A simple statement that the book (is the book itself, rather than the myth it promotes, even notable?) claims that a few studies agree with it would be okay, but this 13,000-byte-long list, filled with stuff like "1942 - Catherine Elberfeld was granted a patent for a new bra design" and the authors arguing with someone who wrote a letter to the editor? No, thanks. That level of detail is exactly Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• No Definitely not. The sources fail MEDRS requirements for supporting medical claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • MEDRS in the summary section was discussed previously. A new entry in the discussion section provides a link for more information. § Music Sorter § (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
    • So the suggested content is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
      • The WP guidelines for a book review summary does not include WP:WEIGHT. That is applicable to an article on the topic of bras causing breast cancer, and the critical response section of a book review article that studied bras causing breast cancer, but not the summary section of the book - per WP guidelines already noted. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
        • On the other hand, WEIGHT explicitly includes "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia", which surely includes those parts of Wikipedia's contents that happen to be "book review summaries". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Your quotation is not anywhere in WP:WEIGHT. However, it does appear at the front of WP:NPOV, which I am trying to restore to this article by including the supporting studies in the article summary. § Music Sorter § (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• No, it should not contain this list. First, this article is foremost about the book and should be discussed primarily through the lens of its reviews. If the book was seriously reviewed, those reviewers will have commented on the general validity of its claims. In this way, specific studies/nuances of the book's argument should only be elaborated in proportion to that aspect's coverage in the review. This said, this article appears as a coat rack for its argument. Where are the reviews/sourcing that show the independent notability of this book release and not just the idea behind it? If the subject covered in sources is the idea of bras causing cancer but not the book itself, then the article should be re-scoped and, most likely, merged into a parent article section. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 10:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• The WP guidelines for book review articles was discussed previously. A new entry in the discussion section provides a link for more information. § Music Sorter § (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• No. The section "Covered by the book" appears to be driving a Coach and Horses (6, Budweiser type) through WP:MEDRS and should go. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• As was already mentioned above and below, WP:MEDRS is not applicable to the summary section of a book review article. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• No. Add to the above, the fact that this list includes citation(s) to OMICS. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• There is no WP guideline that restricts the content of the summary section of a book review article based on the sources cited in the book. That would be addressed in the critical response section. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• No. Most of the listed examples are atrocious on their face. But more importantly, even if the book is right, Wikipedia is not a place to present an argument trying to convince the world. Wikipedia will happily include reviews and mainstream medical accolades for this book leading the way on this important truth - only after those sources have been convinced of that truth without the aid of advocacy via Wikipedia. Wikipedia follows mainstream Reliable-Source-accepted knowledge, it does not lead the way in advocating or promoting new or fringe ideas. Alsee (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP guidelines for a book review summary include discussing important aspects of the book which includes the existence or non-existence of any studies or indications that bras can cause breast cancer. This list is what the critics claim don't exist. The article should at least present the key points made in the book as has been done in all other controversial book review articles. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• No. I have nothing to add to the foregoing negative votes. If anyone feels like an analysis of the thesis the book proposes, that could go into another article (encyclopaedic, one hopes). JonRichfield (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• There is no analysis of the thesis proposed here. This is an element of the summary of the book as is permitted by WP guidelines. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes but not the way OP envisages it: the article doesn't really have a book summary section at present, and I think it should. I would suggest moving the second paragraph of "Background" to a new section "Content summary", and adding at most another short paragraph on the studies that the book discusses or other book content. But these descriptions should be heavily editorialised e.g. "The book claims that its results are supported by other studies, such as __ and__" or "Singer and Grismaijer opine that the __ people and __s have a lower rate of breast cancer because..."
  Books about pseudoscience should describe that pseudoscience, just like all other non-fiction book articles have content summaries. But we do have serious considerations of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE to bear in mind when the non-fiction book in question is misrepresenting a myth as fact. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. WP:MEDRS. Maproom (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• No Leave them out. For the reasons described above but also a more fundamental one. There is no valid basis for putting them in. One potential basis might be, because it's in the book, it should be copied here. Obviously that is no basis. The other might be to cover / explore the central assertion of the book. That is NOT the role of an article on the BOOK, and would be a medical topic getting submarined into a book article. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• No That's not a valid way to bypass WP:MEDRS and WP:PROFRINGE. Summarizing non-fiction content isn't the same as reproducing the minutiae of a fringe argument. --tronvillain (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• WP:NPOV concerns. In the past few weeks, I have made numerous good faith edits to try to bring WP:WEIGHT to this article (all originally proposed changes). Some of them were quickly reverted with no explanation. Some reverts include explanations citing WP guidelines or policies which I believe are inappropriate for the situation. In trying to prevent an edit war, I have replied to each revert showing WP policies and guidelines that support my changes, but the responses to my comments do not address my justifications. I then moved to singular changes to make the discussion easier, but again I hit reverts to these latest changes with explanations which I don't believe are applicable. The latest revert on my proposed changes, which is the subject of this RfC, stated the list of studies is data and therefore WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I disagree. Data is a set of values of qualitative or quantitative variables. This is a list of independent studies which the book includes to support its hypothesis and these FA-Class articles include lists in their summaries: Ace Books, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Black Hours, Morgan MS 493, Hemming's Cartulary, and more. Based on these and past responses to my comments and reverts, I believe my proposed good faith changes will continue to be reverted unless we get additional editor opinions. § Music Sorter § (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• List of studies, medical articles, and patents. To help anyone glancing through this RfC, the proposed list of additions coming from the book can be seen here. If you don't want to read it yourself, it includes 18 entries (12 studies, 4 articles, and 2 patents). The book claims these are the only known studies that have examined the bra/breast cancer link. One of the 12 studies in this list is the Fred Hutch study which is also included in the current critical response section. The Fred Hutch study was discussed in some length in the book, but those edits have been reverted with no explanation. So as far as I can see in the book and the critical response, there is one cited study that does not support the link and 11 studies that do support the link. § Music Sorter § (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• There an interesting question. The studies that were presumably in the original version are ancient, while the authors apparently just released a second edition in 2017. Even if including studies were justified, folding the newer studies into a general summary would potentially be extremely misleading. I wonder if there's any kind of guideline on this? --tronvillain (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP:MEDRS and book review summary sections. I extensively addressed this issue previously in the talk page above. In summary, WP guidelines do not require external sources to summarize a book article, and certainly don't require MEDRS in the summary section. However, MEDRS is applicable to all other areas of the article. § Music Sorter § (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Book review guidelines. I extensively addressed this issue previously in the talk page above. In brief, the summary section of an article can be summarized by editors based on the book itself. I listed numerous controversial FA and GA articles in the link above that follow my same proposal here and meet WP:CONTROVERSY, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:MEDRS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:CHERRYPICKING. Also, 16 of the 18 proposed entries are not from the authors and one is a metastudy, which makes the book a secondary source for these entries. No critics have ever addressed these other studies, but that in itself does not make them invalid. § Music Sorter § (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

the summary section of an article can be summarized by editors based on the book itself

For plot/fiction, not analytic claims, nevertheless fringe claims. Analytic claims always require backing from reliable, secondary sources, not a simple retelling of primary sources. If a non-fiction book's core argument (synopsis) cannot be reconstructed from reliable, secondary sources, I'd question whether the book was seriously received. This has nothing to do with the sources cited in the book itself. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 10:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There are no WP guidelines that restrict a summary section of any type of book review article, regardless of the claims being made in the book. I will restate the following non-fiction FA ad GA book articles clearly present the author's opinion or specifically what they wrote on their topic in the book without the need of any external sources, clearly supporting my proposal for this book review.

• On the Origin of Species
• An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory
• Race_Against_Time:_Searching_for_Hope_in_AIDS-Ravaged_Africa - Includes similar list entry sourced from the book like I have proposed.
• Dreamtime (book) - Book summary cited 100% from the book.
• Ways That Are Dark - Book summary cited 100% from the book.
• Compulsory Miseducation
• Manasollasa
• Washington: A Life - Book summary cited 89% from the book.
• The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science

I will also point out the highly controversial book The Bell Curve makes analytic claims and includes a Synopsis showing all the key points of the book, including a table of IQ levels for different economic and social criteria. Numerous entries in that section cite the book itself. This article is subject to active arbitration remedies to ensure WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, & WP:PSTS. This book review article supports exactly what I am proposing. § Music Sorter § (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That article is summarizing the assertions of the book. And even it may go a bit too far. IMO copying the author's list of those who agree with him is much further afield for an article than that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow up RfC about the summary section of a book review article

Should the summary section of a book review include commentary from the authors about supporting studies, that critics claim don't exist, but which are discussed in the book? § Music Sorter § (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. The prior RfC was misunderstood by the editors voting. I cannot fault them for the misunderstanding since the question and my initial commentary was discussing two different elements. I spoke to User:Cunard about the problem and it was suggested that I create a specific proposal to be added to the article. My specific proposal for the summary section of the book is as follows:

In Dressed to Kill, the authors Singer and Grismaijer claim that wearing a tight bra for long hours daily can contribute to breast cancer risk by impairing lymphatic circulation in the breasts due to constriction, creating mild, chronic breast lymphedema that can cause breast pain, cysts, and cancer. They write that lymph circulation can be hampered by tight bras, and describe in detail a survey which they claim to have conducted in 1991-93 on nearly 5,000 women, about half of whom had had breast cancer. The authors conclude that the longer and tighter a bra is worn, the higher the risk of developing breast cancer. In the book's 2018 Second Edition, the authors also give a history of past medical consensus on a bra-cancer link and give examples of patents for less constrictive bras which were based on their book. They also give explanations for why they believe the medical consensus is that there is no correlation between bra-wearing and cancer. In addition to their own work, the authors cite five recent peer-reviewed studies, including one meta-analysis, which report a significant link between bra usage and breast cancer incidence. The authors argue that women should be told about this potential cause of breast cancer, and call for more research. Singer and Grismaijer also discuss one particular 2014 study by Lu Chen, et al., at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, which they claim is the only study that has found no correlation between bra-wearing and breast cancer risk. They describe limitations of the study.§ Music Sorter § (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Addressing concerns from prior RfC In order to move forward on the basic question, I have removed any link to adding a list of studies to the summary section. I was never proposing any specific content in the RfC, but it is clear that most everyone assumed or thought that was the case. Therefore I have now provided what I believe is a neutral proposal for the summary section of the book which is a synopsis of the book per the WP:NONFICTION guidelines. Many of the comments associated with the no votes sound to me like the commenting editors felt this article was on the general topic of bras causing breast cancer. I'd like to remind everyone that this is an article on a book. The topic of the book happens to be about a medical issue and therefore I believe there needs to be a careful review of the overall WP guidelines between the differences of the two article types. § Music Sorter § (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Historical background

How about a historical section of prior teachings on this topic, by advocates of 'loose and comfortable clothing' (of which there have been several, some in the 'natural health' communities? Surely a history of teaching about 'what is appropriate clothing' is not out of order.

Historical Perspectives on Clothing Ethics

• Throughout history, various advocates, particularly within the natural health communities, have promoted the concept of loose and comfortable clothing as a fundamental aspect of clothing ethics. These historical teachings offer valuable insights into societal attitudes towards clothing and notions of what constitutes appropriate attire.

Ancient Traditions:

• Ancient Greece and Rome: Philosophers such as Plato and Seneca emphasized the importance of simplicity and moderation in attire, advocating for clothing that allowed freedom of movement and comfort.
• Eastern Philosophies: Traditional Eastern philosophies, including Buddhism and Taoism, often encouraged the use of loose-fitting garments to promote physical ease and mental tranquility.

Medieval and Renaissance Period:

• Medieval Europe: During the Middle Ages, certain religious orders, like the Franciscans, adopted plain and unadorned clothing as a symbol of humility and detachment from worldly possessions.
• Renaissance Humanism: Humanist thinkers like Erasmus of Rotterdam critiqued the ostentatious clothing of the nobility, promoting modest attire as a reflection of inner virtue.

19th and 20th Centuries:

• Victorian Era: Social reformers, including dress reform advocates like Amelia Bloomer, campaigned for practical and comfortable clothing for women, challenging restrictive and impractical fashion norms.
• Early 20th Century: Figures like Mahatma Gandhi promoted the use of simple, homespun garments as a means of self-sufficiency and resistance to colonial oppression.

Modern Movements:

• Natural Health Communities: Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, proponents of natural health and holistic well-being have emphasized the importance of clothing that allows for unrestricted movement and promotes bodily comfort.

Exploring these historical teachings provides valuable context for understanding contemporary perspectives on clothing ethics and sheds light on evolving societal attitudes towards clothing and personal adornment.MaynardClark (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@MaynardClark, I think there's a place in Wikipedia for this kind of information, but this information is irrelevant to this particular article (which is specifically about their book, not about comfortable clothing in general). Perhaps Clothing#Clothing as comfort and Victorian dress reform would be a starting point for figuring out where you could put this type of information. Alternatively, it's possible that we need an article on Clothing reform in general. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I was introduced to that topic (decades ago) at a conference where the 'moral education' community taught that 'loose, comfortable, and appropriate clothing' was a prudential ethos that ought to be developed. MaynardClark (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)