Talk:Breast cancer awareness/Archive 1

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


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


 * Specifically, it's an argument that is made (at length) by the cited source, not by any Wikipedia editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you need to present it as an argument made by that source. So for example "X argues that while the pink ribbon culture is dominant, cracks in the façade of unity show through." Or "Artists in responding to what they see as a façade of unity have done X".©Geni 21:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be appropriate if Sulik were the only reliable source making the claim that breast cancer culture emphasizes conformity, but she's not. For example, Ehrenreich also makes the same claim (both in the source cited and in her book Bright-sided, which isn't cited in the article.)  The emphasis on conformity is acknowledged by multiple sources, some of whom think that it's a good thing (e.g., politically inclined groups, who believe women with breast cancer will get more resources if they "speak with one voice").
 * I don't think that your second statement is accurate. I think (based on what I've read) that the artists are responding not to the "mandatory" appearance of unity, but to their individual, personal experiences (which happen to be quite different from the "party line").  That is, the artists' truthfulness shows the falsity of the "you must be happy, hopeful, and helpful" feeling rules that the culture imposes on women, but I haven't seen any sources that claim the artists are trying to show that the culture is false.  Instead, the sources indicate that the artists are trying to be authentic and truthful, and that to do this they have to resist the falseness of the culture.  It's more like an unintended consequence than a direct response to the cultural imperative for public unity.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

^^ do you realize that everybody thinks you're wrong? WP:OOA you don't own this article. you scare everyone off. this is against the rules! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The 'she-ro' and other rubbish in the article
That whole section is written awfully, by someone promoting the culture shamelessly and with tenuous relevance to the article or what it should encompass. I've tagged it as repetitive and like a personal reflection. I understand that there are a few people who don't agree with me, but rather than do nothing except remove the tags out of stubborn pride, I think it'd be in the encyclopaedia's best interests to improve the section, and, as it may be, the entire article. I'd do it, but my knowledge of breast cancer and its culture is ignorant at best. 86.145.90.103 (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you don't know anything about breast cancer culture, then how do you know that this is irrelevant or promotional?
 * My reaction to this is to think how dreadful it is that the breast cancer culture has dreamed up this superwoman, in defiance of the reality that many patients face. Is it really good to tell women with cancer that they're failures unless they look pretty all the time?  Read the end of that section:  the she-ro model is being pushed by the cancer culture, but it's hugely damaging to real women, who end up feeling depressed, discouraged, and silenced by it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I need not have knowledge about the topic in order to make a judgment on the style or quality of writing. I agree with your second comment, however, and draw from that that the section has tenuous relevance: it may be that the 'she-ro', to use that ugly word, has a place in the article, but not to the depth of detail at which it is now. How can it be possible to assert that every breast cancer sufferer

is educated as a medical consumer and [...] is always brave, always victorious, and never dies[?]
 * And it cannot be grounded in fact that

she remains [...] relentlessly cheerful in public [and] may conceive of herself as an inadequate she-ro.
 * It is simply not possible to measure the claims made in the latter. Further, if you don't believe that the section is written badly, that first quote I supplied should be enough to clear that up—all heroines with breast cancer have to die, and not all of them win their battles. Similar terms occur throughout the article. But I shall change one tag – it is not actually repetitive, just too detailed. And one last thing: I did read the whole section. 86.145.90.103 (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether a given fact has only "tenuous relevance" is not a matter of writing style. The sources go on at very great length about the "she-ro".  A huge section of Sulik's book talks about this archetype or mythical creation of the breast cancer culture.  We therefore give it WP:DUE weight by giving it almost as much attention as the scholars do.
 * We do not need to "measure the claims made in the latter". The cited sources did it for us.  They also are the ones making the claim that the she-ro (NB:  not "every breast cancer sufferer"; did you not read the last half of that section, which is about the enormous gap between this fairytale creature and the experiences of real women?) never dies, not us.  We are merely repeating the scholars' assertions.
 * I encourage you to go read the sources. I found them very interesting.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Do scholars give the 'she-ro' masses of attention? I'd not heard the term before reading this article. Because three or four sources talk about her doesn't mean that a high proportion of scholars do; this article may give undue weight to her. Anyway, I withdraw any objection to inclusion that may have been inferred, but I defend my concerns about the quality of prose. (Also, my IP address may have changed. I had to reset my wireless internet connection :/) 86.167.15.32 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Part of what intrigues me about this subject is the enormous gap between what the experts think and what the average person (who has no direct experience with breast cancer, since, after all, only about 5% of adults will get it) believes. When a breast cancer patent says, "I'm going to fight this thing and win!", the typical person thinks "Oh, what a brave person. I'm sure that good attitude will help her", but the psychologists and the sociologists hear something very different, and they spend a lot of time writing about that difference.
 * I suspect that the oncologists probably don't even hear the "good attitude" statement at all, except to make a mental note that they can rule out depression for the moment (and probably to be relieved that they're not going to have to wipe away any tears in this visit: they're human, after all).  When the vast majority of your patients turn out to have that incredible winning attitude after they've gotten over the initial shock, you'd probably get used to it.  (It's a bit like obituary writing:  every dead person was practically perfect, a beloved parent, etc., and all cancer patients are heroes.)
 * This paper seems to be typical in its summary (although the subject isn't quite the same):
 * "The mainstream breast cancer awareness movement replaced the stigmatisation, isolation and invisibility of women with breast cancer with a new public culture overflowing with symbolic gestures of support, solidarity, respect and recognition. The public identity of women with breast cancer was transformed from tragic victim to heroic survivor. The public image of the new breast cancer survivor, unlike the victim of yesteryear, was a woman whose femininity, sexuality and desirability were intact; a woman who had struggled bravely and victoriously against the disease (which, ideally, was diagnosed early, due to her disciplined practice of ‘breast health’ and rigorous observation of screening guidelines), and whose survival was therefore assured. Gender and sexuality were intimately bound up in these social and cultural transformations." or
 * This isn't cited in the article (although, as I've said, many of the scholarly sources say very similar things), but I'm sure you noticed the author's use of the word "heroic", and the claim that this heroic, brave, feminine woman got her mammograms on time and was guaranteed to survive. The "she-ro" is a trope (literature) or archetype, not an accurate portrayal of reality, but she exists just as much as Cinderella or the perfect mother does.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I forgot to address your about the "masses of attention" question: Scholarly attention varies by discipline, but for the main discipline (sociology, because awareness is a social phenomenon) we're probably underplaying this.  The "she-ro" section is less than 10% of this article.  I think that the "perfect patient" gets more than 10% of scholarly attention.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

this is ridiculous
None of this content, including the content you are discussing, whatamidoing, belongs on this page. This content belongs on one of the following: a page about feminist theory, sociology (in which it would be a short paragraph, not 25 paragraphs), a page discussion criticism to the breast cancer culture, or AT MOST, it could be on this page, under a section titled "Criticism" - put whatever you want under that. But your content is not about breast cancer AWARENESS. It is a criticism of breast cancer CULTURE. For the AWARENESS page, it would be appropriate to criticize public policy, the advertising business, the pharmaceutical business, medical policy, etc. A broad, speculative, non-scientific, non-falsifiable MANIFESTO with no evidence or research to back it up does not really even belong on wikipedia. Furthermore, it has all but nothing relevant to breast cancer AWARENESS. If you must have it on this page, it deserves, at most, a short paragraph, which must be put under a section called "Criticism."

Or, please create a biography article on Gayle Sulik and put it there. Or, create an article about her book, and put it there. The book is fiction, or at best, it is merely speculation. None of it is falsifiable, none of it has evidence, none of it belongs here.

Science must be falsifiable. It must be able to be falsified in order for it to be able to be confirmed. This is a narrative; a story.

On a separate note, your she-ro concept has a issues. First, the English language already has a word for a female hero - a heroine.

If we ignore 'heroine,' there are still issues. On the continued note of the etymology, she-ro creates a false dichotomy with the word "hero." This implies that, since, "shero" has "she-", and clearly refers to females, the word hero must refer to males. This is not necessarily true, regardless of the existence of 'heroine.' Heroine refers exclusively to females, but hero can refer to both genders.

Etymology aside - like the rest of the theory, this is purely speculative, and may as well be fiction. Your use of the word hero implicitly assumes that radical feminism is valid in the first place. There is no evidence that gives us any reason to believe that. Additionally, say you were compiling evidence: your theory is still oversimplifying an infinitely complex issue. You will never be able to understand the in's and out's of our society. I cannot stress this enough, this theory is nothing but a literary theory; it is a piece of fiction. Sure, it is interesting to contemplate and it's kind of neat when you about it, but you are picking and choosing what facts are relevant and which ones to ignore. You are creating nonsense from scratch - that is not how science works. Feminism is a critical theory; critical theory is sociology; sociology is a social science; social sciences are, well...sciences! Ergo, via law of syllogism, feminist theory is a SCIENCE! Science must be falsifiable, it must have evidence, it must be all of the things I said above.

And it is an insult to our society; to our culture; to me; to you; to my aunt; to Elizabeth Edwards; to Ann Romney, to Suzanne Somers, to Christina Applegate, to Sheryl Crow, to Cynthia Nixon, to everyone who's been diagnosed with the fatal (in case you've forgotten) disease, and to our entire society.

Look - we're doing the best we can, okay? We are trying to make the best of the situation we've been put in. We have been inflicted with this disease, and we are trying to fight it. We are focusing our efforts on treating the disease - saving lives, testing women, doing everything we can to prevent the disease from killing people, treating women, doing everything we can to save their lives. And if that can't happen, we will do everything we can to make the rest of their lives more manageable and try to reduce the pain. And at the end of the day, we'll spend some time doing research to find a cure to save more lives. Pardon us if, along the way, we forgot to stop and think about the fact that, here and there, a mammogram might come up with a false positive! Oh, jeez, what an outrage! That's a waste of, like, 15 bucks! Some people might be misdiagnosed here and there, but that's a trade-off we're willing to give for the 10 people whose lives are saved as a result. Oh, and, our bad if we decide to give AstraZeneca a break. I mean, hey, they are throwing a few billion dollars our way. They have to make a living too!

I've spoken to a couple thousand women over my life. Let me tell you that, outside of academia, I have, not once, heard a women complain about their feelings of guilt for being inadequate cancer patients and not living up to the strict societal pressures that the she-ro culture places on them, or anything remotely close to that. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. There are way more important issues at hand!!!

It's ironic how you complain about "male physicians...impos[ing] their own values on women, such as recommending mastectomy to older women because, being past the age of child bearing and breastfeeding, (telling them) they no longer "needed" their breasts," while simultaneously complaining that "The culture celebrates women...and declares that their continued survival is due to this positive attitude and fighting spirit, even though...a cosmetically enhanced appearance do[es] not kill cancer cells." So what you're basically saying is that it's silly that we cosmetically repair breasts for the aesthetic value, and it's even sillier that we would take measures to remove a women's breast that she so desperately needs for the same exact aesthetic value you just denounced? If you want to get technical - medically, women who have reached menopause have no functional biological need for breasts. You could argue for a sexual need, but, in regards to biology and medicine, they are non-fertile, so sexual appeal is not technically a factor. If removing a woman's breast would save their life, aesthetics are irrelevant. To value aesthetics over life is ridiculous. No doctor removes tonsils or appendixes, never mind breasts, if it weren't absolutely necessary to save their life.

"Pink ribbon culture is pro-doctor, pro-medicine, and..." "The "she-ro"...is the woman who...aggressively fight[s] breast cancer through compliance with mainstream medical advice." "She is educated as a medical consumer and firmly believes that modern science can cure breast cancer." This is quite a bold argument. Say you are right - medicine is evil and it doesn't even work, doctors are scams, etc. Now, take your head out of the clouds, because you forgot the part where you tell me what I should do instead. Your 'debunking' of mainstream medicine means nothing if you don't offer a viable alternative solution.

This is a very important decision for me. I have a | 1-in-8 chance of being diagnosed with breast cancer at some point in my life. Cancer is responsible for 7.6 million lives each year, and in America alone, cancer claims 1,500 lives each day. Do you suggest I just avoid treatment altogether? I heard that there are a grand total of 32 cases ever of people who have survived cancer without treatment. Do you think that might happen to me if I stick to my principles? Because I also heard that the average survival length for untreated cancer is 2.3 years, but that | of people treated medically for cancer, 80% survive it.

Tell me, if you had breast cancer, would you refuse to go to a doctor because it is against your principles? What would you do instead? Would you take advantage of other sources of treatment, such as herbalism and shamanism? Astrology? Scientology? Witchcraft? Can you promise me that, if I find the right witch, she will be able to help? Sorcery? Would you pursue treatment through diet and exercise? Do you think that might help? What about relaxation or breathing exercises? Do those work? Acupuncture? Ah, and I almost forgot - what do you think of home remedies? You know - snake oil, shark cartilage, crystal healing, even urine therapy? Do you suggest I look into those instead?

Either find something constructive to say, or don't say anything at all. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion column.

...the conspiracy theory has me a little concerned: "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."

Charles35 (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion
I suggest that you add to the top of the article. Then, do a rewrite using sources from Google books and Google scholar and google Breast cancer awareness site:edu

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The article already reflects the scholarly discourse on the subject. The fact is that the scholarly sources on this subject are almost uniformly negative about the state of the BC movement in modern times.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are numerous substantial issues with it:

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

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

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


 * When you're citing different pages, you can't just repeat the footnotes. But that was a minor problem that has been corrected; someone improperly changed the citation style a little more than 24 hours before your first edits.  It's been switched back to WP:Parenthetical citations, which has the happy advantage of making the relative use of the sources be much more obvious to the reader.
 * I am curious why you say that the article presents cancer as a social construct. People and their behaviors always happen in a social context, but the cancer cells themselves do not.  I thought that statements like "cheerfulness, hope, and displaying a cosmetically enhanced appearance do not kill cancer cells" pointed out the difference between how society deals with the patient (e.g., shaming women who are angry) and the biological reality (e.g., that pink ribbons don't kill cancer cells).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Disturbing bias in this article
Although it will probably be removed because it's a dissenting opinion among the viscous views expressed in this article, it's very, very necessary in order to provide the public, without rewriting the entire article, with a fair representation of the content this article aims to provide. Almost none of the article is objective information. I added this:

For the public's sake, it is necessary to disclaim the content of this article from the beginning. The vast majority of this article is very biased and one-sided. The interpretation and analysis of each section consists of severe criticism from a radical feminist's perspective. It is not limited to just the criticism section. All sections are fueled by vengeful resentment. Very little information in this article is informative. An illusion of authority is created through the use of 105 citations. 91 of these citations (87%) come from the same four sources. People are advised to keep this in mind and read this article with caution that this information is not a fair representation of the views of the majority of people. When using this article for any purpose, note that this information is one-sided and do not take any of it to be an accurate depiction of reality. This bias is fueled by the resentment and personal agenda of certain small groups of people. Do not take any of it to be the truth. Additionally, critics are advised to take advantage of the opportunity channel their anger to the criticism section. Please provide the public with the opportunity to read a fair and impartial article without the illusion of authority maintained through the unwarranted use of 105 citations.

If you feel that this is too informal to be on a wikipedia article, I would agree. I do not have the time and resources myself to re-write this article to make it fair and objective. But this content is disgustingly biased to a standard lower and more unethical than I have ever seen before on wikipedia. I thought it was necessary to provide a swift and effective objective viewpoint to orient the aim of this article in a better direction. Please take this seriously as this article is extremely misleading and clearly motivated by a (possibly shared) personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.32.44 (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you know? Fact
This fact was used on wikipedia's Did you know? fact page:... that wearing a pink ribbon for breast cancer awareness has been denounced as a form of feel-good slacktivism that saves no lives?"

This is despicable. This is not a fact, and is certainly not objective. The writer, clearly motivated by a resentful personal agenda, provided his or her biased opinion and called as a fact under the guise of a 'wikipedia portmanteau.'

I mean really, "saves no lives?" "feel-good slacktivism?" Just because the word 'denounced' was added does not make it a fact. It's just a re-worded opinion. If that's a fact, then this is equally factual: "did you know that denouncing breast cancer awareness has been said to be motivated by a disgruntled and unsatisfied libido?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.32.44 (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


 * The word hero comes via Latin from Greek hērōs. Many  languages have a similar word. Strictly,  the the feminine version is of course heroin, also  from  the Greek.  I'm  not  sure about  the coined word she-ro, it  does not  appear to  be listed in any quality dictionaries or any  that  I  have written and/or published. The only  mention I  found was shero (without  the hyphen), but the source is not reliable. I  suppose the word  can be used in  the article if it  is used in  one of the print  sources, and referenced.
 * Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "...man of superhuman strength or physical courage..." Typical. Just like History, and don't get me started on "therapist". :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Heroine: a woman admired or idealized for her courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities. (Oxford American Dictionary) See also Merriam-Webster. Therapist does not appear to  have any  gender specific connotations, although the German, for example, a language that  has a greater extent  of genderised vocational nouns, has the feminine form Therapeutin :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * We are using she-ro because the sources use she-ro. If they didn't, then we wouldn't.  As it happens, Sulik is using this term to highlight a gender role issue.  The she-ro is both feminine (must try to look pretty during chemo!) and masculine (must be aggressive and selfish [in a self-preservation kind of way]).
 * Linguistically, I suspect that the term was used to describe a certain type of comic book character well before anyone thought of applying it to women with breast cancer. But folk etymology has a poor track record, so word origin is probably best left to a scholar.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * It's not all negative. Go look at the Achievements of the breast cancer movement section.  Look at the History section.  What's negative there?  There's only a single sentence of criticism in the Breast cancer as a brand section, and most of the marketing sub-sections are similarly limited in their criticism.
 * Sulik's book, by the way, was published by Oxford University Press. Every chapter ends with a lengthy bibliography.  She received a National Endowment for the Humanities research fellowship in 2008 for this work.  She's a former professor and a full-time researcher.  This isn't just some "technically reliable book".  This is a—perhaps the—major scholarly work on the subject.  And, importantly, she's not the only scholar who holds this position.  You might not have noticed, but there are even top-quality sources written by men named in this article, and they agree with Sulik about the problems in the breast cancer culture.  In fact, there isn't a single independent scholar who disagrees with her conclusion that breast cancer culture has some problems with conformism, fear mongering, and victim blaming.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marketing approaches

"Increased awareness has increased the number of women receiving mammograms, the number of breast cancers detected, and the number of women receiving biopsies (Sulik 2010, pages 157–210). It has also shifted the stage at which breast cancers are detected, so that more tumors are discovered in an earlier, more treatable stage.
 * Setting up Sulik's argument. Those are not the most important results of awareness.
 * What exactly do you believe is the most important result, if increasing the proportion of cancers diagnosed at an earlier, more treatable stage isn't it? And you might read the official National Breast Cancer Awareness Month website:  they have always said that their #1 purpose is to increase the number of women receiving mammograms.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, you are equating increasing the proportion of cancers diagnosed at an earlier, more treatable stage with mammography. I'd just like to note that, on your talk page, you said it was wrong to equate awareness (or, in anticipation of being 'technical,' a description of awareness) with mammography. And two, the NBCAM is not the sole authority on awareness. Charles35 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are complaining that it says "Increased awareness has increased the number of women receiving mammograms". This is true.  Nobody disputes this.  This fact is the primary mechanism by which awareness leads to medical benefits.  (NB:  "leads to" is not the same as "equals".)  So why do you say that this is "not the most important results of awareness"?  What do you think is more important than saving lives?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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


 * No, it's not my opinion. The belief that increased awareness leads to higher rates of mammography, which in turns leads to breast cancer being diagnosed earlier, which in turn leads to fewer women dying—and that this is the most important outcome for breast cancer awareness, the sort of important outcome that really ought to be identified as a goal and a major success story from the breast cancer movement—is the opinion of various experts who have written WP:Reliable sources, including the experts at the fundraising organizations.
 * I cannot imagine how the fact that breast cancer is being diagnosed earlier, on average, sets up anything at all about Sulik's arguments. Sulik cares about how women with breast cancer are treated by each other and by society.  Sulik doesn't really deal with biology, e.g., whether it's a good thing for breast cancer to be diagnosed earlier.  And you probably didn't notice, but all the sources that address this issue agree:  more awareness results in more mammograms, which results in fewer dead women.  It's not "just some radical feminist".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Breast cancer receives significantly more media coverage than other prevalent cancers, such as prostate cancer.
 * Just happened to choose the prominent men's cancer? More likely part of the argument.
 * No, "Just happened to choose" what the reliable sources happened to choose. This is a common comparison.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

Text (events)
Events

The month-long campaign has been called Pinktober because of the proliferation of pink goods for sale, and National Breast Cancer Industry Month by critics like Breast Cancer Action.
 * Okay, but not in the second sentence.
 * Why not? How else would you describe that group?  How else would you contextualize that term?  You and I are native English speakers and know that those terms is supposed to be slightly funny and rather derogatory.  Someone from Asia or Africa won't know that.  We therefore need to tell them that there are terms used by critics, not a term used by supporters.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but put it ~ in the second sentence. Put your critic term somewhere lower. After a non-critical term, perhaps? Charles35 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So you want it to say "National Breast Cancer Industry Month", but you don't want the reader to know that this is a derogatory name used exclusively by critics? Why should we bury the fact that this is a critical name?  If we don't flag this immediately as being an insulting term, then we risk readers accidentally believing that this is a legitimate alternative title.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're on the same page. All I'm saying is just put all the criticism stuff towards the end. That's how it's done on wikipedia. The article you own is no exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)
 * Isolating criticism at the end is not how it's done on Wikipedia, as WP:CRITICISM directly says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I understand that. I meant at the end of the paragraph... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

NBCAM was begun in 1985 by the American Cancer Society and pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, which manufactures breast cancer drugs Arimidex and tamoxifen. The primary purpose has been to promote mammography and other forms of early detection as the most effective means of saving lives.
 * Not in the 3rd sentence. Including this an obvious bias. Also, claiming to know the 'primary purpose' is just not true, not to mention this is not the primary purpose.
 * NBCAM themselves say that this is their primary purpose. You're just assuming that this is criticism.  It's not:  they are deliberately doing this, because they honestly believe it to be valuable (and, within limits, it is!). "Astrazeneca giant" gives me three-quarters of a million hits on my favorite web search engine.  This is a normal description for them.  It's relevant to point out why they care about breast cancer.  You wouldn't expect some company that just makes antibiotics to sponsor this, would you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't expect that. But pointing out why they care about breast cancer has little to do with the actual events, first of all, and second, should be lower on the page. Be decent and let the first paragraph be pure. Giant is unnecessary, and could surely be used somewhere else where a negative connotation is appropriate. I've heard millions of people use that word, when they are denoting a negative connotation. The month might've been started by NBCAM, but they don't = the month. The month has purposes outside of that organization. Functioning as a community, perhaps? Charles35 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, October has other purposes. Halloween, for example.  Breast cancer events in October, however, are all associated directly or indirectly with NBCAM.  Most of the big ones are officially affiliated with the NBCAM organization. I don't see anything indecent with pointing out that a company that treats breast cancer also supports NBCAM in a big way.  Neither do they; they seem quite happy to have their name associated with this major publicity event.  And if you want want me to take seriously your novel assertion that there is some other, non-early-detection-related primary purpose to NBCAM, then you'll need to provide a proper WP:Reliable source to back up your odd claim.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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

Participants solicit donations to a breast cancer-related charity, in return for their promise to run, walk, or ride in the event.
 * Why include 'their promise?' Why not just '...running, walking, or riding...' Are you trying to say that some participants do not actually engage in the activity?
 * I'm sure that some of them don't, partly because some of them die in between deciding to participate and the actual race day. Most pledges these days are paid in advance of the race, so it is actually the promise of participation that produces the money.  I can also tell you that charitable organizations expect 10% of future-paid pledges to be reneged on.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so what are trying to do, point out that victims die pretty often? That's just rude. Be decent. You're implying that they died on purpose or something to that effect. It probably reads differently to you for whatever reason, but that's how it reads to everyone else. Charles35 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we're just trying to be precise: the promise to participate is what actually gets the money out of the donors' pocket.  Most people consider promises to be positive things, so I'm a little mystified by why you think this is critical.  It's like you believe that breast cancer supporters are markedly less likely to keep their promises than normal people.  In fact, Sulik indirectly suggests that they are more likely than average to keep their promises, since the pink ribbon culture encourages people to be good (in the sense of being morally good) and strong-arms them into volunteering.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pointing this out because it sticks out like a sore thumb. That is so pointless and irrelevant that it is obvious you are trying to make a point. No one would ever include 'promise' if there wasn't some implicit point trying to be made. Yes, they are generally positive things but you say it as if there is a lie going on. I do not think that at all! I take offense. You on the other hand don't seem to be very fond... I was actually pointing out that that is what you're implying. Don't flip it on me. Don't act like Sulik's being nice either; she's saying that they are being forced into doing that.Charles35 (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

These mass-participation events effectively signal to society that breast cancer survivors have formed a single, united group that speaks, acts and believes the same things, without any significant internal dissension.
 * More negative connotation and setting up of Sulik's argument.
 * What's negative about signalling? It means "credibly conveying some information about yourself to another party".  What's negative about being unified?  Major organizations like Komen believe that this is a good thing, and it's extremely effective for them in the political realm.  Breast cancer patients don't get disproportionate treatment and research benefits by putting forward a dozen conflicting ideas.  They win because they speak with one voice.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your use of 'signaling' implies that this whole thing is so cold and human-less, when in fact it's quite the opposite. These charities have some of the best communities you could ever hope for. Saying that they are signaling is implying that they are some planned organization which is putting up a show for some intention. They are just people living life. Not everyone has economics in mind all the time. THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET AT^^^^^^^^^^^ Charles35 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the use of signal means that we're talking about social communication here, which is not the least bit cold or human-less—and not just any old social communication, but specifically credible (believable, trustworthy, valuable) communication. If you wanted to use synonyms that a young child would understand, we could equally well say, "These mass-participation events effectively tell society..."  Or we could rephrase it in politician-speak:  "These mass-participation events effectively send a message to society..."  But it's kind of nice in an encyclopedia to occasionally get to use grown-up words, too.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, what difference does it make if "These charities have some of the best communities you could ever hope for"? I mean, other than confirming from your personal opinion that Sulik is right when she says that the women in the pink ribbon culture value goodness, niceness, and so forth, how does their goodness matter here.  We're saying that a mass-participation event "sends a message" to society (and specifically to politicians).  A mass-participation event involving a bunch of desperate, screaming, disruptive ACT-UP folks also signals a united voice, without necessarily being "some of the best communities you could ever hope for".  The fact that nice people are involved in the mass-participation event doesn't change the mechanism by which a mass-participation event has an effect.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

They also reinforce the cultural connection between each individual's physical fitness and moral fitness. * More negative connotation and setting up of Sulik's argument.
 * This is a major argument in Sulik's book and in others. It's something of an American thing, I suppose.  (Quick word association:  do most people believe "fat" and "lazy" go together?)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As usual, this is not a description of the events, it is A criticism. The entire article shouldn't be one big critique, and the critique part should all be together, not getting its misogynist pessimistic stain on everything else. Charles35 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Criticism of the events must be part of any valid, complete description of the events, just like criticism of the Flat earth idea must be part of any valid, complete description of that discredited idea. Criticism should not be isolated in a single section; Wikipedia's Manual of Style and guidelines very strongly discourage that approach.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's Manual of Style and guidelines very strongly discourage that approach. - somehow I doubt that's the whole story since you just brought this up now. Addressing that 1 point, again, doesn't prove my other 5 are wrong. Disclaim, remove, reword, and balance sections AND content. Also, you keep mentioning all these rules you supposedly know. Give me a link to each of them, or (like you with the sources) I will just say 'you're wrong' 'you're wrong' 'you're wrong' 'you're wrong' 'you're wrong'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)
 * I told you this last week. Perhaps it was one of the many things I told you that you directly refused to read, because it was too long and complicated for you to bother. Now, of course, you complain that I'm not answering every point, even though you won't read my answers to all your points if I waste my time answering them.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you comparing BCA to that nonsense idea? I'm not going to tell you what is wrong/illogical there, you're smart enough to figure it out. Yes, criticism should be a part, which is why I've said over and over that your opinion deserves a voice here. But it shouldn't be the only voice. You refuse to talk about that. And you blindly say 'get a source, get a source, get a source.' Well, I got a source (many), and you still have a problem with it. You'll always find some problem, and will always tell me something is wrong and that I need to find something else. I don't believe you anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that BCA is like Flat earth.  However, it is a simple point for comparison, since everyone knows that the idea is thoroughly criticized, and so it is a good example of how Wikipedia handles criticism (i.e., not by isolating it in a separate section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Typically, one-quarter to one-third of the money donated is spent on advertising and organizing the event itself.
 * More setting up. These sentences weren't put here by accident.
 * What exactly does this set up, and would you mind telling the unregistered editor at the article about Komen that nobody cares (or at least that you don't care) how much money is being spent on fundraising events? S/he's making a pest of himself by complaining that Komen isn't disclosing enough information about this exact point.  And be sure to tell groups like the Better Business Bureau that it's unimportant, too.  Every program I've seen that assesses charities for proper management considers these numbers, and significantly exceeding these levels (which are considered quite good in the industry; perhaps you didn't know?) is a source of scandals.  One of the AIDS bike rides, for example, was spending 90% of the total revenue on advertising and organizing the event.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It clearly comes from her book, as the same wording is used later in the article. Why include that twice? Scrap this and keep the explicit, non-misleading part. Charles35 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you see the name at the end of that sentence? I'm talking about the bit that says  .  The purpose of that little parenthetical citation is to let you know which source the fact comes from.  In this case, you might notice that the answer is "not Sulik".  It therefore clearly doesn't "come[] from her book".  As for "the same wording" being used later, no sentence that contains the word spent in the entire article is supported by Sulik's book.  You need to quit assuming that every word and every idea that you dislike comes from Sulik's book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. I was wrong. I didn't have a problem with Sulik until I saw that every (or most) of the issues here come from her book. I started generalizing. My bad. I don't exclusively have a problem with her. I have a problem with poor content; whether it comes from her or from Ehrenreich, I don't really care. That wording and that fact / reworded fact occurs a few times in the article.Charles35 (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Bad content" on Wikipedia means something like "content that is not found in a proper reliable source". Given that this content is found in a proper reliable source, then I don't know why you believe it's bad.  Do you think that the 25–33% numbers are wrong?  Do you think that money is not "spent on" expenses?  What's the factual problem here?  Or do you just have a stylistic issue?  Wikipedia doesn't use WP:WEASEL words to hide simple facts like "advertisements cost money".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * This speaks for itself, and it doesn't belong in the "Events" section. It belongs in criticism. Info on events should JUST be info on events. Not scholarly opinion. JUST info.
 * If real women feel significant social pressure to participate in these events, even though some of them don't really want to, why shouldn't we consider that verifiable fact to be information related to the events, and therefore appropriate for inclusion in the section about the events? Surely you don't believe that this is information about buying stuff with pink ribbons on the label, or how much media attention they generate, or whether some organizations have cozy relationships with polluters.  Where would you put this information about why some women participate in events, if not in the section about the events? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly I wouldn't really want this info anywhere on wikipedia because it sounds like it's coming from a paranoid fanatical conspiracy theorist. It's inappropriate and rude, and controversial and questionable, and unethical. You're only addressed the second sentence because you see that that is the least questionable part. Notice how I bolded parts of the entire thing? The first sentence is totally general and unrelated, which is why your point of how it's related didn't include it. It is still somewhat related, but that's to be expected, as it's about BCA. But it's more related to a different section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)
 * So the reliable sources talk about social pressure to volunteer and to donate—at length, mind you—but you don't like it, because it doesn't line up with your preconceived belief that 100.0% of the thousands of supporters are doing it solely because they really, really, really want to, and not even a little bit because their mother/sister/wife/friend expects them to? Well... as always, if you can produce a proper reliable source that says this, then we can and should adjust the article.  But so far, 100% of the proper reliable sources I've read say exactly the opposite, and so it's WP:DUE to say so.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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

Text (ribbons)
Pink ribbon

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

The pink ribbon is associated with individual generosity, faith in scientific progress, and a "can-do" attitude. It encourages consumers to focus on the emotionally appealing ultimate vision of a cure for breast cancer, rather than on the fraught path between current knowledge and any future cures (Sulik 2010, pages 359–361).

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

Shopping for the cure

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

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

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

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

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

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

Text (ads)
Advertisements

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

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

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

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

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

Media

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Increased resources for treatment and research

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

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

History

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


 * You just don't know what you're talking about. Reliable sources are allowed to engage in original research; Wikipedians (that's you and me) are not.  The definition of "original research" in WP:NOR is material that was never published by a reliable source, e.g., your personal opinion.  Articles must be neutral, but they must not pretend that all viewpoints are equally valid (see the WP:GEVAL section).
 * You don't know much about breast cancer, either. Breast self-exams do not take five seconds; they take ten minutes in someone who knows what s/he's doing, and they do not work, if by "work" you mean anything related to saving lives in normal-risk women.  This has been proven in two massive, well-designed randomized controlled clinical trials.  (They work just fine if you define "work" as "increase the sales of radiology machines" and "increase the number of biopsies performed on healthy women".)  It's not "ridiculous, wrong, unethical, inappropriate, etc" to admit the facts about these things.
 * I suggest that if you want to talk about improving this article, that you actually go to a library, check out one of these books, and read it. Then, if you still think it's inappropriate to point out facts like breast cancer was actually frightening back in the day when the treatments were seriously damaging (far more than they are now) and half the women died, then we can talk.
 * And notice that I'm not insisting on scholarly sources: multiple non-scholarly sources are already cited in the article.  What I am insisting on is that you produce an actual, published, independent, reliable source—any published, independent, reliable source—rather than insisting that your unverifiable and under-informed personal opinion be the basis for the article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, first things first:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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