Talk:Breast cancer awareness/Archive 4

Social role of the woman with breast cancer

 * allows people to choose support for awareness as a personal identity or lifestyle.

This sentence is saying that people can choose BCA as their personal identity or lifestyle. It gives no limiting modifier, so you are left to assume that BCA is their primary identity or lifestyle. I think a more accurate way of saying this is: allows people to incorporate support for awareness into their personal identity or lifestyle.


 * People can, and in fact do, choose BCA as their primary identity. Many orgs' best volunteers live and breathe BCA.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody's primary identity is BCA. Your identity as Charles or Whatamidoing comes way before it is "breast cancer awareness". And that's just your name. There are plenty of other identities. What is wrong with "incorporate...into their..." It's more accurate, makes more sense, and doesn't take anything away from your point. What are the chances that you oppose literally every proposed change? This feels like a presidential debate, not a shared effort to improve wikipedia. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that change. The only difference is that it makes more sense. Not saying the way it's currently written makes no sense or is wrong. I'm just saying that this makes more sense. It's an addition. Not a subtraction. Think about it - you say that people can, and do, choose BCA as their primary identity. Well, "incorporate" covers both those that choose it as their primary and those who choose it as a less important one too. It's not like your idea is lost or anything.


 * That's your personal opinion. It is not reality.  Cancer patients, HIV+ people, infertile women, and other people with significant medical issues really do adopt their disease as their primary identity.  I don't believe that it's healthy, but it does happen.
 * The sentence, however, doesn't say that people are adopting it as their primary lifestyle or identity. It only says that they are adopting it as a lifestyle or identity.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The She-ro
First, in my opinion, this section needs to be cut into at least 2 paragraphs. This isn't critical. It just is a lot of material for one paragraph.

In the sentence that speaks of Gayle Sulik's analysis, it would probably be a good idea to mention that the "she-ro" is a social construct, and that it isn't as if all "she-ros" present an aesthetically appealing, upper-class, heterosexual feminine appearance and rationalizing the selfishness of treatment as a temporary measure. I mean you can't say that there is a set of people in this world who have all used the exact same rationalization, who are all upper-class, who are all attractive, who are all straight, etc. This is a social construct and we are talking about a representation or the epitome of the manifestation of a "she-ro". The paragraph reads like a Marxist-esque "grand storyline" that sociology tries to avoid. WP:TONE crossed my mind...

Lastly, many of the citations use upwards of 20+ pages. Could you try to be a little more specific so that it is more realistic for someone to go into the text and find the exact pages? For example, you've got Sulik's 225-272 (47 pages) and 279-301 (22 pages), and that's just this section. I don't think it would be too difficult to cite the specific pages for have-it-all superwoman.


 * If you just want to know whether a given exact word is in the book, then you can ask your favorite book search engine. But if you want to know whether the whole sentence is DUE, appropriate, and accurately reflects the sources' whole ideas, rather than whether it cpies an isolated word, then you really do have to read the entire relevant section.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I will read the entire section. But that will take some time. If a word, which happens to be a relatively extremely rare word (we're talking about "superwoman" here), isn't supported by the source, then I'd like to take it down faster than it takes me to read 50 pages. If you can't do it, no biggie. But if you have it on hand and you happen to remember, I'd appreciate it =) Note: I don't mean just for "superwoman". that was just an example.
 * The word superwoman appears twice in the book (not counting the index). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * who aggressively fights breast cancer through compliance with mainstream medical advice.

"Compliance" here is uncalled for. It's not like doctors are holding her at gunpoint and forcing her to comply. She chose to listen to this advice, and often times medical opinions may be in contradiction with each other (ie "second opinion"). If this occurs, she must actively choose her advice. I'm going to put "fights BC through mainstream medicine." Please discuss here.


 * the she-ro is diagnosed early due to rigid adherence to early screening recommendations.

Likewise, I am going to delete "rigid". It's simply uncalled for and inappropriately harsh.


 * rationalizing the selfishness of treatment as a temporary measure and feeling guilty that it forces her to put her needs momentarily above the needs of others or due to her perceived inadequacy in caring her family or other women with cancer.

This is WAY over the top, almost as bad as "finds BC desirable". And it's not technically a run-on sentence but it's really difficult to read. I don't think I the right person to try to edit this because. WLU, since you've made a lot of good edits for material like this, would you be able to take a look at it and let me know what you think?


 * You still haven't read the source, have you?
 * Guilt is a huge theme in real survivors' stories.
 * The breast cancer culture (as you would know, if you read the source) attributes survival to complete, rigid, no-exceptions adherence to screening, and not merely "medicine" but to compliance with medical advice. It approaches something of a superstition:  there are women who blame their unfavorable cancer stage at diagnosis on having gotten their mammogram just one or two months later than they believe they should have.  Similarly, it's not "the field of medicine" in general that saves them; it is their choice to precisely follow their doctor's advice that saves them.
 * You need to get a copy of this book and start reading it, one page after another, until you get to the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay this "have you read the book" thing is not that important. NO, I haven't read the book yet. I'll let you know when I buy it if you want me to. But you don't need to read the entire book in order to make edits on wikipedia. I'm not going to read the book beginning to end like that. I am going to read excerpts. But why does it really matter? Are you interested in my reading habits? We're talking about edits, not editors.
 * I understand the superstition idea. Trust me, I am assuming that the ideas in this material are an accurate reflection of the sources. But "compliance" and "rigid" just aren't necessary. This article isn't called Pink Ribbon Blues. Sure we can use Sulik's source, but the article ≠ Pink Ribbon Blues. Her ideas already take up an undue amount of the article, and sometimes it isn't in an encyclopedic tone. Her ideas are still here, but without some words like "rigid" and "compliance", it sounds less like a Marxist literary narrative that sociologists condemn.
 * You said guilt is a huge theme in real survivors' stories. This sentence has a lot more than guilt going on. It's got selfishness, undermining family members, rationalizations. It is a severe sentence. Charles35 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote from the book, which does indeed emphasize discipline (i.e. rigid adherence). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you read the book, or even just the last half of it, you would realize that those are the main points. Actually, if you just read the table of contents (start with chapter six), you'd realize that those are major points.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Consequences
Like the section above it, "Consequences" should probably be broken into 2 or more paragraphs.


 * The effort of maintaining the role of a she-ro can be stressful.

This is uncited POV.
 * Once again, the absence of a citation at the end of that very sentence is not proof that the material is uncited. This is what we call a topic sentence.  It summarizes the material that you find (and find explicitly cited) later in the same paragraph.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Despite occasional efforts at memorials, such as displaying the names of women who have died, these women's experiences are not validated and represented.

I don't see the point of such as displaying the names of women who have died. It is rather obvious, unnecessary and out of place. Not only is it obvious, but it just isn't really all that relevant or worth mentioning. The obviousness and pointlessness is making me suspicious of some sort of polyester type of argument going on here.


 * We give examples of other events, so why not this one? There are all sorts of things that they could do, like lighting candles or releasing balloons or planting trees.  It happens that displaying the names of dead breast cancer patients is the one that they most commonly choose.  Why not say so?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Displaying the names of people that have died? What does that mean? Like, making a poster that says "Kerry, Stephanie, Jean"? When I first read it, my best guess was that it meant displaying the names of people on their gravestones. Then I thought: well, considering the names of everyone that has died are written on their gravestones, this is pointless. I understand why someone would add it though. The point being made is that "well, it's not like they didn't do anything. They gave them a funeral." That's supposed to make the reader think "oh, well everyone gets a funeral. That's nothing special. Wait. They didn't do anything else special for the BC victims?!?! That's wrong!" Instead of things like that, why not just be like "usually, nothing special is done for BC victims"? Regardless of the intentions of whoever put it there, when you read something that is so obviously trying to elicit a reaction like the one I just illustrated, it comes across as deceitful. And deceitful is bad, because it's misleading. However, I might be totally interpreting this wrongly because honestly I am not sure what exactly "displaying names" specifically means.


 * It's usually a knockoff of the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt. It might be a poster, a permanent sign, labels on certain decorations, or whatever seems manageable.  The point is that the people who live get major attention at events, even standing ovations, but the people who died usually get nothing, or at the very most, get their names displayed in a corner somewhere.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * They are, instead, ignored and shunned as failures...

Like "perceived inadequacy", this is over the top and uncalled for. WLU, do you have anything to say about this? Charles35 (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Why? It's true, and it's in the source.  Why do you think reality is "over the top and uncalled for"?  Are we supposed to pretend that the breast cancer culture doesn't ignore and shun women who are dying just because you find it uncomfortable to believe?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See this is the problem. Let's hypothetically presuppose for a moment that they are indeed ignoring and shunning. You can't generalize that it is for x reason. You don't know that. You aren't talking about any specific women here, so in reality this little "theory" is nothing more than a hypothetical/literary narrative that isn't based on reality. What if they were ignored just because they were mean? Or because nobody even knew who they were in the first place? Or they could be shunned for a different reason than because they have "failed". What gets me most is that the way this narrative is written makes it sound like these are intentional behaviors, as if all the conspirators got together and decided to do this like school girls in a clique. The problem that I have is that it is presented as a fact and it really is a false generalization that sociologists love to hate and is simply a fictional narrative that sociologists prefer not to buy in to.
 * I might have a little more patience for this if it were to read "they tend to be ignored and shunned..." If you were to present it as an occurrence and a tendency instead of a calculated thing that happens in every single case, then, in my opinion, it might not be over the top. Or, if you presented it this way and didn't use rude words like "shun", then I might not consider it over the top. But when both are done, then it definitely feels over the top, rude, uncalled for, inappropriate, etc. Charles35 (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rephrased. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I personally might not "know that", but the source does know why dying women are shunned, and it says so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

FAQ at top of page
The FAQ itself is biased. You are presupposing that your position is the correct one. Read it out loud and listen to it. You are not even considering the possibility of the alternative perspectives being correct. Nor are you representing them fairly. They are not just the "views of the everyday public". These views have been thought out carefully and not even views on breast cancer awareness. They are views on the appropriateness of your critique (although, you have excluded relevant material in favor of breast cancer).

I urge you to take that down. It is not fair, and it gives everyone who visits the page an immediate bias. Why do they deserve to hear your opinion first? It's quite simply a piece of propaganda. You put it up there - like you do the material on this article - as if it is complete and utter fact. There's no question about it! Those naysayers are simply uneducated!

Please remove it.

And, since I got no response from the last comment I made, I will take that as a "go ahead and edit the article". Charles35 (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FAQs are used when inexperienced editors tend to use personal taste as a reason to remove valid, sourced content. Often this occurs when the editor in question personally disagrees with the information, finds it personally offensive, or in some other way feels that their personal opinion trumps a reliable source.  It does not.  FAQs like that are used to forestall such inappropriate edits and removal of content.  There is no problem with adding information and sources that discuss the positive aspects of breast cancer awareness - the FAQ is meant to prevent people from removing appropriate content.  I don't see any issue with the FAQ such that removing it is a necessity, though I can see how it would be useful at forestalling zealous editors who do not understand content policies like WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS.  I do not support removing it.
 * Please feel free to add more information if you can find appropriate sources, but please be careful when editing what is already there, and please do not remove large volumes of critical text outright. And of course, your edits may still be undone.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is unfair. You falsely equivocate "new editor" with "you don't know what you're talking about". It's very insulting. Your "status" clearly feels threatened. And it's misleading. It isn't you that's overzealous? Pushing radical nonsense? Of course not! And it puts a false picture in peoples' head before they come to the table. It supports your power. WP:OOA I have very little patience for this blatant corrupt authoritarian cronyist censorship anymore. Charles35 (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to add more information if you can find appropriate sources - I don't need sources to make the edits (until I get to the adding-new-material stage). There was a process that was done incorrectly. When the author wrote this article, (s)he "translated" the material from the sources to the text here. (S)he did so incorrectly. (1) (S)he added inappropriate material (eg inner circle, the she-ro (et al) essay); (2) (s)he didn't attribute opinions (eg slactivism); (3) (s)he added false material (I just started reviewing the sources, and I have already found discrepancies); (4) (s)he was misleading and biased (eg wearing polyester saves no lives); and (5) (s)he put material in improper sections. None of that requires new sources. I am modifying already sourced material to make it appropriate for encyclopedic standards. I could add all the new material I want (and I will), but that doesn't change the faulty material that's already there. Charles35 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So me pointing out that new editors do not understand wikipedia's somewhat counterintuitive meaning of "neutral" is insulting, but you think accusing other editors of "blatant corrupt authoritarian cronyist censorship" is fine?
 * How is the material inappropriate? You have spent a lot of time on this talk page, but your actual edits produce pretty minor changes that honestly I don't think most people would spend much time arguing about.  If you are saying a source blatantly doesn't verify a point, then be specific about which source and which point (or more accurately, edit the page with that in your edit summary).  Your lengthy walls of text include large amounts of speculation - when you should just see what the sources say and see if the attached text matches instead of trying to guess what is really being said or the "motivation" behind the text.  Throwing around words like "deceit", "joke" and "corrupt" just irritates people.  Calm down, lay off the accusations, check the sources and shorten your posts.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am getting upset by your persistent condescending tone and actions and your ad hominemic tendencies. It's clear that you respond differently to the same edits when I make them and when others make them. You revert the smallest of my edits because I don't have a "source" (edits that have nothing to do with sources), yet someone removed "status symbol". If I removed that it would have no question been reverted in no time with no explanation other than "get sources" even though the reason given has to do with neutrality. But since I'm a "new" editor, you have a different reaction. I thought it was edits, not editors? The focus on length of time editing wikipedia is not only irrelevant because I do understand the issues, but is bigotic (if that's a word) and dogmatic. It's ad hominemic. Charles35 (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Charles, you do need sources. Really.  You either need the existing sources, so that you can say, "See?  This cited source doesn't actually say what you said it did!" or you need new sources, so that you can say, "See?  Someone else has a different take on this."  Without sources, you can't prove that there is a single error anywhere in this.  All you can do without sources is prove that one guy on the Internet personally believes that there's a problem with it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't fret. I will be consulting the sources. I will be reviewing all of Sulik's material, and possibly Ehrenreich's. And then I will be adding new material with new sources. But first, I want to correct a process that I believe was done incorrectly. It's called "constructing an encyclopedia. I am currently working under an assumption that all of the material here is true (except for things I know are false, like the idea that the facebook thing was a marketing ploy). Charles35 (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Knowing is not enough, wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If you "know" because you read it somewhere, that's fine - cite the source.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The facebook thing wasn't (exactly) an advertisement (ie for a marketable, financial product - the common use of the word "ad"), and it certainly was not marketing. It's the truth. Anyone else that uses facebook can vouch for me. WP:BLUE. Please, link me to WP:NOTBLUE, because I haven't read it yet. Too late, I actually have. BTW - in this case, it is not easier to find a source than to argue over it. Where are you ever going to find a source that says the facebook thing wasn't an ad? If they're writing about the thing, why would they take the effort to specify that it isn't an ad? You think you're going to find: "In 2009, a facebook meme emerged in which several women posted the color of their bras. Note: this was neither an advertisement nor a reality tv show."???? Charles35 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Why do you have to "point" to anything? Just ask anyone that uses facebook. But alright, fine. You win. Keep the false material up here on wikipedia. If it means you win, then it's worth it.

On second thought: http://allfacebook.com/facebook-bra-color_b9596; trueslant.com/lisacullen/2010/01/11/who-started-the-facebook-bra-color-campaign-guy-claims-its-him/. I doubt two blog posts are good enough to override Kingston's article, but who knows? Maybe you can think of something to convince yourself to override your own rule to remove material that we already know is false....

In either case, the exact same info is included 2 sections above this - ''"Pink Ribbon" section - "...and compared to equally simple yet ineffective "awareness" practices like the drive for women to post the colors of their bras on Facebook." ; "Advertisements" section - "Some marketing blurs the line..."'' - Why have this twice? Since we both know it wasn't an ad, why not just move the second, more detailed info to the first spot? That way it's still here, which is exactly what I wanted to accomplish in the first place, instead of deleting it altogether. But that way it wouldn't be repeated (or false). Charles35 (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this FAQ is very much contrary to Wikipedia's spirit of continuous discussion and consensus-building as it suggests to editors who are new to this article that their viewpoints will not be tolerated. While I agree that the arguments against the breast cancer awareness movement should be included, I strongly disagree that this article reflects the tone of the preponderance of mainstream sources. As I have examined the cited newspaper articles today I've found that many of them include BOTH criticism of organizations such as Komen as well as responses to that criticism. Yet this article presents only the critical viewpoint. Here are some examples:
 * Before I changed it, this article included criticism of Ford's promotion but didn't include a response from Ford. It included the viewpoint that many companies use cause marketing for shallow reasoning but it didn't include the viewpoint from prominent advertising people that cause marketing is only effective when it represents a sincere belief on the part of the company.
 * Before I changed it, this article included an attack on this movement for promoting consumerism without a response from Komen.
 * The article includes attacks on the breast cancer movement for ignoring environmental causes of breast cancer but it doesn't include that Komen made a million dollars in grants last year to study environmental causes (see their last annual report) or that they specifically addressed this issue in a scientific report covered in the Washington Post.
 * The article includes criticism of companies like AstraZenica on the basis of conflict of interest, but it does not include any reply from those companies (such as the one found in the cited Tampa Times article)

I also have concerns about undue weight, about the article stating opinions as fact, and about the article describing what are essentially social science constructs as if they are universal truths. The other cases where I have seen talk page FAQs (for instance Israeli-Palestinian conflict) seek to inform editors of a consensus that has been arrived at through extensive discussions on policy. It is clear from this talk page that the policy issues here have NOT been settled and that there are valid policy-based reasons to question why this article is so critical. To suggest at the top of the page that there is a definitive answer to that question is against the spirit of policies such as Consensus can change and WP:OWN. GabrielF (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a WP:GEVAL issue: unlike newspapers, we don't pretend to be "even-Steven" or provide a right of reply.  We provide both sides when both sides have equal support in independent sources.  They don't, in this case (unlike in major geopolitical disputes), so we don't.
 * Put another way, on Wikipedia, the views of academics are far more important than the views of self-serving corporate spokespersons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're cherry-picking sources that support a particular ideology and then pretending that other sources are not valid. You're welcome to advance this position but it is inappropriate to put a note at the top of the talk page telling others that their opinions are not valid. I can see no policy basis for the FAQ and plenty of policy reasons against it. GabrielF (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The purpose of a FAQ is to provide the initial answers to frequently asked questions. This question has been asked several times, and it has been answered with basically the same information every time, namely that the core content policies absolutely and directly require that we ignore "views of editors" and "views of the general public" and write only the "views of the published reliable sources".  There is a significant gap between the "views of the readers" and the "views of the published reliable sources" on this subject, and the FAQ accurately explains why the contents of the article surprises the readers.  Providing basic answers to common questions is what you're supposed to do with a FAQ.
 * I am not "cherry-picking sources that support a particular ideology". There simply are no WP:Independent secondary sources that say the modern state of breast cancer awareness is a flawless thing.  There are very significant complaints, and the criticisms appear in all high-quality sources.  Some of the criticisms IMO aren't warranted (e.g., IMO it's silly for people to demand that Komen focus on basic research; medical research should be done by an org that is good at that kind of work, and Komen should be left to get on with the work that they're actually [extremely] good at), but the criticisms are common.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that if you look at social science research, then what has been published about this movement has been highly critical. However, the conclusions that these critics draw are relevant to fields outside of social science. Questions they ask are relevant to public policy (how should public resources be allocated?), medicine (which methods of prevention are more effective? what factors cause this disease?), marketing and advertising (how effective is cause marketing?). The discourse about the breast cancer awareness movement that is taking place in these fields is very different than what a review of only the social science research suggests. For instance, advertising experts interviewed by the NY Times present a much more nuanced picture of the effectiveness of associating a product with breast cancer research: they suggest that the public is cynical about these campaigns and is smart enough to distinguish between opportunistic marketing and a deep commitment on the part of a company. Similarly, the Institute of Medicine, which is about as authoritative source as you can get, differs significantly from breast cancer critics on the question of whether chemicals cause breast cancer. The criticisms are common, but they do not dominate the discourse on this topic. GabrielF (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to have other disciplines involved, but you've misunderstood the IOM report (didn't actually read any of it, did you?). The IOM's 400+ page report did not say that they believe "chemicals" don't cause breast cancer.  It was also not "research" in the sense that our readers understand that term.  The IOM merely re-read the previously published research on the topic, which provides inadequate proof of a connection—inadequate precisely because the critics are right that relatively little work has been done to discover non-genetic causes of breast cancer, and very little work has been done to determine whether environmental pollution (your "chemicals") are a significant cause. ("Environmental" in cancer-research terms means "anything that is not genetically inherited".  Background cosmic radiation, diet, infections, etc. are all "environmental".)  The IOM report spends 19 pages outlining the research that still hasn't been done on this subject.  The IOM report, in short, doesn't disagree with the critics in the environmental breast cancer movement.  It says that they're right:  there's an enormous amount of work to be done.
 * So you're trying to frame this report as biomedical research, which it isn't, and as a sign that Komen is doing something major about environmental causes, which they aren't. Sure, Komen paid for the summary and meetings, which was great.  But that sum is less than 0.05% of the money Komen has spent over the years.  More than 99.95% of Komen's money went elsewhere.  All you've really done is prove that the critics and independent secondary sources are right:  Komen doesn't focus on this particular area.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So you're trying to frame this report as biomedical research, which it isn't, and as a sign that Komen is doing something major about environmental causes, which they aren't.


 * This is your own POV on the issue. It has appeared here on this article in several instances UN-SOURCED, in inappropriately harsh language, especially in the Achievements and Environmental sections, much of which I deleted the other day. One portion you immediately reverted and cited with 50 pages from Sulik's book. Can you please be more specific so that I can actually verify it? If you are taking info from 50 different pages and creating your own conclusion from that, that is, and you told me this, WP:SYNTH.


 * ''namely that the core content policies absolutely and directly require that we ignore "views of editors"


 * A few things on this: mysteriously, we aren't required to ignore the (un-sourced) views you agree with, including polyester (used in the manner it was in this article), inner circle, pesticides parabens & phthalates, "stricter environmental legislation, that might prevent the disease entirely", AZ being a "giant", "the mainstream breast cancer culture being focused on a cure for existing breast cancer cases, rather than on preventing future cases," BC organizations being "prejudiced" against reliable forms of treatment because "a reliable form of prevention would deplete their future supply of dedicated volunteers", and many, many others.
 * You say we should ignore the views of editors. I imagine you are talking about a group of people that generally opposes you (including everyone that has ever posted on this talk page before I got here), myself included. What you fail to recognize is that our views DO in fact matter. Our views are very valid. Your issue is that you see our views as views on content, when in reality they are views on policy. I won't speak for others, but I don't have a content-driven agenda; I just want to make sure this article is not biased or misleading. Usually when one so quickly does something like presuppose that other's views are content-driven, they are liking them to their own views. So in reality, they are making a statement about themselves.


 * we don't pretend to be "even-Steven"


 * This is the epitome of my issue with the FAQ - you dont even consider the possibility that providing a more balanced viewpoint might actually be justified. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But you don't even stop to check. You jump right to "we dont give equal weight when it isnt called for". THAT is my problem with this FAQ.


 * There is a significant gap between the "views of the readers" and the "views of the published reliable sources" on this subject


 * No there isnt - I, on the whole, disagree with the sources (specifically Sulik and Ehrenrich and maybe King). You, and some other editors here, agree with the sources (that you opine are valid). One of us has to be right, no? Again, you haven't even taken the time to consider the possibility that my the people that disagree with you might just have valid views too. You buy in to the false dichotomy where it's "pro vs anti", "Komen vs the good guys", "published independent sources vs overzealous editors". The world isn't this black&white. Views can oppose each other yet still be valid at the same time. And that's how it often is. More importantly, there are also third choices. Non-aligned views; neutral ones. They are still views, and they are still valid. For instance, I believe there should be more neutral info on this article. It shouldn't just be "opinion x, argument y, opinion z, argument n, opinion b, fact d, argument c," with one fact per 3 opinions and 3 arguments. It should be more like "fact a, fact b, fact c, opinion d, fact e, fact f, fact g, fact h, fact i, argument j, fact k...." You get the picture. The "fact / opinion" ratio in this article should be much, much higher than it currently is. I hope that explanation makes sense.


 * There simply are no WP:Independent secondary sources that say the modern state of breast cancer awareness is a flawless thing.


 * This is the same lying by ommission (intentional or not) seen in polyester argument. NOTHING is flawless. Nothing is perfect. There are problems with everything. Yet when you presuppose the notion that something is flawless, when it doesnt live up to that, you play it off as if it is 100% flaw-full. It's another instance of black&white thinking. It isn't a dichotomy of perfect vs flawed. For example, there are no "WP:Independent secondary sources" that say democracy is flawless, yet, does the democracy article show this much hatred and demonizing?


 * you act like komen defense isnt valid because of conflict of interest:


 * This issue has come up several times on this talk page. You need to consider Komen's defense of itself because NOBODY is going to bother to do it for them. It's the nature of the world. People care about, talk about, defend, themselves! Do you see people taking the time to publish defenses of the Catholic Church, for example? No. The only ones that do are the Church itself or those paid by the Church to do so for them. Everyone has a conflict of interest, including the academics. They wouldn't be writing if it weren't going to earn them a doctorate. Don't they have a conflict of interest as well? They only publish criticism. It's sociology for crying out loud! That's how all of sociology is - racism, sexism, distribution of wealth, oppression. It's all inherently negative. If these people wrote defenses, do you think there would be any point to it? What do you think their professors would say? "Uh... this isn't exactly what I had in mind, but okay..." Doctorates in fact MUST have original takes (which are, the overwhelming majority of the time, critical; ie in social science, at least). You can't just defend an organization and use the arguments that are already out there. And almost all of the pro-arguments have already been presented. But there's no limit to coming up with criticisms.


 * Similarly, the Institute of Medicine - GabrielF, this is what ive been trying to push the whole time. Apparently, only critical social science sources are allowed. Another instance of black&white thinking: this article is social science; the BC article is hard science. That's the end of it. There is a clear line of demarcation. No if's and's or but's about it. This is, as usual, false, like most black&white thinking. Charles35 (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wow. I see much of it was taken down. I didn't know that when I wrote the above. Charles35 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that Komen is not a major player in environmental research is not "my POV": everyone, including Komen, agrees with this.
 * The reason I cited 50 pages is because Sulik's book contains an entire chapter on that subject. Summarizing an entire chapter (or an entire book) into one or two sentences is permissible, and you can easily verify the material by reading the entire chapter.
 * All the stuff that you assert is "un-sourced" (e.g., that critics worry about parabens, that AZ [the seventh largest pharma company in the world] is a "giant") is WP:Verifiable. NB that "verifiable" is not synonymous with "immediately followed by an inline citation".
 * There is a significant gap between the "views of the readers" and the "views of the published reliable sources", and the fact that you disagree with the sources is proof of that.
 * Independent sources do defend others against inappropriate criticism. For example, plenty of non-Catholic sources defend the Catholic Church when they believe it is unfairly criticized.  Plenty of independent people defended Shirley Sherrod when she was unfairly criticized.  We shouldn't rely entirely self-serving, non-independent sources.  If nobody except "me" defends my actions, then we should present the facts as being everyone against "me".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have rephrased the lead into the FAQ and replaced it at the top of the page. I think it is quite important as the average reader may come to the page expecting it to be happiness and sunshine, then be quite concerned over someone daring to venture criticism of what is supposed to be pink and fuzzy and happy.  This is an important point to make - the essence of scholarly criticisms of BCA is that the mixed optimistic-pessimistic reality is being over-ridden by the unstinting insistence on happy thoughts.  The criticisms are made in highly respected, highly reliable sources.  FAQs exist to cut off efforts to sanitize pages of perspectives by deleting material and sources that individual editors do not like.  The FAQ should remain because it lays out the criteria for material - sources, not personal opinions.  Is there anything incorrect in the principles the FAQ discusses?  Are objections based on policies and guidelines, or personal tastes?
 * I have no objection to GabrielF's addition of sources; looking over his edits, they do provide valuable information that was missing. As I have said several times - the efforts should be directed at expanding what is missing rather than tearing out what is reliably sourced on the basis of ill-founded objections based on personal taste.  Breast cancer awareness has been very helpful in raising awareness, improving screening (though that itself is problematic), fundraising for research and related topics - but as Sulik and other sources say, it often does this at the expense of extremely rigid roles and expectations that can be harmful and painful to some sufferers.  The page reflects this, as it should.  If editors feel the page is inappropriately imabalaced towards criticism, then certainly the page would be improved by the addition of reliable sources emphasizing the positive aspects of BCA.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The side you are against has valid concerns. Many people have agreed that they are valid. The FAQ suggests that they are not. It's not okay for you to exercise that sort of power. Charles35 (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The FAQ is there to ensure editors edit according to reliable sources, not personal preferences. That seems highly valid given the disputes on this page so far.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've modified the FAQ to remove the implication that this article is "properly balanced". I am okay with explaining to new editors that the criticisms that have been listed are based on reliable sources. I agree that the arguments made by Ehrenreich and other critics are notable and should be covered. However, I do not believe that there is a consensus that the way in which the article currently covers these issues is balanced and conforms to policy. I do not believe that it is appropriate to suggest to new editors that the current form of the article is "properly balanced" because it implies that the issue is closed and I don't believe that to be the case. GabrielF (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that WAID has re-modified the FAQ, and I do prefer the point she re-introduced (that a NPOV article may surprise lay readers) to remain. I see Gabriel's point as well, even as I believe the appropriate action is expansion rather than deletion (which I've said before).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Status symbol
I want to call attention to the following:
 * 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 in breast cancer.

I changed this text to say:
 * Some of these, like pink ribbons and awareness bracelets, have no purpose other than to display the wearer's interest in breast cancer.

Describing a pink ribbon as a "status symbol" implies that it is used to denote a person's social position or status. Clearly this is a value-laden term in contravention of WP:LABEL. I am certain that many people who wear these would say that their purpose is to show support or appreciation for the plight of a loved one rather than to promote their own status. Clearly in this case policy dictates that a less contentious term be used. GabrielF (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Status symbol" has two meanings though, one of which is related to conspicuous consumption, the other related to symbolic interactionism - how people signal and interpret meaning through symbols. Under the second definition the meaning seems propos, but the link itself is to an article that cites both meanings without an indication of which it is.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The second meaning (which I would argue is not distinct from the first) is not appropriate because it implies a value judgment - that what people want to signal is that they are in some way better than others. This clearly falls under WP:LABEL. GabrielF (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh, I see the two as quite distinct, but since we have one article for both terms, and there's no way of anchoring to the second, then I see the value of rewording. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Status symbol isn't about who is "better". It's about who is signalling their values and identity.  That symbol might make people think better or worse of you.
 * Furthermore, it's not a contentious WP:LABEL on par with terrorist, extremist, fundamentalist, etc., so that guideline doesn't apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see WP:LABEL applying, but I do think "status symbol" carries the connotation of conspicuous consumption rather than "signaling to those in the know", if that is the intent the original source. If the second meaning is what is meant, then I think a definition or prose summary is a better choice than an easily misunderstood wikilink.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that both meanings can be accurate reflections of the sources. They spend a lot of time discussing the role of pink consumption.  It's maybe not "conspicuous consumption", which implies a level of rubbing your nose in it ("I'm so wealthy I carry a different thousand-dollar handbag every day of the month"), but it's the same sort of consumer status symbol that the latest iPhone or hybrid car is:  I'm cool and connected and good with technology, so I have the new iPhone, or I love the environment, so I drive a Prius, or or I care about breast cancer and women, so I buy pink things (at least in October, when people are watching). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see value in returning perhaps not status symbol to the article (because I do agree it is too easily misunderstood) but the idea that it's about signaling interest. Actually, the current version is OK for me, but I'm open to an alternative that makes the point a little clearer.  Have to see it first, I definitely understand the concern with the original version.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the current version adequately expresses the fact that the wearer is signalling interest, as WLU points out. Introducing the phrase "status symbol" clouds the issue. My dictionary defines "status symbol" as follows: "a possession that is taken to indicate a person's wealth or high social or professional status". It can certainly have a more subtle meaning than that, but I do think using the phrase "status symbol" gives a negative connotation about the wearer and it doesn't seem necessary to me to use that term. GabrielF (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

King and precautionary principle
I am having trouble verifying the citation for the following:


 * These organizations benefit the most from corporate sponsorships that critics deride as pinkwashing, e.g., polluting industries trying to buy public goodwill by publishing advertisements emblazoned with pink ribbons, rather than stopping their pollution under the precautionary principle (King 2006, pages 1–2).

On pages 1 and 2 of King's book, she discusses how Komen specifically has benefitted from corporate sponsorships, but she does not mention anything about pinkwashing, pollution or the precautionary principle. She describes how companies "buy public goodwill" but her portrayal is more nuanced. Google shows no results in a search of the book for the words "pinkwashing" or "pollution". Can whoever added this please advise? GabrielF (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I read the pages in question (note though - the google book links were added by me, they may reflect a different pagination than the paper copy originally used) and didn't see this. Some basic searches (pinkwashing, pollution, goodwill) didn't turn up anything either.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Inner circle
Charles objects to the phrase inner circle on mystical grounds. We need to stick with the basic construction here for reasons of logic:


 * Anyone can join the breast cancer culture/pink culture, merely by choosing to support it.
 * You cannot be initiated into something that you're already a part of.
 * You can be initiated into a more central or "higher" part of it.
 * This sentence is about the breast cancer culture's system for initiating women into the more central or "higher" part of the culture.

Ehrenreich cites an expert on initiations, whose work identifies three basic types of initiations: to become an adult, to become part of a "secret" group (like the Masons), and to become a shaman. Breast cancer culture deals with the middle one, so Charles' intuitive reaction was accurate.

The exact phrase inner circle appears in Sulik's book, which I think makes it an appropriate choice for the wording of this idea that suffering initiates women into the "higher" part of the culture, but I'm open to other options. Any proposal, however, needs to indicate the separation between being a normal supporter and being one of the true initiates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * True initiates?! Are you serious? That is a metaphor. It isn't true. Charles35 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's what the source is talking about. You can be "part of" the breast cancer culture, but only the women with breast cancer, who have been "initiated" are part of the inner circle.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, and guess what? Your clever 3RR trick doesn't apply:


 * [edit warring] is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reworded. Inner circle is appropriate, as Ehrenreich makes clear in the quote.  Inner circle doesn't just signal conspiracies and mystical initiations, it's an appropriate (and verifiable) metaphor for achieving the status of "survivor", which is a "privileged" position within a lot of movements (apparently including breast cancer support groups).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) it isn't identified as a metaphor (until the quote), which is the biggest problem here.
 * 2) bizarre metaphors violate WP:UNDUE, (yet at the same time, you support this weird metaphor while believing that a single pro-Komen sentence is undue. WOW). Charles35 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Since abstract concepts like "cultures" never contain physical circles, I think we can trust that our readers are smart enough to figure out that "inner circle" is a metaphor rather than a physical object.
 * If the reliable sources make a big deal out of something, then mentioning it is not UNDUE, by definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) are you kidding. An actual physical circle is not something anyone would even think about other than those making ridiculous arguments to maintain their ~NPOV. I don't trust readers to understand that you don't mean there is a conspiracy of a group of evil connivig cunning BCA-ers. But, of course, I do trust them to figure out that we don't mean a line with a non-zero 2nd derivative :) 19:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) No. Material that violates WP:UNDUE is considered in the context of the article, not just the source (ie 2 paragraphs in the article is undue). Charles35 (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see an issue here that needs adressing. I don't think the current content is undue weight and I think it's an obvious metaphor easily understood by anyone who reads it - not to mention the existence of wikilinks.   I do see a lot of unpleasant accusations that I'm not a fan of.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"might contribute to" "cause" etc.
Well, I just proposed some new wording that might be agreeable. Any reasons why it isn't? Biosthmors (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support so we can move on to more substantive concerns like removing the pov template. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

^Not in the slightest. We're going to a noticeboard. You're all really showing your true colors today. Charles35 (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Charles is stating that I'm misrepresenting the source(s) by making that edit, which is entirely possible, as I haven't read the source. It just seemed to be a middle ground between versions. Charles, noticeboards want to see talk page discussion first. Can you address this issue? Can you prove to me with a quote that my edit misrepresented the source? Biosthmors (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've quoted it multiple times, in edit summaries, and on this talk page, and on ANI. First of all, since I went ahead and found the sources for ALL of these chemicals (you're welcome. I don't feel very appreciated for that), here is the wikipedia articles for them. "High-fat foods", or fat, or related articles (I checked several. again, you're welcome) say nothing about BC. But the rest do:


 * ''...scientists to conclude that the presence of parabens may be associated with the occurrence of breast cancer, there is an association between phthalate exposure and endocrine disruption leading to development of breast cancer, alcohol has been shown to increase the risk of developing...multiple forms of cancer.

That said, before we even talk about the wording in the source, let's not forget that the source is ONLY' talking about alcohol. Yet, you all choose to ignore that because you want to throw em all together and censor the world by telling everyone how evil BCA is (Stalin style).

You consider yourselves sociologists? You consider yourselves liberal? You consider yourselves democrats? This type of strong-arming is disgusting and it's the kind of stuff you condemn everyone else for in your rants about "power relations".

Now, on to the source, which uses the phrase "linked to": Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies...

However, being the nice guy I am, I tried to work things out to make everyone happy while still following the rules, so I decided to read the rest of the paragraph, which states:


 * the Canadian Cancer Society advises that even one drink a day on average can increase the risk of breast cancer.

So, being that nice guy, I added "increase" to the paragraph too. But no, that wasn't good enough for them. They need it to say "cause", forcing their triple editor opinion onto the article without a source, something they have no problem condemning others of:


 * Mere editor opinion, particularly when
 * over-ride individual editor opinion and are in turn
 * we represent ideas as found in sources, not according to editor opinion.
 * Again, your opinion is far less important than the policies and guidelines.
 * There is a definite reason to discount your opinion if it is not backed by a good source,
 * That's your personal opinion.
 * feels that their personal opinion trumps a reliable source
 * the criteria for material - sources, not personal opinions.
 * not our personal opinions about whether the published, reliable sources
 * not personal opinion
 * Fundamentally, it's one editor's personal opinion about the True™ purpose of breast cancer awareness programs
 * reporting his own personal, non-expert opinion as if it were a verifiable fact
 * I mean, other than confirming from your personal opinion
 * e.g., your personal opinion.
 * insisting that your unverifiable and under-informed personal opinion be the basis for
 * Wikipedia isn't interested in my personal opinion.
 * an editor's personal opinion about whether any given fact
 * it is about what the sources say, not the opinions of editors. Charles35 (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking your time, however I don't understand why my edit (at the beginning of this thread is inaccurate). Alcohol is a cause. Others are just suspected. What's the problem? Biosthmors (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I don't understand what is confusing. You said: I think Charles is stating that I'm misrepresenting the source(s) by making that edit


 * From my above edit: Now, on to the source, which uses the phrase "linked to": Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies...


 * What's not to get? Alcohol is NOT a cause, according to the sources cited. Look, I'm not trying to push my POV that alcohol doesn't cause BC. I am just trying to represent the source accurately because there is a big difference between cause and linked. I even went and searched for a source that says alcohol causes to no avail. If you find one, great! I'm all for it. Just cite it and then make your changes. But the source that is currently in the article says "LINKED TO" why does nobody understand that? Charles35 (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That aside (a matter for the breast cancer article, but risk factors are causes), all the article says is "critics believe". Can you prove to me whether or not critics believe alcohol is a cause? Biosthmors (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And that's just the cited source, not what's actually WP:Verifiable when you consider all the reliable sources. By policy, articles are limited to what can be verified in (at least one) reliable source, not to what has actually has been verified in the exact source already cited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question currently reads: "...increase pollution or that critics say cause or possibly contribute to breast cancer, such as alcohol, high-fat foods, some pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies...")
 * From the cited source:
 * "KFC sells products that are salt- and fat-laden, and injected with hormones, and they are the subject of a lawsuit in California about a potential carcinogen that they use in the processing of their chicken," King tells CTV.ca."
 * "King notes a number of studies have linked air pollution to breast cancer so encouraging people to buy more gas is not going to help."
 * "Among the "pinkwashers" that Breast Cancer Action warns about are car companies, some cosmetics and personal care products companies whose products contain chemicals linked to breast cancer, and a number of chemical companies"
 * "Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies, and the Canadian Cancer Society advises that even one drink a day on average can increase the risk of breast cancer."

To Biosthmors: No, I can't, which is why I said that I don't need a source to revert your edits, but you need one to make your edits. You say that you should be able to write "critics believe", yet you don't have any sources that cite critics as believing such a thing! Apparently the rules are reversed now. It's "find a source to delete material" instead of "find a source to create material". Or likewise, it's "included in the article until proven false" instead of "false until proven true". I can see how this might get confused for a dispute on the actual content. But I'm not saying that critics don't believe this. I'm saying that YOUR critic, the one in the source, doesn't believe it. So why oh why is it okay to put your opinion in the article just "because it's true" and "because you can't find any critics that don't believe it." Well, do you know of any critics that do? NO. Until you find one and cite it, this should be removed from the article.

Sorry for the rant. Charles35 (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, WhatamIdoing, by policy, "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". So, you need to cite your source because at least I am challenging it. And, right. Your sources say "linked". Both for the cosmetics, AND the alcohol. So, "linked to the development of" is perfect. It is completely reflective of the sources, and it also specifies that we aren't talking about a negative correlation (ie prevention), we are talking about a positive one (development). Stop polarizing. Wikipedia isn't about winning. THE SOURCES SAY LINKED. If they meant contribute, they would have said contribute. End of story. Charles35 (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, BURDEN requires me (or someone) to provide an inline citation. It does not require me to do so by any particular deadline.  I have already provided you with the most authoritative possible source for declaring that alcoholic beverages cause breast cancer, not merely that they are "linked to" breast cancer.  I haven't typed it into the article yet, but you know that it exists.  Why do you still persist in saying that alcoholic beverages don't cause breast cancer?  Do you know more than the World Health Organization's experts?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If a real behavioural issue is thought to be present, talk pages are not the appropriate venue.
 * If you consider the entire page to be about how "evil" breast cancer awareness is, that appears to be your own issue. The page that I've read uses reliable sources to discuss breast cancer awareness and includes reliably sourced criticisms of the same - which per WP:NPOV is appropriate.  I understand that you may personally not like some or all of the page contents, but that does not matter since wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.  Please focus on this, rather than ascribing motives to other editors based on the fact that you dislike what sources say.
 * This whole discussion could go a lot faster if you stopped accusing other editors of having an agenda and just sought appropriate dispute resolution. For instance, you could seek a request for comment on this issue.  Or stop caring, as I have, since this is an incredibly minor, hair-splitting point that has wasted far too much time already.  The difference between "linked to", "cause" and "contribute to" is semantically speaking, pretty minimal.  I can live with all three.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * For anyone who reads this, the following statement made by WLU is not true: I understand that you may personally not like some or all of the page contents, but that does not matter since wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.


 * WLU, I don't care what you think, so don't even bother replying as doing so will be of the sole purpose of undermining my reputation. I am trying to protect that. WLU's statement is incorrect. I'm not going to waste my time explaining why, as I have done so several times. I'm not going to say that WLU as a person cares more about editors than edits, because that would be stooping to her his level of trying to comment on editors, but in this sentence, this seems to be where her concerns lie. They are false. WLU, I would prefer, for the nth time, for you not to comment on me as a person. You don't know my "personal" preferences, intentions, or anything else about me, and I find your unsolicited comments ironic considering the alcohol issue. Charles35 (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a dude, so be sure to adjust your thinly-veiled accusations accordingly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry. I've actually assumed that the whole time and didn't know that since you never spoke up about it. My bad. Since you "have stopped caring", I will edit "cause" out. Sorry, but I care about the integrity of wikipedia. And since this is likely to be challenged, it must reflect the source, which it doesn't. Charles35 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I interpret "Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies, and the Canadian Cancer Society advises that even one drink a day on average can increase the risk of breast cancer" as meaning critics do think alcohol is causative. Biosthmors (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If they meant causative, don't you think they would have said "cause" instead of "linked to"??? And the studies are the important part, not the CCS, because apparently the ACS is worthless as well. You can't have it both ways. That's cherry picking. You can't accept info from the societies when it supports your theory but not when it doesn't. So anyway, there is a difference between linked to and cause. Cause is the strongest possible explanation for correlation. Linked to is a weaker explanation, yet it still gets the point across that the relationship is positive, not negative (ie it is correlated with development, not protection). So that argument is useless, especially because we are talking about critics. If they meant protection, then they wouldn't be critics after all! So, the argument that linked to might imply protection is ridiculous and because of how obvious the meaning of linked to is, all I can assume is that you (not specifically you, Biosthmors) are pushing your own opinion that it causes BC.
 * This seems over in my opinion. I'm going to edit in linked to. Charles35 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

WLU, I like your edit a lot. I hope we have come to an understanding. Charles35 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:TONE
WLU, I saw you mention symbolic interactionism. I pointed out that the same author of that theory had another brilliant idea that is extremely relevant to this article. Since this is, as I have been informed, a sociological article, no more, no less, I figured we should probably use the most up to date, most advanced, and just all around best sociology. This sort of sociology is considered almost unanimously better than more elementary sociology. One of the main concerns about Marxism and other archaic critical theories from the olden days is that they tend to generalize, lump, and otherwise falsely categorize the world. Metanarratives, today, are almost considered pseudo-science by acclaimed sociologists like Goffman, Foucault, Seidman, Latour, Bauman, and others.

Bruno Latour does a great job at giving the problems with grand storylines (these aren't my words but they fit quite coincidentally):


 * “critical theorists” are aiming at the wrong target
 * they sound like conspiracy theorists
 * gullible criticism isnt much worse than gullible belief
 * critical theories are designed to start a war
 * Critique “moves away” from fact (into fiction, presumably)
 * Critics should focus on construction, not deconstruction*
 * Critics should not be nihilists, pessimists, or stoics

Needless to say, it's probably a good idea to avoid such temptation in constructing an article on such a sensitive issue with such a wide audience who, for a good chunk of the article, probably doesn't even know what you are talking about.

Okay, the above was partially facetious, but seriously - does anyone have any justifications for why such a harmful tone should be allowed here? Should we delete or rephrase material that takes such a tone? I mean if we are talking about oversight, that list of sociologists says that the approach taken by many of the sources here is extremely flawed. It doesn't get much more authoritative than Goffman and Foucault. But please, you're the sociologists (I assume), not me, so if what I said is incorrect, please say so. Charles35 (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(*) I thought this was especially relevant (construction vs deconstruction) because of one of my objections to this article that I brought up to WhatamIdoing way back at the beginning of this debate (copy/pasted below). I said that the article tells you all of the horrors of awareness, the pharmaceutical industry, and evil corrupt doctors, which is one thing. But then it forgets the part where it tells you what to do instead. That's a whole nother thing. So women should boycott doctors and medicine? Okay, then what should they do instead? It doesn't even bother to mention any of the other (facetious) proven to be effective treatments for breast cancer such as shamanism, astrology, scientology, witchcraft, diet and exercise, breathing exercises, acupuncture, home remedies, snake oil, shark cartilage, crystal healing, urine therapy...(/facetious)
 * I don't see a reference to a specific edit here, nor do I see a source addressing the problems with sociological criticisms of BCA. We may agree or disagree on principle all we want, but pages must be based on specific sources that directly address the page.  I have no problem incorporating reliable sources that attack and tear apart Sulik or King's book-length discussions of the topic, but they must come from sources, not editors.  If you want any sort of agreement from me, you must point to specific edits or sections and accompany suggestions with specific sources.
 * Articles should not tell someone what to do, per WP:NOT and WP:MEDICAL. Breast cancer awareness should not discuss in/appropriate treatments, that is for breast cancer treatment.
 * As for what we should do - we should accurately summarize the contents of reliable sources, both pro and con. If we are missing sources discussing the positive aspects of BCA - find and add them.  If we are missing sources that criticize Sulik's take on BCA, find and add them.  I do not believe it is approprate to remove sources or summaries of sources because of personal disagreement.  Tone can be adjusted, but must remain faithful to the original source.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is the specific proposition: we should remove Sulik and friends from this article due to the fact that they take a faulty, archaic approach to sociology that modern, more advanced sociology says is poor theory. I didn't give a source because I am not making an edit based on the material. I am challenging not the reliability of the sources, but the fact that they don't live up to the standards of good sociology. If you want me to find sources for this, I (easily) can. But I thought that sources were for adding material, not subtracting (ie it would be pointless to write "Foucault and Goffman and others criticize Sulik's approach, because they aren't criticizing Sulik specifically, not to mention the fact that they came a few decades before her. However, sociology doesn't get much more advanced than postmodernism. Postmodernism is strongly against "grand storylines" and "metanarratives". I will find you sources for that if it means we can remove some or all of the stories in this article. Charles35 (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Sulik is a reliable source written by a recognized expert published by a highly respected publishing house.  The fact that you personally dislike their approach is not a valid reason to remove the source from the article.  If you can find reliable sources that apply these criticisms to Sulik or other sources, this would be a valuable addition to the page that I would support including.  If these are generic sources that address their particular methodology, feel free to add them to sociology.  Unless they address breast cancer awareness specifically, they are not appropriate here per our policy on original research.  Note that even if you find such sources dealing specifically with Sulik or BCA, the preferred approach is not to remove them outright - it is to supplement material sourced to Sulik with these criticisms.
 * Our standards are if a source is reliable, not the standards of good sociology as applied by a single editor. Feel free to bring up the book at the reliable sources noticeboard for an outside opinion, but I have absolutely no doubt that it will be judged more than acceptable.  Again, personal incredulity of one editor is rarely a reason to change a page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And writing about the benefits of urine therapy or scientology isn't WP:HOWTO. It's simply offering other valid scientific treatments for the disease. I mean, after all, it's probably a good idea, if you are going to hate on medicine, to say what the effective alternatives are. Even if it were a violation of WP:HOWTO, this would just be wikilawyering because it is extremely unethical to (falsely, in many cases) condemn medicine with the implication that people be weary of drs (which in turn leads to less people seeking treatment) without offering effective alternative forms of treatment to save their lives, like home remedies and crystal healing, all perfectly valid. Charles35 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * WLU, 2 words: broken record. This isn't my personal opinion. This is arguably the 2 most respected experts of the 20th century's personal opinion, which trump Sulik any day of the week. Charles35 (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When you keep repeating the same errors and ignoring the same policies and guidelines, I will keep pointing to them. For instance, the opinions of the most respected experts of the 20th century are irrelevant to this page unless they talk about breast cancer awareness, per WP:OR.  If you dislike this, you can try to change the policy to allow original research, attempt to garner a local consensus to allow your personal views to be incorporated (which I will oppose since I think it is bad practice) or you can leave wikipedia contribute on an alternative outlet.  Or you can accept it and move on, realizing wikipedia will always include reliably sourced information that we dislike and personally disagree with.  I think the discussion of dissociative identity disorder should not include the traumagenic model because Piper & Merskey's alterative explanations are more convincing and align with the neurology of memeory - but I live with that stupid idea being on the page.  Because those are the rules.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Specifically, it's a WP:SYNTH violation. That's what Wikipedia calls reading Sulik and reading Latour, and even though Latour doesn't actually say anything at all about Sulik or breast cancer awareness, you decide that Latour is commenting on Sulik's methodology (which, BTW, you still don't know what Sulik's methodologies are, because you still haven't read what she wrote).
 * Also, your complaint that the critics provide nothing positive or constructive is wrong. They provide multiple positive actions that they believe should be taken, including (but not limited to):
 * Breast cancer organizations should reject money from tainted sources;
 * Potentially cancer-causing chemicals should be banned until proven safe;
 * Awareness education efforts should promote only what works medically, not what brings in the most donations (e.g., stop promoting breast self-exams);
 * Breast cancer organizations should be candid in their fundraising efforts [and choice of names] about how much money goes to biomedical research and how much goes elsewhere; and
 * Breast cancer organizations should focus on prevention rather than on screening.
 * Those are all positive, constructive points. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw WP:SYNTH coming, and I agree with you that it is a form of that violation. I don't want to change the WP:OR rule, WLU, so please, for the (n+1)th time, STOP IT. In fact, I am going to make a section at WP:BETTER about banning grand storylines except in articles about grand storylines as a violation of WP:TONE. Charles35 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt you'll gather enough consensus for that to last very long, and even so the essay at WP:BETTER is not policy. Even if you managed to ban "grand storylines" there, it has no more weight than the amount by which editors are convinced by it.  For instance, I am still unconvinced of its merits, and do not think Sulik should be eliminated as a source because of criticisms of sociology as a whole.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You aren't convinced that grand storylines are bad? I thought you were a sociologist? What merits are you unconvinced of? It seems like you want poor sociology to be in this article. I saw you mention symbolic interactionism. You obviously are familiar with Goffman. He leads the pack against grand storylines. I don't necessarily think Sulik should be eliminated as a source. I think that her material should not be presented in grand storyline form, whether it is or isn't presented that way or not in the source. I know one of your Commandments says "if the source presents it this way, then we will too", you don't need to remind me. But when grand storylines are obviously poor sociology, I believe we as editors have the responsibility to get a consensus to present the same valid ideas in an improved way, especially since we are all competent enough to know to do so. Charles35 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Breast self-examinations
Charles, we already talked about the ineffectiveness of breast self-examinations. There are half a dozen good sources in that article that prove that they're actually harmful to low-risk women. You agreed back at the end of October that this was the case, saying "Sure, I was wrong (at least I can admit it) about 'official' breast self-examinations." So why do you now want to have that minor fact sourced in this article? I can: the sources are sitting over at the BSE article and could be copied over any time you want. But is that really helpful to the reader? I don't think so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are talking about...? Charles35 (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And for the record, that quote is taken out of context. I was wrong about one specific point about self-exams. Charles35 (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah: you were wrong about whether or not BSEs are effective.  You read the article and discovered that they are not effective.  I suggest that you go read it again, so you can re-discover this fact.  Once you've re-read the material about the massive, randomized controlled trials and the fact that they produced more harm (e.g., extra exposure to carcinogenic radiation in healthy women) and no good, then come back here and tell me whether you actually want to have sources copied over for the fact-tag about BSEs not working.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You read the article and discovered that they are not effective. I suggest that you go read it again, so you can re-discover this fact. I hope you got all your repressed anger out. Feel better? The quote is still out of context. My argument was not that they were effective. It was that they can't hurt when you have a proper doctor taking the fact that it was a BSE into consideration. But I removed the tag. Again, wasn't trying to do anything malicious... Charles35 (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the hope of making this stick, so it won't come back again in a few weeks: BSEs hurt women even when you have "a proper doctor taking the fact that it was a BSE into consideration".  A proper physician orders more radiological studies and more biopsies on healthy women who perform BSEs than on healthy women who do not.  That's why so many major government and professional organizations have done a complete about-face on the question in the last few years.  BSEs harm women even if they have proper physicians.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Cassileth
Cassileth's paper is fine, but Charles' description of it is inaccurate (e.g., that the "underlying concepts predominated understanding in psychiatry through the 1970s, when books such as Roger H. Garcia's "Cancer."a psychogenic illness" were published", which doesn't support a claim that it ended in the 1950s [Charles' first edit], or that it continued through the 1960s [second edit]). Also, it doesn't actually say anything relevant that isn't already in Olson and Sulik both.  So should we bother triple-citing the fact that the psych field used to think that a bad attitude caused cancer, or do we think that two citations for that fact is enough?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry, I didn't see that part. You can delete it entirely if you want. Please assume good faith about it though. I wasn't trying to do anything malicious. Thanks. Charles35 (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any harm in removing or leaving, whatever results in fewer edit wars. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Stability
If this article is relatively stable, as in all agree not to do edit war-ish things, I think someone should boldly nominate it for good article status. Biosthmors (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see this article passing GAN at this time. I would object on item #4 (neutrality) and #3b (staying focused) of WP:WIAGA and I would want to take a very close look at the use of sources. GAN might be a useful process for improving this article, but it seems like there are already efforts underway on the talk page and at DRN. GabrielF (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please tag specific instances you are concerned about with TC? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tagged a few things. I also have more structural concerns about the entire article - sections about the history of the movement and the accomplishments are relatively bare bones and are pushed to the bottom while criticism is common throughout. There is a very heavy reliance on a small number of sources and I'm not sure that this article represents the nuanced position that some of these sources are taking. These concerns have been raised elsewhere so I won't dwell too much on it in this talk page section, but I do feel that passing GAN would be very difficult at this point. GabrielF (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How's this? To have structural concerns one should have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of the literature. Please add your knowledge of neglected sources? Feel free to add more inline citations. I think they encourage constructive editing. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't comment more right now, but please see the DRN for a lengthy discussion of why I feel the "mere symbolism" paragraph is problematic. I appreciate your edit, but it does not address the fundamental concern. GabrielF (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weird. Gabriel, I feel like I've read your comments regarding 'mere symbolism' at DRN, but you don't have any signed contributions on that page.  I'm not trying to be a dick (though I am being a bit lazy), could you provide me an anchor or something else so I can reread your comments?  Thanks.
 * Also, I am again re-iterating something I've said many times - the page can and should be expanded with noncritical or praising sources if they can be located. Sources discussing the history of the movement and its accomplishments would be excellent additions to the page.  Does anyone have any?  So much talk page text has been dedicated to criticizing what are undeniably reliable sources but I've yet to see those critics supply non-critical sources that could be used instead, which is a shame.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The page is getting a bit messy so I understand perfectly if you didn't see my signature, but please look at the text at the very bottom of the Breast cancer awareness discussion at DRN - there is a lengthy comment by me, a reply by Amadscientist and then a reply by me. GabrielF (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't follow. Can you clarify your fundamental concern here? Biosthmors (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the confusion, but my concerns with this paragraph are laid out in detail at the DRN and I think it would be best for us to discuss them there so that we don't have two simultaneous discussions on the same paragraph in two different locations.GabrielF (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What the double-hockey sticks was I reading, it's right there. My apologies, thanks for clarifying. Maybe I hadn't noticed I was looking at an old version? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

She-ro post-treatment

 *  After treatment, the she-ro regains her femininity by using breast reconstruction, prosthetic devices, wigs, cosmetics, and clothing to present an aesthetically appealing, upper-class, heterosexual feminine appearance and by maintaining relationships in which she can nurture other people (Sulik 2010, page 42, 374).

While Sulik certainly does talk about this, she doesn't say anything about a shero. I'm going to delete it for now because I don't think there's something else I could do with it that you would find acceptable. I wanted to just take the word "shero" out of the text and phrase it as "many women regain", but I figured no non-shero material would be allowed. I encourage you to either do that or put it in a different section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs)


 * Per the talk page guidelines, please put new discussions at the bottom of the page. They are far more likely to be seen there.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sulik speaks at length about the ideal, culturally approved, archetypal woman with breast cancer, which she terms the she-ro. This sentence is talking about the culturally approved response after treatment.  Why do you say that "she doesn't say anything about a shero"?  Sulik doesn't need to use the exact term for us to know that she's talking about the she-ro here.  Sulik says on page 101 that the she-ro "embodies pink femininity" and in that section goes on to talk about reconstruction, prosthetics, high heels, etc.  Page 42 is just in the first section discussing aesthetics (start on page 35) and pink femininity in the book, not the only place that it comes up.  Sulik is obviously talking about the she-ro at that point; she just isn't using the term on that exact page.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're assuming that she is talking about the shero construct. If you can do this here, then you can basically take any sentence in the entire book and throw shero in there. That would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. If the text doesn't explicitly state such a conclusion, then we cannot state that conclusion in the text, especially if it's been challenged or likely to be. Charles35 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * SYNTH requires two different sources, not words taken from two different pages in the same source to express an idea that the source talks about repeatedly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Original research is when we express novel ideas. Using our editorial judgement to organize text is something different. Please read WP:OR, again? Biosthmors (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * She uses the same kinds of words, plus the term she-ro, on other pages in the book. I have added some (NB:  not "all"; for example, the relationship between appearance and heterosexuality appears at least four times in the book) of those pages to the sentence for your convenience.  (You may now start complaining about WP:Citation overkill.)  If you'd bother to actually read the source, rather than searching for keywords, you wouldn't even think of challenging this statement.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * With this method, you can take anything out of Sulik's book and put it in the shero section. Nothing goes in shero if Sulik doesn't call it shero. I didn't search for anything, actually. I perused all of the pages. In fact I've never searched for anything. I don't think you can search on google books, just like you can't copy/paste text. In those pages, she isn't talking about shero. She doesn't use the word, which is a requirement for shero talk. This is because this isn't any old construct, this is the shero construct. Shero is such a specific word that if you don't use it with material, then you can't consider it shero material. When you have the section titled "shero", everything in the section must be shero material. I have no problem with keeping the material in a different section, but you can't put it in the shero section if it isn't shero material. Charles35 (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe I was wrong about WP:SYNTH, technically, but you still can't call anything Sulik says "shero". If she doesn't come to that specific conclusion, then we can't either. Charles35 (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the edit summary here makes any sense. Biosthmors (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Those sentences are great wikipiedia material. They should be in the article, but it is wrong to put them in the shero section, because Sulik, in the pages that those sentences cite, is not talking about sheros. With such a specific topic, Sulik must be addressing it as part of the shero construct in order to put it in the shero section and phrase it with "the shero regains her femininity". Sulik doesn't say that sheros do this. The author of that material is coming to a false conclusion that is never stated in the text. Also, at least half of those pages are talking about things unrelated to this topic. Shero is essentially a loaded term in this case which means and implies much more than what Sulik means when she talks about the Reach to Recovery program. She is talking about specific measures offered by a program, not "sheros"Charles35 (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Then please WP:PRESERVE them instead of removing them. How do we know Sulik is not talking about she-ros? Might that be a potential false conclusion? Biosthmors (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * She's talking about the Reach to Recovery program and mentions the Look Good Feel Better program as well, not "sheros". Charles35 (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are those two things mutually exclusive? (Forgive me I haven't read Sulik.) Biosthmors (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Because she just isn't talking about the shero social construct. You can't just pull any random thing from her book that you'd like and throw it in the shero section. Only the sources should make decisions like those. I hope that someone puts it in a different section. But it isn't acceptable to keep the material and then cite the pages in which she actually mentions the shero construct. It doesn't change the fact that in these pages and with this material, we aren't talking about the shero construct. Charles35 (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Because you say so? Same book, same author. You don't know what Sulik was thinking when she wrote that. She could have been thinking about the she-ro unless you demonstrate otherwise. Biosthmors (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't know what Sulik was thinking when she wrote that. - Neither do you? That's the point. The burden of proof lies on the person who is for adding the material, not on the one who is against. It's like asking someone to cite a source in order to remove material. It just doesn't make sense. You need to demonstrate that she was talking about shero. And as far as I can tell, you can't, because she wasn't talking about it. Charles35 (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. In general, I trust WAID's editorial judgement to discern when Sulik is mentioning the she-ro (but I await their comments to confirm their position on this issue). I don't believe there is a burden of proof required to use good sense. It's part of summarizing sources. When you summarize, you might not state what the author said, but you present it in a way that accurately reflects the meaning. Biosthmors (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's all about the ideal breast cancer patient, and what the culture puts forward as the ideal for breast cancer patients. In other words, it's all about the she-ro, even if Sulik does not use that exact term on every single page in the book.  Charles just seems hung up on the terminology, which he dislikes.  Some of his first-ever comments (even before he registered an account) were about a desire to remove all mention of the she-ro, which he thought was "rubbish".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, you have to connect the dots to "pink femininity". On page 101, Sulik says the she-ro regains pink femininity; elsewhere, she defines pink femininity as being upper-class, white, straight, etc.  We just translated the term for the reader.  If we hadn't, then I expect Charles would put forth the same complaints that he has about the untranslated "misery quotient", e.g., that the reader can't be expected to know that the women aren't buying pink paint by the gallon.
 * In short, you're only going to understand the sourcing behind this sentence if you read the entire book, or pretty close to the entire book, and not just one page here and there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's an excuse. If Sulik isn't talking about shero, then we shouldn't be either. If she doesn't explicitly say that it is a part of the shero construct, then it isn't. None of us, whether we've read the book in its entirety or not, are at liberty to make such connections. She is talking about the actions of a single program, not those of the "shero" culture. When you take that liberty for yourself, you set the precedent that allows you to take anything in Sulik's book and throw it in the shero section. We shouldn't rely on editor discretion in such a way. Having read an entire book cannot set any editor apart from other editors. Charles35 (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not hung up on the terminology. I'd appreciate if you stopped saying things like that, and saying that I use the "find" command when I read Sulik's book. I have never done that. You actually have no idea how much I've read and I'd prefer for you to keep your comments about me to yourslf. If shero was just a simple word, then I wouldn't be making a big deal about it. But shero isn't a simple word. It's a term that has a lot of background that is implicated each time the term is used. It is an entire construct, and, being a construct and all, has an entire foundation. For the record, I actually didn't make that rubbish section. Someone else did. It was there when I got here.


 * Most importantly, Sulik isn't referring to sheros! She is talking about the services that are provided by Reach to Recovery, which you are not at liberty to generalize to all "sheros regain femininity". Charles35 (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Somebody get Sulik on the phone? Honestly. Maybe one person can email her once in a respectful way. And I'd prefer it not be Charles, because he isn't the most experienced around here out of the bunch. Ask her if she'll release it under CC-BY-SA and post it here? Best. Biosthmors (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are points at which it is adequate to source an entire book and make links like these across sections is good writing and editorial judgement. But you've got to read the whole book to do so, these points are necessarily rare, and often are not easy to support with a quote.  I've got a copy, but I won't get a chance to read it cover to cover until Christmas or later.  I can fact check challenges to specific items if the page range isn't too long.  However, as noted before, there are multiple editions, which makes verification a little more problematic.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)