Talk:Breast cancer awareness/Archive 7

Public vs private
Just for the curious, the research money is basically a slim majority in government funding, about a third in private commercial funding (all of which creates a tax expenditure that increases the actual share paid by taxpayers by about another ten percentage points or so in the US), and the last small sliver of the pie is charitable research. In the EU, government funding is lower but charitable research is about the same, which gives them a more equal balance, but because the overall level is so low, it doesn't affect the worldwide reality that most breast cancer research is paid for with public money. The US federal government is the biggest funder of breast cancer research in the world, hands down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said before, it's great that you feel like telling us your ideas about this, but we can only write what the sources say. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is what the sources say. We are required to write what the published sources say.  This is not limited to the published sources that are explicitly cited at the end of the sentence.  A neutral article reflects all the sources.  Material is required to be verifiABLE, not verifiED.  If you look at page 18 of the pdf I pointed you at, charitable spending on research into breast cancer amounted to 6% (six percent).  The Us federal and state governments spent more than ten times that amount, and industry research was more than five times that amount.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * From WP:VERIFIABILITY: "This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." If you want to add new sources to the article, be my guest. But you can't expect a reader who wants to check that this stuff is not just made up two years from now to search for and find a link from an archived talk page discussion. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From the same page: "If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself".  Or do Wikipedia policies not apply to your removal of material that you personally know to be verifiable?
 * I don't mind typing up the citation. Will that end the dispute over this sentence, or is there going to be some goal-post shifting now?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, I am not going to set the precedent that I will start doing all your work for you. You've provided quite a few sources in the past few days alone. Before I know it, I'll be typing up citations right and left. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And to answer your question, I do not know exactly which source you want to add, and I don't know what material you want to add, if any, to the article. If you tell me which source and what material, I will review it before adding it to the article if you'd like. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question is "Most breast cancer research is funded by government agencies", which you removed on 14 June. You complained that we are not adequately proving that most of the money on breast cancer research comes from the government because the previously cited source focuses on Canada.  I have provided you with an Institute of Medicine paper demonstrating that 94% (ninety-four percent) of breast cancer research money comes from sources other than breast cancer charities and that substantially more than half (a situation generally accepted as being described as "most") comes from government agencies.  (This financial fact may be news to some people, but it's not news to anyone who understands why Komen has spent so much money on lobbying, and why that expense allows them to claim most of the credit for the US federal government having increased taxpayer-funded breast cancer research spending thirty-fold since Komen's founding.)
 * My proposal is to restore the accurate and verifiable sentence that you blanked, and to add yet another inline citation behind it, so that you will no longer be able to erroneously assert that this worldwide fact is "only Canada-specific info". Do you understand the proposal?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all WhatamIdoing, why don't you try to stop being so sarcastic? It would strongly improve civility on this talk page and help build a positive atmosphere, which makes editing more enjoyable for everyone and improves the quality of articles. I didn't see this sentence as having a POV, but the source was specifically talking about Canada. I was just trying to improve the quality of the article, and while I don't remember the name of the specific policy, I've read several wikipedia policy pages about how wikipedia wants to have global information that represents a worldwide view. This wikiproject is relevant to what I'm talking about. I didn't see a statistic only about Canada as being useful to this article. So why don't you assume good faith and stop being sarcastic. I wasn't "erroneously" saying that most of the money isn't publicly funded, I was just saying that such a statement wasn't supported by the source. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.
 * Now, I don't see what you are trying to say about the lobbying. I think that if you add this to the article, you should make it abundantly clear what you are trying to imply because most readers are not informed on the subject and you shouldn't expect them to be.
 * Also, that pdf is showing stats from 1974 and 1997. In 1997 it looks like 64% of the money was publicly funded. But that was over 15 years ago. It might be wise to get some up-to-date information. I suppose you could make a statement about where the money came from in the 1990s, although I don't think that is of much value to this article. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no explicit sarcasm in WhatamIdoing's 2 paragraphs. You removed information from the article; she made a talkpage section to discuss that information; you derided that in the first response with "[...] it's great that you feel like telling us your ideas about this [...]" thereby indicating your confusion; she explained the context and asked if it was written in a clear way that made sense to you. Please don't accuse editors of incivility without also explaining what exactly you found offensive.
 * In addition to which, it's hard to be amicable when someone with no knowledge of a subject spends 8 months using over-emphatic and loaded language like "propaganda" and "crazy" and "radical" and "ridiculous" and "conspiratorial" and etc.
 * Canadian source: It demonstrates that the funding-source-disparity is not unique to the U.S.A. Including other example countries+refs would also be good. (Or a global overview, if such can be found. Helping to research, would be vastly more helpful than just continually criticizing.)
 * PDF dates: of course historical information is of value. You were complaining about the lack of historic context back in November. Yes, uptodate statistics would be ideal, in addition to what has been found so far. –Quiddity (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing wrote a paragraph expressing nothing more than her personal opinion. I didn't know what else to say to her. I wasn't "deriding" her words; I have no idea where you picked that up from. I was simply saying that we can't just take her word for it. That's not how wikipedia works. What did she say that was sarcastic?
 * quit relying on what you've picked up from sci-fi or fantasy books.
 * once you're out of junior-high-level personal relationships
 * or is there going to be some goal-post shifting now?
 * substantially more than half (a situation generally accepted as being described as "most")
 * although the overall goal is to do something called "writing in your own words"
 * I don't have no knowledge of the subject. I don't have a doctorate, but I've done a hell of a lot of reading. I may have said that I know "nothing" a few months ago to make a point that I am not here because I care about BCA - I'm here because I care about wikipedia, and this is the kind of stuff that gives liberals a bad name. But the only reason I even said that is because you spent so much time talking about me as an editor in an attempt to ad hominemicly discredit my opinions. Why do I have to explain myself to you? What personal information have you been forced to share on this talk page? Nothing, Quiddity, nothing. I know absolutely nothing about you. And I don't care to either. Because I care about edits, not editors. But you know a decent amount of stuff about me, more than I cared to share. WhatamIdoing has even made (false) statements about my age, suggesting that I am in junior high.
 * I think my language is appropriately emphatic. The FAQ is propaganda, and this article was on the verge of conspiratorial, and in one case (inner circle), it was explicitly conspiratorial.
 * I didn't say historical information cannot be used. I just said that a single statistic from over 15 years ago does not have much value in my opinion, but you can feel free to add it if you want as long as you explicitly say that the statistic is from over 15 years ago. You say "uptodate statistics would be ideal, in addition to what has been found so far" - yes, but the only thing we have right now is a statistic about Canada. Have you read the source? I'm not saying this because it is a Canadian source. I'm saying it because the sentence from the source literally says "When you look at Canada as a whole..." in the sentence that supported that statement.
 * My objections in November are not a fair or relevant comparison here. I don't like the grudge you have against me and I don't like your hostile tone. I have tried very hard the past few months to improve civility on this talk page and I think I have been very polite this latest time around. Do you not remember that two of us were almost topic banned? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not active at this article for many months, because your stubbornness and consistent misunderstandings were too frustrating. So no, I didn't know that a topic ban had been suggested, (for the primary critic, and the primary author, of this article). Half of that decision would be a horrendous mistake.
 * Canada: That was the entire point of the pdf link that WhatamIdoing posted. Yes, I read both. –Quiddity (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not being sarcastic. You expressed confusion; I am attempting to be clear.
 * It would be helpful to me to know whether or not you still believe that most research funding comes from charities, or if you now believe that most research funding comes from taxpayers. Don't worry about exactly which sources to cite right now; just tell me whether you're on board with the facts at this point, or if you still believe that the funding situation is just my personal opinion.
 * Topic bans, by the way, cannot be issued by single admins. Since there are no relevant discretionary sanctions in place, they are issued only after discussion at WP:AN or WP:Arbcom.  Any request at Arbcom would be turned down procedurally for lack of prior dispute resolution efforts.  You may start a discussion at AN yourself (just add a new section and explain in plain English what you want), but I believe that a request at AN would be a waste of your time and the community's.  If you decide to request a topic ban, then keep in mind that they require that editors be "proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia", and the bar is set very high for that.  Also, reciprocal topic bans ("I volunteer to be topic banned to in return for getting my opponent in this content dispute topic banned") are almost never accepted.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do believe that it is true that most money is publicly funded, but just because I personally believe something does not mean we can add it to the article. We need a source that says so. And right now we've got two sources - one that says that most of the money in Canada is publicly funded, and one that says that most of the money in America was publicly funded in 1997. We don't have a source that says most of the money is currently publicly funded in America or world wide. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And have you looked for any such sources? They aren't exactly hard to find.  Consider this one:  "federal agencies provide the majority of breast cancer research funding".  Relevantly to the section on the environmental breast cancer movement, charities spend almost all of their research money on treatment (18%), screening and control (33%), and basic cancer biology (25%), but "less than seven percent of total NGO breast cancer grant funding" for prevention.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see where you're going with this. Whether or not I've looked for such sources is not relevant and I don't have to share that with you. But for the record, I did spend some time googling. I don't know what else to say to the rest of what you wrote. If you want to add that source to the statement about public funding or the Environmental BCA Movement section, be my guest. I looked through that pdf and I didn't find anything about what percentage of money is publicly funded. It's a pretty long pdf though, and I didn't read the entire thing, so it might be in there somewhere. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you've looked for such sources is relevant for understanding what you know and whether you're interested in being collaborative. It also makes it easier to figure out if your decision not to name any sources to back up your claims is because you haven't looked (perhaps, e.g., due to lack of time), or because you looked but couldn't find anything that agreed with your claims.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any claims. I don't even see this as a POV issue. Just because the government funds more money than charities is not important to me. I just wanted to remove a "not in citation given" from the article. If we get a source that says that this is true, than I'm all for putting it in the article. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

MRL, when you start out with a sarcastic, "As I said before, it's great that you feel like telling us your ideas about this" you should expect that other editors will feel offended or perhaps PO'd. I know I would. I had no problem at all finding the information in the source WAID provided. Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That was not sarcasm in the slightest bit. Please don't try to turn this into a "well, you were both being sarcastic, so let's call it even" thing. It's not. I was simply trying to tell her that we cannot rely on her words unless we consult a source. WhatamIdoing said things that were without a doubt sarcastic and uncivil (see the list above). I'm not trying to start an ANI about it. I wouldn't really care that much if you and Quiddity weren't accusing me of incivility. I'm just defending myself. Back in November, WhatamIdoing and friends said the same thing that I just said to me 100 times - that it's fine if I want to express my thoughts on the subject, but if we would like to edit the article, we must have a source to make changes. That is exactly what I was telling her. It was not sarcastic at all, so don't try to spin it that way.
 * She originally made this section so that we could talk about the statement that says "most BCA money is publicly funded". I didn't see anything about what percentage on money is publicly funded in the pdf. But if there are other things about the environmental BC movement, then that's completely fine. Or if it even says something about public funds, that's fine too. All I'm saying is that I couldn't find it. Just let me know which page it's on. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * MidnightRequestLine, that bit between the quotation marks is a direct quotation from the linked source.
 * If you'd like to convert it to percentages, they say that the charities have recently averaged about $330 million per year in research funding. There are several state programs, and the biggest state is (or at least was; their funding seems to be a third of what it used to be) in California.  It issued grants of about $8 million in 2010.  All together, and on the assumption that they are still the largest, I'd guess that this amounts to $30 million a year.  The NIH is averaging $800 million a year, DoD is averaging $125 million, and that still leaves the CDC, EPA, and FDA to go for significant federal sources, plus all of the industry research.  Taking a generous interpretation, the charities can claim to have spent maybe a quarter what the taxpayer does, and when you factor industry spending into the pie, the charities might fund 10% or 15% of research—more than they used to (both in absolute dollars as the pie's gotten bigger and also a small increase as a percentage), but probably much less than their supporters believe—and, as the source says, almost none of it on environmental/prevention research.
 * BTW, section 4.5 is on the achievements of the breast cancer movement, and would make an excellent source for some of the history and achievements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Add whatever you want to the article. I really don't care what you add, as long as it's properly sourced and truly is in the source. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @ MRL - you seem to be unable to see your own sarcasm and irritating and argumentive approach.  To say above, "as long as it's properly sourced and truly is in the source" suggests that WAID has been trying to edit using poor sources, which is not the case at all. In fact, you are even suggesting that she is dishonest when you say "[if it] truly is in the source". Gandydancer (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I spent months removing false information from this article. That's what I was referring to. That's not sarcasm. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You spent months removing information... and months seeing most of it be restored again, with people giving you direct quotations that you must have accidentally overlooked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

New source from The New York Times Magazine
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/our-feel-good-war-on-breast-cancer.html?pagewanted=all

It's by Peggy Orenstein, who frequently writes about women's issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Breast cancer awareness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110201064814/http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us:80/help/healthcare/women/index.html to http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/Help/HealthCare/Women/index.html#WHP
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609202708/http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/cancerland.htm to http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/cancerland.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

FAQ
MidnightRequestLine deleted the FAQ template from this page without an edit summary. In the subpage, /FAQ, MidnightRequestLine blanked the page with this edit summary: those aren't frequently asked questions and their sole purpose is to introduce bias to new editors. we've seen over and over that the sources are not as critical as this article portrays them. it's propaganda in it's most shameless form.

My reversions both included the pointer to the prior discussion, Talk:Breast cancer awareness/Archive 4, which a number of editors took part in. I think a discussion of the wording of the template has the potential to be helpful. I think deleting the template entirely, without discussion, is a poor decision, hence I have reverted. –Quiddity (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you look at the time stamps, we created these two sections only 1 minute apart. Please see my section below. Maybe they can be consolidated? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked and condensed my introduction, which highlights the prior discussion. Hopefully that is acceptable, and this won't become a tangent. –Quiddity (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think an FAQ is inherently flawed. I also think it would be wrong if we made an FAQ that said "Breast cancer awareness is not that bad. Please delete all criticisms of it from the article." We should let editors make the decisions for themselves and not use propaganda. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I gave an edit summary in my removal of the FAQ, but for some reason it isn't showing up in the edit history. Wikipedia has been acting a little weird like that for me lately. Not sure why. (The edit summary was on the subpage) But anyway, this is the gist of what I said: those are not frequently asked questions. The FAQ serves one purpose - to instill bias into new editors. We have seen time and again that the sources do not criticize breast cancer to the extent depicted by this article. We have seen time and again that much of the criticism in this article was not supported by the cited sources, which is why we spent months removing false information from this article.

The FAQ is propaganda in its most shameless form. It should be removed. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no arguments with any merit against this. I don't count "I think it is a poor decision" to have any merit because you gave no reason. So should we go ahead and delete it now? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that this is the most frequently asked question for this page. You asked this question yourself when you were new.  It's true that fewer people have asked the question since the FAQ was posted, but that only tends to show that it's successful at meeting its goal and therefore should be retained.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto. And I linked to the prior discussion above (Talk:Breast cancer awareness/Archive 4), which MidnightRequestLine (as Charles35) also initiated, because the comments made there, contained the reasons against deleting it. –Quiddity (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Consensus can change. This is propaganda. Nothing more. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Say it's true that "fewer people have asked this question" (but really it can't get much fewer than one). Well, there is no consensus on this talk page that the sources are as critical of BCA as this article makes it seem. In fact, this article had loads of false information (and still probably has some). How is it fair that the FAQ represents only the viewpoint of some that has been shown to be false in many cases? Shouldn't it also say that the majority of editors actually disagree? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As the FAQ says, scholars and mainstream media, have heavily criticized certain aspects of BCA campaigns. Not the entire movement, just certain aspects.
 * The positive aspects of BCA are prolifically included in the article. The way to increase the prominence of that viewpoint is not to delete cited viewpoints with which you (or other editors) disagree - the way is: Add additional cited information that substantiates that viewpoint. We've suggested this many times.
 * The viewpoints of Wikipedia-editors (me, you, anyone) are irrelevant. We are here to summarize Reliable sources. –Quiddity (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Straw man. I am in no way suggesting that we delete cited viewpoints. There are no view points that I agree or disagree with. I have no opinion on the matter of breast cancer awareness. My opinions are on wikipedia. And if I had viewpoints, I would not think they were relevant. I am also here to summarize reliable sources. Nothing else.
 * But that is not addressing the problem I raised with the FAQ. The FAQ states that this article accurately depicts the criticism or lack thereof in the viewpoints expressed in this article. There is no consensus among us editors that such a statement is true. In fact, this article had loads of misinformation before we spent months cleaning it up, and it still has some misinformation (it's just more difficult to prove). There is no consensus that the criticism in this article is an accurate representation of the criticism in the sources. Yet, the FAQ states that it is. It is effectively propaganda. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in no way suggesting that we delete cited viewpoints—but you oppose including the word advertising as something that breast cancer orgs spend money on, even though I gave you half a dozen sources above that explicitly use that word, and even discuss specific examples of paid, printed materials that can't be described as anything other than "advertisements".
 * I am in no way suggesting that we delete cited viewpoints—but you are trying to delete the factual statement that most breast cancer research is paid for by taxpayers rather than donors, even though the source states this (for one country) and I've provided you with a source that says this is overwhelmingly true for the (by far) biggest country doing breast cancer research.
 * I am in no way suggesting that we delete cited viewpoints—but you are trying to delete the factual statement that "Only a small fraction of the funds is spent on research, and most of that funding is spent on research to improve diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.", even though you know that Komen (the biggest charitable source) spends only 20% of their money on research despite claiming that they're "for the Cure" rather than "for the Awareness, Education and Screening" and even though the cited source says "most research dollars go toward treatment and screening instead of “research that might actually make a difference.’’"
 * Can you understand why nobody really believes your claim that you're not trying to delete cited viewpoints? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, congratulations, you have officially turned this discussion into a giant tangent, something Quiddity "hoped it won't become". I am not going to reply to all of that because I do not want to legitimize and perpetuate this sort of behavior which almost led to us being topic banned a few months back. But one thing I will say is that I have no interest in deleting information that is properly cited and is actually supported by a source. But if material is improperly cited and is not supported by its source and is instead made up, then yes, I might try to delete it. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So I will ask again. If there is no consensus that this article accurately represents the extent to which the sources criticize BCA, then why do we have an FAQ that says exactly that? Shouldn't the FAQ also express the opinion that the article has a POV problem? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not when it's the opinion of one editor. Have you read WP:Consensus recently? It does not mean "unanimous"; in fact it specifically states exactly that in the second sentence. (If it did mean "unanimous", we'd have to take the breatharians seriously...)
 * If the article really had a POV problem, (ie. If it didn't match what the sources say), then we'd put a POV tag on the article itself. But it doesn't have that problem, because it does match the sources. –Quiddity (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I can't speak for them but I think there were plenty of other editors that agree that this article has problems - Senra, Drmies, GabrielF, Amadscientist. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And we did have a POV tag until WhatamIdoing removed it because there is not an "ongoing dispute". So basically what you're saying is that articles can only have POV problems if an editor is actively trying to solve the issue? If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it really make a sound? Maybe we should add the POV tag again? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. There were many editors who explained to you, earlier this year (now in Talk:Breast cancer awareness/Archive 6), that tags like that require specific objections. Your abstract denouncements are not helpful. Please object to something specifically, or stop making massively generalized and over-emphatic statements. –Quiddity (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles might have POV problems under many circumstances, but they may only be tagged as having POV problems if an editor is actively trying to solve the issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then can we add that this article has POV problems to the FAQ? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Scroll up to the FAQ, and click the word "prominence". Read that. (The FAQ is attempting to convey the notion that we keep repeating to you, that the article should match the available reliable sources. I.e. It's answering your pov-objections, and suggests the only available course of action: Find more sources that convey additional information.) –Quiddity (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already read the entire WP:NPOV policy, including the WP:UNDUE weight section. I have reviewed most of the sources, and I do not believe that this article accurately represents the prominence and the severity of the criticisms expressed by the sources. I believe that this article lends undue weight to criticisms. That's my entire point. Why do I keep having to spell it out?
 * You apparently believe the opposite - that this wikipedia article accurately represents the prominence of the criticisms in the sources. Thus, there is no consensus on the matter. However, the FAQ says that there is a consensus, and that is not true. Thus, it is propaganda designed to push a POV. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You keep having to "spell it out" because you're not convincing us. There is only one way to convince experienced Wikipedia editors:  show your sources.  You say  "I do not believe that this article accurately represents the prominence and the severity of the criticisms expressed by the sources", but what we need is something like "See this book?  See this chapter titled 'BCA is practically perfect in every way, especially scientifically'?  See this article titled 'Criticism of BCA is overblown'?  See this other book, called BCA orgs are selfless, thrifty and never, ever scams?"
 * You never say things like that. You never provide sources that offer a different perspective beyond the trivial primary source personal anecdote or a passing mention.  You never even say, "Look at these three pages in this 300-page-long book that we're citing.  That's mostly positive information; why don't we emphasize those three pages more than the other 297?"  We haven't been convinced that this article fails to represent other reliably published views because we can't find reliable sources that actually contain the view that you want.  And since you haven't ever provided secondary sources that are directly about BCA and conclude that it is truly wonderful, then I assume that you, too, have only seen sources that conclude that BCA is a flawed movement in need of reform.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, naturally, given your extremely restricted definition of an acceptable source for this article, it is much, much easier to find critical material than neutral or positive material. That's the nature of sociology. I am not of the view that BCA is "truly wonderful" or that it is "practically perfect in every way". Please stop trying to mischaracterize me.
 * Sulik, Ehrenreich, and Ave, just to name a few, all said positive things about BCA. I mean, given the way Sulik's book is/was portrayed by this article, and how it is the primary source used, I was extremely surprised to hear what she actually had to say when I read it. Both Ave and Sulik refer to BCA as "not a big conspiracy" and say things like "BCA is not all bad." Sulik and Ehrenreich talk about positive aspects of the movement and how much progress it's made in the world of breast cancer and the lives of patients. Sure, there is a strong case that some aspects of the movement have been corrupted in recent years, but the majority of the movement over the entirety of the movement has been a big success, but this article couldn't care less. I mean pretty much anything that goes anywhere near the pharmaceutical industry is going to become corrupt. That isn't BCA's fault. Yet it is demonized by this article. Might I also add that pretty much every other sociopolitical issue in America has aspects of corruption in it. Breast cancer awareness is no exception. But that doesn't make it worse than all the other issues out there. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So, again, I request that you propose an addition to the article based on those sources.
 * I'm having trouble believing that this article simply demonizes BCA (given, e.g., a 100% positive lead), but if there is positive material that isn't included, then please suggest some actual sentences or paragraphs of positive material that we could add. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I see this article is still being shepherded and that the recent national election has taught them nothing. I shutter to think how much real progress will be, and has been, lost to this sort of never-ending (aka, wp:undue), overly harsh (wp:npov), and most importantly unhelpful (because it seems to be for the purpose of patting itself on the back more than anything else; wp:win) feel-good criticism/outrage. Recent events should make that clear better than my arguments ever could. Whatever is claimed to be in "the sources," common sense should inform you that the amount of weight placed on critique in this article is extremely undue. I'd ask you to look at another article and compare the length and depth of the detail, but I'm struggling to come up with a similar article. I bet there are sociology textbooks that go into less sociological detail about pre-determined scripts and "the process of benefit finding." It's just so utterly unencyclopedic.

I can't do anything about it and honestly you probably can't either. Just want to leave this here in hopes of changing the shepherders' minds.

Signed,

an actual leftist

MidnightRequestLine (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Breast Cancer As a Brand section
I very well may just be reading into it too much, or it might just be a knee-jerk reaction, but I feel like the "Breast cancer as a brand" section carries a little too much bias, or maybe is written too much like an advertisement. I'm not 100% certain, but the section just seems... wrong.

These are the passages that jump out as a bit off:
 * "Breast cancer advocacy uses the pink ribbon and the color pink as a concept brand to raise money and increase screening. The breast cancer brand is strong: people who support the \"pink brand\" are members of the socially aware niche market, who are in favor of improved lives for women, believe in positive thinking, trust biomedical science to be able to solve any problem if given enough money, and prefer curative treatments to prevention." I feel like 'socially aware niche market' carries a sort of "elite club of people who care about truly important things" connotation, or at least some slightly pretentious ring to it.
 * "The brand ties together fear of cancer, hope for early identification and successful treatment, and the moral goodness of women with breast cancer &lb;...&rb;" (emphasis mine): I honestly am a bit confused as to what this means- is it saying all women with breast cancer are automatically good people? Does it mean they're recognizing that many such women are good? I'm genuinely unsure. It could just be phrased poorly, but it almost sounds like an attempt to promote the brand. "We here at McMichaelson's recognize the moral goodness of women with breast cancer" would not seem out of place in an ad. I'm not sure how to put this in words, really, but it seems strange.

I've tried as best I can to phrase this so as to not seem like a rant, at the same time trying to turn my issues with the article into words, but any touchy subject like this is hard to criticize effectively. We've all lost someone to cancer, myself included, but I feel that the article seems like an advertisement more than an encyclopedia. Hppavilion1 (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I've checked the citations in that section, and they appear to be to books directly critical of the brand. So, I'm not exactly sure what's going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hppavilion1 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with your sentiment. I think the word you're looking for is "unencyclopedic." Much of this article is strikingly inappropriate material for an encyclopedia. I think it's particularly bad in the "social role of the woman with breast cancer" section (especially "the she-ro"). I'd honestly support deleting the entire she-ro section, or condensing it to a sentence or two and adding it to an adjacent section, something like, "Sociologist Gayle Sulik calls the stereotype of the breast cancer patient "the she-ro," and would support deleting large parts of the general "social role" section.


 * I am unable to articulate a better reason than "unencyclopedic" (not to say that a better editor than me couldn't), but I think it's glaringly obvious that large portions of this article way too detailed, non-factual, opinionated/narrative-driven, and quite simply not the sort of material that is included in encyclopedias and is not seen anywhere else on wikipedia that I'm aware of. Does the page about marijuana include dozens of paragraphs analyzing "the social role of the stoner?" And frankly, the fact that this material is here (and that so much of it is here) reflects rather poorly on both the anti-pink movement as well as wikipedia, because since it looks so out of place, it leaves the reader to believe that petty activists have forced it onto here, which makes it appear as if wikipedia gives more leeway to some issues than others.


 * By the way, I think you misinterpreted the meaning of those passages a bit, but it's unsurprising that you picked up that they are out of place in an encyclopedia, because as unbelievable as it may sound, they're tongue in cheek. It's literally saying "people who support the pink brand trust biomedical science." It's not calling them elite. Quite the opposite. Many parts of this article have this strange sort of sarcastic tone, which is just as inappropriate to wikipedia as the content itself. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When the "opinion" is widely held by mainstream academics in the relevant field, then it's not "too opinionated" for the encyclopedia.
 * Editors who are unfamiliar with the academic literature often seem to be surprised by the actual academic POV on this subject, since it contrasts so starkly with the POV of their nice neighbors or the human-interest news fillers they see on television. I recommend finding and reading a few solid, recent academic books on the subject.  This one is more recent and from a highly reputable university press, so it might be a good place to start:
 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are why Trump won, and why he'll win again. Hope you're enjoying the fruits of your labor. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are why Trump won, and why he'll win again. Hope you're enjoying the fruits of your labor. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Tone
I am not an expert in the area of sociology by any means but the tone, among other issues, in much of this article seems off. To me the following two passages are good examples

"The effort of maintaining the role of a she-ro can be stressful. The role encourages women with breast cancer to care for others rather than themselves."

"The suffering, particularly the extended suffering of months of chemotherapy and radiation treatment, forms a metaphorical type of ordeal or rite of passage that initiates women into the inner circle of breast cancer culture."

These seem like very subjective statements that could be better worded by placing them in the context of what certain authors in the literature describe. "Sulik has has been critical of breast cancer culture, believing that it treats cancer as a damaging rite of passage rather than as an illness" This is not well written but it is objective in a way that the article, as written, is not.

To be clear I am not necessarily disagreeing with the content, but the length, tone, and avant-garde writing strike me as inappropriate for Wikipedia. This article bases far too much of its text on Sulik. Additionally the parenthetical citation format used is inconsistent with all other articles.

--47.14.19.23 (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this is the first time I've ever been accused of having an avant garde writing style. ;-)
 * If you can find an academic source that says the social expectations for a (Western) woman with breast cancer do not produce stress, or that women aren't expected to be caregivers even when they're sick, or that comparing illness to a rite of passage is only one expert's personal opinion and not a common metaphor, then I'd be happy to update the article to reflect those sources. I very strongly doubt that you will be able to find such sources, but I'm absolutely open to revising the article if high-quality sources provide differing perspectives.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)