Talk:Breast cancer awareness

src: amdamalaysia.com

Video Talk:Breast cancer awareness

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#FAQ at top of page, 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#FAQ at top of page), 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)

Maps Talk:Breast cancer awareness

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

src: res.amazingwristbands.com

Proposal to shorten the article

If possible I'd like to gain a consensus to delete the sub-sections "The she-ro" and "consequences" under the "Social role of the woman with breast cancer" section in order to shorten the article because I believe that all of the material in those sections is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, with the possible exception of the second paragraph of "consequences," which talks about how breast cancer culture is ill-equipped to deal with people who've died of breast cancer. I think that paragraph is more encyclopedic and could be slid into the "Breast cancer culture" section just below. Thanks MidnightRequestLine (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

src: disabilityhorizons.com

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 o 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:

Stach, Patricia (2016). Hiding politics in plain sight : cause marketing, corporate influence, and breast cancer policymaking. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190606848. OCLC 945434022. 

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia