Talk:Breast cancer awareness/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Environmental breast cancer movement section

This section was tagged in December 2012. Would the person that tagged it please list their problems so they may be addressed? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If memory serves, the complaint was basically that someone didn't want Komen named as not being an environmental group, and so undertook a search to find some evidence, however limited, to disprove it. The IOM review was added solely as an effort to reposition Komen as being part of the environmental breast cancer movement. (The original text hyped the study as costing a million dollars and being paid for by Komen. The facts that would help a reader contextualize those details, e.g., that more than 99.95% of Komen's money went elsewhere, were omitted.)

So far as I know, there are no current issues there, except that the facts of the IOM study should be re-written to simply present its conclusions (which are: the environmental breast cancer groups were right when they claimed that there's been precious little decent research done). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'd like to remove the tag--three different times I've read blogs where WP tags were mentioned and people misunderstand them. People make statements like, "Yes! It was so bad that the administrators had to step in and put a notice on the page!!!" It is hard for non editors to understand that there are no knowledgeable wise ones here--we all monitor ourselves. :-) BTW, I did find this: [1] I don't know if it's helpful or not.Gandydancer (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's typical, and I recall a scandal over them selling a carcinogen-containing perfume as well, but it's not really needed as a source, because we already have top-quality sources that call out Komen as an example of a non-environmental breast cancer group. (Your source might be useful in the article about Komen itself.) Komen is a service organization. There's nothing wrong with that; in fact, breast cancer patients benefit more immediately from service organizations than from environmental advocacy. I think it's hard for some people to believe that it's possible for a group to be very valuable and not be focused on environmental research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag without consensus. I for one disagree. I also think you should contact GabrielB, the editor that originally placed the tag. Charles35 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Please list your concerns. Biosthmors (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles, for reasons mentioned above I get very peeved with editors that tag articles but make no effort what so ever to explain their problems with the article. Then the tag sometimes sits there for years on end. I found no user or talk page for this editor, not that it should be up to me to find him/her in the first place. I would like to see this tag removed. Please list your objections so we can attempt to remedy them. Gandydancer (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it was user:GabrielF. Charles35 (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a note on his/her page. Do you have any issues? Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO, the section, not to mention the entire article, is not neutral and lends undue weight (a lot of undue weight) to critical views. The section does not recognize the shortcomings of the critical views nor does it recognize the redeeming qualities of those that are actually attempting to help and not just complaining. Charles35 (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That part of the BCA movement basically is one big complaint. They criticize pretty much everyone, beginning with businesses and governments and going right on down the list through service organizations, women with breast cancer, and anyone who supports mainstream charities.

What do you think the non-complaining "redeeming qualities" of the environmental movement are? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles, as an experienced editor you know that to say that your complaint with this section is, "the section, not to mention the entire article, is not neutral and lends undue weight (a lot of undue weight) to critical views" leaves other editors nothing to work with. I work on some difficult articles that discuss women's issues, for instance the abortion article. What good would it do to go to that article, which frankly comes across as pro-choice, and say you object to a section because "the section, not to mention the entire article, is not neutral and lends undue weight (a lot of undue weight) to critical views"? Gandydancer (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the changes made during the last few months to this section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Old	Current	Changes
Most of the money raised by advocates is spent on advertising, increased awareness, cancer screening, and existing treatments (Ave 2006). 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. To the dismay of advocates like Breast Cancer Action and women's health issues scholar Samantha King, relatively little money or attention is devoted to identifying the non-genetic causes of breast cancer or taking steps to prevent breast cancer from occurring (Ave 2006). The mainstream breast cancer culture is focused on a cure for existing breast cancer cases, rather than on preventing future cases.	Most of the money raised by advocates is spent on cancer screening and existing treatments (Ave 2006). 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. To the dismay of advocates like Breast Cancer Action and women's health issues scholar Samantha King (the author whose book inspired the 2011 documentary Pink Ribbons, Inc.), relatively little money or attention is devoted to identifying the non-genetic causes of breast cancer or taking steps to prevent breast cancer from occurring (Ave 2006). The mainstream breast cancer culture is focused on a cure for existing breast cancer cases, rather than on preventing future cases (Ave 2006, King 2006, page 38).	Removes mention of breast cancer awareness (ads, educational materials, etc.) as something that costs money from first sentence. Adds [possibly redundant] source at end.
As a result, screening mammography is promoted by the breast cancer industry as the sole possible approach to public health for breast cancer (Sulik 2010, page 204). Alternatives, such as pollution prevention, are largely ignored.	As a result, screening mammography is promoted by the breast cancer industry as the sole possible approach to public health for breast cancer (Sulik 2010, page 204). Alternatives, such as pollution prevention, are largely ignored.	(No changes)
As the majority of women with breast cancer have no risk factors other than sex and age, the environmental breast cancer movement suspects pollution as a significant cause, possibly from pesticides, plastics, or petroleum products (Ehrenreich 2001). The largest organizations, particularly Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the American Cancer Society, are not part of the environmental breast cancer movement (Ehrenreich 2001). 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).	As the majority of women with breast cancer have no risk factors other than sex and age, the environmental breast cancer movement suspects pollution as a significant cause, possibly from pesticides, plastics, and industrial runoff in ground water (Ehrenreich 2001). Large organizations, such as Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the American Cancer Society, are not part of the environmental breast cancer movement (Ehrenreich 2001).	Changes petroleum products to industrial wastes. Removes sourced mention of pinkwashing (an important term now entirely missing from the article), the precautionary principle, and the suspected link between corporate sponsorships and a lack of advocacy for pollution-related research from the major organizations.
(Nothing)	A 2011 literature review carried out by the Institute of Medicine reported that the environmental factors that show "the most consistent evidence of a link with increased breast cancer risk included ionizing radiation, combination estrogen–progestin hormone therapy, and greater postmenopausal weight....for many other factors, the evidence from human studies is more limited, contradictory, or absent" and called for additional research (Institute of Medicine 2011). Conducting research into whether a chemical causes cancer is difficult, because "suspect chemicals cannot ethically be given to people to see if they cause cancer. People exposed in the past can be studied, but information about the dose and timing may be sketchy. Animal studies can provide useful information, but do not always apply to humans. And people are often exposed to mixtures of chemicals that may interact in complex ways, with effects that may also vary depending on an individual's genetic makeup" (Grady 2011).	Adds new, detailed paragraph about one publication.
Samantha King says that prevention research is minimized by the breast cancer industry because there is no way to make money off of cases of breast cancer that do not happen, whereas a mammography imaging system that finds more possible cancers, or a "magic bullet" that kills confirmed cancers, would be highly profitable (King 2006, page 38). This prejudice applies equally to breast cancer organizations, because a reliable form of prevention would deplete their future supply of dedicated volunteers.	Samantha King says that prevention research is minimized by the breast cancer industry because there is no way to make money off of cases of breast cancer that do not happen, whereas a mammography imaging system that finds more possible cancers, or a "magic bullet" that kills confirmed cancers, would be highly profitable (King 2006, page 38).	Removes last sentence about the effect of "perfect" prevention on organizations that rely on patients and loved ones for the org's own survival.

It seems to me that there is a trend in the kind of information that was removed from this section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to return this information:

The largest organizations, particularly Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the American Cancer Society, are not part of the environmental breast cancer movement (Ehrenreich 2001). 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).

Is there any objection? Gandydancer (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at the reason it was removed in the first place before we reinstate it. Charles35 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please consider incorporating these changes that I made according to the rationale I gave. Charles35 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not do anything without speaking to user:GabrielF, who confirmed that the King sentence was not attributable to that source. Charles35 (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

To sum up, the first sentence you would like to reinstate was changed because the source does not portray it as a "trend". It only mentions those organizations. I don't think there's much you can argue there, but feel free to give it a shot. The second sentence was not in the citation given. However, I'm certainly receptive to any reasons you might have. Charles35 (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither of these sentences contains the word trend, so why does the absence of that term from the cited source matter? (The word does appear on the first page of King's book, by the way.)

The main thesis behind King's entire book is that corporate sponsorships are problematic because of pinkwashing, and the first few pages certainly do say that Komen is a major beneficiary of corporate sponsorships. Page 1 of the book is a quick history of Komen's pioneering work in cause-related corporate marketing. Perhaps you should read the book for yourself, rather than relying on a tag left by someone else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"The largest organizations, particularly X and Y..." implies that it is some sort of a "trend" among "the largest organizations". The word "trend" is simply a word that I introduced to describe the implication of that sentence. It sounds like it is talking about all of the largest organizations (ie the nasty corrupt commercial consumer ones). In Ehrenreich's article, she only mentions the 2 and doesn't portray it to be a trend among the largest organizations. The text I changed it to, "Large organizations, such as..." does somewhat of a better job of accurately reflecting the meaning of the source. On re-examination, however, it does not seem perfect, and maybe it would be a better idea to take out "large organizations" altogether and just have "X and Y are not a part of the environmental breast cancer movement..." Charles35 (talk)

As for King, you'll have to talk to user:GabrielF. Charles35 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not believe that it implies a trend at all and I can't understand where you are getting that idea. As for waiting for GabrielF, in my experience WP does not work like that. I am waiting out of courtesy to you and him/her, not because policy suggests that we notify editors that have made edits in the past before we move forward. Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles, I think that you've correctly understood the sentence. The "implication" is that the environmental breast cancer organizations are all small. Take a look at this list. Do those look like large organizations to you? Do you recognize any names there? I have heard of two. Do you see any big budgets? I don't.

The largest environmental org (as measured by expenses) is probably the Breast Cancer Fund. They spend, in the course of a year, what the American Cancer Society spends in a single day. This objective fact doesn't mean that the big groups are bad, or that the little groups are good. (In fact, it may say something about the environmental groups' tendency to splinter and bicker.) It's just a fact: the big players aren't in this sub-movement. This sub-movement is not where either the money or the popular support is. The belief that the big groups are bad for focusing on service to today's patients and survivors instead of preventing the next generation's cases is your own value judgment. That's not in the text. The text only reports a fact: the environmental breast cancer orgs are small and don't get corporate funding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

WARNING: this is going to look very TL;DR-ish and un-concise, but much of it is quotations, so it's not as long as it looks. Charles35 (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've heard of 1-2, but I don't know squat about BCA organizations so I'm probably not the right one to ask. The only ones I've heard of are the ones I've read about in this wikipedia article (as I've said, I am not here because I am a breast cancer advocate, I'm here for the POV removal). So, I've heard of BCF and also BCAction. I induce, from what I have read in this article, that BCAction likely has a relatively large budget. However, this is your own research, and that list is not exhaustive. You need a reliable source to say this, and Ehrenreich does not say this. There's not much else to it.

On a separate note, I think you spelled out pretty clearly the POV issue with this article (this should be of interest to Gandydancer and the whole tag-dispute) when you said:

"The belief that the big groups are bad for focusing on service to today's patients and survivors instead of preventing the next generation's cases is your own value judgment. That's not in the text. The text only reports a fact: the environmental breast cancer orgs are small and don't get corporate funding."

The text doesn't just report the facts. The text, many times over, makes the value judgement you described. It makes it both explicitly and implicitly. For example, sentences like this one make the moral judgement implicitly: "The brand ties together fear of cancer, hope for early identification and successful treatment, and the moral goodness of women with breast cancer and anyone who visibly identifies themselves with breast cancer patients." Seriously, when you put it like that, the moral judgement is glaringly obvious. There's no reason you would analyze these concepts and pick things apart if you weren't trying to say that the movement is morally flawed: "They also reinforce the cultural connection between each individual's physical fitness and moral fitness."

And then, you also have the blatant, explicit value judgements: "Although advertising costs are rarely disclosed, some companies have been found to spend far more money advertising "pink products" and tie-ins than they donate to charitable organizations supporting research or patients." In this instance, I believe the article is excessively cherrypicking, choosing to report the sources and the examples that support the critical POV: "For example, in 2005, 3M spent US $500,000 advertising post-it notes printed with a pink ribbon logo. Sales were nearly double what the company expected, but the campaign resulted in a $300,000 donation." There are plenty of instances where blanket statements are made based on sources that are reporting the words of a specific individual. Many of these are from Sulik. For example, this generalization is based on a case report of a BC survivor named "Barbara": "Anger, negativity and fatalism transgress the feeling rules, and women with breast cancer who express anger or negativity are corrected by other women with breast cancer and members of the breast cancer support organizations." On the other hand, whenever someone tries to add material based on an individual that supports a positive, non-critical view, WhatamIdoing and (previously) WLU, would not allow it. Consider the bald women, which WLU didn't like, and the "doctor in Egypt [who] wishes there was more awareness of breast cancer in Egypt", which WhatamIdoing didn't like. Charles35 (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I just don't know how to respond. "The brand says that these people are morally good—good, and do go read the dictionary definition if you need to—and by saying that they are morally good, you think that we're judging them to be morally bad?

And what does that (fully sourced) sentence halfway across the article have to do with this sentence or the tag in this section? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem like you're implying that they are morally bad. It feels very tongue-in-cheek. Do you go out of your way to say that advocates for euthanasia or some other social issue are "morally good" people? It should go without saying. Charles35 (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, what does that have to do with this sentence? Do you find the words "morally good" in this sentence? Or are you just obstructing work on this sentence because you're unhappy about something that was said three screenfuls ago? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles, I can see that you are intelligent and sincere, but it is my impression that your objections to:

The largest organizations, particularly Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the American Cancer Society, are not part of the environmental breast cancer movement (Ehrenreich 2001). 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).

...are all over the place but without substance and end up sounding like, "I just don't like it". Incidentally, interestingly, I am presently working on the BPA article and the EPA has recently posted a paper with a question related to a search for alternate chemicals to BPA. If you are at all political you may have seen these on the net, where corporations and individuals are welcomed to comment to the EPA. At any rate, the only breast cancer comments were not from the large foundations but rather a small "New York Women for BC Awareness" (or whatever--other than NY I just made that up because I forget the exact name :)). Gandydancer (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"sounding like, "I just don't like it" - You've made no arguments for why the material should be included other than "I would like to return this information". I gave you very clear reasons for why this particular material shouldn't be included. As is the norm on this talk page, we got very sidetracked. I will reiterate for you:

To sum up, the first sentence you would like to reinstate was changed because the source does not portray it as a "trend". It only mentions those organizations. The second sentence was not in the citation given.

All that you've said in response is "No, I do not believe that it implies a trend at all" (or in other words, "I disagree, and therefore we are adding my proposed changes"). And I request you prove that the second sentence, which was verified by another editor as not being in the source, is in fact in the source before you add that material. Charles35 (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If you prove that the second sentence is in the source, then by all means go ahead. But the Ehrenreich source does not show that it is a trend among "the largest organizations". It very well may be a trend, but you need a reliable source that says this in order to add it to the article. WhatamIdoing agreed with my interpretation of the sentence. Charles35 (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I still do not understand why you keep speaking of a trend. It seems like a straw man to me. WhatamIdoing, he has asked for this wording, "Large organizations, such as Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the American Cancer Society, are not part...". I see no problem with that...do you? Gandydancer (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. My goal is to make sure the reader correctly understands that environmental BCA is a minority movement, rather than the mainstream position promoted by the big players. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Some people misunderstand the consensus method of agreement. It does not mean that one editor may drag discussion out to eternity as seems to be the case here. Looking back I find that at one point that was Charles' main disagreement. Would you be willing to return that information with the tweak that Charles wants and remove the tag? Gandydancer (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone holds that interpretation of consensus. You've dragged this out just as much as I have. The only time I comment hear is when I respond to you. Charles35 (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW Charles, you seem to me to be incredibly naive. You seem to really have no understanding of how downright demonic some people can become when it comes to cashing in on medical-related issues. I could easily list dozens right off the top of my head, but perhaps the most heart wrenching are those related to babies and children. Are you aware of the Nestle controversy? Please read this article when time permits: [2] Gandydancer (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a straw man to me. - Well, you're wrong.

BTW Charles, you seem to me to be incredibly naive. - If you're not already aware of your condescending attitude, you are now. While I do think "cashing in on medical-related issues" is morally wrong, I don't edit out of emotion. The purpose of wikipedia is not to right great wrongs. My reason for editing (this article) is to eliminate biased POVs. It isn't because I care about the issues. Caring about the issues directly leads to violating the WP:NPOV policy. Charles35 (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles, you are exhausting. I spent a little time looking back and it seems that you just wear people down and they prefer to move on. I have other articles that are important to me as well and I have no intention of spending all of my time and interest on this one. I see that you are fairly new here. In time you may come to find, as I have, that you never will agree with some Wikipedia articles. Some I have removed from my watch list and I continue to watch others but rarely make a comment. Also, I'd suggest that editors that find themselves frustrated find an article that really needs a lot of work but most likely will not face endless controversy. For instance I made the yodeling article from just a few paragraphs to what you now find. Such work balances my often frustrating work on controversial articles which form the core of my interest here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You keep responding just the same as I do? I wouldn't have anything to say if you didn't keep saying things to me. Stop commenting on me as an editor (really, stop it), stop trying to sneak little bits from articles like civil pov pushing into here (ie "you just wear people down") to make your point, and stop talking about how long I've been editing. Charles35 (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact, let's just stop talking about this altogether. The only reason I keep responding is because you sneak in little things like "you just wear people down", trying to compromise my reputation as an editor. I don't want to leave that unanswered for people to see. So, people, if you see this, know that whatever snide remarks gandydancer tries to pull, they are empty and would have been refuted by myself if I wasn't trying to put an end to this nonsense right now. Charles35 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words, gandydancer, you can have the last word. Go ahead Charles35 (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's wrap this up

Okay, I can agree to a consensus if we complete these objectives:

• We keep "Some large organizations" because it's important to accurately represent Ehrenreich's article.
• We move the paragraph about the report from the Institute of Medicine to the top of the section. The reason the section's neutrality is disputed is because it is fundamentally critical in its current state. It doesn't take a neutral approach to the issue. If we start out with the neutral information (ie the part about how it is difficult to find evidence about environmental risks), and then introduce the criticism, then I think it would be reasonable to remove the tag. The section is titled "Environmental breast cancer movement", not "Criticism of..." Since the neutral information is currently a response to the criticism, the section is not neutral. If the section was structured so that the criticism is responding to the neutral info, then it would be neutral IMO.
• We do not add the sentence from King until it is proven that it is in fact in the source.
• Remove "to the dismay of".  Done...or not?

If we can complete those objectives, then I can support removal of the tag. Charles35 (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No.

1. "Some large organizations" materially misleads the reader into believing that some large orgs are EBCM orgs, and possibly even that most large orgs are. We normally use the word some to indicate more than a couple, but less than half. No large organizations are environmental breast cancer organizations. That's a fact that you've never been able to refute. Not only are the EBCM orgs individually small, the entire EBC movement is "small". Why do you keep wanting to portray this minority sub-movement as being big? It's not.

   Okay, I agree with this logic. I will change it back. Charles35 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

2. The section is about the orgs, not about the state of research. The IOM report is barely relevant. All it does is prove that the environmental orgs are correct: almost no good research has ever been done on pollution and prevention. We could source that to any number of books already cited. This is not Breast cancer prevention or Risk factors for breast cancer, where scientific information belongs; this is about people and organizations and politics.

   I do understand your point, but I think that neutrality is key here and that the section should begin with neutral information and be responded to with critical info. The section is extremely lacking in info about what these organizations are actually doing, but has more than sufficiently elaborated on the things that these organizations are complaining about. If we were to begin with info about actions being taken by these orgs, than that would satisfy the concern. The important thing is to begin the section with neutral info and have the criticism be a response. On the other hand, if we were to rename this section to denote that the focus of it is criticism, then that might solve the issue IMO. Charles35 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

   As far as I can tell, "what these organizations are actually doing" is mostly "criticizing". They criticize non-EBCM charities; they criticize people who support non-EBCM charities; they criticize businesses that screen, diagnose, or treat breast cancer; they criticize businesses that pollute the environment; they criticize governments for permitting pollution; they criticize voters for letting the government overlook pollution; and so forth. The "positive-sounding" achievements seem to be the production of scientifically accurate educational materials (e.g., papers that explain that a mammogram probably isn't going to save your life, although on balance it's probably useful to get one, rather than patient-oriented public health campaigns that oversell the benefits and cover up the downsides).
   Again, neutral doesn't mean uncritical. It means a fair description, based on what the sources say. The independent reliable sources don't credit the EBCM with any practical successes. They have passed no anti-pollution legislation, they have obtained no money to clean up pollution or to run the research that's needed, they have actually achieved very little (so far). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

   Also, the IOM paragraph would provide some context for the current state of the matter and might shed some light on why larger orgs aren't active. Charles35 (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

   We don't need the IOM paper to say that little research has been done to date. We can cite King or Sulik or several other sources on that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

   The current paragraph (which also contains Grady, let's not forget) has good details that are short and to the point. It says more than simply "little research has been done" and you aren't going to find much/most of that in King. It is also authoritative and neutral/factual (instead of argumentative, like King). It's good to get a more diverse range of sources, especially in order to achieve neutrality. Remember that one of user:Drmies' main concerns is the fact that Sulik is cited disproportionately high in this article. Charles35 (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

   You clearly haven't read King's book, so on what basis are you asserting that she doesn't talk about environmental research? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

   The basis that another editor verified that the material was not in the book. The burden of proof lies on the editor adding the material. Charles35 (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

3. Why don't you go read King for yourself? Try reading the entire book. I have, and I'm confident that the sentence is easily verifiable in her book. If you don't want to read the book, then try reading just the introduction. It's a good summary and will give you an idea of King's views and the subjects she covers.

   If it is obviously in the source as you say, then why don't you just give us a brief excerpt to prove it like you did here? Charles35 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

   Because typing up whole pages might be a copyright violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

   A sentence or two should do, as long as it gets the point across. I mean, you wrote 4 sentences from Olson... Charles35 (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

   A sentence or two will not be sufficient. If there were two short sentences that said all of this, the I would have already posted them. The development of cause-related corporate sponsorship specifically at Komen is a subject that she spends almost the entire first chapter on. You need to read the book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

   The citation is only for 2 pages. I'm sure there's a reason you chose those two pages and didn't simply cite the entire book. What made you choose those 2 pages? I'm sure you can find one sentence that supports the material, especially with such a specific concept as the "precautionary principle". I hope that's not original research. Editors should not come up with a novel ideas like that. If King uses that concept, but not in those two pages, and you feel that it is connected to the other concepts on those 2 pages, then feel free to cite two parts of the book. I understand your point about editorial discretion and reading the entire book. Charles35 (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

4. Why should we remove that? These activists are dismayed by the choices that other groups make. I'm sure that PETA activists and Greenpeace activists are also dismayed by the choices that the big environmental groups make, too. Why shouldn't we accurately characterize their unhappiness? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

   I think we should remove it and replace it with something less dramatic that still gets the point across. This is not hugely important but I think it would be beneficial for the purpose of removing the NPOV tag. Charles35 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

   There's nothing "dramatic" about dismay. Saying that they are discontent (a character flaw in Western culture that is associated with holding grudges or rebelling against authority) is not at all an improvement over saying that they are dismayed. Anyone can be dismayed: it means being upset or perturbed, especially if you're sad and discouraged rather than angry or rebellious. Discontented is erroneous and insulting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Charles about the word "dismay". It just does not sound very encyclopedic to me. Gandydancer (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay whatamidoing, I'm sorry that I didn't conduct a full analysis of Western culture for the choice of a single word. Go ahead and change it to whatever you want as long as it's more encyclopedic than dismayed. Maybe "frustrated" or "dissatisfied" could work? Charles35 (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles, you are damned irritating. WhatamIdoing had not responded to the suggestion that the word dismayed be changed and yet you go ahead and check it off as a done deal. WhatamIdoing, please go ahead and make the changes that you feel to be appropriate and I will back you. WP is not supposed to be like this. This is the sort of editing that has caused so many good editors to leave WP for good. Charles should not be allowed to chase long-standing good editors away from our 'pedia. Gandydancer (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay. I've tried unhappy; does that work for you?

I've also added the sentence about pinkwashing and corporate sponsorships. I know that providing citations to four chapters in two books is overkill, since that sentence is mostly a summary of the immediately previous section, but Charles seems to prefer to have the same facts cited every single time they appear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. I thought it was done? I told her to go ahead and change it if she wanted, and she didn't. She responded to other issues, so I thought she was all good with it. Relax. Regrettably, I have to go ahead and withdraw from this conversation on account of how rude and aggressive you are. Consider this issue closed with no consensus and therefore no changes to the section will be implemented because none can be agreed upon. Charles35 (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought it would be convenient to check it off (like I did with the first one by striking it out) so that we could neatly focus on the other ones. Jeez. I didn't have any malicious intent. Nice to know that you support edits based on your preference for the person making the edit and not the actual material.

Things were actually going pretty smooth until you showed up. I thought whatamidoing and I were working more reasonably towards a consensus. However, regrettably, now I will have to default my opinions to automatically disagreeing with any changes here because I simply can no longer force myself to take part in this conversation. That was a personal attack and this conversation is no longer civil. Charles35 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've worked with Gandydancer in more contentious circumstances, and I find her to be helpful and calm. If you don't choose to participate in this article at all, then that's your choice, but there is no "take my ball and go home" notion of consensus here. If you don't choose to participate, then your "automatic disagreement" is irrelevant.

Along those lines, you might want to read WP:DIVA and meatball:GoodBye. Announcing that everyone is being so mean to you that you are going to leave is not a behavior that will improve your reputation. This is not the first time you've made a pronouncement like this, but I hope it will be the last. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't choose to withdraw from this article entirely, but from this particular conversation. I've already read both of those articles as well as the other ones you like to link to. Seriously, you are obsessed with analyzing "wikigoodbyes" and too over-eager to characterize all of them as exploitative. I don't think that you and the other editors here depend on my knowledge or that you even want me here. I'm not trying to elicit a "please don't go!" It would be absurd of me to think you'd ever have that reaction. I'm not trying to exploit you or anyone else into agreeing with me. I am simply having an extremely difficult time forcing myself to participate in such an acrimonious conversation. Charles35 (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that I did act in an uncivil manner and I apologize. Gandydancer (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. Charles35 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The issues have been discussed at length. I have not seen any support for the suggestion that the paragraphs be rearranged. I have removed the tag. Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Awareness and detection

Some discussion is in Austoker J, Bankhead C, Forbes LJ; et al. (2009). "Interventions to promote cancer awareness and early presentation: systematic review". Br. J. Cancer. 101 Suppl 2: S31–9. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605388. PMC 2790702. PMID 19956160. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Biosthmors (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And this discussion contradicts the message behind this edit. Breastcancer.org is not an independent source for these types of statements. Wikipedia is based off of independent sources. Get a real source please, like the one above. Biosthmors (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles has repeatedly added this:

* As a result of awareness efforts, more effective screening programs, and scientific breakthroughs and associated improvements in breast cancer treatment, the mortality rate from breast cancer has decreased significantly over the past few decades. The death rate for women under 50 has decreased more dramatically than other demographics.<refhttp://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/understand_bc/statistics</ref

I agree that a small non-profit's website is a poor source for a claim about efficacy.

But I don't agree that the problem can be solved by changing the source. The bigger problem is that the first sentence is factually wrong. The latest work says that mortality has dropped almost entirely as a result of three factors:

• overdiagnosis (one-third of mammogram-detected breast cancers are harmless, but if you treat them, you get to count those as "lives saved")
• reductions in HRT use; and
• improved treatment.

Awareness efforts and bigger screening programs are currently believed to have provided very littl of the reduction seen in the last couple of decades in the developed world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe this is your interpretation of the sources choose to report. However, I am not going to delve into this issue for the sake of keeping things simple, concise, and civil here on this talk page. Charles35 (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And I added it once, then removed half of it, and then reverted asked for it to be preserved. It was not disruptive repeat edit warring. Charles35 (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Here, read articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/06/mammogram-on-breast-cancer-mortality-rates.aspx this simple report]. It outlines a few of the recent and important studies on this issue.

I believe that our best course of action is to be silent on this point, because the researchers are revising their views. What you wrote would have been uncontested in the 1990s. As of 2012, it's no longer accepted. The simplest approach at this time is to say nothing at all about this subject in this section. Then we won't be promoting outdated information, but we also won't make too strong a statement while the researchers are deciding just how far to go with this recent data. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Charles. Biosthmors (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality tag?

What specific actionable things need to be fixed about this article now? Above sections are TL:DR. Biosthmors (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And my thanks to all who have improved this article's neutrality over the last few months. Biosthmors (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Positive material needs to be added to balance due weight. Charles35 (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please specify. How is the literature on breast cancer awareness not being represented within the bounds of WP:NPOV? Biosthmors (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In other words, what kind of sources and content should be incorporated, in your opinion? Biosthmors (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

First off, I am not an expert in BCA, wikipedia procedures, or research and sources. My adequacy or lack thereof in identifying worthwhile, reliable sources is not the final word on their existence.

That said, I have no doubt that certain perspectives and sources are not fairly represented in this article. Yes, I do believe that partisan opposition to the currently prevailing perspective should be given more weight (more on this to follow), I think there are more important matters - the article is lacking in neutral content. There should be more purely descriptive, factual, non-partisan, non-argumentative, and non-opinionated content, for instance - results of the various awareness efforts (ie accomplishments - a topic I have created a section to focus on); facts and particulars of the current BCA landscape; stats on fundraising and financial matters; descriptions of particular notable events, fundraisers, campaigns, etc. The purpose of an article on BCA should be to paint a portrait of what is actually going on in the world of BCA and what the actual supporters themselves are doing. It isn't to present abstract arguments about the "shero". Although I do acknowledge that analysis does have a place, it nonetheless should not be the top priority.

Finally, as I touched on above, more weight should be given to arguments that defend or respond to the criticisms, or better yet, arguments/justifications for BCA that exist independent from these criticisms (these criticisms are not the center of the world). You might think such arguments are totally invalid, but the fact that the vast majority of BCA is not critical of itself means that positive arguments for BCA must be out there somewhere. If we must resort to citing Komen itself because the vast majority of critical sociologists are, well, critical sociologists, then maybe that shouldn't be off-limits as long as we clearly attribute those arguments to Komen (eg the already present "Responding to criticism, Komen CEO Nancy G. Brinker said...") Charles35 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

To make an argument an article isn't neutral requires knowledge of the sources; it's not a something someone feels, as with truthiness. And "the NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity", by the way. The "results of the various awareness efforts" are difficult to tease out (see the source in the above section). The purpose of any article is to summarize what reliable third-party sources have said about it. This content is not impressive, by the way. If no reliable third-party sources have covered the perspective of those associated with the subject if the article, that perspective's exclusion could be called for. You could very well be right but please demonstrate it—instead of hypothesizing. This article should definitely include "arguments/justifications for BCA". Including things like "responding to criticism, Komen CEO Nancy G. Brinker said...") could help, but content here "should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Where are the independent sources? What is the missing content? You haven't provided one specific source to act upon. Please do. Biosthmors (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The link supposedly supporting that list in the diff is http://www.prwatch.org/node/7436, and does not mention any of these accomplishments. Additionally, assuming that http://bcaction.org/about/history-victories/ is the intended URL, a charity's own website is a rather dubious source of information about what they've "achieved". It's like citing an advertisement about how much a particular petroleum company hates pollution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what to say to you. I wish you would put 1% of the effort you put into picking apart my contributions and adding multiple tags to each sentence into the rest of the article. It seems like your goal is to drive my ideas (specifically, the neutrality tag) away regardless of the content in the article, and you're citing a bunch of wikirules that I just can't keep up with. I can't seem to put together how objectivity is relevant here, so I can't respond to that. I will continue, as I have been, to look for sources. Usually, these sorts of things happen on the timescale of months or even years. You're demanding me to provide sources in a matter of minutes. I have things to do outside of wikipedia. Please leave the neutrality tag for now. Charles35 (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm surprised you are objecting to that material. If anything, that material supports your viewpoint, and is in accordance with the viewpoint of the rest of the material in this article. Charles35 (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Lastly, I again think you're focusing on my belief that "more weight should be given to arguments that defend or respond to the criticisms". As I have said, that is not the biggest issue here. The biggest issue is the "lack [of] neutral...purely descriptive, factual, non-partisan, non-argumentative, and non-opinionated content." Charles35 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In response to this activist pressure, methyl iodide, the pesticide scientists called “one of the most toxic chemicals on earth,” was pulled from the U.S. market by its manufacturer, Arysta LifeScience Corporation in 2012. Charles35 (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE give me some time and I will provide a full citation for this claim. I don't have time to do it tonight, sorry. From this article - http://www.rodale.com/strawberries-methyl-iodide - it says, "Toxicologist John Froines, PhD, a member of an independent review board that advised against the farm-use approval of methyl iodide, has called it the "most toxic chemical on Earth."" Charles35 (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

We could also use http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/us/20strawberries.html?_r=0 - "“This is without question one of the most toxic chemicals on earth,” said John Froines, professor of environmental health sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles." Charles35 (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In terms of "purely descriptive" material, you have listed the following subjects:

1. results of the various awareness efforts (ie accomplishments - a topic I have created a section to focus on);
2. facts and particulars of the current BCA landscape;
3. stats on fundraising and financial matters;
4. descriptions of particular notable events, fundraisers, campaigns, etc.

Here are the issues with these:

1. Net, awareness has probably done relatively little for post-diagnosis survival, once you start accounting for lead-time bias and the like. It has increased uptake of mammograms and thereby both saved some lives and increased the number of women needlessly diagnosed, needlessly treated, and needlessly suffering from lifelong side effects.
   Its true accomplishment is changing the social landscape for breast cancer. Breast cancer is no longer taboo, women with breast cancer are treated with more respect, patient autonomy is codified in law in the western countries, and breast cancer gets preferential funding at every level. All of this is already in the article, and always has been. What hasn't always been in the article is self-serving statements from specific charities about the specific actions that they want to take credit for, or the isolated "praise-only" section that you've been promoting.
2. I'm not sure how this item is supposed to differ from the current article. Wikipedia is not a directory of breast cancer organizations, and the article already covers the major themes of the "BCA landscape" (cause-related marketing, what the BCA culture believes women should act like, possibility of the charities being captive to their funders, environmental BCM, history of the movement). Can you give a specific example of what you believe is missing in this category?
3. I don't believe that I've ever seen any stats on how much money the entire movement handles. I'm not convinced that it's even possible to get those numbers, since most local charities are not limited to breast cancer, but still support the breast cancer movement. For example, the hospital nearest me has one of those "Reach to Recovery" programs to teach women with breast cancer how to wear wigs and put on makeup. But they also have non-breast-cancer programs, and how would you decide how much of their money was "breast cancer" and how much was all the other cancers? (Or heart disease, or whatever else they might support. I'm not sure that the cancer program is a separate charity from the main hospital charity.) So I haven't seen those numbers, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't exist.

   I will respond to the others when I have more time, but for now real quickly I can say that you're approaching it from a "money spent" perspective. What I had in mind was actually a "money raised" perspective (ie "Walk for BC gains $5m"), but either could work of course if the figures are there. Charles35 (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

   Assuming it's typical of normal charities, the numbers wouldn't be that different anyway (on average, you usually spend nearly everything raised, unless the funds raised were specifically for a permanent endowment, and endowments are far more common for schools than for direct service orgs like these), but I don't believe that they exist. If anyone ever finds them, then of course I'd be happy to include them.
   There are numbers for how much government and charitable money is spent on breast-cancer-related research in the US, but that's not really "awareness", since the US spends a lot of money on diseases people have never heard of. It might be possible to find a number that purports to be how much "excess" money is spent on breast cancer (the amount that might be due to awareness, fundraising, and lobbying by breast cancer orgs), but it's complicated: Do you use YLLs or DALYs to calculate the disease burden? Do you count social research, like surveys about the financial effects of spending six months out of work due to cancer treatment? How do you count research that is trying to make a general statement about all cancers, even though they only studied women with breast cancer? (Breast cancer patients are popular research subjects precisely because their post-treatment lifespan is noticeably longer than average cancer patients'. The result is that some things, like cancer fatigue, have been studied almost exclusively in women with breast cancer.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

4. Wikipedia is not a laundry list of events. I've actually tried to keep this kind of spambait out of this article. Drmies weeded National Breast Cancer Awareness Month recently; if you go look at an old version, you can see a partial list of notable events. I do not believe this article would be improved by adding them here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

the state of this talk page and the purpose of the NPOV tag

Listen, the bottom line is that the NPOV tag is important because it notifies editors who happen to stumble upon the article of the current dispute. Is there a dispute? Yes. It is not a stain on the article or a declaration that there is a POV problem. It only means that the POV is disputed.

The tag is very important for preserving the quality of the article. I don't wish to pick apart every little contribution to this article with you guys. I wish for things to return to the way they were last week - civil and intermittent, so I am going to stop trying to control the situation. Just please do not remove the tag. Disputes needn't be a 24 hour a day thing, and sometimes last for over half a decade. Charles35 (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Charles, if you think that WP advises editors that it's OK to tag an article without taking part in active discussion to satisfy your concerns, you are not correct. A tag always carries the suggestion that the article may not be trustworthy and it is not fair nor does it comply with WP quidelines which state, In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time.. As has already been said, you will need to find RS to back your suggestions for changes that will bring the article to where you believe it to be NPOV. If you can't find any you will need to back away. Gandydancer (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This talk page has more discussion than any talk page I've ever seen. Discussion doesn't mean you need to be on here picking each other apart 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Only so much can be expected of editors. I'm certainly not abandoning the page and requesting you leave the tag, and I don't understand why you would think that. Charles35 (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Because the discussion hasn't been particularly productive, in my opinion. Again, please find a source, or sources, that are missing from the article or I'm sure the tag will be removed again. I know you feel the sources exist, but you appear to say you don't have the time to find them. That justification is insufficient, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. GIVE IT SOME TIME. Some of us have a real life. Charles35 (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, having more than one such tag on a page is considered superfluous. I don't think we need to worry about this one way or the other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about the tag at the very top of the page. Charles35 (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Breast cancer culture section

This section has been tagged since November. I'd like to remove the tag unless an editor can list specific doable fixes for the section with RS to support any new material they would like to include. Gandydancer (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, please allow some time. Inability to provide a source in 15 mins is not fair reason to dismiss the issue. Charles35 (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like for you to revert. Charles35 (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to restore the tag when you have time to justify it. I support the removal for now. Biosthmors (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Mammograms

One of the most frustrating things about this article is how it never fails to criticize mammograms, but doesn't even explain any of the benefits. If you were to read this article tabula rasa, you couldn't help but think, "why do mammograms even exist?" The article fails at the encyclopedia part by not informing the reader of the current state of awareness/treatment, and assumes that you the reader already knows what mammograms are, why they're helpful, how they got here, etc. I don't contest that mammograms aren't perfect, but they are obviously doing something right. They aren't the be-all end-all, but they've certainly improved things quite a bit. It's a step in the right direction. And it is a direct result of awareness. What do you think of this article? It reiterates all of the negatives, yes, but I found something in here that might show the side of the issue that gets ignored because of the nature of critical sociology:

"Screening mammography is lifesaving, Dr. Conant emphasized. "It is 1 of the few screening interventions that actually has been shown to decrease death from a disease," she said."

Is there anything wrong with this? Can we think of any wikireasons for why this source/sentence should not be allowed? Charles35 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read this information: [3] A discussion about mammography will not show that you are serious about addressing your reasons for wanting to keep this article tagged. Gandydancer (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We probably have assumed a moderate level of knowledge, and that's not generally a good idea.

This is the most recent thing I've seen on the subject. I haven't read the actual paper (or the one that Gandydancer linked), but it appears that for older women, it might not save lives after all. So it might only be women in the age range of 50 to 65 who are likely to benefit. (For women at average risk. Women at high risk, it's a clear win. On the other hand, there aren't that many of them.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Cochrane report suggests little benefit and perhaps none and perhaps even harm - it's a good report; I enjoyed it. At any rate, people that want to learn about mammograms need to read that article and I don't want to argue endlessly on this one. Gandydancer (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to be a "here you go - now can we keep the tag?" Go ahead and delete the tag, I'm not gonna put up a fight. The tag thing was also somewhat of a misunderstanding - I thought you were talking about the tag at the top of the entire article. But I'm not gonna put up a fight either way. The mammography thing is just supposed to address the concern of inadequate explanation of why mammographies are utilized. Are there any wikireasons for its exclusion? Charles35 (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't add the quotation, or necessarily use that source, but we could add a simple explanation that says what mammograms are (X-rays of the breasts to detect some kinds of breast cancers before they can be felt) and why they're done (in the hope of detecting cancer at a more treatable stage). But I thought that this last bit was addressed at leasst partially in the section on the risk of too much awareness (whose new section heading fails the 'impartial tone' requirement, by the way). Perhaps you would go read that, and then let me know what you think. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There are people who think mammograms are effective. We should probably inform the reader that these people are out there. Charles35 (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think this paragraph achieves that?

Clinicians have responded that they are unwilling to consider the possibility of leaving potential deadly cancers alone because it is "far-riskier" than the alternative. Eric Winer, director of the breast cancer program at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, says, "I don't know anyone who offers women the option of doing nothing."[80] Further complicating the issue of early diagnosis is the fact that it is currently impossible to delineate malicious cancers from benign ones. Otis Brawley, a top official for the American Cancer Society, says that "even if we overdiagnose 1 in 5, we have numerous studies showing that by treating all these women, we save a bunch of lives". For instance, a 2011 Cochrane review showed a sample of mammogram screening programs resulted in a 15% reduction in mortality rate despite over-diagnosis, indicating that mammography programs save lives regardless of over-diagnosis.[80]

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Do I think that the last paragraph in a section at the bottom of the page titled "Supposed risks of too much awareness" achieves this point? This is pretty much the most important thing you can say about BCA, and it should come before all of the criticism. The criticism should respond to the view held by just about every practicing clinician, not the other way around. Charles35 (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that mammography's efficacy is "the most important thing you can say about BCA". My impression from the sources is that the lifting of the taboo about talking about cancer (any cancer, but breast cancer specifically) is probably the most important thing we can say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing's ever going to convince Charles, but actually it should be pointed out, I did already, that Cochrane actually said it was debatable as to whether mammogram helps or harms. BMJ article here: [4] BTW the "Beck" source for the above Cochrane info did not work for me. Gandydancer (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

And yet still the vast majority of physicians utilize mammograms. There are people - a lot of people - that think mammograms are effective. Again, do I think that the last paragraph in a section at the bottom of the page titled "Supposed risks of too much awareness" achieves this point? No. The reader should be fully informed of the reality of the situation. I will also ask, again, if there are any wikireasons for the exclusion of this material. I'm not really all that concerned with trying to convince you of anything. Charles35 (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Charles, I'd suggest you read the Childbed Fever article. It took physicians almost 50 years to accept the fact that they were indeed responsible for the deaths of so many new mothers. They scoffed at the thought that they needed to wash their hands - "Doctors are gentlemen" they said meaning that gentlemen were, by nature, "clean". Women are still trying to get out of the dark ages that male doctors created when it comes to childbirth.

I am old enough to remember all those years when there were very few female physicians and when doctors expected to be, and were, treated as though they were Gods. I remember surgeons scrapping every last bit of breast tissue from the chest muscles and removing the lymph nodes in the armpits even long after evidence began to mount that it was not in the best interest of their patients. All they needed to say was, that's the way they liked to do it. Women trusted their judgement. All of society put men on a pedestal and MDs were perhaps the most respected of all men. I can hardly say how much the profession has improved now that so many women become physicians and in turn, the profession of nursing has been greatly improved now that men are beginning to become nurses. Gandydancer (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I am very sorry that you feel that way and I empathize with your views on patriarchy, but I think that's an unfair comparison. Nevertheless, although I'm sure you already know, I'd like to point out that wikipedia isn't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. And if you have no objections to informing the reader that there are people - a lot of people - out there that think mammograms are helpful, then I think it would be appropriate to add that material somehow to the article. In other words, does that material violate any policies that you can think of? Charles35 (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Charles, I am not talking about my feelings, I am talking about facts. And yes, I am very well aware of the "great wrongs" policy. If someone old enough to remember school segregation works on a civil rights article, are they trying to right great wrongs? If you feel so strongly that women must be informed about the benefits of mammograms I'd suggest that you go to that article and edit it. Or, if you have something appropriate for this article with RS, please present it. Gandydancer (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, I am not trying to irritate you. I don't consider working on this article to be righting great wrongs (just as I don't consider working on civil rights to be RGWing), but I don't see how any of your discourse on the "dark ages" is relevant except in the case of righting great wrongs. It seems like you're trying to say that I shouldn't use this source, despite it not violating any policies, because it would undermine the efforts to break out of the "dark ages". I'm sorry, I'm trying to interpret your words in another way, but this is the only thing I can come up with. What can I say?

I don't feel strongly that women should know the benefits of mammograms. I feel strongly that the reader (male or female) should be aware of the current state of affairs in the BC world. I am not interested in the other article. This one had (and still does, albeit to a lesser extent) POV issues when I came across it a few months back, and I decided to work on it. I don't know if the mammography article has POV issues or not because I have not looked at it, but I am not interested in that right now. I believe that I do have something appropriate with a RS, which is the link that I posted at the top of this section. That source is the only reason I have created this section. I have been trying to ask you whether or not I can add material from that source. Does it violate any wikipedia policies? Charles35 (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you proposed a specific change rather than just asking whether it is possible to use it at all. If you decided to cite that source as proof for, oh, something about Einstein's theory of special relativity, then naturally it would violate all sorts of policies. But for more plausible claims, it might be acceptable, and if we knew what you wanted to add, we might even be able to find even stronger sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything problematic with the source itself? I don't want to take the time to write out a thorough and sourced paragraph only to have Biosthmors come out of nowhere with "WP:MEDRS" (no offense to Biosthmors). If you think there's something wrong with this source, please speak up now. Charles35 (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Medscape Medical News is a news/media organization. You can use their stories just like you would use any other work of medical journalism, like a magazine article on a similar topic. That means that you can use it for claims about society, people, finances, and similar subjects, but you should not use it for biomedical facts (e.g., "mammograms save lives"). See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Popular_press for more details.

In other words, whether this source is acceptable depends on what you want it to support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is just a rough draft, but maybe something along the lines of "The consensus among medical professionals is that mammograms are effective. The vast majority of practicing clinicians utilize mammograms. The use of mammograms is believed to improve patient outcomes and/or decrease the overall mortality rate of breast cancer." Charles35 (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we can get you a far better source to describe the current practices. Why don't you look at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK36395/#ch1.s6 ? It doesn't say anything about BCA, and it recommends against the rather mindless all-women, every-year model (while still supporting screening mammography for specific groups, just like this article), but it's a stellar source for a statement about what's currently recommended in the U.S. There should be a similar NICE guideline for the UK's recommendation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Section on Breast Cancer Action

Do we need an entire ~375-word-long section just on Breast Cancer Action? We already have a couple of sentences about them at the end, under Breast cancer awareness#Organizations. It feels promotional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It does not seem to really fit here. Seems that they do not like pink ribbons either... Gandydancer (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The section isn't supposed to be about BCAction (or at least that wasn't my intention when I created it). It was supposed to list things that have been accomplished by anyone. If you delete it, you delete the entire idea. Maybe there's another way to deal with the problem besides deleting it? Charles35 (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've had difficulty finding any sources for the biggest accomplishments of BCA. BCA funding over the past several decades has paid for research that has, most visibly, created the mammogram, but also improved treatments - radiation, chemotherapy, etc. Funding has also gone to non-breast cancer research (in other words, just cancer in general). In my opinion, these are the biggest things you can say about BCA and I think it should be the most important priority for the article. Just want to put this out there. This was my main purpose for creating the section. Charles35 (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

America's Worst Charities

I just saw this, and thought it might be useful here, and in related articles. Numbers 4, 6, 22, and 38, and possibly others. http://www.tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities/ –Quiddity (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

i've read the source and I don't see anything that speaks to breast cancer awareness specifically, as opposed to general flaws in the regulation of non-profits. A better place for this content might be 501(c) organization. GabrielF (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What Ave says about marketing

Komen's 2009–2010 Expenses

  Research (20.9%)

  Public health education (39.1%)

  Health screening services (13.0%)

  Treatment (5.6%)

  Fund-raising costs (10.0%)

  Administrative costs (11.3%)

MRL/Charles35 has reverted the addition of "advertising" and "awareness" as something that breast cancer charities spend money on. Here's some of what the cited source says:

"...more than $30-million that advanced research, screening, treatment and education....no one should discount the awareness campaign's role in saving lives...You just can’t make a product …without informing people about the disease...breast cancer among corporations is related to marketing."

That sounds a lot like "advertising and awareness" to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It might also be instructive to look at the pie chart. That's Komen's budget from a couple of years ago. Their "public health education" spending is more than double their screening and treatment spending combined. To say that "treatment and research" is where the money goes is just wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that covered by the words "increased awareness"? Or you could just call it what it literally is - "public health education" - instead of using your own word that you did not get from the source, which is clearly trying to portray it in a negative, commercial, consumerist (POV) light. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Public health education" is Komen's POV, not "what it literally is". What this "literally is" is an advertisement, and that's what its creator calls it, as well as what the org calls it in their own materials. Here's another self-identified "ad campaign". This org proudly announces that their "advertising campaign" won an award.

I'm not sure why you believe that "advertisement" is a negative word—and surely if you've remember reading any of the sources, you'll remember that "commercial" and "consumerist" are very appropriate words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that Ave (the source that supports the sentence) did not use the word advertisement, and you added it to the beginning of the list as if it was the most important, when the source did not even use it at all. Ave called it education, or in your on paraphrasing, "public health education", which is why I suggested you use that instead. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

And simply linking me to two advertisements has nothing to do with where "most of the money" is spent. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, Ave did not say it was all "education". Ave also called it "marketing", which most of us recognize as having a very strong relationship with "advertising". If you prefer, we can quote that, although the overall goal is to do something called "writing in your own words", e.g., using synonyms, especially if doing so allows you to accurately represent all the sources instead of just the particular word choice in one of them.

There are certainly other sources that we could cite for this:

"the Avon Breast Cancer Crusade, which sponsors three-day, sixty-mile walks, spends more than a third of the money raised on overhead and advertising, and Komen may similarly fritter away up to 25 percent of its gross."

A large part of chapter 5 in this book (especially pp. 158–162) is about advertising. Read here about the re-birth of the American Cancer Society "from a small organization controlled by physicians into a professional fund-raising agency that used the latest techniques in advertising".

The published sources are not squeamish about using the "a-word". Why should we be? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am hesitant to use the "a-word" because this article already has a vastly off-balanced POV, and saying "most of the money comes from advertising" is adding to that POV, especially when that statement is not supported by the cited source. Ave literally says "I don’t think there’s a big conspiracy but clearly breast cancer among corporations is related to marketing potential." That is NOT the POV being represented by this wikipedia article. This article is taking the POV that there is indeed a conspiracy (remember inner circle?). Ave's statement surely does not say that "most of the money" is being spent on advertising. It simply says that there is a relationship. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact I think it would be very constructive to quote Ave saying that she doesn't "think there's a big conspiracy". MidnightRequestLine (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Inner circle" doesn't mean "conspiracy". It has an implication that some people are more important or more knowledgeable than others, but this is not either a sinister or a surprising concept once you're out of junior-high-level personal relationships. You need to read the dictionary definitions, which say things like "a small, intimate, and often influential group of people" and "an exclusive circle of people with a common purpose" and quit relying on what you've picked up from sci-fi or fantasy books.

But that's irrelevant: This is about what the money is spent on, not where it comes from. The fact is that the money is spent on advertising. That's why people keep complaining about things like 3M spending much, much more on advertising (there's that word again!) their pink Post-it notes than they donated to the breast cancer group, or Yoplait spending more money on marketing their "Save Lids to Save Lives" program than on the actual donation. There are persistent complaints about this, and there are many sources that specifically call out corporate-funded advertising as a major, effective method of promoting these orgs.

I realize that the content of the published, reliable sources (and therefore of this article) does not match your personal point of view. We have to match the sources, not your POV. If you agree that this accurately reflects what the sources say the money is spent on, then we should include it, in plain, non-weaselly words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't and never have read sci-fi or fantasy books, but okay....

I don't have a personal point of view on the matter. I am neutral. I don't care about breast cancer awareness. Please stop mischaracterizing me. You're not fooling anyone.

"junior-high-level personal relationships" - what in the world are you even talking about? You know you're out of arguments when you need to resort to juvenile passive aggressive remarks about my age (that don't even make any sense by the way). I'm not in junior high. And if I was, that would not give your argument any validity whatsoever. Stop trying to mischaracterize me.

I have no idea what you're trying to say about spent on vs. comes from. When were we ever talking about where the money comes from? I will quote my last comment: "Ave's statement surely does not say that "most of the money" is being spent on advertising." Where did you get "comes from" out of that?

It's great that you feel like telling me your take on the Yoplait issue, but the simple fact is that the source we have cited to support this sentence, Ave, does not say that "most of the money is spent on advertising". This is pretty simple. I don't know why you have the need to go on these tangents. Give it a rest. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You do have a personal point of view. You may be blind to it, since the Bias blind spot is common enough, but I believe that it's tolerably obvious to everyone else here.

I direct your attention to your statement above: saying "most of the money comes from advertising" is adding to that POV..., emphasis added for clarity.

We have never made the claim that most of the money is spent on advertising alone. We have made the obviously verifiable claim that most of the money is spent four (4) things:

1. advertising,
2. increasing awareness,
3. screening, and
4. treatments.

(Notice that they are in alphabetical order.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I misspoke. Never meant to say "comes from". Take it as if I meant "spent on".

You're wrong. Stop trying to make this about me as an editor. I didn't say that this unsourced addition is "your POV", I just said, and I quote, "saying "most of the money comes from advertising" is adding to that POV". The simple fact is that this article has a vastly overstated POV right now. I oppose further bloating that POV's presence here. And remember that you are arguing for a change that is not supported by the cited source.

On a different note, you used to say "we are using the balance of POVs that the sources use", and yet you admit that you are using the same source for multiple statements. You would say "we don't need to cite this sentence because we did so earlier in the article." That right there is throwing the POV off-balance. If you reference the same material from a source multiple times, you are not using the balance of POVs that the sources use, you are over-stating that particular POV. I think we should go through and remove any information that has been repeated. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the Komen Foundation's most recent Form 990 to see how they define public health education. (You can download it [5] but you may need to sign up for guidestar.org for free. See page 157). They list some activities that I think would be difficult to call advertising - for instance running a medical helpline - as well as some activities that might be construed as advertising - a website with medical information, printing brochures. Komen also lists their advertising expenses: they spend 19.6 million on advertising on promotion, of which 15 million is related to program services and 4.3 million related to fundraising out of total expenses of $188 million (page 10). By comparison, Komen spent $75 million on research per their annual report[6]. They're certainly spending much more on research than on what they consider advertising. It doesn't seem quite right to pick out one area (advertising) to focus on, when larger expenses (say, fundraising expenses or salaries) are ignored. GabrielF (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

All of the four categories, even if overlapping, and not just the blue one.

Once again, the article has never said "Most of the money is spent on advertising". It has said that most of the money is spent on "advertising, awareness, screening, and treatment". That's advertising AND awareness AND screening AND treatment. "AND", as in the addition of four categories, not as in "just the first category listed".

Multiple sources have been very clear that Komen and most other breast cancer organizations spend most of their money on the mathematical sum of four things, not just on advertising. "Midnight" doesn't dispute the other three; he just wants to omit one of the four things because it makes it sound like they're too "commercial" (a very frequent criticism of these organizations). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

But if we're going to include spending categories that the organization itself doesn't use in its annual report (at least in the case of Komen), is it really fair to pick out one such category (advertising) and not others, such as staffing, event management or fundraising expenses? GabrielF (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that we're not singling out one organization, and given that this is what many independent sources say (see the multiple examples given above), then yes, it is fair to use the exact word that multiple sources use.

I haven't seen complaints about "staffing", but I have seen complaints about event management and fundraising. However, those particular sources tend to be focused tightly on individual organizations (as in "Group X is spending too much on event expenses", often with a comparison to a smaller group that spends less on similar events or that has a different approach to fundraising altogether) rather than on the whole group of organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)