Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mark Miller (talk | contribs) at 21:24, 6 December 2012 (→"Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 03:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Bitcoin as an investment

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Bitcoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pratyeka (talk · contribs)
• SudoGhost (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Large numbers of people want to improve the Bitcoin#As an investment section's current content, which is basically one-sided, poorly-sourced opine.

There is great content available (such as a quote from the Bitcoin lead developer on how Bitcoin is a particularly high risk investment), but due to protected status people cannot contribute this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I came to the discussion after I was asked to revert what I considered an uncontroversial edit to the page, and was amazed at the volume of discussion already present.

Noting that the discussion was dying out, I tried to take a middle ground, and participate in the existing talk page discussion, even going so far as to praise the cautionary nature of SudoGhost's approach thus far, invite other participants back and propose an example rough draft of some fairer text.

How do you think we can help?

Remove the section (currently poorly sourced links to one-sided opine) and require a rewrite to be proposed incorporating suggestions from the community before its re-instatement.

Review the edit protection status of Bitcoin, which is a fast-evolving area and one in which additional community involvement is sorely needed.

Opening comments by SudoGhost

There are "large numbers of people", yes. They are Bitcoin enthusiasts that arrived as the result of off-wiki canvassing on multiple Bitcoin forums. The information in the article is well-sourced, whitewashing the article will not improve the article. It is also not "poorly sourced" by any means, unless it is being suggested that Reuters, the most reliable news-style source I can think of, somehow is suddenly considered unreliable by some consensus I have been unable to find. I do not believe that Bitcoin enthusiasts not being being able to find any reliable sources supporting what they want the article to say warrants removing the section altogether; that violates WP:DUE. I am not opposed to finding reliable sources that expand or "give the other opinion", but removing well-sourced content from Bitcoin just because Bitcoin enthusiasts canvassed from Bitcoin forums don't want the article to mention anything they perceive as negative is not the answer. The content should be improved, not deleted, because all its saying is that Bitcoin has been accused of something; it places no judgement on whether it is true or not.

Given the massive canvassing going on (not to mention the sockpuppetry/vandalism that caused not only the article, but even the article's talk page to be protected), I don't believe that removing the protection is beneficial to the article; if these canvassed editors cannot even discuss the subject without attacking others, I don't think opening up the article to that kind of behavior is going to improve the situation. - SudoKamma (SudoGhost's Away Account) 00:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Response by Pratyeka

• There are "large numbers of people", yes.

I am glad that we agree on this.

• They are Bitcoin enthusiasts that arrived as the result of off-wiki canvassing on multiple Bitcoin forums.

Whilst this is probably a legitimate concern, if you could provide some assessment of account lifetimes and/or edit histories to back this up it would be a more meaningful statement. However, before investing time in such an endeavour, I think we should agree that even if this is true, it does not detract from the problem of the content being lopsided and basically opine, with far better sources available.

• "The information in the article is well-sourced, whitewashing the article will not improve the article. It is also not "poorly sourced" by any means, unless it is being suggested that Reuters, the most reliable news-style source I can think of, somehow is suddenly considered unreliable by some consensus I have been unable to find."

The significant discussions have been centered on a specific section, not the whole page. Furthermore, in levelling the 'Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme' accusation, which is essentially all that the current content consists of, one should normally be aware of what properties such a scheme has, and how these are present within the Bitcoin system (which is discussed deeply throughout the rest of the article). Simply quoting some news does not make a statement correct. Quoting a formal analysis from an expert body makes a statement far more weighty. As I said, I am not at all against including this information, however it needs to be properly balanced with either more formal considerations of Bitcoin's potential categorization as such a scheme (I believe the European Central Bank made such an analysis, concluding the opposite, a link to which was provided by other contributors - such sources should not be overlooked in favour of defamatory news snippets). Finally, recall that what brought me to the discussion in the first place was the fact that the dubious accusation was sourced only to a dead link - as someone with professional knowledge of the topic, I made what I considered an uncontroversial edit in removing the suggestion entirely. The re-citation of various claims to this effect is new, and is the only change that has been instantiated to the section since discussions began, as far as I am aware. This is clearly also one-sided.

• I do not believe that Bitcoin enthusiasts not being being able to find any reliable sources supporting what they want the article to say warrants removing the section altogether; that violates WP:DUE.

This is not the case, far more reliable and well reasoned sources than news snippets have been provided.

• I am not opposed to finding reliable sources that expand or "give the other opinion",

Thank you, this is good. Somehow my own and perhaps others' impression from your actions thus far has been something closer to the opposite. Perhaps we can move forward by removing the disputed statement and constructing an alternative together? The current situation of denying edits you dislike whilst adding bad sources to the current lopsided opine is not exactly fair and even handed.

• ...but removing well-sourced content from Bitcoin just because Bitcoin enthusiasts canvassed from Bitcoin forums don't want the article to mention anything they perceive as negative is not the answer.

This statement is incorrect on a number of levels, integrating multiple invalid assumptions. And again, we are only discussing a specific section, not the article as a whole.

• The content should be improved, not deleted, because all its saying is that Bitcoin has been accused of something; it places no judgement on whether it is true or not.

Correct. However, denying alternate edits, which is the current situation, is in effect placing judgement. You will see that the section was only removed after the failure to come to a consensus on how to reinvigorate it. Although you have claimed that I am biased, I do not feel any bias, but I do think the section is worthless as it stands and needs to be rewritten with fair community involvement. It seems clear that, whether intentional or not, you seem to have sidelined that process by being petty and unconstructive. I would be happy to write a new version myself, but you have claimed that I am 'involved' and biased and therefore I should not. Meanwhile everyone else has given up in frustration. Because I can see a problem and don't want it to stay there, we now have a dispute.

• Given the massive canvassing going on (not to mention the sockpuppetry/vandalism that caused not only the article, but even the article's talk page to be protected), I don't believe that removing the protection is beneficial to the article; if these canvassed editors cannot even discuss the subject without attacking others, I don't think opening up the article to that kind of behavior is going to improve the situation.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

prat (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to continue that discussion, but if you're going to respond, I will do so as well. "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is the entire point, that's what I've been saying. Yes, it was a WP:DEADLINK but per that very same thing, it doesn't matter if the link was "dead", it's still a valid source, and anyone reading the discussion would see that the link was already archived and provided in the discussion, and that other sources were also given. "We're discussing a specific section" is a horrible red herring; I never once suggested that I was ever, at any point, not talking about this one specific section. I think claiming that I am "denying edits I dislike" is an inappropriate and inaccurate comment. True, there are a few things I disliked about the discussion: I dislike people asserting that my mother is a whore, yes. I dislike people being canvassed in order to try to force a "consensus" to remove content that might reflect poorly on Bitcoin. These things I dislike. Discussing what the article needs to say, I do not dislike.

You also say that "everyone else has given up in frustration", but I don't think that's quite accurate. You may not have noticed, but the discussion has two parts. In the first part, most of the editors that discussed the content were concerned the with specific wording, since they were concerned that the wording in the article suggested that Bitcoin was a ponzi, as an absolute truth. That wording was changed as a result of the first part of that discussion, and no longer makes it seem this way. The discussions on the off-wiki forums suggested that this was what most people had the issue with. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the editors stopped editing after the edit was made. I also did not claim you were biased, I claimed you were WP:INVOLVED, those are not the same. Claims of "denying edits you dislike whilst adding bad sources" is all kinds of incorrect. One, I didn't propose or provide those sources, another editor did. Two, if I "denied" an edit, it was because of a policy or guideline based reason (such as trying to use a person's blog being used as a reliable source), not because I "dislike" the edit. Three, Reuters is not a "bad source".

I've asked multiple times for reliable sources that can expand the article in a way that makes the sentence "neutral". Someone's blog (that they wrote just before it was posted on the talk page), and an open wiki are not reliable sources, so yes, I "dislike" these edits. I've been waiting for someone, anyone to propose a reliable source and wording that can be included in the article, but instead we've been hung up on trying to remove the statement altogether. Bitcoin has been accused of being a ponzi scheme. This is reflected by reliable sources. It's a fact, and it belongs in the article. If we're going to sit here and go back and forth arguing that it somehow isn't true, that somehow Reuters and others are lying, then we're not discussing moving forward. I haven't found any sources to support your position, I've looked. Considering how much you're asserting that these sources must exist, maybe you should look for them? If they don't exist, then it isn't an "unbalanced" statement; WP:NPOV is not a 50/50 situation, especially if there are no reliable sources to back a statement. See Misplaced Pages:NPOV/FAQ#Giving "equal validity" and Misplaced Pages:NPOV/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. Since I cannot find them, and you're seem to be suggesting they're out there somewhere, I've been doing nothing more than responding to what others have said; if you want to discuss how to expand the section and move on, I'm more than willing to discuss that, but if you want to instead continue to repeat these same discussions over and over, don't blame me when that's all that is discussed. - SudoKamma (SudoGhost's Away Account) 05:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin as an investment discussion

As an admin who has protected Bitcoin in the past, I was invited to comment here. I'll wait until the discussion is formally opened. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. I have restored the discussion above. I invite EdJohnston to make his statement, and Pratyeka to show what he/she wants the section to be like, so we could discuss that instead of making a resolution in the dark. Also, DRN is not to review any administrative action such as protections. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice that User:SudoGhost is very familiar with the socking problems on this article. If he was to suggest unprotection, I'd certainly take that seriously. It seems he is still supporting continued protection while holding out for some better sourcing. While we are waiting for unprotection to become reasonable, can't an RfC or other discussion be started on the talk page, to try to settle the outstanding issues? Also, can someone familiar with the article say whether the 'editprotect' system has been able to produce some genuine improvements? If we are to judge by the above statement of User:Pratyeka there is a big furor about whether to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme. If this Ponzi claim is truly driving the off-Misplaced Pages pressure on this article then perhaps an RfC that is solely addressed to getting compromise wording on the Ponzi issue could be worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You may certainly start an RfC, and this noticeboard can be used for discussion that has failed before. We're trying to settle the problems here for now. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear why User:Pratyeka opened this request, since the discussion at Talk:Bitcoin does not appear to be stalemated. There is an active thread at Talk:Bitcoin#Please add a correction to the Ponzi Scheme accusation. There are many participants in that thread. The main problem is that the thread is very long and somewhat rambling and judging consensus might be difficult. If it would help to get better focus on a single proposed draft I'm sure someone could open a WP:RFC on the article talk page. I left a suggestion to this effect at User talk:Pratyeka#What's the DRN about? and I hope he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am happy take the time to try to summarize (again). Look for a new subsection on the talk page shortly. prat (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll close this thread as this discussion will continue on talk page. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 12:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No please don't. The discussion is stalemated and has been for a long time. SudoGhost is simply not possible to work with and it does not appear possible to edit the page without him. If you read the discussion (please do even though it's long), it will become apparent that SudoGhost refuses to accept the definition of ponzi scheme used by Misplaced Pages itself, refuses to accept sources that provide logical arguments for why it's not a ponzi scheme on the grounds that they were written because of these sorts of disputes and refuses any proposed modifications - citing ever more obscure rules to do so. What's more nobody else on the Talk page agrees with him on this (because the wrongness of the statement on the page is a matter of logic, it shouldn't even need sources). Let me repeat this - nobody supports SudoGhosts position. The Talk page is long not because there's genuine debate here but because SudoGhost replies to absolutely every single point made by lots of different people. Without some kind of appeals or dispute resolution process that replaces the section the page will remain locked Mike Hearn (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Pratyeka for making a new summary at Talk:Bitcoin#Summary of my own view of the discussion status (by request). Meanwhile, I have checked through the thread at Talk:Bitcoin#Please add a correction to the Ponzi Scheme accusation. It seems that many participants in that thread could have been recruited to the discussion from offsite. SudoGhost has provided some links to mailing lists where changing the Misplaced Pages article has been discussed. My test for who is a 'regular editor' is someone who has made more than 20 edits in 2012. In the thread, besides SudoGhost I only noticed User:Nagle, User:Jtibble and User:Pratyeka to be long-term Misplaced Pages editors who were obviously not recruited. In spite of the apparent selective nature of the participation in that thread, it does not appear to be an insuperable task to create a neutral version of the Ponzi section. I would recommend that Pratyeka (who is an admin) not close any edit requests himself, given that he holds a position on the issue for which he is advocating here. I notice he has already self-reverted some changes he made to Bitcoin while the article was under full protection. As regards the continued protection, until the Ponzi section is settled down I think lifting it is unwise. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have underscored the fact that I really do not care what the public perception of Bitcoin is and for this reason do not consider myself biased or 'involved' in this case. I have fully supported SudoGhost's attempt to maintain references to the accusations within the article from the word go, as can be seen in my comments on the talk page. I was only brought to the discussion after SudoGhost asked me to revert what I considered and still consider an uncontroversial edit to remove an illogical claim sourced with a single dead-link. This has turned in to a huge waste of time discussing the matter, which was already complained about in depth, and with no forward motion, as Mike has pointed out. The protected status combined with SudoGhost apparently being upset about some of the previous personal attacks he has received while contributing to the protected page discussions has resulted in a situation in which facilitating positive change does not appear to be the outcome of his participation, rather, we have a stalemate. I am still very much for unprotecting the page. Protection should be a last resort, right now I see little purpose in protection as rollbacks are easy and individual changes are best discussed on the talk page when and where controversial as per WP:Be bold. prat (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Added NPOV section template while discussions continue. prat (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(This will be my first DRN, so bear with me if I mess up, I'm only human) - Well, since this is stale I'll reopen it. I see that this is very hostile and I've seen this dispute show up in many places recently. I looked over the one sentence section that this dispute is all about, and it seems well sourced. If defensive statements from Bitcoin users were added it would seem a bit more suitable and less POV, though. Have any sources for defensive statements been suggested in the past? --Nathan2055 21:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. In addition, right now there are three concrete proposals for replacement text on the talk page. prat (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I am (of course) unsure how you are counting 'concrete proposals', however, I want to point out that I believe SudoGhost has some level of acceptance for the (my) proposal in the section What does the section need to cover as it was based off of his 'draft proposal'. Additionally, none of the 'SudoGhost opposition' has complained about this proposal in any way, let alone claiming it is unbalanced. --Smickles86 (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

@prat: Great, could I have a link? Thanks in advance, Nathan2055 03:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You mean a link to the proposals? They are highlighted in bold under the section titled Proposed resolutions. prat (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I've been watching this discussion for a while and would like to ask a few questions.

1. The dispute is focused around the 1 sentence assertion about the Ponzi scheme?
2. What would the least level of compromise you could accept be to close out this dispute?
3. What changes are needed to improve the article as opposed to wanted?

I'll keep my personal thoughts shrouded but would love to hear what the disputants think. Hasteur (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the one sentence assertion (also relatively weightily highlighted with a section heading) is the issue. Compromise would be agreeing upon replacement text that is more even-handed and informative, such as the concrete proposals mentioned at Proposed resolutions. What changes are needed: actual information on Bitcoin as an investment, in the section titled 'criticisms (or concerns?): bitcoin as an investment', instead of a spurious, illogical accusation that's largely sourced to some table-thumping politician who managed to get press coverage. The great content we have there include the results of an analysis by the ECB, a statement from the head developer. We have not been able to make much headway thus far on taking down the ponzi schema accusation in a point by point basis precisely because the definition is so vague and no specific person of any repute has bothered to take it on. Instead, there's a Bitcoin community statement on the matter on a Wiki, but SudoGhost feels this is not cite-worthy, which others including myself would challenge (depends upon what the statement is, eg. '...whilst members of the bitcoin community have rejected ....' could be cited with that wiki, IMHO). Basically we've got loads of content, but we don't have the time, space, expertise or specific quotable quotes to disassemble the accusations logically, and nor should we, since that would be original research. I think we just need to roll together what we have in a readable way as true statements and leave the reader to make up their own mind. If anyone new would like to attempt to write some proposal text here, that would be great, as despite - or because of - a lengthy discussion, we are now short of people who are still willing to contribute. Sigh. prat (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You know what might have helped instead of making the same arguments over and over that go against both the letter and spirit of many policies and guidelines, and contributing more talk page content towards complaining rather than discussing? Exactly what I've been trying to do the entire time, which is to improve the section, but having to explain for the 80th time why an open wiki isn't the best source or why you cannot use personal logic to "refute away" what multiple reliable sources have said tends to slow down any sort of useful discussion. I can imagine it is very frustrating when dozens of canvassed people from Bitcoin forums realize that Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources, not argumentum ad populum, and that sourced content cannot be removed or downplayed just because a few overenthusiastic Bitcoin users don't want anything negative to be in the article, but if pointing that out means the article's creator thinks I'm the "bad guy" just "denying edits I dislike" then so be it, even if it means I'll be treated to off-wiki attacks and personal emails threatening my life. - SudoGhost 09:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ruba'i article

This case has gone stale. Participants have stopped posting. This is not resolved or failed, but simply closed as unresolved. If another volunteer should disagree with this assement, please feel free to adjust the closing to suit. Amadscientist (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

Meta discussions about Misplaced Pages governance are not appropriate for this page. Please open a discussion at WP:AN to present your appeal of argument. Hasteur (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Breast cancer awareness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Charles35 (talk · contribs)
• WLU (talk · contribs)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
• GabrielF (talk · contribs)
• Biosthmors (talk · contribs)
• Quiddity (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

ATTENTION: the alcohol issue is resolved (for now). I am not putting strikethroughs because it wouldn't surprise me if it opens back up again. Please focus on inner circle for now. Any opinions are welcome. Thanks.

There are many issues currently being debated about the article, but I'd like to focus on 2. For convenience, I like to call them "alcohol" and "inner circle". These issues involve two pieces of material in the article "Breast cancer awareness". Both pieces of material are cited. The objections state that the material violates wikipedia policies including but not limited to: WP:INTEGRITY, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:TONE, WP:OR, and WP:V.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

These issues have been discussed extensively on the "Breast cancer awareness" talk page. There are entire sections about each. See sections "Inner circle", ""might contribute to" "cause" etc.", and "Shopping for the Cure".

How do you think we can help?

We can help resolve this dispute by coming to a consensus about the material. On the talk pages, we have so far failed, and it only seems to be growing further and further away from a consensus. I'm hoping that new opinions might be able to lead us on a better track.

Objections to material

Alcohol

ATTENTION: the alcohol issue is resolved (for now). I am not putting strikethroughs because it wouldn't surprise me if it opens back up again. Please focus on inner circle for now. Any opinions are welcome. Thanks.

The “alcohol” material cites 1 source. WP:INTEGRITY, WP:OR, and WP:V have been called into question. The dispute is over the listed chemicals and whether or not "cause" is the correct word. The current sentence reads as follows:

Business marketing campaigns, particularly sales promotions for products that increase pollution or that critics say cause or possibly contribute to breast cancer, such as alcohol, high-fat foods, some pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies, have been condemned as pinkwashing (a portmanteau of pink ribbon and whitewash) (Mulholland 2010).

The relevant sentence from the source is as follows: Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies.

Inner circle

The second issue, "inner circle", involves WP:DUE, WP:TONE, and WP:NPOV. The objection is that the metaphor does not deserve 2 full paragraphs, 1 of which is a quote, especially because of its strong bias. The material speaks of an "inner circle" of the BCA culture. It at one point mentioned Elizabeth Edwards, but that contentious material about a living person was removed. The objection says that "inner circle" is all but conspiratorial and demonizes innocent victims of a tragic disease. I have argued that the claim undermines the integrity and reliability of wikipedia and taints the article with extremely radical and immature views.

The paragraphs:

Breast cancer culture values and honors suffering, selecting its she-roes by a "misery quotient". Women whose treatment requires less suffering feel excluded and devalued. The suffering, particularly the extended suffering of months of chemotherapy and radiation treatment, forms a type of ordeal or rite of passage that initiates women into the inner circle of the breast cancer culture. Barbara Ehrenreich says:

Understood as a rite of passage, breast cancer resembles the initiation rites so exhaustively studied by Mircea Eliade: First there is the selection of the initiates -- by age in the tribal situation, by mammogram or palpation here. Then come the requisite ordeals -- scarification or circumcision within traditional cultures, surgery and chemotherapy for the cancer patient. Finally, the initiate emerges into a new and higher status -- an adult and a warrior -- or in the case of breast cancer, a "survivor." (Ehrenreich 2001) Charles35 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Further explanation of issue:

The article takes a critical (both in terms of criticism and critical theory) sociological approach to breast cancer awareness, which I consider undue weight because it takes up the majority of the article. The form of this is for the most part a metanarrative, or "grand storyline" if you are familiar with sociology terms. A "grand storyline" is a feature of sociological theories first seen in Marxism. It is criticized for being a rash generalization, unsupported by empirical evidence, and essentially fictional. This is condemned by contemporary sociologists such as Goffman and Michel Foucault for being archaic and overly simplistic.

The inner circle is the best example of a fictional grand storyline in the entire article. This is because it is simply a metaphor. As you can see from the quote, breast cancer awareness (BCA) culture is being likened to primitive (for lack of a better word) human tribes. Chemotherapy and surgery are compared to scarification and circumcision rituals. It considers innocent victims of a, let's not forget, fatal and tragic disease to "initiates" this tribe to be "initiated" into the "inner circle" of BCA. Bizarre, right? And is 2 full paragraphs (one of which is exclusively a quotation) due weight? In my opinion, no.

I also object to the term aside from the context of the quote (since, I assume the quote will likely be removed, leaving just the material). The term is conspiratorial and undermines the integrity and reliability (in a non-wikipedia sense of the term) of this article. It is extremely ridiculous, bogus, bizarre, etc. There is no "inner circle" of cunning conniving evil victims of breast cancer. The rest of the article implies that the awareness organizations work with pharmaceutical companies to cause breast cancer to be more prevalent in order to make money. "Inner circle" is the icing on the cake, so to speak. Examples of text that support this implied yet never explicitly stated include:

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 paradigm applies equally to breast cancer organizations, because a reliable form of prevention would deplete their future supply of volunteers.

Women with are promoted as breast cancer survivors due to the fear they experienced before they became educated about their condition, rather than in respect of any real threat to their lives. This effectively increases the market size for breast cancer organizations, medical establishments, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and the makers of mammography equipment (Sulik 2010, page 170–171).

Corporate marketing machines promote early detection of breast cancer, while also opposing public health efforts, such as stricter environmental legislation, that might decreased the incidence rate of breast cancer. These critics believe that some of the breast cancer organizations, particularly the highly visible Susan G. Komen for the Cure, have become captive companies that support and provide social capital to the breast cancer industry, including big pharma, mammography equipment manufacturers, and pollution-causing industries, as well as large corporations, creating or exacerbating other problems (Sulik 2000, pages 160–210).

To avoid offending sponsors or to woo new ones, breast cancer organizations may self-censor their message and oversell options like screening mammography and new chemotherapeutic agents (Sulik 2010, page 209–210). (woo?)

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).

Some corporate sponsors are criticized for having a conflict of interest. For example, some of the prominent sponsors of these advertisements include businesses that sell the expensive equipment needed to perform screening mammography; an increase in the number of women seeking mammograms means an increase in their sales.

Health care professionals are sources of information, but the rightness of their advice is not to be seriously questioned. Patients are not encouraged to notice the absence of any meaningful method of prevention or treatments that are non-mutilating, non-debilitating, or noticeably more successful than what existed in the 1930s (Sulik 2010, pages 365–366). Charles35 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolution?

Okay so since no one has anything to say, I guess we should go ahead with deleting inner circle as undue weight and changing alcohol to linked to???? Charles35 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

After starting a DRN case, we need to wait 2 to 5 days for the other parties to provide opening statements. Then one or more volunteers will mediate and provide comments at the bottom in the "discussion" section. Discussion usually lasts 3 to 10 days. Then the DRN case will be over and action can be taken in accordance with the resolution. --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by WLU

Though there are certainly issues on the BCA page, the two cited here seem like they would far better be dealt with through a request for comment. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The WP:DRN process is an alternative to the WP:RFC process. They both have situations where they work better. Sometimes, after a DRN case, a follow-on RFC is initiated. But once an editor has opened a DRN case, asking DRN volunteers to give their opinions (and mediate) it is appropriate to follow the DRN process through to its conclusion. WP:Forum shopping and all that. An RFC can be performed after the DRN if the DRN does not result in a decent resolution. --Noleander (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by WhatamIdoing

I think we can summarize this locus of this dispute in very few characters: "There are multiple experienced editors working on that article, and none of them agree with Charles35's POV."

There, that's just 108 characters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

:-) Funny, but we need to assume that the "minority" editor may have a point. Perhaps the best resolution is between the two viewpoints? In any case, DRN volunteers would appreciate your opinons on the merits of the issues. --Noleander (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to be clear so that no fresh opinions of uninvolved editors are skewed by what WhatamIdoing just said. Just because I am the only one that has expressed concern does not mean that my concern is invalid or that there is a true "consensus" on the talk page. Charles35 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by GabrielF

Opening comments by Biosthmors

Opening comments by Quiddity

"Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page discussion

Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. Please trim the opening statement to 2000 characters. I am not opening discussion right now. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ebel23. Please see talk page section "Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page. Charles35 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Charles35, reduce your opening statement to less than 2000 characters. If you continue to persist in adding content, there is the possibility that this filing will be closed. The discussion is still not opened. Do not post in this section until one of the volunteers invites discussion. Hasteur (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer here on the DR/N notice board. Charles35 was asked by this volunteer to give more detail on the dispute from the simple statement originally posted. As the filing editor was concerned about the character limit, I have given the editor permission to go past the limit. Do not close this case just for their going over the limit as they were asked to do so if it was needed. Please see the DR/N talkpage. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution