Talk:Breast cancer awareness: Difference between revisions

Other sources

Some of the sources in this category at Google Books might be useful for developing this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Dissent

I'm not sure why an editor thinks that acknowledging dissent is POV, but the citations in that section and elsewhere—and, honestly, the entire last third of Sulik's book—support the statement as written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"While the pink ribbon culture is dominant, cracks in the façade of unity show through." is not acknowledging dissent. It is making an argument. So is the "compliant optimism, aesthetic normalization, and social pleasingness that the pink ribbon culture promotes." claim.©Geni 18:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, it's an argument that is made (at length) by the cited source, not by any Wikipedia editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Then you need to present it as an argument made by that source. So for example "X argues that while the pink ribbon culture is dominant, cracks in the façade of unity show through." Or "Artists in responding to what they see as a façade of unity have done X".©Geni 21:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be appropriate if Sulik were the only reliable source making the claim that breast cancer culture emphasizes conformity, but she's not. For example, Ehrenreich also makes the same claim (both in the source cited and in her book Bright-sided, which isn't cited in the article.) The emphasis on conformity is acknowledged by multiple sources, some of whom think that it's a good thing (e.g., politically inclined groups, who believe women with breast cancer will get more resources if they "speak with one voice").

I don't think that your second statement is accurate. I think (based on what I've read) that the artists are responding not to the "mandatory" appearance of unity, but to their individual, personal experiences (which happen to be quite different from the "party line"). That is, the artists' truthfulness shows the falsity of the "you must be happy, hopeful, and helpful" feeling rules that the culture imposes on women, but I haven't seen any sources that claim the artists are trying to show that the culture is false. Instead, the sources indicate that the artists are trying to be authentic and truthful, and that to do this they have to resist the falseness of the culture. It's more like an unintended consequence than a direct response to the cultural imperative for public unity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

I've tagged the section Breast cancer awareness#The she-ro for NPOV concerns. At the very least, pretty much everything needs to be restated as claims made by critics of "breast cancer culture", rather than as objective facts. A complete rewrite might be better; then again, maybe the problem is inherent in the nature of the section (which currently reads like an academic essay) and the whole thing needs to get axed (thank the lord he said it).

(By the way, I'm not saying the problem is confined to this section, but this is where I see it as most apparent.) (it most certainly isn't)

Thoughts? PhageRules1 (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What makes a valid POV dispute is not our personal opinions about whether the published, reliable sources written by experts are right, but some indication that the section does not accurately describe what the experts have published on this topic.

All three sources named in that section agree with each other and with what the section says. I've never yet seen a reliable source that contradicts this section, e.g., by saying that society encourages women with breast cancer to be masculine, angry, selfish, and unconcerned about their appearance. Have you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I just accidentally tagged (and then reverted) the whole article as NPOV. That's not quite the right tag, but this whole article is really poorly organized and essay-like. There are differing points of view regarding breast cancer culture, but they're all just thrown into this article in a quite non-encyclopedic fashion... I don't have time to tackle it at the moment. Perhaps I will come back to it, or some other adventurous editor can hop in. Oy. Sweet kate (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) Actually, I'm pretty happy with the overall organization. The five major sections are:

1. Marketing and branding
2. Societal issues: Patients, considered individually and corporately; feminist responses
3. Accomplishments, good (education, resources) and bad (fear)
4. Categories of criticisms: Selling out, environmentalism, artistic
5. Background information (History and Organizations)

I don't think that it is {{essay-like}}: it is not personal opinion or "written with personal comments on the subject of the article" (<- yes it is.), to use the description from that template's doc page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is organized that way you describe, whatamidoing, but just because it is organized does not make it the way an encyclopedia should be organized. Those would all be great topics if the content was actually about those topics. All of the content is a criticism of those parts of the culture. None of it is informative. It is a restated essay. This article provides no actual information on the topic, just a critique of different parts of the culture, focusing on the content that you see fit. You are not the one who gets to pick and choose. None of us are.

However, we are all glad to hear that "Actually, [you're] pretty happy with the overall organization." I mean, as long as YOU'RE happy, then it's all good! Talk about oppressive; authoritarian... Really though, whatareyoudoing? Please tell us, we'd all like to know.

Purpose

I'm removing this:

Because there is no cure at this time, awareness is the primary way to decrease the number of people who die from breast cancer. Breast cancer patients who had a family history of breast cancer, and were therefore more aware of the risk factors of breast cancer, are more likely to detect the disease early and also had a higher survival rate, than those who did not have a family history of breast cancer (Verkooijen, 2011). The results from this study demonstrate the purpose of awareness and how it can lead to early detection. Oftentimes the purpose of breast cancer awareness becomes unclear because people become caught up in the pink ribbon campaign and the media-oriented aspects of breast cancer awareness. The true purpose of breast cancer awareness is to make women aware of the risk of breast cancer, so that they can detect symptoms of breast cancer as early as possible.

• Verkooijen, H.M. (2009). "Impact of a positive family history on diagnosis, management, and survival of breast cancer: different effects across socio-economic groups". Cancer Causes and Control. 20 (9): 1689–1696. doi:10.1007/s10552-009-9420-1. PMID 19701688. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

because I just don't think it's salvageable. Fundamentally, it's one editor's personal opinion about the True™ purpose of breast cancer awareness programs, backed up by a primary source on survival rates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The 'she-ro' and other rubbish in the article

That whole section is written awfully, by someone promoting the culture shamelessly and with tenuous relevance to the article or what it should encompass. I've tagged it as repetitive and like a personal reflection. I understand that there are a few people who don't agree with me, but rather than do nothing except remove the tags out of stubborn pride, I think it'd be in the encyclopaedia's best interests to improve the section, and, as it may be, the entire article. I'd do it, but my knowledge of breast cancer and its culture is ignorant at best. 86.145.90.103 (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If you don't know anything about breast cancer culture, then how do you know that this is irrelevant or promotional?

My reaction to this is to think how dreadful it is that the breast cancer culture has dreamed up this superwoman, in defiance of the reality that many patients face. Is it really good to tell women with cancer that they're failures unless they look pretty all the time? Read the end of that section: the she-ro model is being pushed by the cancer culture, but it's hugely damaging to real women, who end up feeling depressed, discouraged, and silenced by it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I need not have knowledge about the topic in order to make a judgment on the style or quality of writing. I agree with your second comment, however, and draw from that that the section has tenuous relevance: it may be that the 'she-ro', to use that ugly word, has a place in the article, but not to the depth of detail at which it is now. How can it be possible to assert that every breast cancer sufferer

is educated as a medical consumer and [...] is always brave, always victorious, and never dies[?]

And it cannot be grounded in fact that

she remains [...] relentlessly cheerful in public [and] may conceive of herself as an inadequate she-ro.

It is simply not possible to measure the claims made in the latter. Further, if you don't believe that the section is written badly, that first quote I supplied should be enough to clear that up—all heroines with breast cancer have to die, and not all of them win their battles. Similar terms occur throughout the article. But I shall change one tag – it is not actually repetitive, just too detailed. And one last thing: I did read the whole section. 86.145.90.103 (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether a given fact has only "tenuous relevance" is not a matter of writing style. The sources go on at very great length about the "she-ro". A huge section of Sulik's book talks about this archetype or mythical creation of the breast cancer culture. We therefore give it WP:DUE weight by giving it almost as much attention as the scholars do.

We do not need to "measure the claims made in the latter". The cited sources did it for us. They also are the ones making the claim that the she-ro (NB: not "every breast cancer sufferer"; did you not read the last half of that section, which is about the enormous gap between this fairytale creature and the experiences of real women?) never dies, not us. We are merely repeating the scholars' assertions.

I encourage you to go read the sources. I found them very interesting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Do scholars give the 'she-ro' masses of attention? I'd not heard the term before reading this article. Because three or four sources talk about her doesn't mean that a high proportion of scholars do; this article may give undue weight to her. Anyway, I withdraw any objection to inclusion that may have been inferred, but I defend my concerns about the quality of prose. (Also, my IP address may have changed. I had to reset my wireless internet connection :/) 86.167.15.32 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Part of what intrigues me about this subject is the enormous gap between what the experts think and what the average person (who has no direct experience with breast cancer, since, after all, only about 5% of adults will get it) believes. When a breast cancer patent says, "I'm going to fight this thing and win!", the typical person thinks "Oh, what a brave person. I'm sure that good attitude will help her", but the psychologists and the sociologists hear something very different, and they spend a lot of time writing about that difference.

I suspect that the oncologists probably don't even hear the "good attitude" statement at all, except to make a mental note that they can rule out depression for the moment (and probably to be relieved that they're not going to have to wipe away any tears in this visit: they're human, after all). When the vast majority of your patients turn out to have that incredible winning attitude after they've gotten over the initial shock, you'd probably get used to it. (It's a bit like obituary writing: every dead person was practically perfect, a beloved parent, etc., and all cancer patients are heroes.)

This paper seems to be typical in its summary (although the subject isn't quite the same):

"The mainstream breast cancer awareness movement replaced the stigmatisation, isolation and invisibility of women with breast cancer with a new public culture overflowing with symbolic gestures of support, solidarity, respect and recognition. The public identity of women with breast cancer was transformed from tragic victim to heroic survivor. The public image of the new breast cancer survivor, unlike the victim of yesteryear, was a woman whose femininity, sexuality and desirability were intact; a woman who had struggled bravely and victoriously against the disease (which, ideally, was diagnosed early, due to her disciplined practice of ‘breast health’ and rigorous observation of screening guidelines), and whose survival was therefore assured. Gender and sexuality were intimately bound up in these social and cultural transformations."[1] or PMID 15383044

This isn't cited in the article (although, as I've said, many of the scholarly sources say very similar things), but I'm sure you noticed the author's use of the word "heroic", and the claim that this heroic, brave, feminine woman got her mammograms on time and was guaranteed to survive. The "she-ro" is a trope (literature) or archetype, not an accurate portrayal of reality, but she exists just as much as Cinderella or the perfect mother does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to address your about the "masses of attention" question: Scholarly attention varies by discipline, but for the main discipline (sociology, because awareness is a social phenomenon) we're probably underplaying this. The "she-ro" section is less than 10% of this article. I think that the "perfect patient" gets more than 10% of scholarly attention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

this is ridiculous

None of this content, including the content you are discussing, whatamidoing, belongs on this page. This content belongs on one of the following: a page about feminist theory, sociology (in which it would be a short paragraph, not 25 paragraphs), a page discussion criticism to the breast cancer culture, or AT MOST, it could be on this page, under a section titled "Criticism" - put whatever you want under that. But your content is not about breast cancer AWARENESS. It is a criticism of breast cancer CULTURE. For the AWARENESS page, it would be appropriate to criticize public policy, the advertising business, the pharmaceutical business, medical policy, etc. A broad, speculative, non-scientific, non-falsifiable MANIFESTO with no evidence or research to back it up does not really even belong on wikipedia. Furthermore, it has all but nothing relevant to breast cancer AWARENESS. If you must have it on this page, it deserves, at most, a short paragraph, which must be put under a section called "Criticism."

Or, please feel free to create a biography (autobiography?) article on Gayle Sulik and put it there. Or, create an article about her (your?) book, and put it there. This work is not science - it is fiction, or at best, it is merely speculation. None of it is falsifiable, none of it has evidence, none of it belongs here. None of it belongs on wikipedia, really, unless it were it an article specific to the manifesto. It belongs in a novel, or an epic poem, or a Karl Marx publication.

Science must be falsifiable. It must be able to be falsified in order for it to be able to be confirmed. This is a narrative; a story.

Would you like another link for falsifiability?

On a separate note, your she-ro concept has a plethora of things wrong with it. First and foremost, the English language already has a word for a female hero - a heroine.

If we were to pretend the word heroine didn't already exist, there are still problems. On the continued note of the etymology, your word creates a false dichotomy with the word "hero." This implies that, since, "shero" has "she-", and clearly refers to females, the word hero must refer to males. This is not NECESSARILY true. Regardless of the existence of the word heroine, the word hero does not refer exclusively to females. Heroine refers exclusively to females, but hero refers to both genders. This is because of its etymology. It is a root word, without any affixes. It is not he-ro or h-ero, or her-o, it is just hero. It is a gender-neutral word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero#Etymology

Your use of "she-ro" implies that the "he" in "hero" is referring to men. It simply isn't. There's nothing else to it. You are suggesting that hero is a sexist word and that women are suffering because they don't have a word like hero. First of all, they do - heroine. Second, hero can mean a women.

Etymology aside - like the rest of your theory, this is purely speculative, and may as well be fiction. Your use of the word hero is implicitly assumes that the concept you use to support it (ie your radical feminist theory) are valid in the first place. There is no evidence that gives us any reason to believe that they are. Additionally, say you were compiling evidence: your theory is still oversimplifying an infinitely complex issue. You will never be able to understand the in's and out's of our society. You might think you do, but let me promise you, you are missing the bigger picture, whether you know it or not. Let me repeat, and I cannot stress this enough, your theory is nothing but a literary theory. It is a piece of fiction. Sure, it is interesting to think about and it's kind of neat when you about it, but you are picking and choosing what facts are relevant and which ones to ignore. You are creating nonsense from scratch - that is not how science works. And if you didn't know (which I'm sure you do, as I'd be willing to bet you have a degree in it), feminism is a critical theory; critical theory is a sociological study; sociology is a social science; social sciences are, well...sciences! Ergo, via the law of syllogism, feminist theory is a SCIENCE! Science must be falsifiable, it must have evidence, it must be all of the things I said above.

This is simply...RUBBISH.

And it is an insult to our society; to our culture; to US; to me; to you; to my aunt; to Elizabeth Edwards; to Ann Romney, to Suzanne Somers, to Christina Applegate, to Sheryl Crow, to Cynthia Nixon, to everyone who's been diagnosed with the fatal (in case you've forgotten) disease, and to our entire society, by extension.

Look - we're doing the best we can, okay? We are trying to make the best of the situation we've been put in. We have been inflicted with this disease, and we are trying do fight it. We are focusing our efforts on treating the disease - ya know, like...saving lives, and stuff like that? Testing women, doing everything we can to prevent the disease from TAKING LIVES. Treating women, doing everything we can to SAVE LIVES. And if that can't happen, we will do everything we can to MAKE LIVES MORE MANAGEABLE and try to reduce the pain. And at the end of the day, we'll spend some time doing RESEARCH (you should try it some time) to find a CURE to SAVE MORE LIVES. Pardon us if, along the way, we forgot to stop and think about the fact that, here and there, a mammogram might come up with a false positive! Oh, jeez, what an outrage! That's a waste of, like, 15 bucks! How could we be valuing human lives over 15 bucks? Oh, and, our bad if we decide to give AstraZeneca a break. I mean, hey, they are throwing a few billion dollars our way. In case you were unaware, they have to make a living too! They don't work for free, ya know. They don't get paid with our hard earned tax dollars to go to seminars in Florida and talk about nonsense theories with the guise that they are doing 'social science.'

I've spoken to a couple thousand women over my life. Let me tell you that, outside of academia, I have, not once, heard a women complain about their feelings of guilt for being inadequate cancer patients and not living up to the strict societal pressures that the she-ro culture places on them, or anything remotely close to that. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. There are way more important issues at hand!!!

It's ironic how you complain about "male physicians...impos[ing] their own values on women, such as recommending mastectomy to older women because, being past the age of child bearing and breastfeeding, (telling them) they no longer "needed" their breasts," while simultaneously complaining that "The culture celebrates women...and declares that their continued survival is due to this positive attitude and fighting spirit, even though...a cosmetically enhanced appearance do[es] not kill cancer cells." So what you're basically saying is that it's silly that we cosmetically repair breasts for the aesthetic value, and it's even sillier that we would take measures to remove a women's breast that she so desperately needs for the same exact aesthetic value you just denounced? And, guess what? Medically, women who have reached menopause have no functional biological need for breasts. You could argue for a sexual need, but, in regards to biology and medicine, they are non-fertile, so sexual appeal is not technically a factor. If removing a woman's breast would save their life, aesthetics are irrelevant. To value aesthetics over life is ridiculous. No doctor would remove tonsils or appendixes, never mind breasts, if it weren't absolutely necessary to save their life.

"Pink ribbon culture is pro-doctor, pro-medicine, and..." "The "she-ro"...is the woman who...aggressively fight[s] breast cancer through compliance with mainstream medical advice." "She is educated as a medical consumer and firmly believes that modern science can cure breast cancer." This is quite a bold argument. Say you are right - medicine is evil and it doesn't even work, doctors are scams, etc. Now, take your head out of the clouds, because you forgot the part where you tell me what I should do instead. Your 'debunking' of mainstream medicine means nothing if you don't offer a viable alternative solution. Or are you just looking for more things to complain about?

This is a very important decision for me. I have a 1-in-8 chance of being diagnosed with breast cancer at some point in my life. Cancer is responsible for 7.6 million lives each year, and in America alone, cancer claims 1,500 lives each day. Do you suggest I just avoid treatment altogether? I heard that there are a grand total of 32 cases ever of people who have survived cancer without treatment. Do you think that might happen to me if I stick to my principles? Because I also heard that the average survival length for untreated cancer is 2.3 years, but that of people treated medically for cancer, 80% survive it.

Tell me, if you had breast cancer, would you refuse to go to a doctor because it is against your principles? What would you do instead? Would you take advantage of other sources of treatment, such as herbalism and shamanism? Astrology? Scientology? Witchcraft? Can you promise me that, if I find the right witch, she will be able to help? Sorcery? Would you pursue treatment through diet and exercise? Do you think that might help? What about relaxation or breathing exercises? Do those work? Acupuncture? Ah, and I almost forgot - what do you think of home remedies? You know - snake oil, shark cartilage, crystal healing, even urine therapy? Do you suggest I look into those instead?

Either find something constructive to say, or don't say anything at all. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion column.

...this conspiracy theory the authors of the article are formulating makes me a little concerned: "The suffering, particularly the extended suffering of months of chemotherapy and radiation treatment, forms a type of ordeal that initiates women into the inner circle of the breast cancer culture."

Charles35 (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Disturbing bias in this article

Although it will probably be removed because it's a dissenting opinion among the viscous views expressed in this article, it's very, very necessary in order to provide the public, without rewriting the entire article, with a fair representation of the content this article aims to provide. Almost none of the article is objective information. I added this:

For the public's sake, it is necessary to disclaim the content of this article from the beginning. The vast majority of this article is very biased and one-sided. The interpretation and analysis of each section consists of severe criticism from a radical feminist's perspective. It is not limited to just the criticism section. All sections are fueled by vengeful resentment. Very little information in this article is informative. An illusion of authority is created through the use of 105 citations. 91 of these citations (87%) come from the same four sources. People are advised to keep this in mind and read this article with caution that this information is not a fair representation of the views of the majority of people. When using this article for any purpose, note that this information is one-sided and do not take any of it to be an accurate depiction of reality. This bias is fueled by the resentment and personal agenda of certain small groups of people. Do not take any of it to be the truth. Additionally, critics are advised to take advantage of the opportunity channel their anger to the criticism section. Please provide the public with the opportunity to read a fair and impartial article without the illusion of authority maintained through the unwarranted use of 105 citations.

If you feel that this is too informal to be on a wikipedia article, I would agree. I do not have the time and resources myself to re-write this article to make it fair and objective. But this content is disgustingly biased to a standard lower and more unethical than I have ever seen before on wikipedia. I thought it was necessary to provide a swift and effective objective viewpoint to orient the aim of this article in a better direction. Please take this seriously as this article is extremely misleading and clearly motivated by a (possibly shared) personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.32.44 (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you know? Fact

This fact was used on wikipedia's Did you know? fact page:... that wearing a pink ribbon for breast cancer awareness has been denounced as a form of feel-good slacktivism that saves no lives?"

This is despicable. This is not a fact, and is certainly not objective. The writer, clearly motivated by a resentful personal agenda, provided his or her biased opinion and called as a fact under the guise of a 'wikipedia portmanteau.'

I mean really, "saves no lives?" "feel-good slacktivism?" Just because the word 'denounced' was added does not make it a fact. It's just a re-worded opinion. If that's a fact, then this is equally factual: "did you know that denouncing breast cancer awareness has been said to be motivated by a disgruntled and unsatisfied libido?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.32.44 (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This article should be scrapped and rewritten or just deleted altogether

This is not an appropriate wikipedia article. It should be titled "Feminist Criticism of Breast Cancer Awareness" instead of "Breast Cancer Awareness." It is extremely misleading and is not an encyclopedia article. It is an opinion article. It does not reflect general knowledge that wikipedia attempts to provide. It is Gayle Sulik's opinion - that's it. It is not in the slightest bit objective.

This article was clearly written by Gayle Sulik, as almost every paragraph cites her book and the words are very clearly hers, unless there's someone else in the world who took it upon him or herself to read her book and then go write a 15,000 word essay exclusively on it and title it "Breast Cancer Awareness." It is a promotion of her book, and it needs to be removed immediately.

There are numerous substantial issues with it:

It is all but giving medical advice, asserting the notion that cancer is a social construct and discouraging people to go to doctors. This advice could hypothetically destroy millions of lives.

It is very misleading - first, it cites Sulik's book 49 times, which gives an illusion that there is substantial evidence and research to back up these claims. This is not how wikipedia works. If you cite the same source, you keep citing it as "2," "2," "2," "2," "2," "2," "2," and not "72," "73,"......"102," "103." It creates a false illusion that the content is backed by several sources. This article has 105 citations. 87% of them refer to the same 4 sources. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. Just because Sulik wrote a book and copy/pasted it does not make it evidence. Her book is a novel. It is not a research paper, or a study, or an informative work. It is an opinion. And it deserves no place on wikipedia. Second - the section on "She-ro" is very inappropriate. Sulik again uses her credentials as a means of establishing an illusion of authority. She has no knowledge of etymology, and creates a false dichotomy between 'hero' and 'she-ro.' She is creating the idea that 'hero' is a sexist word and refers to men. The 'he' in hero has nothing to do with men. This is content that could very well belong in her book or a work of fiction, but it has no place on wikipedia.

Lastly, this article makes myriad serious, wide, and questionable claims. None of her work, which is promoted as feminist critical sociology, is scientific. None of it is falsifiable. None of it has evidence or research to back it up. It is simply speculation or entirely fictional. It puts forth numerous radical ideas and views which it takes no accountability for. She uses terms like 'some women believe..." or "this may cause some women to..." or "in some cases..." There is no evidence for these claims, and she gets away with it by putting words like "some," which allow her to take no accountability and let her off the hook. All of that information needs to go. Or it needs to be backed up with research. Or, at the very least, an alternate opinion should be provided. Just because she has a PhD does not make ANY of it the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.32.44 (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Page protected

I am not a medical person, I'm a linguist. Having read the article, I feel that there may possibly be some bias or WP:UNDUE. I've taken some emergency action by reverting the POV (whether it is relevant or not, editor comments are not allowed in mainspace) and semi protecting for a short period. This article is of dubious notability, but not being an expert on the subject and with no access to the hardcopy sources I cannot unfortunately undertake a systematic clean up. Could regular editors of this article or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine please take a good look at it without predjudice to stubbing, CSDing, PRODing, or sending it to AfD. Many thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kudpung

I don't disagree with protecting the article. It clearly is not appropriate to put something like that on the article, but I felt it was necessary in order to bring some attention to it without it getting immediately reverted. Also, nobody said anything about what I posted on the talk page, and, although it's only been a day, it looks like the talk page gets one hit every couple of months. I am going to create an account. Who do you suggest I talk to or where should I look to discuss the content of the article and what should be done about it?

On a separate note - being a linguist, what do you think of the word "she-ro." It it appropriate to make a dichotomy with the word "hero?" Doesn't that sort of dichotomy imply that "hero" is masculine? Does you think the "he" in hero refers to a man? I'm certainly not an expert, but I believe the word "hero" is just a root; it has no pre- or suffixes, as far as I know. I just think it is false and misleading to let people believe that "hero" is a sexist word, and that the "he-" refers to men.

Plus, there's already a word for that - heroine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.32.44 (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is exactly the place to discuss the content of the article. User:WhatamIdoing does some excellent work on medical articles and I'm sure she will chime in here. As the accounts of many contributors may be already confirmed, it is unlikely that the semi-protection will do much - it was done, understandably, to prevent what you did. You are most welcome to create an account which will provide you with many more benefits, but you won't be able to edit semi protected articles until your account is 4 days old and you have made 10 edits with it.

The word hero comes via Latin from Greek hērōs. Many languages have a similar word. Strictly, the the feminine version is of course heroin, also from the Greek. I'm not sure about the coined word she-ro, it does not appear to be listed in any quality dictionaries or any that I have written and/or published. The only mention I found was shero (without the hyphen), but the source is not reliable. I suppose the word can be used in the article if it is used in one of the print sources, and referenced.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• "...man of superhuman strength or physical courage..." Typical. Just like History, and don't get me started on "therapist". :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Heroine: a woman admired or idealized for her courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities. (Oxford American Dictionary) See also Merriam-Webster. Therapist does not appear to have any gender specific connotations, although the German , for example, a language that has a greater extent of genderised vocational nouns, has the feminine form Therapeutin :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah touché my friend. The female version is far nicer. :) As for therapist, I just threw that one in there because rape usually goes one way, and most male therapists I've met have been rather creepy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest that you add {{underconstruction}} to the top of the article. Then, do a rewrite using sources from Google books and Google scholar and google Breast cancer awareness site:edu

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Get rid of "she-ro"

There is way to much to read above regarding the term. I just looked at the article, and the term is glaringly unencyclopedic. I move to strike it from the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks for your good will.

seconded.

Charles35 (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)