Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Cricket (game)

2010-01-29T21:15:25Z

Humblpi: Undo revision 739007 by CharlieT (Talk) bah humbug

[[Image:Cricket_match.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Australia vs India, Sydney Cricket Ground, January 2004. Note how the pitch being used is merely one of many that can be in various stages of preparation.]]
'''Cricket''' is a bat and ball game played between two teams of eleven, normally in the local summer season. At international level, it is played primarily in three forms: Test cricket (played over five days) and one-day cricket (a shortened form of the game, with each team batting one innings of up to 50 overs). A recent innovation has been the "Twenty20" match (20 overs per side).

Cricket is also played at provincial and county levels, and traditional matches between village and [[public house]] teams are still played in summer on the [[village green]]s of [[England]].

==International Game==
The International Cricket Council (ICC) governs the game internationally, and recognizes the national cricket administrations of each country.

On a global scale cricket is only surpassed by [[soccer]] in terms of popularity; it is the primary spectator sport in [[India]], [[Pakistan]], [[Bangladesh]], [[Sri Lanka]], and the [[West Indies]], and of major importance in England, [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], and [[South Africa]], and in many other places that were historically affected by British colonial influence. Cricket has a low profile in the United States, where baseball is the dominant bat and ball sport, but it is played in various regions. (As of March 2007, the ICC rejected the recognition of the [[USA Cricket Association]] until it adopted a viable constitution and rules, and created a workable administration.)

===Code of Laws===
Marylebone Cricket Club in [[London]], which operates The Lord's ground, was formed in 1787. A year later, it composed a Code of Laws that were adopted throughout the game. The MCC remains the custodian and arbiter of Laws relating to cricket around the world.

==The Pitch==
Cricket is played on a [[pitch]] essentially a flat [[grass]] playing field, that is 22 yards (66 feet or 1 chain or 20.12 m) long and 10 feet wide.

The pitch is marked with various lines or 'creases', and is double-ended so that alternate 'overs' are played from both ends:
*One 'bowling crease' is drawn at each end of the pitch to mark the ends of the pitch. The three stumps in the set of stumps at that end of the pitch are along this crease. The bowling creases may be used to determine whether there is a 'no ball' because a fieldsman has encroached on the pitch or the wicket keeper has moved in front of the wicket before he is permitted to do so.
*One 'popping crease' is drawn at each end of the pitch in front of each of the two sets of stumps, 4 feet (1.22 m) in front of and parallel to the bowling crease. The popping crease is used in one test of whether the bowler has bowled a 'no ball'. To avoid a no ball, some part of the bowler's front foot in the delivery stride (that is, the stride when he releases the ball) must be behind the popping crease (although the bowler's front foot does not have to be grounded).
*A return crease is drawn on each side of each set of the stumps, 4 feet 4 inches (1.32 m) either side of and parallel to the imaginary line joining the centres of the two middle stumps. The return creases are primarily used to determine whether the bowler has bowled a no ball. To avoid a no ball, some part of the bowler's back foot in the delivery stride must land within and not touching the return crease.

As imperfections in the playing surface may affect the behavior of the ball, the pitch is considered high-maintenance as it has to be regularly rolled, watered and cut to ensure suitability for play. A [[groundskeeper]] is usually employed for this purpose.

An ideal pitch has fine grass growing in the turf to retain the consistency of the pitch and to prevent cracking, yet its grass has been cut so that the underlying ground is fully exposed.

An innovation in recent years has been the 'drop-in pitch', which is prepared and tended away from the field of play and then dropped into a specially constructed slot in the ground in place of normal turf. Final preparation is done after the pitch is in place.

Alternatives to the grass pitch are:
*Concrete topped with plastic 'grass' carpet, matting, or rubber (crushed or granulated, or a section of rubber conveyor belt);
*Concrete pitch (often with green pigment, or painted green);
*Clay surface, watered and rolled;
*A vulcanized rubber surface (introduced to England's famous Gloucester Cricket Ground in response to the floods of summer 2007);

==Equipment==
Cricket balls are made from [[cork]] with a [[leather]] cover, and are traditionally red (but white balls in limited over cricket (ODI's and Twenty20's). Bats are [[willow]] treated with linseed oil.

The normal clothing for cricketers is white, or it may coloured for limited over matches:
*long trousers;
*long sleeves shirt (may be short sleeved for night matches);
*stud soled shoes; and
*cap or hat.

A normal cricketer's cap has a small beak at the front. Members of national teams are 'capped' (given their own team cap) when they are picked for their team. In recent times, it is normal to have cricketers optionally wearing a soft, canvas, broad-brimmed hat (often colloquially called a "floppy"

In recent years, team member's shirts often bear a number [[enbroidery|embroidered]] below the national or team crest. This number is their 'cap' ranking, their number in the players who have been selected to play, since the national, state, or county first played (perhaps as early as the 1800s.) For example: the Australian team captain, [[Ricky Ponting]], wears number 366 in the national side and 123 for Australia's One Day International team<ref>[http://www.cricket.com.au/default.aspx?s=playersmendetails&profileid=30 Ponting], Cricket Australia, accessed 16 February 2008</ref>.

The batsman uses pads (shin, arm and body guards), padded gloves, a 'box' (a protection for the groin), and protective headgear in response to the hazards of modern fast-bowling techniques.

The wicketkeeper is the only fielder allowed to wear gloves, which are made of soft leather with rubber palms to help grip the ball.

==Officials==
Two umpires take to the field for major matches. The umpire at the bowler's end stands behind the stumps and watches the delivery stride of the bowler, the flight of the ball to adjudicate 'wide' or 'no ball' deliveries, and where it might strike the batsman or his bat.

The 'leg' umpire normally stands behind the batsman (on the 'leg' side of the field) and watches the flight of the ball and any deflection from the bat, in order to assist the other umpire in making a decision about a 'wide' or 'no ball' or a catch behind the stumps.

A 'third umpire' has been instituted for test and some state/county matches in recent years to decide close decisions for stumpings and run-outs, using video equipment and slow speed replays.

The captain of the fielding side is also considered an umpire for the specific circumstance where he believes a batsman has been unfairly been give 'out' by the other umpires. He may call the batsman back to continue his innings at bat. The captain is often fielding closer to the batsman than the umpires, and may have seen or heard the circumstances more clearly. This prerogative is rarely exercised, but shows high levels of sportsmanship as it effectively counters the wishes of other members of his team.

The scorers are considered to be officials. The field umpires use a system of hand and body gestures to indicate runs scored and other matters to the scorers, who are off the field.

In major games, such as international tests and national competitions, a referee is appointed by the convening body. This person does not go on the field of play, but watches from the stands. In hierarchy above the umpires, he can independently decide or be appealed to for decisions on matters of [[gamesmanship]], etiquette, or cricket rules.

==Test (First Class) cricket - an overview==
Test cricket is played between the national teams of two countries. Most test series are 'best of' three or five matches. Typically, various limited over matches are also played as part of the 'season', including several 'warm-up' matches to assist the visiting team to become familiar with local conditions. As each major city in a country has a premier ground, a season normally involves matches in various cities.

A day's play consists of 90 overs of 6 balls (540 'legal' balls), usually divided into three 2 hour sessions with breaks for lunch and tea.

===The Ground===
The size of the field of play varies widely between cricket grounds, but the '''''pitch''''' in the centre is always 22 yards long and 10 feet wide. At either end of this pitch are two sets of '''''wickets''''', consisting of three wooden posts ('''''stumps''''') upon which rest two wooden '''''bails'''''. While most 'international' grounds are of generally similar size, most matches are now played with a '''''boundary rope''''' at a standard distance from the pitch around the edge of the field inside the white picket fence fence.

===Getting Out===
A batsman can be dismissed ('''''given out''''') in a number of different ways. These are:
* '''Bowled''' – the ball hits the stumps (wicket) and removes the bails direct from the bowler’s delivery, or after hitting only the bat or the batsman's hands (gloves) which are on the bat handle.
* '''Caught''' – the batsman hits the ball and it is caught by the fielding side before it touches the ground.
* '''LBW''' (leg before wicket) – the batsman fails to hit the ball and it strikes him in such a way that the umpire judges it would have gone on to hit the stumps. Note: This mode of dismissal depends on a number of other factors.
* '''Stumped''' – This is a particular case of 'run out' when the wicket keeper takes the ball immediately after delivery and breaks the stumps while the batsman has been attempting a shot while ahead of his crease.
* '''Run out''' – The fielding team get the ball to the wickets and 'breaks' the bails from the stumps while the batsman is outside the crease.
* '''Hit wicket''' - The batsman hits the stumps with his bat, or steps on the stumps while rearing back from a ball, breaking the bails.
* '''Handled the ball''' - The batsman touches the ball without the permission of the fielding side.
* '''Hit the ball twice''' - The batsman hits the ball twice without the intent of guarding his wicket. Tapping the ball from rolling onto your stumps is legal while hitting a throw away is an out.
* '''Obstructing the field''' - The batsman stops a fielder from fielding. This does not include unintentional bumping or running between the ball and a fielder.
* '''Timed out''' - If the batsman takes more than three minutes to get onto the pitch he is declared out. If the delay is even longer, the umpire may decide the batting team has forfeited.
* '''Retired hurt''' - The batsman loses the will to bat/keep batting or is too seriously injured. In the case of an injury sustained during the present game, the batsman may return to the crease at a later date if his injury is repaired.

===Win, Draw, or Tie===
In order to win, a team must dismiss the opposition twice (that is, take 20 wickets) and have scored more runs, within the five days. A match is a 'draw' if either team fails to dismiss the other twice, irrespective of how many runs may have been scored. A 'tie' is when the scores are level at the end of all sessions of play; no extra play is normally used to break a tie in a test match, but extra overs are played in some limited over matches.

===Batting and fielding===
The batting side must always have two batsmen operating in partnership, and each member of the batting team is allowed to bat once and only once in an innings. Thus, although they have eleven players, once ten wickets have fallen they are '''''all out''''' and their '''''innings''''' is over. The batting and fielding sides then swap roles and this cycle is repeated so that both teams have two opportunities to bat.

The game begins with the toss of a coin between the two captains, supervised by the field umpires. The winning captain then elects to bat or field.

Two batsmen (the '''''openers''''') take to the field accompanied by the entire fielding side and two umpires. The batsman who is to receive the first ball is '''''on strike''''' and takes guard in front of his wicket. His '''''non-striking''''' partner waits at the other end of the pitch.

The fielding side nominates a bowler, who has six balls (six balls = one '''''over''''') with which to dismiss the batsman. Bowlers normally bowl overarm, and must not straighten the elbow during the delivery of the ball. (Underarm delivery, similar to that used in [[Softball]], was at one time the only form of delivery. It is now banned. A famous case of its use in an Australia-New Zealand test match resulted in derision for the Australian captain who asked a bowler to use this technique in order to stop the batting side from making a necessary run to win.)

Typically, bowlers take a run up before delivering a ball. A bowler may not bowl consecutive overs, so that typically two bowlers will bowl alternative overs until the captain decides to make a switch. In theory any player may bowl, but in practice no more than five or six of the eleven will usually participate. One other member of the fielding side acts as the wicket-keeper, standing directly behind the wicket to catch any missed balls, or any balls where the batsman managed only a faint touch. The remaining members of the fielding side (who are specialist batsmen) spend the entire innings fielding.

====Batting theory====
Batsmen may be either left or right handed: The bat is the same for each.

The batsmen can run any number of runs at any time, even if the ball has not been struck.

The batsman aims to hit the ball in such a way that he and his fellow batsman can run safely to the other end and ground his bat, or a piece of his body (foot, hand, etc), within the popping crease before the fielding side can effect a run out. Hitting the ball well into the outfield causes the fielding side to chase the ball and throw it back to the wicket keeper or another player who 'backs up' at the bowling end of the pitch.

Long hits to poorly defended parts of the ground may allow the batsmen to run four, or the ball may get to the fence for four.

At certain times the ball is deemed to be 'dead' and the batsmen can wander safely on the pitch between the creases, for example to converse on tactics.

A good batsman in the top order (batting at positions 1-6) is normally capable of getting 20-50 runs and possibly 100 or many more. The 'lower order' batsmen in a good team, normally the specialist bowlers, may be able to 'slash' 20 runs on a good day.

====Bowling theory====
The bowler has two goals, which are not mutually exclusive:
*get the batsmen out, as they can no longer score in that innings; and
*prevent the batsman from scoring.

It may seem that the bowler should always aim at the batsman's legs, which are in front of the stumps. This is normally easily defended. Hence, bowlers normally bowl a range of balls away from the stumps hoping to lure the batsman into playing a rash or mis-timed shot that goes to a catch or allows the fielders to create a run out.

Bowlers come in three types: Quick, Medium, and Slow (or 'spin'). A top-level team will normally have a bowling attack with two or three quick bowlers, one specialist slow (spin) bowler, and several general players capable of medium pace bowling.

'''Quick''' or fast bowlers may be delivering balls travelling at 136 to 150 kmh (85 to 95 mph). The ball is intended to either:
*hit the pitch on the seam (between the two halves of the leather) and thereby to bounce (un)predictably, or
*swing in the air towards or away from the bat.
*intimidate the batsman into making an error out of fear. Note that in cricket, unlike in baseball it is considered a legitimate tactic to attempt to injure the batsman by striking him with the ball in the head or other parts of the body.

'''Medium''' pace bowlers use similar tactics to fast bowlers but aim to create more diversity within the speed of their bowling so as to trick the batsman's timing of his swing at the ball.

'''Slow''' (or '''spin''') bowlers use either wrist or finger spinning techniques to get the ball to swing in the air, or bounce markedly off the pitch in either direction, and thereby snick the bat and be caught or bounce behind the batsman's guard into the stumps.

Normally, the quick bowlers will open the attack, and bowl for about two hours (or to the end of the first session.) The bowling will then be mixed up, with medium and slow, or quick-medium. At any time the captain may call for a change of bowling to 'mix up' the batsmen and seek to induce lax shots that can create an 'out'.

=====Over versus around=====
Whether the bowler is right or left handed, they have two options for approaching the pitch to bowl the ball.
*Over the wicket: The bowler's bowling arm is nearer the stumps. (A right handed bowler passes to the left of the stumps.)
*Around the wicket: The bowler typically crosses in front of the umpire who is standing back slightly, and the bowler's bowling arm is away from the stumps. (A right handed bowler crosses the mid-line of the wicket and passes the stumps to the left and behind him.)

Bowlers will often change delivery direction in order land the ball in a patch of rough or cracked turf. The irregular or uneven bounce that results is intended to reduce the scoring rate or induce desperate or intemperate shots by the batsman.

By changing his distance away from the stumps (while remaining within the delivery crease), the bowler can achieve a range of approach angles which, when combined with spin and delivery speed, offers the attacking side a broad range of options.

While it is possible for the bowler to change deliveries at each ball, typically a whole over will be bowled using one or the other of these possible delivery methods. In any case, before the delivery, the bowler must inform the umpire who will in turn inform the batsman.

=====Grip and concealment=====
The bowlers are under no obligation to inform the batsman about their particular technique for delivering the ball. Bowlers have certain grips on the ball that, if the batsman is able to pick up the shape of the fist or the splay of the fingers, will give a fraction of a second's advantage in determining what shot the batsman may use, or whether to take a step down or across the wicket.

Bowlers will often adopt strategies to prevent the batsman seeing the delivery hand, such as:
*holding their 'off' hand over the delivery hand during their strides to the crease;
*holding the ball in the 'off' hand until the last delivery stride;
*cocking the hand so that the bowler sees the back of the hand and not the fingers (and their particular grip on the ball);
*striding in with the delivery arm behind their body.

===Fielding positions===

The fielding team has eleven players on the field. One is the bowler, and one the wicket-keeper, leaving nine players to be distributed around the field in such a way as to maximise the fielding team's chances of preventing runs being scored and/or taking a wicket. Different situations call for different distributions, and part of the tactical and strategic skill of cricket (sometimes referred to as its chess-like nature) is to position the fielders to maximum advantage. Each position has a name, and some of the names (such as "silly mid off" and "short fine leg") can seem amusing to non-cricketers.<ref>[http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/fielding-positions.pdf Diagram of fielding positions from cricinfo.com]</ref>

===Scoring===

The batsman’s aim is to score '''''runs''''' whilst protecting his wicket. Generally speaking, in order to score a run, he must first hit the ball. He and his partner must then decide whether or not they can run to each other’s end of the pitch before the fielding side have time to break either wicket with the ball. They may run as many times as they are able per hit and the ''on strike'' batsman scores one run for his team each time they do so.

If the ball reaches the boundary rope, the batsman automatically scores four runs. If it clears the rope without first touching the ground, it scores six runs. (If a fielder is in contact with the ball when they touch the fence/rope then it is counted as a four or six depending on whether the ball has previously touched the ground or would have carried over the fence/rope.)

A 'no ball' may be called by an umpire according to various infractions by a bowler. The batting team gets one run counted to its score, and the ball is rebowled. A batsman can not be caught (out) on a no ball. Bowling infractions may include overstepping the popping crease, or delivering a ball that goes outside the return crease at the batsman's end or over the batsman's head (a wild delivery).

A 'bye' is a run scored when the ball is not hit. This may occur when the ball hits the batsman's apparel (clothes or protective equipment) and is deflected off into the field of play, or when a bowler delivers a ball that the wicket keeper fails to gather up. Batsmen may either 'run' or, if the ball goes to the boundary, a 'four' may be awarded even if the batsmen have run fewer.

The notation for scoring leads to a particular term, 'dot ball', as in the scoring sheet a ball that does not get a run is noted with a dot. Accordingly, an over with a single, dot, no ball, dot, three, dot, single, would be marked 1.nb.3.1 (six 'legal' deliveries) and the score has increased by 6 runs including one for the no ball.

====Example of Match Scoring====

The scoring of matches, and especially the way results are presented, can sometimes be confusing. As an example, let us imagine that, at the end of the first day’s play, Sri Lanka have scored 286 runs and have lost 5 wickets. This would be written as '''286-5'''.

Playing Australia, the match pans out as follows:

* Sri Lanka – 1st innings: 431
* Australia – 1st innings: 390

* Sri Lanka – 2nd innings: 360

Australia now need 402 runs to win. At the end of the 4th day, they find themselves 100-3 in their 2nd innings. Thus, they require 302 more runs to win on the final day with 7 wickets in hand.

If Australia are bowled out for a 2nd innings total of 300, then they would have fallen short by 102. Sri Lanka would be said to have '''won by 101 runs''' (if Australia had scored exactly 401, the game would have been a tie).

If, however, Australia reached their target only having lost another three wickets (402-6), they would be said to have '''won by 4 wickets'''.

If at the end of the fifth day's play Australia were 350-8, they would not yet have reached their target, and Sri Lanka would not yet have taken 10 wickets. In this instance both teams would have failed to win and the game would be declared a draw. This occurrence is not uncommon.

==Other aspects of the game==
===Grounds===
Grounds in different parts of one country, let along different parts of the world, play differently: Wickets in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, are renowned for being 'hard'; English wickets are 'green' (have grass obvious in the playing surface); the ground in [[Perth, Western Australia]] has a daily sea breeze in the afternoon.

Then, there are oddities:
*The "Lord's" ground, the home of the Marylebone Cricket Club (established 1787) in London, has a slant of about 2.5m (8 feet) from one side of the ground to the other, so a shot made 'down the hill' typically goes further into the field than a shot made 'up the hill'.
*Grounds in the West Indies and India often have hundreds of people sitting in or hanging from trees in order to get an unobstructed view.
*"The Gabba" ground (at Woolloongabba in [[Brisbane, Queensland]]) has cantilevered spectator stands that protrude over the surrounding streets<ref>[http://www.onesteel.com/images/db_images/casestudies/sports17cbp.pdf Structural Steel Casebook, Issue 17, October 2000, pp4/6/8, OneSteel, accessed 5 January 2008</ref>.
*The cricket ground at [[Scarborough]] in [[Yorkshire]] is inside the walls of the town's medieval castle, and this leads to a number of "local" rules; for example, if a ball is caught by a spectator the batsman is given out if he is batting at the "town" end of the ground, but is awarded six runs of he is at the "sea" end.

===Day and Night===
Play is normally during the day, but an innovation since the 1970s has been the introduction of light towers at cricket grounds that allow play to continue through dusk and into the night.

===Sight Screen===
At each end of a major cricket ground is a 'sight screen', which is of a contrasting colour to the ball; white screen for a red 'day' ball; black screen for a white 'night' ball. The screen is moved so as to be behind the bowler from the perspective of the batsman. The ball thus stands out from the background and assists the batsman in making decisions about his shot.

==='Walking'===
High sportsmanship is shown when a batsman 'walks' from the field, conceding his wicket, when he knows that he has been 'out' by the rules of the game, but was not given out by the umpires. The fielding side may not even have 'appealed' to the umpire. For instance, this may occur when he feels the ball 'nick' his gloves or the bat and the ball is then caught by the wicket keeper.

Conversely, a batsman does not have to walk unless the umpire gives him 'out'. He may know that he was out by the rules of the game (for example, he felt a nick) but, after the fielding side has 'appealed' for the wicket (out), the umpire decides that it was 'not out'; and, the batsman is within his rights to 'stand his ground' based on the umpires decision.

===Winter===
Cricket grounds are generally of a size that allows them to be marked out during winter for playing football: [[soccer]], [[Rugby]], [[Rugby Union]], or [[Australian Rules]].

===Women's Cricket===
A strong international competition exists for women playing cricket. This is based on national competitions at various levels (state/county, regional and local).

===Blind Cricket===
People with vision impairment, along with fully sighted people, can play [[Blind]] Cricket. (Sighted people are fitted with special spectacles that distort their vision.)

The ball is normally a white plastic ball of similar size to a cricket ball or softball, and has inside it a bell or metal pieces that make a noise as the ball moves.

The bowler calls out to the batsman, "Are you ready?", which allows the batsman to line up for the delivery. Similarly, the batsman's reply, or a call from the wicket keeper, allows the bowler to line up.

The batsman can be got 'out' in the same ways as for sighted cricket, except that catching is not permitted.

===Duckworth-Lewis scoring===
In the event that a limited over match is affected by rain or other stops to play, a system of score amendment is used developed by statisticians Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis. This allows the umpires to calculate a new score target to win for the second side batting for any given amount of time remaining for normal play, less an allowance for the ratio of runs scored to wickets remaining, corrected for the number of minutes remaining until sunset. If a game may be rain affected, it is in the interests of the first side batting to score at a rapid and even rate, so that a revised target is difficult for the following side to achieve.

==Famous Cricketers==
===Batsmen===
*Dr [[W.G. Grace]] (1848-1915), English - "the best-known Englishman of his time"
*Sir [[Donald Bradman]] (1908-2001), Australian, "The Don" - "the greatest batsman of all time" (test match average of 99.94 runs; top score 334; 29 100s & 13 50s; 6,996 runs in 52 matches; first class average 95.14)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/4188.html</ref>
*[[Sachin Tendulkar]] (1973-), Indian - "the greatest One-Day International cricketer of all time" (Tests: ~12,000 @ 55 av; ODI: ~16,000 @ 44 av; First Class: ~20,000 @ 59 av; List A: ~19,000 @ 45 av; still playing)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/india/content/player/35320.html</ref> Tendulkar now holds the records for the most runs scored in Tests and One Day Internationals, as well as the records for the most individual centuries scored by batsman in both Tests and One Day Internationals.
*Sir [[Gary Sobers|Garry Sobers]] (1936-), Barbadian - "the greatest all-rounder of all time". The first player to hit six sixes in one over of first-class cricket.<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/52946.html</ref>
*Sir [[Vivian Richards|Viv Richards]] (1952-), Antigua, West Indies - "the greatest ODI batsman of all time" until Tendulkar (Tests: 8,540 runs @ 50.23 av; ODI: 6721 @ 47.00 av; First Class: 36,212 @ 49.40 av; List A: 16,995 @ 41.96 av)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/52812.html</ref>
*Sanath Jayasuriya (1969-), Sri Lankan- "The Matara Mauler" (Batting - Tests: 6,973 runs @ 40.07 av; ODI: 12,785 runs @32.69. Bowling - Tests: 98 wickets @ 34.34; ODIs: 310 wickets @ 36.55)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/player/49209.html</ref>
*Jacques Kallis (1975-), South Africa. (Batting - Tests: ~9,700 runs @ 55.46; ODI: ~9,600 runs @ 44.69. Bowling - Tests: 240 wickets @ 31.22, ODI: 243 wickets @ 31.38). Still playing <ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/southafrica/content/player/45789.html</ref>

===Bowlers===
*[[Shane Warne]] (1969-), Australian - spin bowler, one of the five Wisden "cricketers of the century" (Tests: 17,995 runs for 708 wickets @ 25.41 runs/wicket; ODI: 7,541 for 293 @ 25.73 ave; First Class: 34,449 for 1,319 @ 26.11 av; List A: 11,642 for 473 @ 24.61 ave; retired in 2007)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/8166.html</ref>
*[[Muttiah Muralitharan]] (1972-), Sri Lankan - spin bowler, "the greatest Test match bowler ever" (still playing; as at September 2008 - Tests: 16,604 runs for 756 wickets @ 21.96 runs/wicket; ODI: 11,030 for 479 @ 23.02 av; First Class: 25,421 for 1,330 @ 19.11 ave; List A: 13,471 for 602 @ 22.37 av)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/player/49636.html</ref>
*[[Glenn McGrath]] (1970-), Australian - quick bowler, "holds the world record for the highest number of Test wickets by a fast bowler" (Retired from test cricket in 2007; and all cricket in 2008) Tests: 12,186 runs for 563 wickets @ 21.64 runs/wicket; ODI: 8,391 for 381 @ 22.02 ave; First Class: 17,414 for 835 @ 20.85 ave; List A: 9,943 for 458 @ 21.70 ave)<ref>http://content-rsa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6565.html</ref>

===Dream Team===
According to [[Richie Benaud]], former Captain of the Australian Cricket Team and since then known internationally as "The Voice of Cricket" (commentator, both ball-by-ball and expert opinion):

''The Opening Batsmen:''

1. Sir John Berry 'Jack' Hobbs (1882-1963) (England) - The Greatest Opener, and the first English cricket player to be [[knight|knighted]] (1953)

2. [[Sunil Gavaskar]] (India) - The Most Difficult Batsman to Dismiss, and a Fine Opener

''Middle Order Batsmen:''

3. Sir Don Bradman (Australia) - The Best Batsman to Walk the Earth, and the first cricket player to be knighted (1949)

4. Sir Viv Richards (West Indies) - The Master Blaster

5. Sachin Tendulkar (India) - The Greatest ODI Batsman

''All-rounders:''

6. Sir Gary Sobers (West Indies) - The Greatest Allrounder Ever

7. [[Imran Khan]] Naizi (Pakistan) - the finest Cricketer/Captain to emerge from Pakistan; picked ahead of [[Kapil Dev]], [[Ian Botham]] & [[Richard Hadlee]]

''Wicket Keeper:''

8. [[Adam Gilchrist]] (Australia) - The Finest Wicketkeeper-batsman the world has seen

''Spinner:''

9. Shane Warne (Australia) - The Finest Leg spin Bowler of All time

''Fast Bowlers:''

10. [[Dennis Lillee]] (Australia) - A Great Australian Fast Bowler

11. [[Sydney Barnes]] (England) - A Fast-bowling Legend

==External links==
* [http://www.icc-cricket.com International Cricket Council]
* [http://www.lords.org The Lord's ground and the Marylebone Cricket Club]
* [http://www.cricket.com.au 'Cricket Australia']
* [http://stats.rleague.com/tc/players/player_index.html Player statistics (index)] - by country
* [http://www.championships.vbca.org.au/ Vision Australia 29th National 'Blind Cricket' Championships, 29 December 2007 - 11 January 2008]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Cricket]]

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-19T19:39:27Z

Humblpi: /* Piltdown All Over Again */

== Final Copy of Letter Sent Wednesday afternoon ==

Dear Prof. Lenski,

This is my second request for your data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli''," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
 http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Your work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interest in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.

If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request access to the data that was made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and to the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper and referenced in your first reply to me. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."

Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key underlying data available for independent review. Your response, or lack thereof, will be posted due to the public interest in this issue. Thank you.

Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.
 www.conservapedia.com
 cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications

:That was disappointing. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I don't blame him if he doesn't respond. What is this about Aschafly wanting to review the information himself. I thought he said that he wouldn't understand it, or something to that effect.[[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I guess he didn't really need people to sign on with him, after all. Added to the project page.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Draft letter ==

Dear Prof. Lenski,

This is my second request for the data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
 http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

This work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interested in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.

If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request that access to the data made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."

Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key data available for independent review. Thank you.

Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.

cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications

:Given that he was very gracious in his last reply, you think maybe it would be a good idea to at least TRY not to sound like he's being accused of malfeasance? I'd suggest new wording but something much better is already available below. -Drek

== List of people willing to join an email requesting the public release of Lenski's data ==

Schedule permitting, a better version of the draft letter below (which someone diluted) will be sent tomorrow to Lenski, noting support by others (unspecified whom) at Conservapedia. Obviously Conservapedia rejects the limits on access to data proposed by several below. Public access to data means access by all, not merely by people having certain preferred credentials or education.

This will be the second request for the data from Lenski. Given that the research was publicly funded and published in a Journal that has a policy of access to data, the expectation is that Lenski will release the data. But will he?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure that you've ever spelt out exactly what data you are expecting. Somebody mentioned on this page that we might be talking about terabytes of data. Is that what you are asking for? Or what?
: Also, I don't recall anybody actually said that the access to the data should be limited (and if you are talking about my comments and those of others that ''we'' should leave it to those who are qualified to see it, then I reject that we are proposing limits as such).
: Neither have you responded to my comments about how it will make creationists look.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I "diluted it. I thought it needed to be more specific and polite. Since it is neither again, I am hesitant to put my name to it. There's no need to be brusque, and every reason to be as polite as possible.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Current total of supporters: 7'''

*[[User:Aschlafly]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 20:55, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
*--[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Conservative]]---[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:52, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Wait a second... if I put my name on this list, is it going to get attached to some combative email? I don't want to just agree, when you seem to be ignoring my attempts to help draft this email. What were you proposing to send, Andy? If you wouldn't mind, could you post the text here before I have to decide if I want to attach my good name to it?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::QFT. I likewise said earlier that I'd be happy to sign on, pending a review of the actual text to be sent. So long as the tone remains professional and polite I'm in. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It will be polite and professional, of course. In fact, someone else can draft the text if he likes, as long as it simply requests '''public release of the data for public scrutiny''' and is free of any obfuscation like that displayed by some detractors on this page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::There's a draft that some folks are working on, below. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Provisionally willing, pending review of the finished draft. I make it a policy never to sign my name to anything I haven't read. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:

Dear Prof. Lenski,

Your recent paper in PNAS, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key
innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli,"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf] has interested us greatly. Knowing PNAS policy of making data available, we were hoping you would accordingly oblige us with your recorded observations for a few key points.

We respectfully request the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony developed cit+; while we see excerpts in the paper, we were hoping to examine them in context. Your website[https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/] already discloses some older data, and seems well-suited for public release of the data underlying your recent paper.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think we should probably be more specific, Andy. We're obviously not asking for twenty years' worth of notes, right? Or at least, I don't think we should ask for that.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 21:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I think it's reasonably obvious what the key claims are in the paper, and what the key data are underlying those claims. But, if you like, perhaps you can revise the above letter. The paper itself is not long and feel free to cite to it, if you think that is necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I just think it helps to be as specific as possible. But I have edited a bit with slightly more polite wording and more specificity. I hope it is acceptable?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 21:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::If we send that version, put my name on the list :) --[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll add my name to that version as well. It's encouraging to see what teamwork can achieve when we're all focused on the same goal. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

----

Is it acceptable for the people co-signing this letter to use their Conservapedia user names? I noticed earlier that Arizaphale did not want to use his real name. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks, Philip. I'm also willing to sign with a generic "John Doe" or even an old-fashioned "X". Or, the letter could simply be signed "Members of the Conservapedia Community," since I'm feeling confident that two or more others aren't sporting their actual names on that list. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:41, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Right, that's no problem. We're polite and professional around here, and signing as "Members of the Conservapedia Community" is a good suggestion, with a number added.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'd be more comfortable with that, as well. You can't be too careful with putting personal information online nowadays. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== Recap ==

Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines all defend the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim. Moreover, note how insulting some of them have become in response below to a request for public scrutiny of the data. No more insults will be allowed here, and their talk pollution may be removed.

Public scrutiny has obvious benefits, and none of them have given any reason for denying that scrutiny. Journals and even government policy encourage or require it. Ah, but [[evolutionists]] feel they can play by their own rules, and make public claims without making the data public. Rest assured that no one here is fooled by this "make the claim but hide the data from the public" approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Just for the record, the above as it refers to my own statements is untrue. I think public scrutiny is excellent. I believe, in fact, that given that Lenski so promptly answered your questions, he would probably comply with any specific requests you might make. It does not seem reasonable to demand he send you what must be gigabytes of data off the cuff. If you were a professional in a field even tangentially related, I imagine he might be happy to do so immediately, but as it is, I suspect you are not at the top of the list for someone as busy as he undoubtedly must be.
:Perhaps if you sent him an email asking him a specific question: ("I wonder if you would send me the relevant records from the time at which you believe the bacteria became Cit+" might be one, but I am not a biologist) he would answer it with the records or say why he wouldn't. Or if you wait, they might have time to organize the data into a coherent manner for presentation and make it available on the internet or by request. Cordiality is key, we agree on that much.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::While I appreciate having my name removed from the top list because my position was acknowledged, it's pointless while Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines are still being represented in the way they are. I'm in agreement with them, and now Philip Rayment too, that simply asking "for all your data" is not only unscientific, but wasteful and disrespectful if there's no meaningful plan in place to use the data productively. None of these people are against disclosure or proper scientific review, so as long as that statement above remains you're continuing to make false statements about CP editors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you supported public scrutiny of the data, then you would send Lenski an email requesting it. That you have not, and will not, speaks volumes about your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::...to me, it says that I'm not a biologist, and doubt I could fairly evaluate it if I received it. I know the degree of training it has required for me to achieve my present position, and I lack the hubris to think I could exercise equivalent powers of discrimination in a field so unrelated to my own. I'm not faulting you - maybe you have a degree in biochemistry, for all I know! But I know that I am not capable of fairly evaluating in context the raw data of biological experiments. My view is not a multi-book set: there's only one volume to it, and it's humility and appreciation of the credentials of the qualified.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::I assure you, Andy, I do support it. I see no reason to think it isn't forthcoming, even though he didn't send all of the data to Some Internet Guy who demanded it offhand.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Andy, I will not join in your support in the wasting of the tax dollars of mine and others to provide irrelevant information which you will then proceed to not use. Your version of "scrutiny", unlike scientific scrutiny, accomplishes nothing but to waste our tax dollars.

::::: You can either participate with other scientists in public scrutiny by identifying rational weaknesses in Lenski's work and doing verification experiments, or you can continue to ignore public scrutiny and demand that your version of "scrutiny" be done. What will it be?

::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Although I support the public release of data, there is no way that I would ask for it or put my name to a request for it unless I first knew that someone was available to analyse it. I mentioned earlier (when this discussion was on Aschlafly's talk page) that creationists might not review Lenski's work because of lack of funding and numbers of creationary scientists available to do the work. Nevertheless, two creationary scientists have or are in the process of critiquing it (and I think an ID proponent has also). But the first (Don Batten) has apparently not seen the need to ask for all the data, and if either of the other two feel the need, they can ask for themselves. But given the aforementioned lack of funding and availability, it would be pointless asking for the data if there was nobody available to analyse it. Of course, if Conservapedia, or someone known to Conservapedia, is offering to fund the analysis, that might change things.
::::: Furthermore, most problems with evolutionary conclusions are not because of misrepresenting the data, but with the conclusions being based on the materialistic worldview. It is usually not necessary to analyse the (in this case) 20 years' worth of data in order to find this fault.
::::: I'm also concerned about the impression this will give of creationists. We cop enough criticism as it is simply by holding creationist views without giving our critics real reasons such as unreasonable demands for data that we will probably never use.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Finally. Someone who makes sense. I'll gladly join in an email requesting any relevant data from Lenski, as needed by an identified/funded creationist scientist for Conservapedia.

:::::: Until that time, Andy's "public scrutiny" just wastes tax dollars.

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 12:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Unfortunately, Philip, you've proven to be right on this. If you google "schlafly lenski" there's plenty of criticism over the way this has been handled by CP, and the credibility of the latter. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of evolutionist fraud ==

I do think a request of examination of the alleged raw data is reasonable [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|given the history of evolutionists fraud]]. In addition, we know know that [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin was deceitful regarding his public pronouncements regarding his worldview]] and he was actually an [[atheism|atheist]]. So given the history of [[deceit]] in connection with the evolutionary position and its promotion, I do think Andy is quite justified in requesting to see the raw data of Lenski's alleged work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: As I wrote above, I'm pretty sure the relevant data would be happily provided as soon as a request a bit more specific than "give me all the data" is given. Some particular weakness that Andy identified in Lenski's reasoning, perhaps? Or some experimental procedure that you deemed especially prone to mistake, or even forgery? What is this "skepticism" that has been "expressed" based on? Or is it some sort of... dogmatic skepticism?

: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::I had asked a question above that was never answered, so I'll repeat it here: Who does Conservapedia plan on retaining to review the data from on scientific basis? It would be a lot more professional to select a qualified scientist or panel of scientists to do the job, and let them have a ''professional'' dialog with Prof. Lenski to review the raw data and conclusions. This is just grandstanding - "You haven't delivered gigs and gigs of raw data as requested, so you're withholding data". What it comes down to is that the CP leadership wants anything BUT a professional, qualified review of professor Lenski's work, because the outcome of that is not likely to be what they want. This reminds me of Kent Hovind's "Evolution Challenge" - set up ridiculous demands, and then claim victory because reasonable people don't meet them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Public scrutiny has obvious benefits. See "recap" above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll repeat my specific point. There's nothing improper about requesting that Professor Lenski share his raw data, but it's disrespectful of his time if there's no intention of using that data purposefully. I had asked what the plan was for having the data reviewed once it's received. Are there any qualified professionals lined up to review it and respond? He showed courtesy and professionalism in responding intra-day to the original request, so it's disrespectful to accuse him of withholding information after a single exchange of emails. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::It's also disrespectful to claim that Carafe, TomMoore, SMaines and I are all defending "the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim." None of us have made that statement, so please remove it since it's untrue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: DinsdaleP, clearly state that you support the public release of the data, and retract any comments to the contrary, and I'll remove your name.

:::::: Your comment above suggests that you only support requests for data that have a proper purpose (whatever that is), a proper plan for review (whatever that is), and "qualified professionals lined up to review it." If you cling to that very limited approach, then you do oppose "public scrutiny" of data underlying a scientific claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I thought my comments were self-explanatory, but I'll try to simplify it. Yes, I support the public release of the data, and never claimed otherwise. I hope that's clear enough. The point we disagree on is that after a single exchange of emails, it's wrong to accuse Prof. Lenski of withholding data when he made a reasonable attempt to answer your questions and point you to the supporting data in his papers. If you ask him in a courteous manner how the underlying raw data can be made available, I'm sure you'll get a prompt and professional reply. So go ahead, make the request, and get the data. Frankly, I don't care what you do with it, but at least it will stop the insulting accusations of data being withheld. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::A last clarification - my point about having a "proper purpose" in requesting the data simply meant that if you were asking Prof. Lenski to take the time and effort to collect the raw data and send it to you, I'd hope the effort wasn't going to be a waste of time because it never got into the hands of people qualified to evaluate it properly. Time will tell. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Perhaps you're saying you don't oppose public release of the data. You haven't demonstrated you would "support" it, as in joining an email requesting it. Or would you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::"Perhaps"? I thought my statement above was plain enough, but instead of retracting your false accusation, you're just adding new conditions - now I have to add my signature to an email I haven't seen to show my support for disclosure? That's a sad way to avoid accountability for making false statements. Show me the email and a plan for using the data that doesn't make this a waste of time and taxpayer money, and I'll consider signing the request. In the meantime, please remove the false statements at the top of this page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: I'm sure all of us here will gladly join in an email requesting public release of the data in a scientific scrutiny process. I will not however join in your version of "scrutiny", which has nothing to do with scientific scrutiny at all. -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== responses of creation scientists to Lenski matter ==

Here are the responses of creation scientists to the Lenski matter:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Another email? ==

Is there going to be one? It's entirely possible that, having received a request from a lawyer for data, a scientist might very well think that the data provided in the report would be sufficient. Before deciding that he's hiding something, why not give him enough rope to conclusively hang himself?

"Dear Dr. Lenski,

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough in the first place. We were hoping to see the entirety of the raw data in order to assess it ourselves."

Or some such.

[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::If you are running a study on the genetics of a rapidly multiplying bacterial species over many years, the data accumulated will run into many many gigabytes. I don't believe it is practical to hand it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry requesting it. If there are concerns about any particular area of the study which raised suspicion of fraud or misinterpretation of data, then Mr. Schlafly should be asking the raw data pertaining to that particular area.

::I have published in many medical journals and actively peer review for 2 of them. This is how it works in the field of science. Being a lawyer, Mr. Schlafly may not be familiar with the practice. So I do not think the email Aziraphale prepared is appropriate. This is my opinion and most of the users seem to agree with this as well. --[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

In response to Aziraphale, my email was clear and there is no reason for me to say the same thing again. You're welcome to make your request of Lenski if you really don't think he understood my email.

In response to SMaines, I'll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data underlying public claims about the data. (The amount of the data is no obstacle to its release.) SMaines' approach prevents mistakes and fraud from being identified by independent public review. Apparently SMaines does not even request availability of the data when he does peer review. Perhaps he could tell us which journals he does peer review for so that others can have a healthy skepticism about claims made in them. Of course, SMaines is unlikely to disclose the names of those journals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

It is true that I do not ask for raw data from all the authors that I have peer reviewed articles for. You do not seem to understand how the peer review process works. The role of the peer reviewer is not to repeat all the work the authors have already done.

First I check whether the authors are asking a relevant question regarding the hypothesis, whether the hypotheses are falsifiable, whether the methodology is sound without any obvious flaws, were the data collected ethically and whether they obtain informed consent of all involved. I also aim to determine the experiments performed adhering to protocol and statistical methods used were sound. Then I determine whether their results actually conclude what they have listed as their conclusions. I check whether the bibliography is complete and up-to-date. Finally I recommend to the editor whether the paper is significant and relevant to the journal. I may have omitted a few steps, but that is in nutshell how a peer review process works.

I have worked in academic circles for years and I am yet to come across any referee who will ask for the whole set of raw data for all the papers reviewed. Raw data is only asked for if we have any concerns regarding the validity of methodology or conclusions. I have in the past asked for set of raw data to run some specific calculations myself. I have never known any one who will ring an author and ask to send the whole set of data covering years of data collection.

It works like Carafe described “A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?”

Also, have you come across the different peer review tools? Please familiarize yourself with the process before

For record, I am not against public scrutiny at all, but you have not even pointed out what your concerns or skepticisms are. What you have effectively said is you paper does not fit my belief patterns, so I do not believe you. Hand over all the raw data. This is childish and silly.
--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 15:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:Dear Aschlafly,

:You've mistaken me for someone who thinks he could diagnose Lenski's work in a meaningful way. You are one who can do so, so I was offering advice. It was free, and worth every penny. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Aziraphale, you still don't get it. I support the public release of the data, so that the public can analyze it. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::One of us is certainly not getting something - my suggestion was meant to encourage the release of the data, rather than allowing the conversation to die with a possibility existing that there was a miscommunication rather than a denial of the request. What's more important here: that a political point is scored, or that the data be released? You are 100% mistaken if you think I'm opposed to the release of the data. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:50, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Absolutely, but I won't divulge my identity to you. If using a pseudonym is alright with you I'll gladly attach my support. If my particular handle is too silly, I could be appended as a John Doe instead. That said, you and I have different ideas of what language is appropriate, so I'd expect to see the exact text in advance. For example, until ''proven'' a liar or charlatan he deserves not to be accused of anything. Rather, just as when a motion for discovery is not compeletely fulfilled to your satisfaction, a firm but courteous clarification of your expectations would be appropriate.

::::Would you care for me to draft something instead, and you can sign off, or not, as you see fit? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 21:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Rants Against Public Release of Data ==

:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf Paper 180.] All kinds of data. If you want, I can also link to the protocols and such. Prof. Lenski is way more obliging than we would have any right to expect... I sent him a letter of congratulations, and he even took the time to reply thanking me!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek

:::With a professional and comprehensive reply having been sent promptly by Professor Lenski, what would be the intended follow-up from Conservapedia? It seems like he answered the letter's first two questions and pointed out that the third was based on a misunderstanding of his paper. Since his study's data and methodology are freely available for review, I'm wondering who CP is looking to engage to independently review and assess his work, which has already passed peer review in order to be published. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::He answered, everybody scramble! I need that Lack of Evidence in the air NOW! You call artillery and tell them to deploy the Inconclusive Data immediately! Move, move, move! We've got a battle against science to fight, people!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's reply did not provide the data as requested. It did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some [[evolutionists]] have insisted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:"You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper." If this statement is true then I hardly think he's going to go to the trouble of sending us all his data when it is readily available. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, have you ever read a scientific paper? Papers don't set forth the data themselves. At most, they set forth summaries of data, which can be flawed or self-serving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:
:::#Be able to understand any of it?
:::#Be prepared to accept that the data accurately reflects the physical facts of the matter in the lab, were you to find it consistent with his conclusions?
:::Given your educational background, I have serious doubts about 1), and given your behaviour on this site, I find myself incapable of believing 2). Please feel free to offer me some reassurance. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I find this ironic that you suddenly want data to support someone else's claim, given your "Mystery: Young hollywood stars and breast cancer" ballpark figure. The paper provides more than ballpark figures you have previously used to support your hypothses in the past. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: In response to Leda, if for some unexplained reason I can't understand the data, then I'll find someone who can. I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air. I am not reassured by the withholding of data.

::::: In response to DanielB, I presented my data and described it as a mystery. What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: ''"I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air."'' Oh, nobody's objecting to you flying when clueless. But a modicum of flight knowledge might expected of you if you, say, suddenly rush into the cockpit and demand that the pilot repeat to you every single flight procedure done for the last 12 hours, lest you declare him fraudulent and/or incompetent. I mean, isn't that what you're implying?

:::::: I mean, what are you expecting when you demand "data" of the Cit+ mutation occurance other than a log entry of "Jan 24th, 2008, 2:03pm. Generation 2026 confirmed to express Cit+ mutation"? Then what you do oh-so-politely request? That all of his collaborator's minds be read so you can make sure there is no mistakes?

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Your attempt to defend the withholding of data underlying a scientific claim is amusing. While you're at it, perhaps you should also protest the Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." You might also protest policies that recommend or require taxpayer-funded data to be made available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You thought my poking fun at your inability to form a coherent analogy was supposed to be a defense? The amusement is all on this side of the table, trust me. You see, there is no defending going on here, because there is no withholding going on here.

:::::::: ''"(viii) Materials and Data Availability..."'' Yes, you can stop repeating yourself now. This was in your letter, which I did in fact read (something that might not be said of you and the myriad articles Richard provided). I did wonder why that was in your letter. I mean, did you think that normal scientific discourse doesn't occur unless by your legal coercion? I'm pretty sure if you had, say, a request just a tad more specific than "give me all your data", Richard would have been more than happy to reply. "Give me all your data" is as an absurd of a data request as demanding that Richard must "right now tell me all you know about E. coli", which, come to think about it, would be pretty much the same thing.

:::::::: '''''"To allow others to replicate and build on''' work published in PNAS, authors must..."'' Out of curiosity, which part of his experiment are you trying to replicate that need additional information not available in the paper? Maybe you should tell him, he could easily help you with that. If you are not replicating the experiment, then did you have a real question or concern, or a weakness that you identified, like "I had a concern about this-and-that procedure of the strain selection, it seems particularly vulnerable to contamination" he would be quite happy to help you too. But hey, that requires that you have a clue about the subject matter.

:::::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::You really go out of your way to defend a guy who's clearly a fraudulent hack. Even if he released his so called "raw data" it would just be a huge load of numbers no one is going to take the time to analyze. If it took him years and years to do this experiment he can be pretty sure no one is going to waste that much time trying to replicate it, so everyone can assume he's right and the atheist Darwinists can pretend they've proved evolution, even when we know it's impossible. Do you believe everything you read? If someone claimed they had a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster had a baby, I suppose you'd believe that too if it were published somewhere? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 14:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So let me see if I understand you correctly, Tony. If Lenski doesn't release all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, it's proof that he's a fraud. If Lenski releases all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, the sheer volume is proof that he's trying to pull a fast one, and he's a fraud.
::::::::::Is that correct?
::::::::::Given this and other comments you have made, I suspect that you're a satirist attempting to make conservatives look unreasonable. If so, please stop. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::I resent being called a satirist. You assume that anyone who doesn't hold your liberal views must be joking! Well, the majority of the people in this country are "satirists" if that is the case. It doesn't much matter if Lenski releases his data or not. Us right thinking people know he's a fraud because he claims to have witnessed evolution, and we know that is impossible. That is a fact! I'd like to see his data. I bet it's so seriously flawed even someone with little background in biology will be able to tell. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 21:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Do not call Lenski or anyone else a fraud without good evidence. Evolution is impossible, but for Lenski to be a fraud he would have to be claiming something that he ''knows'' to be wrong, and you've provided no evidence of that, and I doubt that it exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)
::::::::::::: Not at all, Tony. I assume that anyone who is genuinely conservative is going to present a reasonable and rational demeanor, refrain from a priori reasoning, and generally engage in mature conduct. I assume that those who wish to promulgate a stereotype of conservatism with an eye to demonization is going to engage in name-calling, refuse to engage in rational discussion, and declare himself right without adequate support for the position. Such actions are entirely consistent with liberals masquerading as conservatives. If you resent being called a satirist, I would suggest attempting to conduct yourself in a manner becoming a conservative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Where did the 20 years come from? Lenski was asked for the data supporting his claim. He has produced some information on a website, but not that data. Yes, making a claim while withholding the data, even after a request, can reasonably lead one to doubt the claim. Wouldn't you agree with that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

'''(Unindent)'''

Certainly, Mr. Schlafly. What I'm taking issue with is Tony's claim that even if Lenski releases his data, it's not worth taking the time to analyze or "waste the time" trying to replicate. It seems very much to me as if he's trying to portray conservatives as closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence. Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point, but I certainly think you'd agree that such individuals have turned up here before, wouldn't you?

With respect to the 'twenty years' portion: I was under the impression that you wanted the full and complete data to be made available. Given that the experiment took twenty years, I assumed that you would want the full twenty years of data included for evaluation. I apologize if I was mistaken.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

----

I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.

Scientific scrutiny works like this: 
{| width="500px"
|-
|'''Scientist A''' publishes results. 
'''Scientist B''': A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they? 
'''A''': x, y, and z are such and such. 
'''B''': Using x, y, and z, my result doesn't agree with yours at all. Are you sure you did the procedures that you claimed? 
'''A''': ... 
'''B''': You fraud!

Scientific scrutiny ''does not'' work like this: 

'''A''' publishes results. 
'''B''': I have Generic Skepticism toward your article. Under code viii of the Publication Criteria, I demand that you give me all of your data! 
'''A''': ... ok...? It seems that everything you would need is already in the article. Did you have something specific in mind? 
'''B''': A has refused to attach all data he has ever used for the experiment. He is withholding information and thus hiding something.
|-
|}

-- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:This is it. This one is my favorite post. Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Beautiful! What else can I say?--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not much, apparently. I think you've exhausted your meaningful comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, have you read the paper? ==

I have. It pretty fairly lays out all the important data. Unless you want to run the experiments yourself - which I don't know if you could do, given the equipment he used - I think it's probably the best you'll ever get. I think a fair reply to Lenski would be point out elements of his analysis that you don't like, and put that in a reply e-mail. Otherwise, your lack of reply makes it look like you've given up, and your defensive parries here ("he didn't give all his data!") look like a losing rearguard action.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::May I sign-with-qualifier? As in, signed, "A. Shephard - please do show as much as reasonably possible; the truth will out and convince those who doubt you, and this will hasten it along."?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Something to note ==

From the AiG article:

"AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth."

Apparently, Lenski has released his data to Purdom. Presumably, Dr. Purdom wouldn't settle for fragmentary data that wouldn't allow her to fully evaluate the claims. Had Lenski refused to disclose, it seems certain that AiG would have made note of it.

{{unsigned|Benp}}

==Hypothetical==
Let's say that a second email is enough for Lenski to release his data. What are you going to do with it all? Previous discussions show you don't what you are doing with small, simple to analyse data sets. You would need a degree in biochemistry and biostats to even begin to know what you are going to do with it. The people who have peer reviewed the paper a by far better qualified and if they had concerns they would have asked specifically for what they wanted without sounding like .... Well I want say what you sound like writting emails singed with a law degree demanding data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Sure, but like the human genome it will probably be released in time anyway in a way that is useful. You standing there making demands, signing letters JD, makes you look like some lawyer with an axe to grind rather than someone interested in research. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Proposed Follow-up Email==
Since Andy wants to send a second email for some of the rest of us to sign as well, here is a space to work out the wording. I wonder if MainS and Carafe would help us write something that seems reasonable and polite, since you guys seem to have sufficient knowledge in the field to describe what we are looking to find out?

I would suggest something along these lines:

''Dear Professor Lenski''
''We are writing in regards to your recent experiment with cit+ development in observed E. coli populations. We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data from your observations during the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase. We are intensely curious about that information. If it will be made available through some other venue and you wish to direct us to that instead, then we would very much like to be made aware of that.''
''Thank you,''
''Andy Schlafly, Thomas Moore, etc.''

Is that a reasonable request? I am afraid biology protocol is quite beyond me, so some help would be appreciated.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Looks like a good start, Tom, but from the comments so far it seems like nothing short of the full set of observations is going to be satisfactory for some of the skeptics here. I'd suggest the following revision to the second and third sentences:
::''We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data for the full set of your observations for this population. We are intensely curious about the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase, but would like the complete set of observations instead of a subset to facilitate an independent analysis of the research.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It doesn't seem reasonable to demand twenty years' worth of observations, which would be the full set. Or at least, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::It doesn't seem reasonable to me, either, which is why Professor Lenski's response pointed readers to the relevant subsets of data, and that would be sufficient for most reasonable people. I was just pointing out that unreasonable people here will consider anything less than all 20 years to be withholding data, so what's needed to satisfy the skeptics is a way for that full body of observations to be accessible. If the response is that it would take too much time and/or money to satisfy the request, then the burden of proof falls on the skeptics to justify why they can't start with the data already made available and only request additional data when they have specific questions that require it for an answer. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:32, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Well, maybe they will feel differently. I think this is the polite and reasonable approach, rather than asking for all twenty years. Other comments? Andy?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 18:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==What is the plan for a Conservapedia review of Lenski's work?==

One thing that keeps getting lost in the rhetoric - who is looking at the Lenski work on behalf of Conservapedia? More than a few people here, including a CP sysop, have pointed out that a proper scientific review can begin using the data already made available by Professor Lenski. If this review surfaces any questions or criticisms, then that would prompt an exchange with Lenski on the specifcs, and I'm sure the related data would be made available. While I see that there are reviews of the work being done by some creationist groups (who apparently see no need to have all the raw data first), the Conservapedia approach is more like a set of lawyers looking for discovery than a set of scientists looking for truth. Why can't CP review Lenski's work in a scientific manner like AiG instead? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:31, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

: The issue is '''public''' release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::No one investigating Lenski's work in a scientific manner is accusing him of withholding any data from them, or from the public. You're setting a new, and unprofessional, precedent in expecting a scientist to take the time to collect and send you decades of raw data on his research simply because you're asking him to, when you haven't even shown the courtesy of demonstrating why this effort is necessary. I repeat the question you keep avoiding - is this exercise going to be a waste of Lenski's time so you can make a point, or do you have a plan to use that raw data and a timetable for publishing your findings? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::: DinsdaleP, it sounds like your name should be added back to the list of those who oppose public release and scrutiny of the data above. The questions you keep harping on are irrelevant to the issue of public release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Feel free to add me back to your ridiculous list, then. Anyone who can read knows where I stand, just as they can see your continued avoidance of my question. There is no plan, is there? I'll be glad to stand corrected if I'm wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How is asking about "scrutiny of the data" irrelevant to the issue of "public release and '''scrutiny of the data'''"? Color me confused!--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

You don't seem to understand the scientific method at all. There is a reason peer review is so called. It is a review of work by your peers, that is fellows engaged in similar fields of research. You are not a peer of Dr. Lenski. You don't even hold an undergraduate degree in a related field. You aren't even qualified to be a research assistant in his lab. You're a lawyer, and I'm sure you're good at your job and all, but don't try to pretend to qualifications you simply do not have to serve a political purpose.

Lets face it, the good doctor has been extremely kind to you thus far. I would not recommend pushing your luck. Had it been me, your email would have hit the bit bucket faster than you can say "plunk". As far as I can tell, you haven't even had the good grace to read the poor guy's paper as he suggested. I did, and I found it extremely accessible compared to the cryptography papers I'm used to reviewing. I believed I followed the bulk of it, and I'm sure you could too if you were so minded.

But of course, you aren't minded to. You're not at all interested in his findings, because you assume they're false before you even know the details. If he were correct, it would yet further discredit your young earth creationist beliefs. Here is research that gives the lie to the old "mutations never produce new information" talking point, while at the same time demonstrating how a feature that seems incredibly unlikely were it to happen in one big bang, can in fact become trivial via building up a "potentiated genome" as alluded to by Lenski in his email (see the section headed "Historical Contingency in the Evolution of Cit+" for details of the experiments they performed to confirm this.)

This experiment yet again confirms the predictions of the theory of evolution, while contradicting your own creation hypothesis (The capacity for citrate utilisation starts out weak and gets stronger over time, via additional mutations that out compete the peers they fissioned from.) This result scares you. You aren't interested at all in Dr. Lenski's data are you? All you want is to make an unreasonable request, and then when it is sensibly refused or ignored to trumpet that clearly the scientists working on LEE are attempting to hide something. Nobody is impressed by your transparent posturing. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 15:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Although some of your comments, such as those about peer review, are reasonable, the last half particularly is begging the question. His research is ''claimed to'' give the lie to the "mutations never produce new information" claim, but whether they ''actually'' do is one of the points that are in contention. Trying to make your point by assuming your point and simply restating it is not a valid form of argument. Further, although misunderstanding this is understandable, creationists have acknowledged that mutations might ''extremely rarely'' produce new genetic information by chance. Their argument is more that you can't use mutations as a source of new information, not because it never ever happens, but because it very rarely happens and would be swamped by all the information-losing mutations. So Lenski's claim, even if it turned out to be true (which seems unlikely: see creationist responses linked above), does not disprove creationism anyway, as ''one'' example of an information-gaining mutation is consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolution, which requires ''many'' such mutations. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:05, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Ugh. Don't get me started on those "creationist responses." They're clearly written for a scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience. People who won't notice that the author's idea of a literature survey is to read and fail to understand an abstract, and then cite the paper in support of whatever gibberish they want to commit to paper. The AiG response is just talking points recycled for the occasion, which no meaningful content, while creation on the web is so intellectually dishonest it beggars belief. Take this wonderful paragraph:

{{cquote|Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.}}

:: Wrong, wrong, wrong. E. Coli is not, and has never been observed to be capable of utilising citrate natively. Any E. Coli that have this ability have it because it is coded for be invasive plasmids. That's the point of the paper the author cites. Lenski takes great pains to point out that the Cit+ and Cit- strains DO NOT possess these plasmids, since the issue of external contamination would be foremost in any reviewer's mind.

:: The whole creation on the web article is like this throughout. It takes parts of the paper out of context and uses them as an attack on the work. Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution. The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution." It's the most astonishingly asinine thing I've read this month, and only "died-in-the-wool" (sic) creationist would take it seriously.

:: So, here's the thing. Lets assume that Lenski's claims are false or exaggerated (and I don't think for a moment that is the case.) How exactly is Schlafly, a lawyer, going to show this regardless of how much raw data he has? He doesn't even know what to ask for, let alone what he's going to do with it once he has it. I don't believe it would be overly cynical to ascribe an ulterior motive to this request. At very best, he wants to pester a person doing productive research and force him to do extra work, unpaid, on his behalf. That would be fine if Schlafly was a peer of Lenski's seeking verification of the result. Defending one's work is part of the scientific process, but there have to be limits. If you really want to analyse the result, first find a working biologist with time and equipment to do the analysis, then and only then will I support the request for further data.

:: To all others supporting the request currently, I'd ask they withdraw their support until such time as this condition is fulfilled. I cannot believe that Schlafly seriously wants the data, simply that he wishes the request to be refused such that he can make outlandish claims about scientific transparency. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 08:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Taciturn, I'm not requesting merely my personal review of the data (although certainly I will review it if Lenski produces it), but rather the ''public scrutiny'' of the data. Unless you think that Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge, you should agree that additional review of the data by others can yield additional insights, and possibly identify flaws.

::: Andrew Wiles is undeniably a bright mathematician, as are his friends who reviewed his claim to have proven Fermat's Last Theorem. But when he made his initial proof available more widely, others saw flaws in it that took a long time to repair. Obviously the same may be true about anyone's work ... including Lenski's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: [Edit conflict] Mr. Schlafly, given that Lenski is required to release the data to any scientist who asks, who exactly is preventing public scrutiny? A lawyer such as yourself quite simply does not have the training to understand the data, and you're quite unlikely to find a scientist sympathetic to your cause. Even if he releases twenty years worth of research to you, nothing changes. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Are you saying that only a "scientist" may see the data? I hold an engineering degree and worked at Bell Labs, but perhaps you have some special definition to limit access to the data as much as possible. If someone drops out of college, does that disqualify him from being able to look at the data? I certainly hope that isn't your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Andy, only someone with proper training in biology could hope to understand the raw data. You can look at it, yes, fine, but you won't understand it, and you'll quickly demand that Lenski release it in a "clear and comprehensive format", at which point you'll promptly be pointed right back to Paper 180. Your engineering degree doesn't help you here. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Taciturn, one more bigoted derogatory comment like those in your first paragraph and the end of your third paragraph and you will earn yourself a block.
::: Now, to your specific claims regarding AiG and CMI:
::: * The articles are written for a lay audience, but that doesn't mean that they are written for a "scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience". On the contrary, they aim to make them scientifically accurate.
::: * The AiG article was clearly a preliminary response, so your derogatory comment about no meaningful content is unwarranted.
::: * "''Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution.''": Please back that claim with evidence or retract it.
::: * "''The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution."''": On the contrary, it appears that you did not read the article properly (with an open mind?). It actually says that "...Lenski seemed [note both the lack of definiteness/lack of accusation and the past tense] to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ ..."
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Taciturn discredited himself, and probably won't even defend his behavior.

:::: But Philip, I have a question for you: do you support public release of the data to enable others (including creationists) to review it? It's hard for me to see how outside reviewers (including creationists) can do a thorough job without access to the data. Undeniably outside reviewers could do a better job if the data were public.

:::: I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: I've already given my answer to whether or not I support release of the data. Do a search of this page for a post with a timestamp of 09:34. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Well, OK, I found your prior posting and reread it, but didn't find any answer to the basic question I just asked: wouldn't outside reviewers (including creationists) be better off with an availability of the data? And to your point about funding, wouldn't funding be easier to obtain (to the extent necessary) if it were known that the data are available? Seems obvious to me, and probably to the co-signers (11 and growing), that the answer is "yes" to both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Actually, that was not a question that you had just asked. And yes, outside reviewers, including creationists, ''would'' be better off with the data being available, ''if they plan on reviewing all that data''. But that's a big "if", because, as I did say above, there is a shortage of available creationary scientists and funding for them. As for obtaining funding, no, I don't think it would make a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lenski has not refused to release the data; it's just that you plan on asking him to do so ''now'' rather than wait for someone who is actually going to review the data to ask. That is, I assume that the data would be made available in due course to a serious researcher who requested it.
:::::::: I also pointed out that creationary scientists may not be interested in reviewing all the data. They probably have better things to do with their time and funds than to analyse 20 years worth of data, when all they likely need to do is find out a bit more about his actual results. Further, as I said elsewhere on this page, it's even ''possible'' that Lenski has actually found a mutation that has added genetic information. Creationists don't rule out that there may be very rare examples of this, and ''perhaps'' this is the first known case of such. But that doesn't disprove creation nor prove evolution because, as I said, creationism can handle the odd exception to the rule, whereas the evolution requires millions of such information-gaining mutations, and one example is not that evidence. So why would a creationary scientist waste his time (unless someone was employing him to do it)?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Which would mean that it would not even be published in the journal, Andy. Your final claim is unfounded and, quite frankly, slanderous. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If the peer reviewers saw the data, then it is no problem to make that data publicly available. So where is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::In the paper, Andy. Everything that you could need to know about the experiment and much more is in the paper. If you don't believe me, you can ask Lenski for something extra, however general questions like the ones you've sent him so far will only get you pointed back to the paper. If you've got a specific part of the work you want, ask and I'm sure he'll happily throw the raw, incomprehensible data at you. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::This would seem to come down to a fundamental misunderstanding. Few biologists are going to want to see Lenski's raw data like this, because the observations will be relatively simple to make - or at least simple for a biologist. Instead, they will want to examine his methodology (which is already freely available) to see if they can find any flaws. For example, if he had stored them in a non-sterile environment or something, the colonies could have been contaminated, and it would invalidate his conclusions. They will also want to see the conclusions he draws from his observations, which might be unwarranted or otherwise explainable. For example, if they know as biologists that e. coli can use citrase under certain conditions (not the case, actually, but it's an example), they would call his conclusions into question. And of course some scientists are going to want to imitate his whole set-up to reproduce his result... although it will take a while. But because Prof. Lenski is a highly skilled and reputable scientist, few are going to demand to see his raw data, because there is little reason not to trust his integrity. That is generally just not how this science is done, to the best of my knowledge.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I can't believe I'm getting into this particular mess but, here goes: hypothetically, let's say that Andy contacts Lenski and Lenski graciously releases all of the raw data anyone could want. Let's further say that Andy manages to secure the services of a qualified analyst who has the time and training to properly analyze said data and that, further, that analyst confirms that Lenski's interpretations are correct. In other words, the analyst says that Lenski is- as far as anyone can tell- correct. What happens then? Will Andy or anyone else publicly acknowledge this to be the case, or will the story suddenly become that Lenski "falsified" his raw data? Because, really and truly folks, the "raw data" we keep talking about is not the same thing as actually having access to Lenski's samples. Moreover, Lenski is not about to release any part of his samples to folks who haven't the slightest idea how to store them, much less how to analyze. And I don't have imagination enough to think that Conservapedia is going to set up an adequately equipped and staffed research lab capable of taking possession of such samples, much less fund it long enough to replicate Lenski's research. As far as I can tell, this entire thing is a lot of sound and fury that will ultimately come to nothing (apologies Will). So what's with all the grandstanding, Andy? Okay, I've said my bit. I'll go back to editing statistics articles now. -Drek
::I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I've just posted above in a reply to Andy why I think a creationary scientist would ''not'' be interested. I'll add here that, according to Don Batten of CMI (link elsewhere on this page), it fits with what Behe has written about in his latest book, so there's no reason to think that this case would bother ID proponents either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::''"I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data."'' Yeah, but I was specifically referring to qualified analysts, so the ID/C.S. folks won't help. Snark aside, however, neither you nor anyone else has addressed the underlying issue: what happens if Lenski DOES provide the full database? It isn't like someone couldn't claim he faked that and the only way to confirm it would be to evaluate his samples. Look, I DO in fact support public availability of data derived from publicly funded research. That said, however, if we don't even have a plausible case for how we ourselves could verify output, much less carry out a replication, we're just being nuisances. Lenski's job is to do research, not bow to every request made of him by random unqualified amateurs. And even if he has tenure and that somehow made him utterly invulnerable to firing (oddly, failing to produce is one of those things that can kill tenure) he still has a responsibility to his Post-Docs and grad students. -Drek
::::: I've warned two others on this page about derogatory comments, and you've gone and added your own. For that you've earned yourself a block for the "snark". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Question==
I am going to make it clear that I am not willing to put my name on this. I whole-heartedly support the release of Professor Lenski's data, but not to a faceless group of individuals with no clear purpose for demanding the data. My question is, as Mr. Schlafly seems to be avoiding it, have you Mr. Schlafly read the paper that Professor Lenski directed you to? I hope that this request is more than an attempt to add Professor Lenski to the [[professor values]] list. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your argument is irrelevant to the ''public'' release of the data. I hadn't read Andrew Wiles' attempt to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, but I sure am glad that he publicized it so that people could identify serious flaws after Wiles' expert friends declared it to be complete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::You already emailed Professor Lenski, and he kindly took the time to respond. But you didn't even bother to read the answers he gave you. Sending him another email demanding even more information, without even reading the information he already gave you seems rude. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Now you're making up things about me. Perhaps you think you can distract attention from the simple issue of public release of the data. You failed if that was your goal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::That never was my intention. I was simply trying to understand your reasoning behind this email. I am interested in something else at the moment actually. You seem to enjoy mentioning Andrew Wiles and Fermat's Last Theorem. Who proved that Andrew Wiles was wrong. Was it a layperson, or a mathematician? [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: If you're trying to exclude people from looking at the data based on their education or credentials, then just say so. There are many bright people who never graduated from college, and I oppose making education or credentials a test for who can review the data. In Wiles' case, I don't know what the credentials were of the multiple people who found serious flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
== Two Questions for Aschlafly==

I have two questions for Aschlafly. Please answer them plainly and in brief as I've no use for obfuscation typical of what I've seen above. As you know, failing to answer is an answer of sorts. Here are my questions:
# Have you read Lenski's paper as he suggested?
# What do you plan to do with his "raw" data should you receive it?
The answers to these two questions will tell much about your intent and your character. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 18:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::So your answers are

# you "skimmed" it
# you won't do anythnig with the "raw data" should he send it to you
Thank you for your honesty. I hope your readership takes these answers in their full measure. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 19:30, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: I hope you recognize and admit to the benefits of public access. You haven't yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

=== Two Questions for Aschlafly: comments from others===
*I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:I know your question was not directed at me, but isn't the point of public release that it would be open to ''everyone'' to examine; ie - that this isn't solely about Aschlafly? I doubt if there is anyone on this site who would be capable of understanding Lenski's raw data, if it were to be made available, but that is not a reason to oppose the public release of the data ''per se'', is it? If released publicly, anyone capable of understanding it can see it for themselves, and those who cannot understand it will be unaffected. What's wrong with that?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I would encourage people to watch the movie of what the physical form of the raw data looks like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNaXlK_3Fik They tested 4 trillion cells.[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php] Assuming even a simple 'y/n' for the 'can metabolize citrate' that is about 4 terabytes of data. This doesn't go into the other genes that they have studied. Are you going to send him some hard drives to copy the data onto? Do you have the bandwidth to host that data for public scrutiny (at a full T1 speed with 100% utilization, if I did my math correctly, it would take about 2 years to download all of the data)? Granted, that is one extreme of the data but this could potentially be more than you can handle or host. And if he says its a terrabyte of data or so, will you host it? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:No, I wouldn't host it. If the data were made publicly available, I would have no interest in downloading it or reading it because I am not a biologist and wouldn't be able to understand it. But I am not opposed to the data - whatever size the files are - being made available for people who can understand it (and have sufficiently spacious hard drives). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::to clarify, I am not opposed to it '''in principle'''. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:03, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I did skim Lenski's paper, and saw that on multiple occasions he says the data are not shown. In addition, his figures and tables are oddly uninformative. I recall that one figure is complete speculation. After skimming his paper the need for public disclosure of the data became even more apparent.

What would I do with the raw data? I don't propose that access to it be limited based on education or credentials. I would expect many people, including folks just as bright as Lenski, to examine it and possibly identify flaws or make suggestions.

I repeat: does anyone here really think Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

)

:I don't think they have a monopoly on knowledge, and nobody's perfect. On the other hand, I do think the volume of data might prove to be a problem. If a response indicates that the complete data is simply too massive to be mailed/posted to a website, what's the next reasonable step? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::It is becoming clear that this campaign to release the data has more to do with your hope that Lenski won't and you can dismiss his claims on those grounds. I am sure the data is available to the people who need to see it and depending on the copyright restrictions that research unfortunatly comes with these day (usually through funding by non-government entities) it will be made available as publically as it can.

:: Someone earlier mentioned ID theorist, they tend to have about as much qualifications on this as Andrew Schalfly, BSE. JD. so I won't hold much hope in them being able to understand it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::: As I've warned someone else already on this page, one more derogatory comment like that in your second paragraph and you will earn yourself a block. Despite anti-creationist and anti-ID urban myth, the credentials of ID proponents and creationary scientists are every bit as good as those of other scientists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Really, ID theorist are scientist? [http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ Look at the Discovery Institute's board members and fellows]. Cihak is a MD, every other person on that list either has a degree in history, political science or law. Behe use to be a fellow so that is one biochemist, Dempski(?) was a mathematician who use to be there once. Only one relevently qualified and two semi-qualified experts that is it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:02, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: The Discovery Institute is not the only source of ID proponents. Just as with evolutionists, there are those that are qualified and those that are not, but still believe it, promote it, and etc. Your comment that I warned you about was ID theorists ''in general'', not DI board members and fellows specifically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

: I read Lenski's paper, and as a trained microbiologist, I thought that it was both thorough and well done. His claims are backed by good data, namely that which was presented in the figures. I went through each of the figures after Aschlafly said that they were uninformative. Actually, they are basic figures that show the population explosion of the bacterial cultures after the Cit+ mutation occurred. These figures show that the cultures increased in size and mass at a given timepoint, being able to do so because they had evolved a mechanism to utilize a new nutrient, without the assistance of helper plasmids.

I know that my post is getting long, but I just wanted to say that in addition to this that of course there is going to be a figure with some speculation when it is covering an alternate hypothesis. That is what a lot of science is really about; the scientist creates a battery of hypotheses, and through experimentation narrows down the field. Lenksi's paper, while not the most definite I've seen, is still a very well-researched paper that supports its claims nicely. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

==Detractor Lineup==

Ok, there seems to be some confusion about whether we are opposing the public release of information based on principle or practicality. So, let's make a list to make our position clear (please add a brief explanation and feel free to discuss in the comments section). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Oppose Public Release based on PRINCIPLE'''

'''Oppose Public Release based on PRACTICALITY'''

* Because it is time consuming, costly (both in terms of money and resources) and the data is too big to be readily transfered. If we had a genuine reason to want the data and we were actually going to do something with it then it would be worth the effort (for example if we disputed a particular conclusion, in which case we could probably narrow down the data we wanted) however demanding a release based solely on principle is simply impractical and not going to happen. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:To illustrate that "big" means, a little ilustration from my own work. I work for the LOFAR project's future data proccesing center, we plan on recieving several dozen gigabits per second, or about a 60 meter stack of paper a second.. Now, I know biology research doesn't produce as much data as radiotelescopes do, but they've been working for 20 years.
:By demanding all the original data, you are asking for several shipping containers full of dvd's. It's just not acceptable to spend so much time and money on everyone who asks for it, especially when you have no real desire to reproduce anything. I do think you should be able to see the data, but you obviously have to be more specific in your questions for information.
:Again, I am not a biologist, but in astronomy when you want raw data, you request information about a specific part of measurements. You call someone and ask for data for 10 seconds from this-and-that time and of such-and-so area of sky. You do not send an open letter and demand "All research data". I think Richard Lenski was increadibly kind not to laugh in your face for such a demand, because it shows the asker has no idea how the scientific community functions.
[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 14:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Comments'''

StatsMsn, your objection is purely speculative and, frankly, implausible. Lenski has not asserted your claim and I doubt he will.

But if you're right about the key data, then that suggests the peer reviewers did not have access to it, and the conclusion is this: claims based on that data should not be published in a Journal that says the data will be made available. Instead, one could publish such claims in a Journal saying the data will not be made available, and we can all take the claims with a grain of salt.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think it's more likely that Lanski hasn't released the information to you based on practicalities than a conspiracy to publish false results. Note that I did not say the peer reviewers did not have access to the raw data, only that you did not. If there was a genuine reason to provide the data to someone (that is, someone who had a genuine reason to have it, such as to confirm or dispute a conclusion) then I have no doubt that any ethical research team would work out a way to transmit it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, I stopped reading at your word "conspiracy". No is alleging a "conspiracy". Post in a rational manner and don't pollute this page. Apologize and clean up your edit or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry Mr. Schlafly, but you seem to be trying to say that Lenski fudged 20 years of work, and that is being hidden by the people reviewing his work. That sounds like a conspiracy. Perhaps you should apologize, or clarify your edits. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Has anyone considered the possiblility that some data was removed in the reviewing process? From my experience with journal publications (moderate at best) page numbers is important. Pages and pages of data and graphs are expensive to print. The reviewer would have seen it, the editor would look at it and thought it is too much and edit the paper so as to say the data is not presented. Ask for a preprint of the paper that will contain more data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== False Claim of a Bad motive ==

Let's face the truth, there is no real desire here for Andrew Schlafly or anyone on Conservapedia to get the raw data. The reason that this is even an issue is because placing this demand and getting no response somehow makes Lenski look bad and therefore automatically discredits him and his research and therefor the theory of evolution. The position of Mr. Schlafly is that the Bible is inerrant and the Genesis creation story is true. No amount of scientific data is going to change that. So why argue with him? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 10:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: You're clueless about my motivation and your account has been blocked for violating our [[90/10 rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow. I'm actually afraid to post my opinion now...Well, at the risk of being banned...Aschlafly: Was it really necessary to block MAnderson? I get the feeling (And this is simply an opinion based on personal observation) that the action taken against MAnderson was due more to the nature of his accusation of bias against you and not due to any violation of code, since bias is indeed a word that gets used around here often without reprimand. That being said I feel that the intended letter in question would severely discredit this website. Unless members of this site have the facilities necessary to conduct research into the validity of the Doctor's claims then we have no reason to request such massive documentation. Furthermore, the purpose of such counter-research should always be with the intent to ultimately strengthen a proposed line of research, even if it is by bringing to light flaws in the original findings. The purpose of peer review is not to discredit, but to strengthen through careful examination and criticism. If the originals researchers conclusions are eventually found to be flawed beyond renovation then the entire thing is thrown out, strengthening our scientific pool of knowledge as a whole by protecting it against faulty findings. It is my belief that a peer-reviewer should always have a most critical eye, but should also ultimately have the best at heart for the purported research. I do not believe such a mindset exists in this case. The letter itself seems to indicate a specific desire and hope of discrediting the E-coli findings, which should never be the purpose of peer review. To seek discredit simply for the sake of discredit is the very anti-thesis of why the peer-review system exists IMO. And it is my opinion that the intended letter gives the impression that discredit is the goal. In my opinion. --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 13:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:There's a difference between expressing your thoughts on a matter and saying of someone else "here is why you did it" and then make statements that are derogatory and degrading. The one at least expresses opinion. The other just makes things up with the followup assumption being now you must defend yourself against what I just made up. That's inappropriate and was handled as being inappropriate.

:That being said, what you wrote is a different matter. I see no difficulty in the form of your speech, or the expression of your ideas. Do not equate your writings to what was put above by MAnderson; they are not the same. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I think there's a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria "evolved" novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of "potentiated genotypes", from which the traits could be "reëvolved" using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren't "potentiated" by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these "potentiated genotypes" originated through blind chance or intelligence. But with the physical specimens in the hands of Darwinists, who claim they will get around to the sequencing at some unspecifed future time, how can we trust that this data will be forthcoming and forthright? Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved ''E. coli'' colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia, even if it won't be put to immediate examination by Mr. Schlafly. This is simply about keeping tax-payer-funded scientists honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 20:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:'Dr. Paley', that's about the most ridiculous suggestion I've heard yet. I'm not going to even dignify that kind of nonsense with a response. But I will suggest, generally, that if you are that convinced there is a worldwide scientific conspiracy to perpretate fraud by hiding 'the potentiating hand of the creator', then there's nothing I could say to you anyway.

:But I have this question for Andy and the rest of the supporters of the 'public access to data' line: if it is the ''principle'' of public access to data that you are fighting for--and this is not some kind of publicity stunt, as many have suggested--then why are you picking on this one experiment, and not the ''tens of thousands'' of scientific papers that have been published just, say, in the last decade? After all, Lenski's paper is no different than any scientific paper, in that is summarizes, but does not publish, the raw data on which it was based. So shouldn't you be asking every scientist who has published a paper in which raw data has not been published to present that data? Why just Lenski? Aren't there potentially ''thousands'' of 'new insights' that could be produced from public scrutiny of this data?

:I think your motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves. [[User:porkchop]]

:: (Note porkchop's use of [[Liberal tools]] #11 and #13.) Anyway, if Prof. Lenski has no fraud to hide, then he won't mind allowing other researchers access to the physical data. Again, it is simply a matter of keeping tax-funded activities honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 21:44, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, Richard. I guess you need your stupidity spelled out for you: no laboratory in the world is going to send ''the actual biological samples they worked on'' to a bunch of faceless internet nuts or anyone else. Even if such a request were possible (i.e. transport could be arranged safely and at no expense to Lenski, he could spare the material, etc.) what on earth would the 'scientists' at Conservapedia ''do'' with it? Keep it in Andy's refrigerator and look at it under his Kid Scientist microscope?

:::And I'm waiting to hear whether anyone has a response to my question about the selective targeting of Lenski. [[User:porkchop]]

:::: Taxpayers paid for Lenski's work, he published it in a journal that claims its authors will make underlying data available, his research claims were publicized in New Scientist, yet he hasn't complied with a request for his data. If that's true of others also as you suggest, then please give examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::What is your response to the view that Lenski has not released the data because it is too big to simply send to someone? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: That "view" is without any basis and, by the way, the suggestion is that Lenski post it rather than send it. Are you suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data available to the peer reviewers on his paper?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Someone said above that considering just one variable would result 4 terabytes worth of data, this is a ridiculous and costly amount of data to host (to put it in perspective, it's about 200 full DVD's). And yes it pretty much is all key (to ensure the mutations were not due to an environmental factor, to ensure that they were inherited, to ensure that they were not simply repressed genes which had previously appearing in the colonies etc). I am not suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data avaliable to peer reviewers, I'm fairly sure that had they wished to view it they could have done so (possibly by physically visiting his labs to access it, or by using a dedicated stream). Perhaps it's something you could ask in the email you send him, and while you're at it perhaps you could ask if researchers such as yourself or others would be able to access the data on request (this is essentially public access so long as nobody is turned away for ideological reasons). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: So you're suggesting that the peer reviewers could only access the data by physically visiting Lenski's labs or by using "a dedicated stream"? That's tantamount to suggesting that the peer reviewers did not practically have access to the data, which creates an even bigger cloud of doubt about the claimed results. If that's the case, then obviously that should have been disclosed to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

<- No, I was offering a couple of options. It's is equally (or even more likely) that Lenski's team spent a bit of money and transferred the data onto physical media and sent it to them. That is a question that you can ask in your email, lest we be accused of jumping to conclusions. Peer reviewers aside, the point remains that the reason Lenski has not published the data is due to its size and the cost of posting it, not their opposition to the public release of data. Again this will only be answered through a reply to your email, perhaps you could ask if it would be possible for you (and other researchers) to access the data, rather than demanding he post it on the internet or send it to you. This would overcome any refusal based on practicality, but still allow the public access to data. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

: StatsMsn, note that:

:* Lenski replied once and did not himself raise the objection you suggest
:* the objection you suggest has no factual basis
:* the objection you suggest would make it impossible to peer review the paper, or most types of collaborative work

: At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it. Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility? It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::I'm more than happy to admit that Lenski is preventing public access to his data, if there was some solid evidence for it. At the moment he has not refused to allow public access to it.

::*Correct
::*How so? People have already stated how large the raw data you are requesting is and how impractical it would be to host it. Where do you believe the factual error is, on the estimates of the size or the ability to make it readily avaliable to the general public?
::*No, as measures could be taken to allow the peer reviewers access to the data if they required it.

::The reason I keep arguing is because I know how difficult it is to transmit data to the general public. The university where I study originally provided a number of high resolution pictures to the general public via a ftp stream, however as each individual picture grew in size and the number of pictures grew the university had to cut off access, first to the general public and then to students, despite our internet connection greatly increasing in speed at the same time. At present the only way to access the images is either to physically enter the premises or request images via DVD (with a small cost for material and administration charges). Everyone including the general public is still able to access the images, however they cannot be made readily avaliable for reasons of practicality.

::If the statistics above are correct then the size of the raw data you are requesting is much larger than the combined size of all our image files, it is highly impractical to simply request someone send it to you or post it on the internet. And yes I am willing to admit that this discussion is unproductive, that's why I'm going to send Lenski an email myself and request information on how the raw data can be accessed. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: You haven't yet admitted the possibility I describe, which suggests you may not yet have an open mind about this. If so, this discussion is unproductive, but please do feel free to contact Lenski directly with your theory about the data. I bet you do not receive a clear answer.

::: I'm confident that Lenski has the data in a manageable form that enables him and his fellow researchers to access and examine it. If not, then frankly that raises even bigger questions about the reliability and verifiability of the claimed results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

<- I'm more than willing to admit the possibility that the peer reviewers have not had access to the raw data, it is entierly possible and we still see it happening when commercial interests become entangled with science (for instance, many pharamacological companies will not release negative studies concerning their products). In this case there is a need for further review in order to confirm the results, and if it is shown that Lenski skewed his results then appropriate action must be taken.

Now, are you willing to admit the possibility that I describe?

And I too am confident that Lenski has his data in a manageable form, what we disagree on is whether this data can be readily made avaliable to the public (like by hosting 4 terabytes on the internet) or to people who request it out of the blue. I am fairly confident that if you or another researcher requested access to the data and had a genuine reason for doing so then you would be provided with access to the data, either by physically accessing it on site or by arranging an appropriate means of transfer (with costs considered). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:26, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

: I admit the possibility that all the data is too voluminous to transfer easily, which is why my letter addressed that and requested the data made available to peer reviewers. By definition, that data cannot be too voluminous to transfer.

: You said you would ask Lenski. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::Read below, and I have emailed him. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

----

[Edit Conflict] I just read the paper for a second time, paying particular attention to the results section. There is an adequate summary of the data provided for peer reviewers. I admit that I was wrong with my terminology above (I'm having a late night and my brain's shutting down), the peer reviewers of the paper are not sent the raw data, they rely on the facts presented. Any subsequent reviews could have access to the raw data if necessary.

Right now we have 4 possible scenarios that could be proposed:

* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct and the conclusion drawn is correct
* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct but the conclusion drawn is incorrect
* The summary of the data is wrong due to unintentional mistakes
* The summary of the data is wrong due to a deliberate attempt to skew results

If the first is correct we have nothing to argue about. If the second is correct then you do not need access to the raw data in order to prove your results. If the third is correct then access to the raw data would be essential, however it would call into question the integrity of Lenski's laboratory and quite frankly I do not believe you have the resources to do better (let alone detect any irregularities). If the fourth is correct then you are accusing Lenski of academic dishonesty, a libelous claim that you would need solid evidence to support.

Andy, could you please outline why you want to have access to the raw data when the summary provided in the paper is more than adequate to draw a conclusion. Do you believe that there has been a mistake made in the organisation of the data, or is this just to prove that you can (or cannot) gain access to the data, even though this is not at all required. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Failure to supply data? ==

Aschlafly, you say above that Lenski "hasn't complied with a request for his data." Where did he do that? In his reply to your original letter he bends over backwards to accommodate your requests and answer your questions, and he's hardly had time to reply to the second letter! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Piltdown All Over Again ==

The [[Piltdown Man | Piltdown hoax]] was possible precisely because the physical data was kept under lock-and-key and away from the eyes of unbiased non-Darwinians, who, if given the chance, would have spotted that the bones were unrelated right away. Even if Prof. Lenski were to provide the public with digital versions of the data, what assurances would we have that the data wasn't doctored? If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data? On the other hand, it would be impossible for Prof. Lenski to falsify the physical data residing in the actual bacteria, as that would require a massive program of genetic engineering. Only by allowing unbiased conservative scientists access to samples of the bacteria colonies can we assure that we aren't witnessing another Piltdown hoax, as the Darwinian community has a reputation for perpetrating them.

As to the practicality of this, only scrapings of the cultures would be needed for reculturing, not the entire original petri dish as "porkchop" implies above. These can be stored in standard cryogenic ampules that take up very little space. The Discovery Institute surely has cryogenic facilities in their labs and would be willing to host the collection under the auspices of Conservapedia. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:Excellent idea! Go for it. Send off a third letter at once! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:Until Lenksi himself states that "no I will not give you the data, you crazy conservatives", in no way can you compare this to Piltdown. To do so is to further your own agenda of discrediting a scientific experiment that makes the minor point that traits can evolve. I believe that Lenski has provided enough data for all of you to examine and make claims about his research; honestly, what would you possibly do with scrapings of cultures? "Ok, Culture #95324 is Cit-, had me #95325"? I doubt that you people would even do that. Chances are, you would glance at the mountain of raw data Lenski would send, and then summarily dismiss it based on your own desire to see it fail. This is disgusting. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

::''This is disgusting'' What is disgusting is that you are doing to Andy precisely what you suppose he will do to the data if and when it comes - that is, use it to back up a preconceived idea. You do not know how he or other Conservapedians will treat the data. Do not criticise him for something he hasn't done but which you assume he will do. To do so is arrant hypocricy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::That is a fair point, Bugler. I'm just frustrated by the serious bias already lined up against Lenski's research, even before raw data has been seen. --Aaronp

::: Aaronp, either you're naive or you're engaging in bullying if you maintain that Lenski plans to release his raw data soon for independent, public review. I asked him last Friday to release it, and his reply declined to do so. I asked him again yesterday, and he predictably has not replied. It now seems to me to be likely that the peer reviewers for his paper did not even see the raw data. I think it's likely that only Lenski and his grad student have seen the raw data underlying that paper (note its footnote). Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::::So why don't you send him a third letter, and expose Conservapedia to yet more public ridicule? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:39, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-19T16:09:35Z

Humblpi: /* Piltdown All Over Again */

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-19T12:55:29Z

Humblpi: /* Failure to supply data? */ new section

== Final Copy of Letter Sent Wednesday afternoon ==

Dear Prof. Lenski,

This is my second request for your data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli''," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
 http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Your work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interest in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.

If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request access to the data that was made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and to the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper and referenced in your first reply to me. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."

Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key underlying data available for independent review. Your response, or lack thereof, will be posted due to the public interest in this issue. Thank you.

Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.
 www.conservapedia.com
 cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications

:That was disappointing. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I don't blame him if he doesn't respond. What is this about Aschafly wanting to review the information himself. I thought he said that he wouldn't understand it, or something to that effect.[[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I guess he didn't really need people to sign on with him, after all. Added to the project page.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Draft letter ==

Dear Prof. Lenski,

This is my second request for the data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
 http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

This work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interested in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.

If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request that access to the data made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."

Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key data available for independent review. Thank you.

Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.

cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications

:Given that he was very gracious in his last reply, you think maybe it would be a good idea to at least TRY not to sound like he's being accused of malfeasance? I'd suggest new wording but something much better is already available below. -Drek

== List of people willing to join an email requesting the public release of Lenski's data ==

Schedule permitting, a better version of the draft letter below (which someone diluted) will be sent tomorrow to Lenski, noting support by others (unspecified whom) at Conservapedia. Obviously Conservapedia rejects the limits on access to data proposed by several below. Public access to data means access by all, not merely by people having certain preferred credentials or education.

This will be the second request for the data from Lenski. Given that the research was publicly funded and published in a Journal that has a policy of access to data, the expectation is that Lenski will release the data. But will he?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure that you've ever spelt out exactly what data you are expecting. Somebody mentioned on this page that we might be talking about terabytes of data. Is that what you are asking for? Or what?
: Also, I don't recall anybody actually said that the access to the data should be limited (and if you are talking about my comments and those of others that ''we'' should leave it to those who are qualified to see it, then I reject that we are proposing limits as such).
: Neither have you responded to my comments about how it will make creationists look.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I "diluted it. I thought it needed to be more specific and polite. Since it is neither again, I am hesitant to put my name to it. There's no need to be brusque, and every reason to be as polite as possible.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Current total of supporters: 7'''

*[[User:Aschlafly]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 20:55, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
*--[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Conservative]]---[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:52, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Wait a second... if I put my name on this list, is it going to get attached to some combative email? I don't want to just agree, when you seem to be ignoring my attempts to help draft this email. What were you proposing to send, Andy? If you wouldn't mind, could you post the text here before I have to decide if I want to attach my good name to it?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::QFT. I likewise said earlier that I'd be happy to sign on, pending a review of the actual text to be sent. So long as the tone remains professional and polite I'm in. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It will be polite and professional, of course. In fact, someone else can draft the text if he likes, as long as it simply requests '''public release of the data for public scrutiny''' and is free of any obfuscation like that displayed by some detractors on this page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::There's a draft that some folks are working on, below. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Provisionally willing, pending review of the finished draft. I make it a policy never to sign my name to anything I haven't read. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:

Dear Prof. Lenski,

Your recent paper in PNAS, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key
innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli,"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf] has interested us greatly. Knowing PNAS policy of making data available, we were hoping you would accordingly oblige us with your recorded observations for a few key points.

We respectfully request the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony developed cit+; while we see excerpts in the paper, we were hoping to examine them in context. Your website[https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/] already discloses some older data, and seems well-suited for public release of the data underlying your recent paper.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think we should probably be more specific, Andy. We're obviously not asking for twenty years' worth of notes, right? Or at least, I don't think we should ask for that.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 21:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I think it's reasonably obvious what the key claims are in the paper, and what the key data are underlying those claims. But, if you like, perhaps you can revise the above letter. The paper itself is not long and feel free to cite to it, if you think that is necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I just think it helps to be as specific as possible. But I have edited a bit with slightly more polite wording and more specificity. I hope it is acceptable?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 21:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::If we send that version, put my name on the list :) --[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll add my name to that version as well. It's encouraging to see what teamwork can achieve when we're all focused on the same goal. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

----

Is it acceptable for the people co-signing this letter to use their Conservapedia user names? I noticed earlier that Arizaphale did not want to use his real name. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks, Philip. I'm also willing to sign with a generic "John Doe" or even an old-fashioned "X". Or, the letter could simply be signed "Members of the Conservapedia Community," since I'm feeling confident that two or more others aren't sporting their actual names on that list. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:41, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Right, that's no problem. We're polite and professional around here, and signing as "Members of the Conservapedia Community" is a good suggestion, with a number added.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'd be more comfortable with that, as well. You can't be too careful with putting personal information online nowadays. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== Recap ==

Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines all defend the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim. Moreover, note how insulting some of them have become in response below to a request for public scrutiny of the data. No more insults will be allowed here, and their talk pollution may be removed.

Public scrutiny has obvious benefits, and none of them have given any reason for denying that scrutiny. Journals and even government policy encourage or require it. Ah, but [[evolutionists]] feel they can play by their own rules, and make public claims without making the data public. Rest assured that no one here is fooled by this "make the claim but hide the data from the public" approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Just for the record, the above as it refers to my own statements is untrue. I think public scrutiny is excellent. I believe, in fact, that given that Lenski so promptly answered your questions, he would probably comply with any specific requests you might make. It does not seem reasonable to demand he send you what must be gigabytes of data off the cuff. If you were a professional in a field even tangentially related, I imagine he might be happy to do so immediately, but as it is, I suspect you are not at the top of the list for someone as busy as he undoubtedly must be.
:Perhaps if you sent him an email asking him a specific question: ("I wonder if you would send me the relevant records from the time at which you believe the bacteria became Cit+" might be one, but I am not a biologist) he would answer it with the records or say why he wouldn't. Or if you wait, they might have time to organize the data into a coherent manner for presentation and make it available on the internet or by request. Cordiality is key, we agree on that much.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::While I appreciate having my name removed from the top list because my position was acknowledged, it's pointless while Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines are still being represented in the way they are. I'm in agreement with them, and now Philip Rayment too, that simply asking "for all your data" is not only unscientific, but wasteful and disrespectful if there's no meaningful plan in place to use the data productively. None of these people are against disclosure or proper scientific review, so as long as that statement above remains you're continuing to make false statements about CP editors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you supported public scrutiny of the data, then you would send Lenski an email requesting it. That you have not, and will not, speaks volumes about your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::...to me, it says that I'm not a biologist, and doubt I could fairly evaluate it if I received it. I know the degree of training it has required for me to achieve my present position, and I lack the hubris to think I could exercise equivalent powers of discrimination in a field so unrelated to my own. I'm not faulting you - maybe you have a degree in biochemistry, for all I know! But I know that I am not capable of fairly evaluating in context the raw data of biological experiments. My view is not a multi-book set: there's only one volume to it, and it's humility and appreciation of the credentials of the qualified.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::I assure you, Andy, I do support it. I see no reason to think it isn't forthcoming, even though he didn't send all of the data to Some Internet Guy who demanded it offhand.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Andy, I will not join in your support in the wasting of the tax dollars of mine and others to provide irrelevant information which you will then proceed to not use. Your version of "scrutiny", unlike scientific scrutiny, accomplishes nothing but to waste our tax dollars.

::::: You can either participate with other scientists in public scrutiny by identifying rational weaknesses in Lenski's work and doing verification experiments, or you can continue to ignore public scrutiny and demand that your version of "scrutiny" be done. What will it be?

::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Although I support the public release of data, there is no way that I would ask for it or put my name to a request for it unless I first knew that someone was available to analyse it. I mentioned earlier (when this discussion was on Aschlafly's talk page) that creationists might not review Lenski's work because of lack of funding and numbers of creationary scientists available to do the work. Nevertheless, two creationary scientists have or are in the process of critiquing it (and I think an ID proponent has also). But the first (Don Batten) has apparently not seen the need to ask for all the data, and if either of the other two feel the need, they can ask for themselves. But given the aforementioned lack of funding and availability, it would be pointless asking for the data if there was nobody available to analyse it. Of course, if Conservapedia, or someone known to Conservapedia, is offering to fund the analysis, that might change things.
::::: Furthermore, most problems with evolutionary conclusions are not because of misrepresenting the data, but with the conclusions being based on the materialistic worldview. It is usually not necessary to analyse the (in this case) 20 years' worth of data in order to find this fault.
::::: I'm also concerned about the impression this will give of creationists. We cop enough criticism as it is simply by holding creationist views without giving our critics real reasons such as unreasonable demands for data that we will probably never use.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Finally. Someone who makes sense. I'll gladly join in an email requesting any relevant data from Lenski, as needed by an identified/funded creationist scientist for Conservapedia.

:::::: Until that time, Andy's "public scrutiny" just wastes tax dollars.

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 12:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of evolutionist fraud ==

I do think a request of examination of the alleged raw data is reasonable [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|given the history of evolutionists fraud]]. In addition, we know know that [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin was deceitful regarding his public pronouncements regarding his worldview]] and he was actually an [[atheism|atheist]]. So given the history of [[deceit]] in connection with the evolutionary position and its promotion, I do think Andy is quite justified in requesting to see the raw data of Lenski's alleged work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: As I wrote above, I'm pretty sure the relevant data would be happily provided as soon as a request a bit more specific than "give me all the data" is given. Some particular weakness that Andy identified in Lenski's reasoning, perhaps? Or some experimental procedure that you deemed especially prone to mistake, or even forgery? What is this "skepticism" that has been "expressed" based on? Or is it some sort of... dogmatic skepticism?

: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::I had asked a question above that was never answered, so I'll repeat it here: Who does Conservapedia plan on retaining to review the data from on scientific basis? It would be a lot more professional to select a qualified scientist or panel of scientists to do the job, and let them have a ''professional'' dialog with Prof. Lenski to review the raw data and conclusions. This is just grandstanding - "You haven't delivered gigs and gigs of raw data as requested, so you're withholding data". What it comes down to is that the CP leadership wants anything BUT a professional, qualified review of professor Lenski's work, because the outcome of that is not likely to be what they want. This reminds me of Kent Hovind's "Evolution Challenge" - set up ridiculous demands, and then claim victory because reasonable people don't meet them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Public scrutiny has obvious benefits. See "recap" above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll repeat my specific point. There's nothing improper about requesting that Professor Lenski share his raw data, but it's disrespectful of his time if there's no intention of using that data purposefully. I had asked what the plan was for having the data reviewed once it's received. Are there any qualified professionals lined up to review it and respond? He showed courtesy and professionalism in responding intra-day to the original request, so it's disrespectful to accuse him of withholding information after a single exchange of emails. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::It's also disrespectful to claim that Carafe, TomMoore, SMaines and I are all defending "the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim." None of us have made that statement, so please remove it since it's untrue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: DinsdaleP, clearly state that you support the public release of the data, and retract any comments to the contrary, and I'll remove your name.

:::::: Your comment above suggests that you only support requests for data that have a proper purpose (whatever that is), a proper plan for review (whatever that is), and "qualified professionals lined up to review it." If you cling to that very limited approach, then you do oppose "public scrutiny" of data underlying a scientific claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I thought my comments were self-explanatory, but I'll try to simplify it. Yes, I support the public release of the data, and never claimed otherwise. I hope that's clear enough. The point we disagree on is that after a single exchange of emails, it's wrong to accuse Prof. Lenski of withholding data when he made a reasonable attempt to answer your questions and point you to the supporting data in his papers. If you ask him in a courteous manner how the underlying raw data can be made available, I'm sure you'll get a prompt and professional reply. So go ahead, make the request, and get the data. Frankly, I don't care what you do with it, but at least it will stop the insulting accusations of data being withheld. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::A last clarification - my point about having a "proper purpose" in requesting the data simply meant that if you were asking Prof. Lenski to take the time and effort to collect the raw data and send it to you, I'd hope the effort wasn't going to be a waste of time because it never got into the hands of people qualified to evaluate it properly. Time will tell. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Perhaps you're saying you don't oppose public release of the data. You haven't demonstrated you would "support" it, as in joining an email requesting it. Or would you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::"Perhaps"? I thought my statement above was plain enough, but instead of retracting your false accusation, you're just adding new conditions - now I have to add my signature to an email I haven't seen to show my support for disclosure? That's a sad way to avoid accountability for making false statements. Show me the email and a plan for using the data that doesn't make this a waste of time and taxpayer money, and I'll consider signing the request. In the meantime, please remove the false statements at the top of this page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: I'm sure all of us here will gladly join in an email requesting public release of the data in a scientific scrutiny process. I will not however join in your version of "scrutiny", which has nothing to do with scientific scrutiny at all. -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== responses of creation scientists to Lenski matter ==

Here are the responses of creation scientists to the Lenski matter:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Another email? ==

Is there going to be one? It's entirely possible that, having received a request from a lawyer for data, a scientist might very well think that the data provided in the report would be sufficient. Before deciding that he's hiding something, why not give him enough rope to conclusively hang himself?

"Dear Dr. Lenski,

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough in the first place. We were hoping to see the entirety of the raw data in order to assess it ourselves."

Or some such.

[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::If you are running a study on the genetics of a rapidly multiplying bacterial species over many years, the data accumulated will run into many many gigabytes. I don't believe it is practical to hand it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry requesting it. If there are concerns about any particular area of the study which raised suspicion of fraud or misinterpretation of data, then Mr. Schlafly should be asking the raw data pertaining to that particular area.

::I have published in many medical journals and actively peer review for 2 of them. This is how it works in the field of science. Being a lawyer, Mr. Schlafly may not be familiar with the practice. So I do not think the email Aziraphale prepared is appropriate. This is my opinion and most of the users seem to agree with this as well. --[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

In response to Aziraphale, my email was clear and there is no reason for me to say the same thing again. You're welcome to make your request of Lenski if you really don't think he understood my email.

In response to SMaines, I'll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data underlying public claims about the data. (The amount of the data is no obstacle to its release.) SMaines' approach prevents mistakes and fraud from being identified by independent public review. Apparently SMaines does not even request availability of the data when he does peer review. Perhaps he could tell us which journals he does peer review for so that others can have a healthy skepticism about claims made in them. Of course, SMaines is unlikely to disclose the names of those journals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

It is true that I do not ask for raw data from all the authors that I have peer reviewed articles for. You do not seem to understand how the peer review process works. The role of the peer reviewer is not to repeat all the work the authors have already done.

First I check whether the authors are asking a relevant question regarding the hypothesis, whether the hypotheses are falsifiable, whether the methodology is sound without any obvious flaws, were the data collected ethically and whether they obtain informed consent of all involved. I also aim to determine the experiments performed adhering to protocol and statistical methods used were sound. Then I determine whether their results actually conclude what they have listed as their conclusions. I check whether the bibliography is complete and up-to-date. Finally I recommend to the editor whether the paper is significant and relevant to the journal. I may have omitted a few steps, but that is in nutshell how a peer review process works.

I have worked in academic circles for years and I am yet to come across any referee who will ask for the whole set of raw data for all the papers reviewed. Raw data is only asked for if we have any concerns regarding the validity of methodology or conclusions. I have in the past asked for set of raw data to run some specific calculations myself. I have never known any one who will ring an author and ask to send the whole set of data covering years of data collection.

It works like Carafe described “A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?”

Also, have you come across the different peer review tools? Please familiarize yourself with the process before

For record, I am not against public scrutiny at all, but you have not even pointed out what your concerns or skepticisms are. What you have effectively said is you paper does not fit my belief patterns, so I do not believe you. Hand over all the raw data. This is childish and silly.
--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 15:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:Dear Aschlafly,

:You've mistaken me for someone who thinks he could diagnose Lenski's work in a meaningful way. You are one who can do so, so I was offering advice. It was free, and worth every penny. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Aziraphale, you still don't get it. I support the public release of the data, so that the public can analyze it. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::One of us is certainly not getting something - my suggestion was meant to encourage the release of the data, rather than allowing the conversation to die with a possibility existing that there was a miscommunication rather than a denial of the request. What's more important here: that a political point is scored, or that the data be released? You are 100% mistaken if you think I'm opposed to the release of the data. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:50, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Absolutely, but I won't divulge my identity to you. If using a pseudonym is alright with you I'll gladly attach my support. If my particular handle is too silly, I could be appended as a John Doe instead. That said, you and I have different ideas of what language is appropriate, so I'd expect to see the exact text in advance. For example, until ''proven'' a liar or charlatan he deserves not to be accused of anything. Rather, just as when a motion for discovery is not compeletely fulfilled to your satisfaction, a firm but courteous clarification of your expectations would be appropriate.

::::Would you care for me to draft something instead, and you can sign off, or not, as you see fit? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 21:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Rants Against Public Release of Data ==

:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf Paper 180.] All kinds of data. If you want, I can also link to the protocols and such. Prof. Lenski is way more obliging than we would have any right to expect... I sent him a letter of congratulations, and he even took the time to reply thanking me!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek

:::With a professional and comprehensive reply having been sent promptly by Professor Lenski, what would be the intended follow-up from Conservapedia? It seems like he answered the letter's first two questions and pointed out that the third was based on a misunderstanding of his paper. Since his study's data and methodology are freely available for review, I'm wondering who CP is looking to engage to independently review and assess his work, which has already passed peer review in order to be published. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::He answered, everybody scramble! I need that Lack of Evidence in the air NOW! You call artillery and tell them to deploy the Inconclusive Data immediately! Move, move, move! We've got a battle against science to fight, people!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's reply did not provide the data as requested. It did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some [[evolutionists]] have insisted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:"You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper." If this statement is true then I hardly think he's going to go to the trouble of sending us all his data when it is readily available. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, have you ever read a scientific paper? Papers don't set forth the data themselves. At most, they set forth summaries of data, which can be flawed or self-serving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:
:::#Be able to understand any of it?
:::#Be prepared to accept that the data accurately reflects the physical facts of the matter in the lab, were you to find it consistent with his conclusions?
:::Given your educational background, I have serious doubts about 1), and given your behaviour on this site, I find myself incapable of believing 2). Please feel free to offer me some reassurance. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I find this ironic that you suddenly want data to support someone else's claim, given your "Mystery: Young hollywood stars and breast cancer" ballpark figure. The paper provides more than ballpark figures you have previously used to support your hypothses in the past. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: In response to Leda, if for some unexplained reason I can't understand the data, then I'll find someone who can. I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air. I am not reassured by the withholding of data.

::::: In response to DanielB, I presented my data and described it as a mystery. What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: ''"I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air."'' Oh, nobody's objecting to you flying when clueless. But a modicum of flight knowledge might expected of you if you, say, suddenly rush into the cockpit and demand that the pilot repeat to you every single flight procedure done for the last 12 hours, lest you declare him fraudulent and/or incompetent. I mean, isn't that what you're implying?

:::::: I mean, what are you expecting when you demand "data" of the Cit+ mutation occurance other than a log entry of "Jan 24th, 2008, 2:03pm. Generation 2026 confirmed to express Cit+ mutation"? Then what you do oh-so-politely request? That all of his collaborator's minds be read so you can make sure there is no mistakes?

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Your attempt to defend the withholding of data underlying a scientific claim is amusing. While you're at it, perhaps you should also protest the Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." You might also protest policies that recommend or require taxpayer-funded data to be made available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You thought my poking fun at your inability to form a coherent analogy was supposed to be a defense? The amusement is all on this side of the table, trust me. You see, there is no defending going on here, because there is no withholding going on here.

:::::::: ''"(viii) Materials and Data Availability..."'' Yes, you can stop repeating yourself now. This was in your letter, which I did in fact read (something that might not be said of you and the myriad articles Richard provided). I did wonder why that was in your letter. I mean, did you think that normal scientific discourse doesn't occur unless by your legal coercion? I'm pretty sure if you had, say, a request just a tad more specific than "give me all your data", Richard would have been more than happy to reply. "Give me all your data" is as an absurd of a data request as demanding that Richard must "right now tell me all you know about E. coli", which, come to think about it, would be pretty much the same thing.

:::::::: '''''"To allow others to replicate and build on''' work published in PNAS, authors must..."'' Out of curiosity, which part of his experiment are you trying to replicate that need additional information not available in the paper? Maybe you should tell him, he could easily help you with that. If you are not replicating the experiment, then did you have a real question or concern, or a weakness that you identified, like "I had a concern about this-and-that procedure of the strain selection, it seems particularly vulnerable to contamination" he would be quite happy to help you too. But hey, that requires that you have a clue about the subject matter.

:::::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::You really go out of your way to defend a guy who's clearly a fraudulent hack. Even if he released his so called "raw data" it would just be a huge load of numbers no one is going to take the time to analyze. If it took him years and years to do this experiment he can be pretty sure no one is going to waste that much time trying to replicate it, so everyone can assume he's right and the atheist Darwinists can pretend they've proved evolution, even when we know it's impossible. Do you believe everything you read? If someone claimed they had a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster had a baby, I suppose you'd believe that too if it were published somewhere? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 14:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So let me see if I understand you correctly, Tony. If Lenski doesn't release all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, it's proof that he's a fraud. If Lenski releases all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, the sheer volume is proof that he's trying to pull a fast one, and he's a fraud.
::::::::::Is that correct?
::::::::::Given this and other comments you have made, I suspect that you're a satirist attempting to make conservatives look unreasonable. If so, please stop. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::I resent being called a satirist. You assume that anyone who doesn't hold your liberal views must be joking! Well, the majority of the people in this country are "satirists" if that is the case. It doesn't much matter if Lenski releases his data or not. Us right thinking people know he's a fraud because he claims to have witnessed evolution, and we know that is impossible. That is a fact! I'd like to see his data. I bet it's so seriously flawed even someone with little background in biology will be able to tell. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 21:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Do not call Lenski or anyone else a fraud without good evidence. Evolution is impossible, but for Lenski to be a fraud he would have to be claiming something that he ''knows'' to be wrong, and you've provided no evidence of that, and I doubt that it exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)
::::::::::::: Not at all, Tony. I assume that anyone who is genuinely conservative is going to present a reasonable and rational demeanor, refrain from a priori reasoning, and generally engage in mature conduct. I assume that those who wish to promulgate a stereotype of conservatism with an eye to demonization is going to engage in name-calling, refuse to engage in rational discussion, and declare himself right without adequate support for the position. Such actions are entirely consistent with liberals masquerading as conservatives. If you resent being called a satirist, I would suggest attempting to conduct yourself in a manner becoming a conservative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Where did the 20 years come from? Lenski was asked for the data supporting his claim. He has produced some information on a website, but not that data. Yes, making a claim while withholding the data, even after a request, can reasonably lead one to doubt the claim. Wouldn't you agree with that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

'''(Unindent)'''

Certainly, Mr. Schlafly. What I'm taking issue with is Tony's claim that even if Lenski releases his data, it's not worth taking the time to analyze or "waste the time" trying to replicate. It seems very much to me as if he's trying to portray conservatives as closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence. Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point, but I certainly think you'd agree that such individuals have turned up here before, wouldn't you?

With respect to the 'twenty years' portion: I was under the impression that you wanted the full and complete data to be made available. Given that the experiment took twenty years, I assumed that you would want the full twenty years of data included for evaluation. I apologize if I was mistaken.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

----

I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.

Scientific scrutiny works like this: 
{| width="500px"
|-
|'''Scientist A''' publishes results. 
'''Scientist B''': A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they? 
'''A''': x, y, and z are such and such. 
'''B''': Using x, y, and z, my result doesn't agree with yours at all. Are you sure you did the procedures that you claimed? 
'''A''': ... 
'''B''': You fraud!

Scientific scrutiny ''does not'' work like this: 

'''A''' publishes results. 
'''B''': I have Generic Skepticism toward your article. Under code viii of the Publication Criteria, I demand that you give me all of your data! 
'''A''': ... ok...? It seems that everything you would need is already in the article. Did you have something specific in mind? 
'''B''': A has refused to attach all data he has ever used for the experiment. He is withholding information and thus hiding something.
|-
|}

-- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:This is it. This one is my favorite post. Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Beautiful! What else can I say?--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not much, apparently. I think you've exhausted your meaningful comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, have you read the paper? ==

I have. It pretty fairly lays out all the important data. Unless you want to run the experiments yourself - which I don't know if you could do, given the equipment he used - I think it's probably the best you'll ever get. I think a fair reply to Lenski would be point out elements of his analysis that you don't like, and put that in a reply e-mail. Otherwise, your lack of reply makes it look like you've given up, and your defensive parries here ("he didn't give all his data!") look like a losing rearguard action.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::May I sign-with-qualifier? As in, signed, "A. Shephard - please do show as much as reasonably possible; the truth will out and convince those who doubt you, and this will hasten it along."?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Something to note ==

From the AiG article:

"AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth."

Apparently, Lenski has released his data to Purdom. Presumably, Dr. Purdom wouldn't settle for fragmentary data that wouldn't allow her to fully evaluate the claims. Had Lenski refused to disclose, it seems certain that AiG would have made note of it.

{{unsigned|Benp}}

==Hypothetical==
Let's say that a second email is enough for Lenski to release his data. What are you going to do with it all? Previous discussions show you don't what you are doing with small, simple to analyse data sets. You would need a degree in biochemistry and biostats to even begin to know what you are going to do with it. The people who have peer reviewed the paper a by far better qualified and if they had concerns they would have asked specifically for what they wanted without sounding like .... Well I want say what you sound like writting emails singed with a law degree demanding data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Sure, but like the human genome it will probably be released in time anyway in a way that is useful. You standing there making demands, signing letters JD, makes you look like some lawyer with an axe to grind rather than someone interested in research. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Proposed Follow-up Email==
Since Andy wants to send a second email for some of the rest of us to sign as well, here is a space to work out the wording. I wonder if MainS and Carafe would help us write something that seems reasonable and polite, since you guys seem to have sufficient knowledge in the field to describe what we are looking to find out?

I would suggest something along these lines:

''Dear Professor Lenski''
''We are writing in regards to your recent experiment with cit+ development in observed E. coli populations. We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data from your observations during the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase. We are intensely curious about that information. If it will be made available through some other venue and you wish to direct us to that instead, then we would very much like to be made aware of that.''
''Thank you,''
''Andy Schlafly, Thomas Moore, etc.''

Is that a reasonable request? I am afraid biology protocol is quite beyond me, so some help would be appreciated.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Looks like a good start, Tom, but from the comments so far it seems like nothing short of the full set of observations is going to be satisfactory for some of the skeptics here. I'd suggest the following revision to the second and third sentences:
::''We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data for the full set of your observations for this population. We are intensely curious about the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase, but would like the complete set of observations instead of a subset to facilitate an independent analysis of the research.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It doesn't seem reasonable to demand twenty years' worth of observations, which would be the full set. Or at least, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::It doesn't seem reasonable to me, either, which is why Professor Lenski's response pointed readers to the relevant subsets of data, and that would be sufficient for most reasonable people. I was just pointing out that unreasonable people here will consider anything less than all 20 years to be withholding data, so what's needed to satisfy the skeptics is a way for that full body of observations to be accessible. If the response is that it would take too much time and/or money to satisfy the request, then the burden of proof falls on the skeptics to justify why they can't start with the data already made available and only request additional data when they have specific questions that require it for an answer. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:32, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Well, maybe they will feel differently. I think this is the polite and reasonable approach, rather than asking for all twenty years. Other comments? Andy?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 18:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==What is the plan for a Conservapedia review of Lenski's work?==

One thing that keeps getting lost in the rhetoric - who is looking at the Lenski work on behalf of Conservapedia? More than a few people here, including a CP sysop, have pointed out that a proper scientific review can begin using the data already made available by Professor Lenski. If this review surfaces any questions or criticisms, then that would prompt an exchange with Lenski on the specifcs, and I'm sure the related data would be made available. While I see that there are reviews of the work being done by some creationist groups (who apparently see no need to have all the raw data first), the Conservapedia approach is more like a set of lawyers looking for discovery than a set of scientists looking for truth. Why can't CP review Lenski's work in a scientific manner like AiG instead? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:31, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

: The issue is '''public''' release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::No one investigating Lenski's work in a scientific manner is accusing him of withholding any data from them, or from the public. You're setting a new, and unprofessional, precedent in expecting a scientist to take the time to collect and send you decades of raw data on his research simply because you're asking him to, when you haven't even shown the courtesy of demonstrating why this effort is necessary. I repeat the question you keep avoiding - is this exercise going to be a waste of Lenski's time so you can make a point, or do you have a plan to use that raw data and a timetable for publishing your findings? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::: DinsdaleP, it sounds like your name should be added back to the list of those who oppose public release and scrutiny of the data above. The questions you keep harping on are irrelevant to the issue of public release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Feel free to add me back to your ridiculous list, then. Anyone who can read knows where I stand, just as they can see your continued avoidance of my question. There is no plan, is there? I'll be glad to stand corrected if I'm wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How is asking about "scrutiny of the data" irrelevant to the issue of "public release and '''scrutiny of the data'''"? Color me confused!--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

You don't seem to understand the scientific method at all. There is a reason peer review is so called. It is a review of work by your peers, that is fellows engaged in similar fields of research. You are not a peer of Dr. Lenski. You don't even hold an undergraduate degree in a related field. You aren't even qualified to be a research assistant in his lab. You're a lawyer, and I'm sure you're good at your job and all, but don't try to pretend to qualifications you simply do not have to serve a political purpose.

Lets face it, the good doctor has been extremely kind to you thus far. I would not recommend pushing your luck. Had it been me, your email would have hit the bit bucket faster than you can say "plunk". As far as I can tell, you haven't even had the good grace to read the poor guy's paper as he suggested. I did, and I found it extremely accessible compared to the cryptography papers I'm used to reviewing. I believed I followed the bulk of it, and I'm sure you could too if you were so minded.

But of course, you aren't minded to. You're not at all interested in his findings, because you assume they're false before you even know the details. If he were correct, it would yet further discredit your young earth creationist beliefs. Here is research that gives the lie to the old "mutations never produce new information" talking point, while at the same time demonstrating how a feature that seems incredibly unlikely were it to happen in one big bang, can in fact become trivial via building up a "potentiated genome" as alluded to by Lenski in his email (see the section headed "Historical Contingency in the Evolution of Cit+" for details of the experiments they performed to confirm this.)

This experiment yet again confirms the predictions of the theory of evolution, while contradicting your own creation hypothesis (The capacity for citrate utilisation starts out weak and gets stronger over time, via additional mutations that out compete the peers they fissioned from.) This result scares you. You aren't interested at all in Dr. Lenski's data are you? All you want is to make an unreasonable request, and then when it is sensibly refused or ignored to trumpet that clearly the scientists working on LEE are attempting to hide something. Nobody is impressed by your transparent posturing. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 15:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Although some of your comments, such as those about peer review, are reasonable, the last half particularly is begging the question. His research is ''claimed to'' give the lie to the "mutations never produce new information" claim, but whether they ''actually'' do is one of the points that are in contention. Trying to make your point by assuming your point and simply restating it is not a valid form of argument. Further, although misunderstanding this is understandable, creationists have acknowledged that mutations might ''extremely rarely'' produce new genetic information by chance. Their argument is more that you can't use mutations as a source of new information, not because it never ever happens, but because it very rarely happens and would be swamped by all the information-losing mutations. So Lenski's claim, even if it turned out to be true (which seems unlikely: see creationist responses linked above), does not disprove creationism anyway, as ''one'' example of an information-gaining mutation is consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolution, which requires ''many'' such mutations. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:05, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Ugh. Don't get me started on those "creationist responses." They're clearly written for a scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience. People who won't notice that the author's idea of a literature survey is to read and fail to understand an abstract, and then cite the paper in support of whatever gibberish they want to commit to paper. The AiG response is just talking points recycled for the occasion, which no meaningful content, while creation on the web is so intellectually dishonest it beggars belief. Take this wonderful paragraph:

{{cquote|Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.}}

:: Wrong, wrong, wrong. E. Coli is not, and has never been observed to be capable of utilising citrate natively. Any E. Coli that have this ability have it because it is coded for be invasive plasmids. That's the point of the paper the author cites. Lenski takes great pains to point out that the Cit+ and Cit- strains DO NOT possess these plasmids, since the issue of external contamination would be foremost in any reviewer's mind.

:: The whole creation on the web article is like this throughout. It takes parts of the paper out of context and uses them as an attack on the work. Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution. The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution." It's the most astonishingly asinine thing I've read this month, and only "died-in-the-wool" (sic) creationist would take it seriously.

:: So, here's the thing. Lets assume that Lenski's claims are false or exaggerated (and I don't think for a moment that is the case.) How exactly is Schlafly, a lawyer, going to show this regardless of how much raw data he has? He doesn't even know what to ask for, let alone what he's going to do with it once he has it. I don't believe it would be overly cynical to ascribe an ulterior motive to this request. At very best, he wants to pester a person doing productive research and force him to do extra work, unpaid, on his behalf. That would be fine if Schlafly was a peer of Lenski's seeking verification of the result. Defending one's work is part of the scientific process, but there have to be limits. If you really want to analyse the result, first find a working biologist with time and equipment to do the analysis, then and only then will I support the request for further data.

:: To all others supporting the request currently, I'd ask they withdraw their support until such time as this condition is fulfilled. I cannot believe that Schlafly seriously wants the data, simply that he wishes the request to be refused such that he can make outlandish claims about scientific transparency. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 08:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Taciturn, I'm not requesting merely my personal review of the data (although certainly I will review it if Lenski produces it), but rather the ''public scrutiny'' of the data. Unless you think that Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge, you should agree that additional review of the data by others can yield additional insights, and possibly identify flaws.

::: Andrew Wiles is undeniably a bright mathematician, as are his friends who reviewed his claim to have proven Fermat's Last Theorem. But when he made his initial proof available more widely, others saw flaws in it that took a long time to repair. Obviously the same may be true about anyone's work ... including Lenski's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: [Edit conflict] Mr. Schlafly, given that Lenski is required to release the data to any scientist who asks, who exactly is preventing public scrutiny? A lawyer such as yourself quite simply does not have the training to understand the data, and you're quite unlikely to find a scientist sympathetic to your cause. Even if he releases twenty years worth of research to you, nothing changes. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Are you saying that only a "scientist" may see the data? I hold an engineering degree and worked at Bell Labs, but perhaps you have some special definition to limit access to the data as much as possible. If someone drops out of college, does that disqualify him from being able to look at the data? I certainly hope that isn't your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Andy, only someone with proper training in biology could hope to understand the raw data. You can look at it, yes, fine, but you won't understand it, and you'll quickly demand that Lenski release it in a "clear and comprehensive format", at which point you'll promptly be pointed right back to Paper 180. Your engineering degree doesn't help you here. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Taciturn, one more bigoted derogatory comment like those in your first paragraph and the end of your third paragraph and you will earn yourself a block.
::: Now, to your specific claims regarding AiG and CMI:
::: * The articles are written for a lay audience, but that doesn't mean that they are written for a "scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience". On the contrary, they aim to make them scientifically accurate.
::: * The AiG article was clearly a preliminary response, so your derogatory comment about no meaningful content is unwarranted.
::: * "''Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution.''": Please back that claim with evidence or retract it.
::: * "''The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution."''": On the contrary, it appears that you did not read the article properly (with an open mind?). It actually says that "...Lenski seemed [note both the lack of definiteness/lack of accusation and the past tense] to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ ..."
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Taciturn discredited himself, and probably won't even defend his behavior.

:::: But Philip, I have a question for you: do you support public release of the data to enable others (including creationists) to review it? It's hard for me to see how outside reviewers (including creationists) can do a thorough job without access to the data. Undeniably outside reviewers could do a better job if the data were public.

:::: I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: I've already given my answer to whether or not I support release of the data. Do a search of this page for a post with a timestamp of 09:34. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Well, OK, I found your prior posting and reread it, but didn't find any answer to the basic question I just asked: wouldn't outside reviewers (including creationists) be better off with an availability of the data? And to your point about funding, wouldn't funding be easier to obtain (to the extent necessary) if it were known that the data are available? Seems obvious to me, and probably to the co-signers (11 and growing), that the answer is "yes" to both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Actually, that was not a question that you had just asked. And yes, outside reviewers, including creationists, ''would'' be better off with the data being available, ''if they plan on reviewing all that data''. But that's a big "if", because, as I did say above, there is a shortage of available creationary scientists and funding for them. As for obtaining funding, no, I don't think it would make a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lenski has not refused to release the data; it's just that you plan on asking him to do so ''now'' rather than wait for someone who is actually going to review the data to ask. That is, I assume that the data would be made available in due course to a serious researcher who requested it.
:::::::: I also pointed out that creationary scientists may not be interested in reviewing all the data. They probably have better things to do with their time and funds than to analyse 20 years worth of data, when all they likely need to do is find out a bit more about his actual results. Further, as I said elsewhere on this page, it's even ''possible'' that Lenski has actually found a mutation that has added genetic information. Creationists don't rule out that there may be very rare examples of this, and ''perhaps'' this is the first known case of such. But that doesn't disprove creation nor prove evolution because, as I said, creationism can handle the odd exception to the rule, whereas the evolution requires millions of such information-gaining mutations, and one example is not that evidence. So why would a creationary scientist waste his time (unless someone was employing him to do it)?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Which would mean that it would not even be published in the journal, Andy. Your final claim is unfounded and, quite frankly, slanderous. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If the peer reviewers saw the data, then it is no problem to make that data publicly available. So where is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::In the paper, Andy. Everything that you could need to know about the experiment and much more is in the paper. If you don't believe me, you can ask Lenski for something extra, however general questions like the ones you've sent him so far will only get you pointed back to the paper. If you've got a specific part of the work you want, ask and I'm sure he'll happily throw the raw, incomprehensible data at you. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::This would seem to come down to a fundamental misunderstanding. Few biologists are going to want to see Lenski's raw data like this, because the observations will be relatively simple to make - or at least simple for a biologist. Instead, they will want to examine his methodology (which is already freely available) to see if they can find any flaws. For example, if he had stored them in a non-sterile environment or something, the colonies could have been contaminated, and it would invalidate his conclusions. They will also want to see the conclusions he draws from his observations, which might be unwarranted or otherwise explainable. For example, if they know as biologists that e. coli can use citrase under certain conditions (not the case, actually, but it's an example), they would call his conclusions into question. And of course some scientists are going to want to imitate his whole set-up to reproduce his result... although it will take a while. But because Prof. Lenski is a highly skilled and reputable scientist, few are going to demand to see his raw data, because there is little reason not to trust his integrity. That is generally just not how this science is done, to the best of my knowledge.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I can't believe I'm getting into this particular mess but, here goes: hypothetically, let's say that Andy contacts Lenski and Lenski graciously releases all of the raw data anyone could want. Let's further say that Andy manages to secure the services of a qualified analyst who has the time and training to properly analyze said data and that, further, that analyst confirms that Lenski's interpretations are correct. In other words, the analyst says that Lenski is- as far as anyone can tell- correct. What happens then? Will Andy or anyone else publicly acknowledge this to be the case, or will the story suddenly become that Lenski "falsified" his raw data? Because, really and truly folks, the "raw data" we keep talking about is not the same thing as actually having access to Lenski's samples. Moreover, Lenski is not about to release any part of his samples to folks who haven't the slightest idea how to store them, much less how to analyze. And I don't have imagination enough to think that Conservapedia is going to set up an adequately equipped and staffed research lab capable of taking possession of such samples, much less fund it long enough to replicate Lenski's research. As far as I can tell, this entire thing is a lot of sound and fury that will ultimately come to nothing (apologies Will). So what's with all the grandstanding, Andy? Okay, I've said my bit. I'll go back to editing statistics articles now. -Drek
::I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I've just posted above in a reply to Andy why I think a creationary scientist would ''not'' be interested. I'll add here that, according to Don Batten of CMI (link elsewhere on this page), it fits with what Behe has written about in his latest book, so there's no reason to think that this case would bother ID proponents either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::''"I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data."'' Yeah, but I was specifically referring to qualified analysts, so the ID/C.S. folks won't help. Snark aside, however, neither you nor anyone else has addressed the underlying issue: what happens if Lenski DOES provide the full database? It isn't like someone couldn't claim he faked that and the only way to confirm it would be to evaluate his samples. Look, I DO in fact support public availability of data derived from publicly funded research. That said, however, if we don't even have a plausible case for how we ourselves could verify output, much less carry out a replication, we're just being nuisances. Lenski's job is to do research, not bow to every request made of him by random unqualified amateurs. And even if he has tenure and that somehow made him utterly invulnerable to firing (oddly, failing to produce is one of those things that can kill tenure) he still has a responsibility to his Post-Docs and grad students. -Drek
::::: I've warned two others on this page about derogatory comments, and you've gone and added your own. For that you've earned yourself a block for the "snark". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Question==
I am going to make it clear that I am not willing to put my name on this. I whole-heartedly support the release of Professor Lenski's data, but not to a faceless group of individuals with no clear purpose for demanding the data. My question is, as Mr. Schlafly seems to be avoiding it, have you Mr. Schlafly read the paper that Professor Lenski directed you to? I hope that this request is more than an attempt to add Professor Lenski to the [[professor values]] list. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your argument is irrelevant to the ''public'' release of the data. I hadn't read Andrew Wiles' attempt to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, but I sure am glad that he publicized it so that people could identify serious flaws after Wiles' expert friends declared it to be complete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::You already emailed Professor Lenski, and he kindly took the time to respond. But you didn't even bother to read the answers he gave you. Sending him another email demanding even more information, without even reading the information he already gave you seems rude. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Now you're making up things about me. Perhaps you think you can distract attention from the simple issue of public release of the data. You failed if that was your goal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::That never was my intention. I was simply trying to understand your reasoning behind this email. I am interested in something else at the moment actually. You seem to enjoy mentioning Andrew Wiles and Fermat's Last Theorem. Who proved that Andrew Wiles was wrong. Was it a layperson, or a mathematician? [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: If you're trying to exclude people from looking at the data based on their education or credentials, then just say so. There are many bright people who never graduated from college, and I oppose making education or credentials a test for who can review the data. In Wiles' case, I don't know what the credentials were of the multiple people who found serious flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
== Two Questions for Aschlafly==

I have two questions for Aschlafly. Please answer them plainly and in brief as I've no use for obfuscation typical of what I've seen above. As you know, failing to answer is an answer of sorts. Here are my questions:
# Have you read Lenski's paper as he suggested?
# What do you plan to do with his "raw" data should you receive it?
The answers to these two questions will tell much about your intent and your character. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 18:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::So your answers are

# you "skimmed" it
# you won't do anythnig with the "raw data" should he send it to you
Thank you for your honesty. I hope your readership takes these answers in their full measure. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 19:30, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: I hope you recognize and admit to the benefits of public access. You haven't yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

=== Two Questions for Aschlafly: comments from others===
*I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:I know your question was not directed at me, but isn't the point of public release that it would be open to ''everyone'' to examine; ie - that this isn't solely about Aschlafly? I doubt if there is anyone on this site who would be capable of understanding Lenski's raw data, if it were to be made available, but that is not a reason to oppose the public release of the data ''per se'', is it? If released publicly, anyone capable of understanding it can see it for themselves, and those who cannot understand it will be unaffected. What's wrong with that?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I would encourage people to watch the movie of what the physical form of the raw data looks like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNaXlK_3Fik They tested 4 trillion cells.[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php] Assuming even a simple 'y/n' for the 'can metabolize citrate' that is about 4 terabytes of data. This doesn't go into the other genes that they have studied. Are you going to send him some hard drives to copy the data onto? Do you have the bandwidth to host that data for public scrutiny (at a full T1 speed with 100% utilization, if I did my math correctly, it would take about 2 years to download all of the data)? Granted, that is one extreme of the data but this could potentially be more than you can handle or host. And if he says its a terrabyte of data or so, will you host it? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:No, I wouldn't host it. If the data were made publicly available, I would have no interest in downloading it or reading it because I am not a biologist and wouldn't be able to understand it. But I am not opposed to the data - whatever size the files are - being made available for people who can understand it (and have sufficiently spacious hard drives). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::to clarify, I am not opposed to it '''in principle'''. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:03, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I did skim Lenski's paper, and saw that on multiple occasions he says the data are not shown. In addition, his figures and tables are oddly uninformative. I recall that one figure is complete speculation. After skimming his paper the need for public disclosure of the data became even more apparent.

What would I do with the raw data? I don't propose that access to it be limited based on education or credentials. I would expect many people, including folks just as bright as Lenski, to examine it and possibly identify flaws or make suggestions.

I repeat: does anyone here really think Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

)

:I don't think they have a monopoly on knowledge, and nobody's perfect. On the other hand, I do think the volume of data might prove to be a problem. If a response indicates that the complete data is simply too massive to be mailed/posted to a website, what's the next reasonable step? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::It is becoming clear that this campaign to release the data has more to do with your hope that Lenski won't and you can dismiss his claims on those grounds. I am sure the data is available to the people who need to see it and depending on the copyright restrictions that research unfortunatly comes with these day (usually through funding by non-government entities) it will be made available as publically as it can.

:: Someone earlier mentioned ID theorist, they tend to have about as much qualifications on this as Andrew Schalfly, BSE. JD. so I won't hold much hope in them being able to understand it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::: As I've warned someone else already on this page, one more derogatory comment like that in your second paragraph and you will earn yourself a block. Despite anti-creationist and anti-ID urban myth, the credentials of ID proponents and creationary scientists are every bit as good as those of other scientists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Really, ID theorist are scientist? [http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ Look at the Discovery Institute's board members and fellows]. Cihak is a MD, every other person on that list either has a degree in history, political science or law. Behe use to be a fellow so that is one biochemist, Dempski(?) was a mathematician who use to be there once. Only one relevently qualified and two semi-qualified experts that is it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:02, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: The Discovery Institute is not the only source of ID proponents. Just as with evolutionists, there are those that are qualified and those that are not, but still believe it, promote it, and etc. Your comment that I warned you about was ID theorists ''in general'', not DI board members and fellows specifically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

: I read Lenski's paper, and as a trained microbiologist, I thought that it was both thorough and well done. His claims are backed by good data, namely that which was presented in the figures. I went through each of the figures after Aschlafly said that they were uninformative. Actually, they are basic figures that show the population explosion of the bacterial cultures after the Cit+ mutation occurred. These figures show that the cultures increased in size and mass at a given timepoint, being able to do so because they had evolved a mechanism to utilize a new nutrient, without the assistance of helper plasmids.

I know that my post is getting long, but I just wanted to say that in addition to this that of course there is going to be a figure with some speculation when it is covering an alternate hypothesis. That is what a lot of science is really about; the scientist creates a battery of hypotheses, and through experimentation narrows down the field. Lenksi's paper, while not the most definite I've seen, is still a very well-researched paper that supports its claims nicely. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

==Detractor Lineup==

Ok, there seems to be some confusion about whether we are opposing the public release of information based on principle or practicality. So, let's make a list to make our position clear (please add a brief explanation and feel free to discuss in the comments section). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Oppose Public Release based on PRINCIPLE'''

'''Oppose Public Release based on PRACTICALITY'''

* Because it is time consuming, costly (both in terms of money and resources) and the data is too big to be readily transfered. If we had a genuine reason to want the data and we were actually going to do something with it then it would be worth the effort (for example if we disputed a particular conclusion, in which case we could probably narrow down the data we wanted) however demanding a release based solely on principle is simply impractical and not going to happen. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:To illustrate that "big" means, a little ilustration from my own work. I work for the LOFAR project's future data proccesing center, we plan on recieving several dozen gigabits per second, or about a 60 meter stack of paper a second.. Now, I know biology research doesn't produce as much data as radiotelescopes do, but they've been working for 20 years.
:By demanding all the original data, you are asking for several shipping containers full of dvd's. It's just not acceptable to spend so much time and money on everyone who asks for it, especially when you have no real desire to reproduce anything. I do think you should be able to see the data, but you obviously have to be more specific in your questions for information.
:Again, I am not a biologist, but in astronomy when you want raw data, you request information about a specific part of measurements. You call someone and ask for data for 10 seconds from this-and-that time and of such-and-so area of sky. You do not send an open letter and demand "All research data". I think Richard Lenski was increadibly kind not to laugh in your face for such a demand, because it shows the asker has no idea how the scientific community functions.
[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 14:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Comments'''

StatsMsn, your objection is purely speculative and, frankly, implausible. Lenski has not asserted your claim and I doubt he will.

But if you're right about the key data, then that suggests the peer reviewers did not have access to it, and the conclusion is this: claims based on that data should not be published in a Journal that says the data will be made available. Instead, one could publish such claims in a Journal saying the data will not be made available, and we can all take the claims with a grain of salt.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think it's more likely that Lanski hasn't released the information to you based on practicalities than a conspiracy to publish false results. Note that I did not say the peer reviewers did not have access to the raw data, only that you did not. If there was a genuine reason to provide the data to someone (that is, someone who had a genuine reason to have it, such as to confirm or dispute a conclusion) then I have no doubt that any ethical research team would work out a way to transmit it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, I stopped reading at your word "conspiracy". No is alleging a "conspiracy". Post in a rational manner and don't pollute this page. Apologize and clean up your edit or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry Mr. Schlafly, but you seem to be trying to say that Lenski fudged 20 years of work, and that is being hidden by the people reviewing his work. That sounds like a conspiracy. Perhaps you should apologize, or clarify your edits. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Has anyone considered the possiblility that some data was removed in the reviewing process? From my experience with journal publications (moderate at best) page numbers is important. Pages and pages of data and graphs are expensive to print. The reviewer would have seen it, the editor would look at it and thought it is too much and edit the paper so as to say the data is not presented. Ask for a preprint of the paper that will contain more data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== False Claim of a Bad motive ==

Let's face the truth, there is no real desire here for Andrew Schlafly or anyone on Conservapedia to get the raw data. The reason that this is even an issue is because placing this demand and getting no response somehow makes Lenski look bad and therefore automatically discredits him and his research and therefor the theory of evolution. The position of Mr. Schlafly is that the Bible is inerrant and the Genesis creation story is true. No amount of scientific data is going to change that. So why argue with him? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 10:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: You're clueless about my motivation and your account has been blocked for violating our [[90/10 rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow. I'm actually afraid to post my opinion now...Well, at the risk of being banned...Aschlafly: Was it really necessary to block MAnderson? I get the feeling (And this is simply an opinion based on personal observation) that the action taken against MAnderson was due more to the nature of his accusation of bias against you and not due to any violation of code, since bias is indeed a word that gets used around here often without reprimand. That being said I feel that the intended letter in question would severely discredit this website. Unless members of this site have the facilities necessary to conduct research into the validity of the Doctor's claims then we have no reason to request such massive documentation. Furthermore, the purpose of such counter-research should always be with the intent to ultimately strengthen a proposed line of research, even if it is by bringing to light flaws in the original findings. The purpose of peer review is not to discredit, but to strengthen through careful examination and criticism. If the originals researchers conclusions are eventually found to be flawed beyond renovation then the entire thing is thrown out, strengthening our scientific pool of knowledge as a whole by protecting it against faulty findings. It is my belief that a peer-reviewer should always have a most critical eye, but should also ultimately have the best at heart for the purported research. I do not believe such a mindset exists in this case. The letter itself seems to indicate a specific desire and hope of discrediting the E-coli findings, which should never be the purpose of peer review. To seek discredit simply for the sake of discredit is the very anti-thesis of why the peer-review system exists IMO. And it is my opinion that the intended letter gives the impression that discredit is the goal. In my opinion. --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 13:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:There's a difference between expressing your thoughts on a matter and saying of someone else "here is why you did it" and then make statements that are derogatory and degrading. The one at least expresses opinion. The other just makes things up with the followup assumption being now you must defend yourself against what I just made up. That's inappropriate and was handled as being inappropriate.

:That being said, what you wrote is a different matter. I see no difficulty in the form of your speech, or the expression of your ideas. Do not equate your writings to what was put above by MAnderson; they are not the same. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I think there's a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria "evolved" novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of "potentiated genotypes", from which the traits could be "reëvolved" using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren't "potentiated" by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these "potentiated genotypes" originated through blind chance or intelligence. But with the physical specimens in the hands of Darwinists, who claim they will get around to the sequencing at some unspecifed future time, how can we trust that this data will be forthcoming and forthright? Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved ''E. coli'' colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia, even if it won't be put to immediate examination by Mr. Schlafly. This is simply about keeping tax-payer-funded scientists honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 20:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:'Dr. Paley', that's about the most ridiculous suggestion I've heard yet. I'm not going to even dignify that kind of nonsense with a response. But I will suggest, generally, that if you are that convinced there is a worldwide scientific conspiracy to perpretate fraud by hiding 'the potentiating hand of the creator', then there's nothing I could say to you anyway.

:But I have this question for Andy and the rest of the supporters of the 'public access to data' line: if it is the ''principle'' of public access to data that you are fighting for--and this is not some kind of publicity stunt, as many have suggested--then why are you picking on this one experiment, and not the ''tens of thousands'' of scientific papers that have been published just, say, in the last decade? After all, Lenski's paper is no different than any scientific paper, in that is summarizes, but does not publish, the raw data on which it was based. So shouldn't you be asking every scientist who has published a paper in which raw data has not been published to present that data? Why just Lenski? Aren't there potentially ''thousands'' of 'new insights' that could be produced from public scrutiny of this data?

:I think your motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves. [[User:porkchop]]

:: (Note porkchop's use of [[Liberal tools]] #11 and #13.) Anyway, if Prof. Lenski has no fraud to hide, then he won't mind allowing other researchers access to the physical data. Again, it is simply a matter of keeping tax-funded activities honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 21:44, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, Richard. I guess you need your stupidity spelled out for you: no laboratory in the world is going to send ''the actual biological samples they worked on'' to a bunch of faceless internet nuts or anyone else. Even if such a request were possible (i.e. transport could be arranged safely and at no expense to Lenski, he could spare the material, etc.) what on earth would the 'scientists' at Conservapedia ''do'' with it? Keep it in Andy's refrigerator and look at it under his Kid Scientist microscope?

:::And I'm waiting to hear whether anyone has a response to my question about the selective targeting of Lenski. [[User:porkchop]]

:::: Taxpayers paid for Lenski's work, he published it in a journal that claims its authors will make underlying data available, his research claims were publicized in New Scientist, yet he hasn't complied with a request for his data. If that's true of others also as you suggest, then please give examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::What is your response to the view that Lenski has not released the data because it is too big to simply send to someone? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: That "view" is without any basis and, by the way, the suggestion is that Lenski post it rather than send it. Are you suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data available to the peer reviewers on his paper?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Someone said above that considering just one variable would result 4 terabytes worth of data, this is a ridiculous and costly amount of data to host (to put it in perspective, it's about 200 full DVD's). And yes it pretty much is all key (to ensure the mutations were not due to an environmental factor, to ensure that they were inherited, to ensure that they were not simply repressed genes which had previously appearing in the colonies etc). I am not suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data avaliable to peer reviewers, I'm fairly sure that had they wished to view it they could have done so (possibly by physically visiting his labs to access it, or by using a dedicated stream). Perhaps it's something you could ask in the email you send him, and while you're at it perhaps you could ask if researchers such as yourself or others would be able to access the data on request (this is essentially public access so long as nobody is turned away for ideological reasons). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: So you're suggesting that the peer reviewers could only access the data by physically visiting Lenski's labs or by using "a dedicated stream"? That's tantamount to suggesting that the peer reviewers did not practically have access to the data, which creates an even bigger cloud of doubt about the claimed results. If that's the case, then obviously that should have been disclosed to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

<- No, I was offering a couple of options. It's is equally (or even more likely) that Lenski's team spent a bit of money and transferred the data onto physical media and sent it to them. That is a question that you can ask in your email, lest we be accused of jumping to conclusions. Peer reviewers aside, the point remains that the reason Lenski has not published the data is due to its size and the cost of posting it, not their opposition to the public release of data. Again this will only be answered through a reply to your email, perhaps you could ask if it would be possible for you (and other researchers) to access the data, rather than demanding he post it on the internet or send it to you. This would overcome any refusal based on practicality, but still allow the public access to data. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Failure to supply data? ==

Aschlafly, you say above that Lenski "hasn't complied with a request for his data." Where did he do that? In his reply to your original letter he bends over backwards to accommodate your requests and answer your questions, and he's hardly had time to reply to the second letter! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

The Sixties

2008-06-13T10:28:23Z

Humblpi: /* The 'Permissive Society': licence unbridled */ sp

'''The Sixties''' - the '''1960s''' - is widely celebrated by [[Leftist]]s and [[Liberal]]s as a decade of progress and freedom. However, it was in reality a decade that saw the origin or the worsening of some of the gravest ills to afflict modern society. Far from being a decade of peace and love, it was a period of left-inspired violence and terror (prime examples being the [[Vietnam War]] and the [[Cultural Revolution]]); the 'events' of 1968 in universities across the western world saw a minority rabble of [[Trotskyist]] and [[Maoist]] students try to impose their views on society; and the so-called social revolution of the period saw a massive upsurge in [[sexual immorality]] and the abuse of [[illegal drugs]]. Leftist and other 'trendy' educational theories began their assault upon the education of our children. Truly, as [[Margaret Thatcher]] noted, "We are reaping what was sown in the sixties... fashionable theories and permissive clap-trap set the scene for a society in which the old virtues of dicipline and restraint were denigrated."

==Assault upon religion==
This might be said to be two-pronged. The Sixties saw moves away from revealed to religion amongst young people in favour of a half-baked and quarter-understood mish-mash of eastern mysticism, sexual hedonism and drug abuse of the kind peddled by [[The Beatles]] in their 'Maharishi' phase; [[John Lennon]] of The Beatles went on, in his song ''Imagine'', to celebrate and propagandise a nihilistic and [[Atheism|atheistic]] view of human life. Simultaneously, many Christian priests and ministers themselves undermined Chritianity by a variey of means: from watering down the required standards of Christian behaviour in a misguided attempt to seem 'trendy' and 'relevant', completely overlooking the relevance of Faith; to harnessing the Bible to [[Karl Marx]], in the form of the so-called [[Liberation Theology]] which did much to inspire left-wing [[terrorism]] in [[Latin America]].

==The 'Permissive Society': licence unbridled==
[[Chastity]], restraint, and human values of decency were mocked by the 'gurus' of permissiveness. Instead, the increasing availability of artificial contraception in the form of contraceptive pills fuelled a wave of promiscuity and the promotion and practice of all forms of perversity. Restrictions on [[pornography]] were eroded or evaded, and legal reforms permitted or loosened restrictions on [[homosexuality]], [[divorce]] and [[abortion]], undermining the very fabric of family life. Feminists such as [[Andrea Dworkin]] and [[Germaine Greer]] launched assaults on traditional male-female relationships, while [[Lesbian separatists]] argued that women (which they spelled ''wimmin'') and men should lead entirely seperate lives.

=='Turn on, tune in, drop out'==

This quotation, by 'counter-culture' guru [[Dr Timothy Leary]], epitomises the attitude of many 1960s nostalgiacs towards [[illegal drugs]]. Drugs have been a perennial problem in societies worldwide, but in the 1960s the problem became much worse. This is because drug-taking, which was previously the covert activity of a tiny minority, perceived as immoral as well as illegal by society, suddenly became portrayed as acceptable in the media. Worse, advocates of 'permissiveness' such as Leary openly recommended the use of mind-altering drugs as a means to access a different, supposedly better, reality. Many, if not most, of these advocates had inadequate personalities which prevented them from participating fully in the richness of real life. However, their pernicious effect upon a generation of impressionable young people has been incalculable.

Drug abuse often went hand in hand with [[left wing]] politics, and the loosely-rolled 'joint' or 'reefer' became the trademark of the 1960s student revolutionary, plotting the replacement of [[democracy]] in his bedsit or student dorm.

==Successes in the Sixties==
The Sixties however did have some good points. It saw the end of segregation of the [[African Americans]] in society and inspired many modern greats in [[music]] and [[literature]].

[[Category:History]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-12T21:14:19Z

Humblpi: /* 57 Islamic states... */ Heinz 57, of course...

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]

==False Citation==

In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer." when according to the source cited: "http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html" it says he is. When I edited it to say the truth according to the website, it was reverted. Why?

I have edited it again. I understand that this website is supposed to have a conservative twist, but unless conservatism is about spreading lies, then it shouldn't do so.

== No citation ==

"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"

Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.

: No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting [[Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?

== Why lead with the criticisms? ==

This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nomination timing ==

Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the [http://www.democrats.org DNC's website] has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

: That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.

: The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Jareddr, [[conservatives]] don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Association with Black supremacists ==

I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.

He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

:I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switching the two pictures' placement ==

Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute [[photo bias]] according to previous attempts. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action ==

I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--[[User:Carterlansford|Carterlansford]] 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I thought he actually had won his seat in the Senate because more people voted for him. I had no idea that the other person had actually gotten more votes in the election, but because of Affirmative Action, they gave it to Obama anyway. Makes me wonder why they even had an election to begin with. [Dingus]

==huh?==
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:: [[Liberals]] do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:

{{cquote|So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.}}

Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Complaint ==

''"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"''

This is clearly a heavily biased statement. After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes. This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased. Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.

Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"

''Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)''

This is simply amazing.

: Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources. Obama catered to that support in key ways.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Then why not call it "anti-war"? It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldier. In fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier. The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.

: It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many [[leftists]] hate soldiers. They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Don't you have to actually show that *Obama himself* hates soldiers and/or is anti-military before putting that in his entry? Are there no standards whatsoever here except not being liberal? [Dingus]

I don't appreciate you changing the title of my question to "liberal complaint". I am a conservative. The problem here is that you have such a great opportunity to present conservative and liberal viewpoints free of the bias normally associated with them. I believe that true conservative ideals do not need to be slanted or have their opposition omitted to be attractive. You are in fact using standard liberal practices of accepting only "convenient" facts and purposefully omitting opposing viewpoints. These practices, which are unfortunately present in abundance, are serving only to perpetuate a negative stereotype of conservatism. What you're doing is hurting our ideals when you have a tremendous opportunity to be helpful.

::: Obama raised money, big money, from anti-military supporters. Moveon.org actually endorsed Obama and raised a ton of money for him, and Moveon.org took out an ad in the NY Times mocking our top general. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: So when racists endorse McCain, you'll edit McCain's entry to indicate that he's running a racist campaign?[Dingus]

::::: You speak in non sequiturs. McCain does not welcome any racist donations. Obama welcomed tens of millions of dollars in largely anti-military donations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:

:: ''* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

:: ''* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 17:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a '''citation needed'''{{fact}} to some [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=469755&oldid=469754 unreferenced opinions]], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why, yes. Yes they do.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 15:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Michelle Obama ==

To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: [http://obamaquotes.com/Squidoo-Xmas-Card-Portrait.jpg Obama Family Christmas Card]?

== Curious about removal of "liberal bias" ==

Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal ''bias'', not one that censors facts that happen to be ''inconvenient'' to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aehlinger|here]. If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.

::::: AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresome. Let's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as [[liberals]] are fond of saying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

::::::: Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say [[Obama]] that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obvious. Do you believe the press secretary for [[George W. Bush]] with such fervor also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Punishment image ==
'''Note to editors''' 
If you remove the '''Image:Punishment.jpg''' from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the '''blocks for removing the image''' will be '''increased to 3 days'''. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 21:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp

:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Editors" not "Editor's" [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.[[User:Godlover|Godlover]] 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:That certainly does look like blocking for ideology. Besides, [[:Image:Punishment.jpg]] is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image. If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused as to how the image is relevant at all. It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information. The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter. And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only is the image accurate and acceptable, the fact that liberals are obsessed with removing it shows it makes a difference. Somebody removed it again. make sure you keep it up until the end of the year at the least.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The image is unrelated. The quote is very applicable, but should be used separately from the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:Since it is such a contentious issue the image should stay and the question should be referred to Andy or senior sysops for decision. It is not for anyone to remove. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::something being contentious is not reason enough for it to be in the article. In order for an image to be part of an article it has to have some connection to the article itself. The image in question, (a baby held in hands) has no connection to Barack Obama, and therefore deserves no place in the article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It is contentious between sysops and therefore hasty action ought not to be taken. You can read what Dean has said at the head of this section. Why should sysop CPAdmin1 have more or less authority than sysop DeanS? Where there is such a clash, the answer is not to have an edit war, but to refer the matter upstairs. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: If the image is unrelated, than consider taking down Obamas no hand over the heart during the national anthem. Obama says he is partiotic just not in a normal way. The guy has a 100% record on death to children in the womb. Abortion is a big issue and Obamas view of a mistake is a baby. He should be called out in any image. Is a baby a mistake? You decide if Obama is right by looking at the picture. The connection is clear. If not allowed to stand, then a picture of mutilated aborted child should take its place.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::The quote can stand without the image. People don't need a picture to know what a baby is. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

: Where is DeanS? There is a picture of a child in womb on John McCains page. What is the difference between images? Remove Obama's quote and keep the Picture with the headline Punishment.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::I also removed the picture from the McCain article.
I have protected this article because of disruptive edit-warring. Wil the involved parties please seek consensus on this talk page instead of reverting? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:57, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:A great idea - perhaps someone should convene the Student Panel and get them to rule on this.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::Why don't you do it? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I assume that is something a sysop/site administrator would do.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope. You can do it if you want. But why not have the involved editors (or even the entire conservapedia community) come to consensus on this talk page? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Are you talking about a true consensus - one editor one vote? or one sysop one vote? Or one senior admin one vote? Well, for my two cents' worth - the picture is silly, adds nothing to the article and makes Conservapedia look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It does the whole project a disservice and robs the implied editorial position (a position which I disagree with but respect), that B.O. is an inferior candidate to J.M. of a lot (as in almost all) credibility. Oh, yeah - the U of C CLEARLY stated that B.O. held a title "equivalent to professor." Why is that such a problem? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Thank you for your opinion. Now we are going to wait to see what other editors say. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I would make the image smaller, and with a more detailed caption as to what it is, where it came from, and the source of the Obama quote within. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: There's no reason to have the image at all, as it has nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry on Obama. Alice is correct in saying that it makes CP look like a conservative blog. Like I said previously, I could go through and do the same thing to other pages, slapping on "witty" macros, but that wouldn't contribute anything to the encyclopedic goals of CP. The image should stay removed. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::::::Do you think this image would be better in an article about the campaign between Obama and McCain, as in a something about means and methods used to get a point across? It may have an actual quote from Obama, but it's still a campaign poster. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Is that an article yet? It is fairly early. Does it still need to be written? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou - only if the poster came from somewhere with some sort of notability - the RNC, the McCain campaign, a large, nationwide right-to-life group, something of that nature. As far as I understand, this thing was put together on an open access website and published on Some Guy's Blog. I could run off a dozen similar things in an hour and put them on a blog somewhere - that hardly warrants their inclusion in an encyclopedia article.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::True, but it doesn't automatically exclude it either. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::As a campaign image, it could go in an article about the current campaign, but I agree with Alice in that the image appears to have been created by a single individual not connected to anything beyond a personal blog. If the image was created by a McCain staffer, than it could be included.
::::::::::The article should be titled "2008 Presidential Campaign", and have subtopics on all the participants and their outcomes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Page does exist: [http://www.conservapedia.com/2008_Presidential_Campaign]. Maybe make a subtopic on methods used by all sides to put their point across. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:38, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::Or we could not put any propaganda up on the encyclopedia at all until the issue is over with or unless it is highly influential (a la that ad with the atomic bomb and the young girl), as would seem more appropriate for a reference site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 23:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::The image has no place in an encyclopedia article. It does not relate to Obama or to the quote. I think it should be deleted. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Your removal of the image defeats the purpose of my locking the page in an dispute resolution attempt. I am now entirely confused as to how to solve this, now the other users will cry foul and I will be forced to unlock commencing the revert war. I personally thought that we were on our way to reaching consensus. *sigh* [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::I think that a consensus can be reached just as easily without the image in the article in the meantime. I think that while debating and coming to a consensus it makes more sense to have the questionable image out of the article. It is certainly not hurting the article, or the credibility of this site while it is not in the article. The debate is over whether it does that while in the article. Therefore, it makes more sense to keep it out of the article, and not in a position to be a problem. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
If it is deleted from the article how can people reach an informed decision on whether it should be in the article or not? It appears to me that you are asserting ownership of this piece, and that is neither justified nor justifiable. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I oppose the picture, it offers no value. The quote might but the picture does not
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I support the picture, it offers enormous value. The left wins when it is removed. The left that supports abortion and the candidate who condones abortion wins. Silence opposition to abortion, go ahead, smart move that you will answer for one day.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I oppose the picture's inclusion. The quote is already in the article; the picture is unnecessary and does not belong in an encyclopædia. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:Don't get me wrong. I hate abortion as much as anyone here. That photo just is not related to Obama. If you want to put the photo in the abortion article, go ahead. as for making an informed decision, I'll put the photo here where people can look at it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
[[Image:Punishment.jpg|325px|thumb|right|]]

== "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." ==

Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins. Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, now Obama supporters are going to imply that a criticism about his lack of lapel pin has something to do with his ethnicity?! Obama supporters are hilarious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::Guess who does wear a flag pin.....[http://tingilinde.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/29/craigmugshot.jpg Mr. Bathroom Knocker] himself. Lets automatically vote him for president, as he completes the only requirement to be a president, wearing the sacred flag pin. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:Right wingers are terrifying. You may think I'm hilarious, but the vast majority of African Americans think the flag pin controversy is simply a front by the right (As well as the constant use of his middle name, Hussein) to make the case that Obama is somehow 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic'. Well, the American people are really sick of it this time Mr. Schlafly. We're not going to stand for this dinosour 'got ya' politics anymore. Come November, the American people will have spoken and your brand of smear, insult and pettiness will become nothing more than an internet phenonomon, where only the most disjointed will indulge in the politics of character destruction. I hope you enjoyed your twenty years under the sun, but finally, America is going to enter the 21st century. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 09:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Introduction==

The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone have any interest in discussing how to actually improve this article, or are we happy to allow the outline of an article be overwhelmingly critical? If you are serious about making an encyclopedia, then please, consider professional measures even about people you dislike. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 10:02, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:TB - The site's administration has made it clear that the tone of this article is not up for negotiation: From the professor-not-a-professor question and the choice to ignore what the U of C has to say on the matter, to the baby image to the fact that while the McCain article excuses his voting absences due to the fact that JM is running for President while the Obama article makes no such excuse.... So while some editors may, as you put it, "have [an] interest in discussing how to actually improve this article," Conservapedia, as an institution, would prefer to "allow the outline of [the] article be overwhelmingly critical." You don't like it? Go edit at Wikipedia, or do as Aschafly did, and start your own wiki project.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Why the concern, though? I too was annoyed at the coverage, and then came to a realization last night. Who is CP's audience? Homeschoolers? Assuming this is their only political reference point---they're too young to vote anyway. And any adult who uses CP as a primary source of information isn't likely to vote for Barack Obama regardless of whether CP acknowledges he served as a professor or not. Anyone who sees this site and buys the information presented was never, and will never be, a Barack Obama voter. So why waste the energy trying to correct the misinformation on the site for viewers that won't use it anyway? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Structure==

I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would like to see a standardized structure for articles on politicians. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== The Senior Lecturer Reference ==

The reference that CPadmin1 used says that Obama "served as a professor in the law school." Since that information, quoted verbatim, was removed earlier, perhaps another reference should be used, lest that information leak out? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam." ==

"Presidential scrutiny" is vague - did the President scrutinize the school? I think "media scrutiny" is what you mean.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Great point. Please change accordingly. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

== 57 Islamic states... ==

1. "It has been observed" is passive voice and weak. 2. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, but I don't think all of these are "Islamic states" in the way that say, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:In addition, make note of the mistake, by all means. But that is the most far-fetched explanation for the number. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, so he must have been thinking that instead? Come on, let's at least TRY to be realistic, if not encyclopedic. This has gone past the line of conservative into fringe thinking. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

No one has come up with any other explanation. Also, by the way, when there is a Muslim majority, it is common to consider it to be an Islamic state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:The other explanation is that it was a slip of the tongue. Not every slip is Freudian and indicates he's actually a Muslim. That's a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, here's the explanation, clear and simple. If you listen to the entire remark, he states that he has one more to go, and Alaska and Hawaii as well. Taking three states from the 50 total, gives you 47 states that he visited. A slip between saying forty-(seven) and fifty-(seven) is more likely especially if he was going to say something about visiting all 50 states (putting fifty in his head). It's more likely he slipped between the forty part and said fifty, as opposed to some outlandish theory of how many Islamic states there are. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::here is the full quote.
::''"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."''
::It is obvious where the number 57 comes from. He accidentally added 10. He excluded Alaska and Hawaii, because his staff "would not justify it" and he had been to all the other states except 1. That leaves 47. I simple mistake, "slip of the tounge" as Jareddr said is the only plausible explanation. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's another explanation - "57 states" is a figure of speech meaning "a whole lot of states". Why 57? Because of the well-known Heinz slogan "57 varieties". A far more likely explanation than some far-fetched attempt to link it to Islam, at least! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Soccer teams in England

2008-06-06T13:02:42Z

Humblpi: /* Premier League teams */ more various

The game of [[soccer]] in [[England]] - known as ''football'' there - is organised into four professional leagues at the apex of a pyramid of semi-professional and amateur leagues. There are 92 professional teams and innumerable semi-pro and amateur sides. The four professional leagues comprise the Premier League (20 teams), the Championship, League One and League Two (24 teaqms each). Below League Two, the Conference league provides a stepping-stone for semi-pro sides to gain promotion to the professional leagues.

==Premier League teams==

*'''Arsenal FC''' is based in north [[London]]. The team is managed by [[Arsene Wenger]]. Finishing fourth in the [[English Premier League]] in the 2006/7 season, the team features major international stars of football. Former star [[Thierry Henry]] has recently left the team after eight years of huge success, departing to [[Barcelona]] in the summer of 2007. In 2006 the team moved from their old stadium, ''Arsenal Stadium'', located in, and more commonly known as ''Highbury''. The team's new stadium is named after the [[Dubai]] airline and sponsor, [[Emirates Airlines|Emirates]].

*'''Aston Villa FC''' is based in [[Aston]], [[Birmingham]], in the English [[Midlands]]. Currently coached by Martin O'Neill, a former player for [[Northern Ireland]], [[Nottingham Forest]], [[Norwich City]] and [[Manchester City F.C.|Manchester City]].They finished the 2006/7 season in 11th position in the [[English Premier League]].

*'''Blackburn Rovers FC''' is an [[England|English]] [[football]] team that play in the [[English Premier League|Premiership]] . The club hails from the town of [[Blackburn]] in [[Lancashire]]. Their home stadium is Ewood Park.

*'''Chelsea FC''' play at Stamford Bridge, in west [[London]]. The club is owned by [[Russia]]n billionaire [[Roman Abramovich]] was managed by [[Avram Grant]] for most of the 2007-08 season. In 2007-08 the side finished second in the Premier League.

*'''Everton FC''' is based in [[Liverpool]]. Founded in 1878 as a church sports side they were became of the sixteen founder members of the [[Football League]] in 1888. However, owing to a rent dispute in 1892 they left their home ground of [[Anfield]] and moved to a new site at [[Goodison Park]], where they have played ever since. There are plans under discussion to move outside the city of Liverpool and establish a new ground over a Tesco supermarket in nearby Knowsley. The club's nickname is ''The Toffees''; although there are several hypotheses about how the name arose it is likely that it derives from the black and white striped candy known as an ''Everton Mint''. Everton's most deadly rivals are [[Liverpool F.C.|Liverpool]] who were formed in 1892 to utilise the abandoned Anfield ground. Despite Everton's successes over the years they have been overshadowed by their illustrious neighbours who hold the records for the most top flight championships as well as European trophies won in the English game.

*'''Fulham FC''' is based in the [[London]] Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Their nickname is The Cottagers, after their home ground of Craven Cottage alongside the [[River Thames]], which can usually be seen during the Oxford and Cambridge boat-race. The club was founded in 1879 and are the oldest professional soccer team in London. The club strip comprises white shirts and socks with black shorts. Despite their long history they have never won any major honors. The club is currently owned by the Egyptian millionaire and owner of Harrods, Mohamed Al-Fayed who took control in 1997.
*[http://www.fulhamfc.com Official site]
*[http://www.premierleague.com/page/fulham Premier League - Fulham]

*'''Hull City FC''', based in the east-coast port city of [[Hull]], were promoted to the Premier League in 2008. This will be the first time that Hull has been represented in the top tier of English football.

*'''Liverpool FC''' was founded in 1892. The club has become the most successful club in English league history, winning eighteen domestic championships as well as five European championships. The current manager is Rafael Benitez.

*'''Manchester City FC''' is the smaller of two [[English Premier League]] teams in the city of [[Manchester]]. Usually lying lower in the Premier League than their [[Derby|derby]] rivals, [[Manchester United]], City is managed by Mark Hughes. The team plays at the City of Manchester Stadium, built as the main stadium for the 2002 [[Commonwealth Games]]. The stadium will host the [[UEFA Cup]] Final 2008. Currently, the club is owned by the former Prime Minister of [[Thailand]], [[Thaksin Shinawatra]].

*'''Manchester United FC''' Manchester United play in red shirts, white shorts and black socks. They were the first English club to win the European Championship, in 1968, winning again in 1968 and 2008. The club joined the Football League in 1892 under the name Newton Heath. Their official nickname is the "Red Devils" and the club badge features a small black devil holding a trident. They are known to their fans either as Man U, Man United or just United. In 2005 the club was taken over by the [[America|American]] billionaire, Malcolm Glazer. After two seasons with little success by their standards they won the Barclays Premier League again in 2007 and 2008.

*'''Middlesbrough FC''' ('Boro') is based in [[Middlesbrough]], in north-east [[England]]. The side was founded in 1876 by members of Middlesbrough [[Cricket]] Club<ref>http://www.mfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/HistoryDetail/0,,1~51936,00.html</ref>. Between 1903 and 1995 its home ground was Ayresome Park but in 1995 it moved to the Riverside Stadium. Middlesbrough were winners of the League Cup in 2004.

*'''Newcastle United FC''' , founded in 1892 by the merger of Newcastle West End and Newcastle East End, plays at St James' Park in [[Newcastle upon Tyne]]. Their club colors are black and white stripes with black shorts. The current manager of Newcastle United is [[Kevin Keegan]]. Newcastle United are nicknamed 'the Magpies', or, more simply, 'Toon' (the local pronunciation of 'town'); its fans are the 'Toon Army'.

*'''Portsmouth FC''' is based in [[Portsmouth]], on the southern coast of [[England]]. Known colloquially as 'Pompey', the club is owned by [[Alexandre Guydamak]] and managed by [[Harry Redknapp]].

*'''Stoke City FC''', based in the Midlands city of [[Stoke on Trent]], were newly promoted to the Premier League in 2008.

*'''Sunderland AFC''' are based in the northeastern city of Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, where they play in the Stadium of Light. The club's nickname is The Black Cats, or the Mackems, and the club's crest depicts two black lions support a heraldic shield. The club strip comprises red and white striped shirts with black shorts and socks. The club was founded in [[1879]] and joined the Football League in 1890 (replacing Stoke City). They remained remaining continuously in the top division until 1958. Since then they have been promoted to and relegated from the the top flight several times and are one of the 2007-8 season's Premier League new boys. Sunderland were successful in their early years, being League Champions five times between 1892 and 1913, with the addition of a sixth title in 1936. They won the [[FA Cup]] in 1937 and then again in 1973, which has been their only notable honor since [[World War II]]. The club is currently managed by Roy Keane. [http://www.safc.com Official site] [http://www.premierleague.com/page/sunderland Premier League - Sunderland]

*'''Tottenham Hotspur FC''' ('Spurs' to their supporters) are a north London team, [[Arsenal F.C.|Arsenal]]'s long-standing rival. They are based at White Hart Lane Stadium.

*'''West Ham United FC'''<ref>http://www.whufc.com/</ref> ('The Hammers', colloquially) are a [[London]] team, managed by [[Alan Curbishly]], and with their home ground in [[Upton Park]].

*'''Wigan Athletic FC''' is based in the northwestern town of Wigan, Lancashire (now part of [[Greater Manchester]]). The club's nickname is ''The Latics''. The club was founded in 1932 after several unsuccessful attempts to run a soccer club in a town where Rugby League is the most popular sport. After playing in the minor leagues for many years, Wigan gained entry to the old Fourth Division of the Football League in 1978 and promoted to the Third Division in 1982. In 1993 they were relegated to the lower league and were bought in 1995 by David Whelan, an ambitious local millionaire who had made his fortune selling sportswear. Two years later, in 1997, they were promoted back to third-tier football and within six years had secured a further step up the second tier. It took only a further two years for them to complete a remarkable progression from fourth-tier to top-tier, when they were promoted to the Premier League in 2005. The club play at the JJB Stadium which they share with Rugby League club Wigan Warriors (also owned by Devid Whelan). The stadium was built in 1999 and named after Whelan's sportswear chain ''JJB Sports''. The club continues to struggle for support and its highest ever home attendance is 25,000 for visitors [[Liverpool F.C.|Liverpool]] in February 2006. After raising ticket prices in 2006 Wigan had to cut them in response to falling attendances and have kept them low at a time when almost all other Premier League clubs were making significant increases. After a poor 2006-7 season in which they just managed to avoid relegation, their manager Paul Jewell resigned and was replaced by Chris Hutchings. Hutchings was sacked after a poor start to the 2007-8 season. [http://www.wiganlatics.co.uk Official site] [http://www.premierleague.com/page/wigan-athletic Premier League - Wigan Athletic]

==Championship teams==
*'''Birmingham City FC''' was founded in 1875 as Small Heath Alliance, they became Small Heath in 1888 and later Birmingham FC in 1905. They finally adopted the moniker Birmingham City FC in 1943. The club's home ground has been St. Andrew's since 1906. Although being the second largest city in England (after [[London]]) Birmingham City Football Club have known little success in the major competitions and have lived in the shadow of their neighbours and fierce rivals Aston Villa. The club's nickname is "The Blues" on account of the color of their team strip. Birmingham City was relegated from the Premier League to the Championship mat the end of the 2007-08 season.

*'''Derby County FC''' Their nickname is ''The Rams'', after the symbol for the county of [[Derbyshire]] and also the club. Their current home ground is Pride Park, but they previously played at the Baseball Ground. Derby County was relegated from the Premier League at the end of the 2007-08 season. [http://www.dcfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Home/ Official site]

*'''Doncaster Rovers FC'''

*'''Reading FC''' are an [[England|English]] [[soccer|football]] [[club]] based in the southern town of [[Reading]], [[Berkshire]]. The club's nickname since 1970 is The Royals (Berkshire is known as the Royal County); formerly they were known as The Biscuitmen after the Huntley & Palmers [[cookie|biscuit]] factory. The club strip comprises royal-blue and white hooped shirts with royal-blue shorts and socks. The club was founded on [[Christmas]] Day 1871 and in 1920 joined the Third Division of the original Football League. Apart from brief excursions to the second and fourth tiers, Reading were generally a third-tier team until 2002 when the made the longer term move to second level competition. They were promoted to the Premier League in 2006 after running away with The Championship, but relegated to the Championship at the end of the 2007-08 season. The club play at the Madejski Stadium, built in 1998 and named after their multi-millionaire owner John Madejski who bought the club in 1990. Reading's worst ever defeat was by Preston North End in 1894, when they lost 18-0. Reading have registered their fans as an official (unpaid) member of their team squad, in recognition of the effect their support has for the team, and given the Number 13. The club is currently managed by Steve Coppell. [http://www.readingfc.co.uk Official site] [http://www.premierleague.com/page/reading Premier League - Reading]

==League One teams==
* '''Leeds United FC''', based in the northern city of [[Leeds]], play at Elland Road stadium. Their traditional strip is white shirts and shorts. Leeds has long been one of the strongest sides in England, but financial mismanagement of the club in the early years of this decade, reflected in sporting performance, has brought it to its current lowly situation

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Soccer]]

Soccer teams in England

2008-06-06T13:00:51Z

Humblpi: /* Premier League teams */ various

The game of [[soccer]] in [[England]] - known as ''football'' there - is organised into four professional leagues at the apex of a pyramid of semi-professional and amateur leagues. There are 92 professional teams and innumerable semi-pro and amateur sides. The four professional leagues comprise the Premier League (20 teams), the Championship, League One and League Two (24 teaqms each). Below League Two, the Conference league provides a stepping-stone for semi-pro sides to gain promotion to the professional leagues.

==Premier League teams==

*'''Arsenal FC''' is based in north [[London]]. The team is managed by [[Arsene Wenger]]. Finishing fourth in the [[English Premier League]] in the 2006/7 season, the team features major international stars of football. Former star [[Thierry Henry]] has recently left the team after eight years of huge success, departing to [[Real Madrid]] in the summer of 2007. In 2006 the team moved from their old stadium, ''Arsenal Stadium'', located in, and more commonly known as ''Highbury''. The team's new stadium is named after the [[Dubai]] airline and sponsor, [[Emirates Airlines|Emirates]].

*'''Aston Villa FC''' is based in [[Aston]], [[Birmingham]], in the English [[Midlands]]. Currently coached by Martin O'Neill, a former player for [[Northern Ireland]], [[Nottingham Forest]], [[Norwich City]] and [[Manchester City F.C.|Manchester City]].They finished the 2006/7 season in 11th position in the [[English Premier League]].

*'''Blackburn Rovers FC''' are an [[England|English]] [[football]] team that play in the [[English Premier League|Premiership]] . The club hails from the town of [[Blackburn]] in [[Lancashire]]. Their home stadium is Ewood Park.

*'''Chelsea FC''' play at Stamford Bridge, in west [[London]]. The club is owned by [[Russia]]n billionaire [[Roman Abramovich]] was managed by [[Avram Grant]] fr most of the 2007-08 season. In 2007-08 the side finished second in the Premier League.

*'''Everton FC''' is based in [[Liverpool]]. Founded in 1878 as a church sports side they were became of the sixteen founder members of the [[Football League]] in 1888. However, owing to a rent dispute in 1892 they left their home ground of [[Anfield]] and moved to a new site at [[Goodison Park]], where they have played ever since. There are plans under discussion to move outside the city of Liverpool and establish a new ground over a Tesco supermarket in nearby Knowsley. The club's nickname is ''The Toffees'', although there are several hypotheses about how the name arose it is likely that it derives from the black and white striped candy known as an ''Everton Mint''. Everton's most deadly rivals are [[Liverpool F.C.|Liverpool]] who were formed in 1892 to utilise the abandoned Anfield ground. Despite Everton's successes over the years they have been overshadowed by their illustrious neighbours who hold the records for the most top flight championships as well as European trophies won in the English game.

*'''Fulham FC''' is based in the [[London]] Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Their nickname is The Cottagers, after their home ground of Craven Cottage alongside the [[River Thames]], which can usually be seen during the Oxford and Cambridge boat-race. The club was founded in 1879 and are the oldest professional soccer team in London. The club strip comprises white shirts and socks with black shorts. Despite their long history they have never won any major honors. The club is currently owned by the Egyptian millionaire and owner of Harrods, Mohamed Al-Fayed who took control in 1997.
*[http://www.fulhamfc.com Official site]
*[http://www.premierleague.com/page/fulham Premier League - Fulham]

*'''Hull City FC''', based in the east-coast port city of [[Hull]], were promoted to the Premier League in 2008. This will be the first time that Hull has been represented in the top tier of English football.

*'''Liverpool FC''' was founded in 1892. The club has become the most successful club in English league history, winning eighteen domestic championships as well as five European championships. The current manager is Rafael Benitez.

*'''Manchester City FC''' is the smaller of two [[English Premier League]] teams in the city of [[Manchester]]. Usually lying lower in the Premier League than their [[Derby|derby]] rivals, [[Manchester United]], City is managed by Mark Hughes. The team plays at the City of Manchester Stadium, built as the main stadium for the 2002 [[Commonwealth Games]]. The stadium will host the [[UEFA Cup]] Final 2008. Currently, the club is owned by the former Prime Minister of [[Thailand]], [[Thaksin Shinawatra]].

*'''Manchester United FC''' Manchester United play in red shirts, white shorts and black socks. They were the first English club to win the European Championship, in 1968, winning again in 1968 and 2008. The club joined the Football League in 1892 under the name Newton Heath. Their official nickname is the "Red Devils" and the club badge features a small black devil holding a trident. They are known to their fans either as Man U, Man United or just United. In 2005 the club was taken over by the [[America|American]] billionaire, Malcolm Glazer. After two seasons with little success by their standards they won the Barclays Premier League again in 2007 and 2008.

*'''Middlesbrough FC''' ('Boro') is based in [[Middlesbrough]], in north-east [[England]]. The side was founded in 1876 by members of Middlesbrough [[Cricket]] Club<ref>http://www.mfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/HistoryDetail/0,,1~51936,00.html</ref>. Between 1903 and 1995 its home ground was Ayresome Park but in 1995 it moved to the Riverside Stadium. Middlesbrough were winners of the League Cup in 2004.

*'''Newcastle United FC''' , founded in 1892 by the merger of Newcastle West End and Newcastle East End, plays at St James' Park in [[Newcastle upon Tyne]]. Their club colors are black and white stripes with black shorts. The current manager of Newcastle United is [[Kevin Keegan]]. Newcastle United are nicknamed 'the Magpies', or, more simply, 'Toon' (the local pronunciation of 'town'); its fans are the 'Toon Army'.

*'''Portsmouth FC''' is based in [[Portsmouth]], on the southern coast of [[England]]. Known colloquially as 'Pompey', the club is owned by [[Alexandre Guydamak]] and managed by [[Harry Redknapp]].

*'''Stoke City FC''', based in the Midlands city of [[Stoke on Trent]], were newly promoted to the Premier League in 2008.

*'''Sunderland AFC''' are based in the northeastern city of Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, where they play in the Stadium of Light. The club's nickname is The Black Cats, or the Mackems, and the club's crest depicts two black lions support a heraldic shield. The club strip comprises red and white striped shirts with black shorts and socks. The club was founded in [[1879]] and joined the Football League in 1890 (replacing Stoke City). They remained remaining continuously in the top division until 1958. Since then they have been promoted to and relegated from the the top flight several times and are one of the 2007-8 season's Premier League new boys. Sunderland were successful in their early years, being League Champions five times between 1892 and 1913, with the addition of a sixth title in 1936. They won the [[FA Cup]] in 1937 and then again in 1973, which has been their only notable honor since [[World War II]]. The club is currently managed by Roy Keane. [http://www.safc.com Official site] [http://www.premierleague.com/page/sunderland Premier League - Sunderland]

*'''Tottenham Hotspur FC''' ('Spurs' to their supporters) are a north London team, [[Arsenal F.C.|Arsenal]]'s long-standing rival. They are based at White Hart Lane Stadium.

*'''West Ham United FC'''<ref>http://www.whufc.com/</ref> ('The Hammers', colloquially), are a [[London]] team, managed by [[Alan Curbishly]], and with their home ground in [[Upton Park]].

*'''Wigan Athletic FC''' are based in the northwestern town of Wigan, Lancashire (now part of [[Greater Manchester]]). The club's nickname is ''The Latics''. The club was founded in 1932 after several unsuccessful attempts to run a soccer club in a town where Rugby League is the most popular sport. After playing in the minor leagues for many years, Wigan gained entry to the old Fourth Division of the Football League in 1978 and promoted to the Third Division in 1982. In 1993 they were relegated to the lower league and were bought in 1995 by David Whelan, an ambitious local millionaire who had made his fortune selling sportswear. Two years later, in 1997, they were promoted back to third-tier football and within six years had secured a further step up the second tier. It took only a further two years for them to complete a remarkable progression from fourth-tier to top-tier, when they were promoted to the Premier League in 2005. The club play at the JJB Stadium which they share with Rugby League club Wigan Warriors (also owned by Devid Whelan). The stadium was built in 1999 and named after Whelan's sportswear chain ''JJB Sports''. The club continues to struggle for support and its highest ever home attendance is 25,000 for visitors [[Liverpool F.C.|Liverpool]] in February 2006. After raising ticket prices in 2006 Wigan had to cut them in response to falling attendances and have kept them low at a time when almost all other Premier League clubs were making significant increases. After a poor 2006-7 season in which they just managed to avoid relegation, their manager Paul Jewell resigned and was replaced by Chris Hutchings. Hutchings was sacked after a poor start to the 2007-8 season. [http://www.wiganlatics.co.uk Official site] [http://www.premierleague.com/page/wigan-athletic Premier League - Wigan Athletic]

==Championship teams==
*'''Birmingham City FC''' was founded in 1875 as Small Heath Alliance, they became Small Heath in 1888 and later Birmingham FC in 1905. They finally adopted the moniker Birmingham City FC in 1943. The club's home ground has been St. Andrew's since 1906. Although being the second largest city in England (after [[London]]) Birmingham City Football Club have known little success in the major competitions and have lived in the shadow of their neighbours and fierce rivals Aston Villa. The club's nickname is "The Blues" on account of the color of their team strip. Birmingham City was relegated from the Premier League to the Championship mat the end of the 2007-08 season.

*'''Derby County FC''' Their nickname is ''The Rams'', after the symbol for the county of [[Derbyshire]] and also the club. Their current home ground is Pride Park, but they previously played at the Baseball Ground. Derby County was relegated from the Premier League at the end of the 2007-08 season. [http://www.dcfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Home/ Official site]

*'''Doncaster Rovers FC'''

*'''Reading FC''' are an [[England|English]] [[soccer|football]] [[club]] based in the southern town of [[Reading]], [[Berkshire]]. The club's nickname since 1970 is The Royals (Berkshire is known as the Royal County); formerly they were known as The Biscuitmen after the Huntley & Palmers [[cookie|biscuit]] factory. The club strip comprises royal-blue and white hooped shirts with royal-blue shorts and socks. The club was founded on [[Christmas]] Day 1871 and in 1920 joined the Third Division of the original Football League. Apart from brief excursions to the second and fourth tiers, Reading were generally a third-tier team until 2002 when the made the longer term move to second level competition. They were promoted to the Premier League in 2006 after running away with The Championship, but relegated to the Championship at the end of the 2007-08 season. The club play at the Madejski Stadium, built in 1998 and named after their multi-millionaire owner John Madejski who bought the club in 1990. Reading's worst ever defeat was by Preston North End in 1894, when they lost 18-0. Reading have registered their fans as an official (unpaid) member of their team squad, in recognition of the effect their support has for the team, and given the Number 13. The club is currently managed by Steve Coppell. [http://www.readingfc.co.uk Official site] [http://www.premierleague.com/page/reading Premier League - Reading]

==League One teams==
* '''Leeds United FC''', based in the northern city of [[Leeds]], play at Elland Road stadium. Their traditional strip is white shirts and shorts. Leeds has long been one of the strongest sides in England, but financial mismanagement of the club in the early years of this decade, reflected in sporting performance, has brought it to its current lowly situation

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Soccer]]

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-06-03T14:34:40Z

Humblpi: /* Hypocrisy - all specious */

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?

: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.

: There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by [[Hollywood Values]] is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.

: The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, I suppose I'm not conveying my point as clearly as I'd like to. One thing I would like to say is that we should not include James Dean on this list: the fact that he died in an auto-accident isn't related to Hollywood.

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)

::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Rob Knox==
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

==Chaplin==
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Hypocrisy - all specious ==

Would someone please tell me what is ''hypocritical'' an actor "act[ing] in movies contrary to their public opinions"? Isn't that simply what actors do - '''act'''? This section of the article seems to be based on a very naive confusion of an actor's role-playing with his or her real-life views and actions. In its present form, I don't think it adds anything of value. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

: To a degree, you're right, but when an actor profits enormously by exploiting a sentiment which he simultaneously harshly criticizes (in appeasement of [[liberals]]), it begs the question: dude, if you think it's so wrong, then why do you profit so much from it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::Not convinced. You seem to be saying that no actor should accept an offer to play roles like Shylock, Iago, or Hannibal Lecter. That would make for some pretty thin plot-lines... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-06-03T10:05:46Z

Humblpi: Hypocrisy - all specious

Hollywood values

2008-06-03T10:00:16Z

Humblpi: /* Hypocrisy */ typo (though if he did in fact stare, please revert!)

The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which is characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has dimished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref>

Hollywood values can include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:

* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]
* [[patriotism]]
* [[religion]]
* [[accountability]]
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref>
* laws that apply to everyone else

==Deaths ==
Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref>
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking
*[[Bix Beiderbecke]], 28, [[alcoholism]]
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot
*[[James Dean]], 24, auto accident
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref>
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose
*[[Rob Knox]], 18, star of a [[Harry Potter]] film, was stabbed to death during a fight after midnight in or outside a bar<ref>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece</ref><ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/24/international/i140113D92.DTL</ref>
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref>
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; cannabis found in bloodstream at post-mortem.
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fuelled party at the star's home
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive"
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications"<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/02/13/entertainment/e162146S51.DTL</ref>
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose cocaine and heroin
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumoured to have suffocated on the carpet when he collpased from a drug overdose.
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]]
*[[George Reeves]], 45, suicide
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, paedophile movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43. Drowned while intoxicated.
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.

== Crime ==
Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:

* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref>
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], msnbc, May 4, 2007</ref>
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref>
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offence committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref>
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.<ref>Police confirm George Michael arrest [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/75904.stmBBC]</ref>
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession.
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref>
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref>
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref>

== Falsehoods ==

[[Hollywood values]] perpetuates [[liberal]]-driven falsehoods:

:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shephard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepherd is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his "fate" soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in "Brokeback Mountain." The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref>

:Inherit the Wind <fill in>

==Divorce==

*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref>
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref>
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.

== Offensive Behavior ==

* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref>
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref>
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (aka [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>

== Rehab ==
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:

*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten">
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref>

The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:

*[[Lindsay Lohan]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Eva Mendes]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/>

== Hypocrisy ==

Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions:

* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others.

* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.

==Books==
* ''Hollywood Against America''
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger

== References ==

<references/>
{{liberalism}}

[[category:entertainment]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-05-27T12:29:00Z

Humblpi: /* Rob Knox */ I am utterly disgusted by this addition to the article.

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)

::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Rob Knox==
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Newcastle United F.C.

2008-05-20T14:40:21Z

Humblpi: Premier League, not -ship

'''Newcastle United Football Club''' is a [[soccer]] team (called [[football]] in England and most other countries) that plays at St James' Park in [[Newcastle upon Tyne]]. Their club colors are black and white stripes with black shorts. The current manager of Newcastle United is [[Kevin Keegan]].

[[Image:800px-Soccer goalkeeper.jpg|140px]]

They ended the 2007/08 season in twelfth position in the Premier League.

== Club Honours ==

* The Club has won the league on 4 occasions. (1905, 1907, 1909, 1927)
* They have also won the F.A. Cup 6 times. (1910, 1924, 1932, 1951, 1952, 1955)
* They have been UEFA Cup champions once, in 1969.

{{Nb sl english premier}}

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-20T10:16:31Z

Humblpi: /* Deletion */ typo

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:Margery said that the likly cause of breast cancer was putting of having children to an older age, which is a developing trend right across society. As it is trend across society and not just amongst Hollywood types then this undermine your thesis that breast cancer rates are higher among Hollywood types as the rest of society's breast cancer rates would increase accordingly.

:Also in your statement that prompted Margey's comment you said that breast cancer rates where higher amonsgt Hollywood types, something you still haven't yet managed to demonstrate in any statistically significant way.

:90% of breast cancers are not family related? Call be cynical but I think you pulled this statistic from the same place you pulled the 5 to 10 times increase than the general population and your 100 pop singers in the world. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 01:40, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitude of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

== Just amazing ==

I thought I saw it all but while perusing the recent changes I can across this article and the "Motivations for the Theory of Evolution" essay. Mr. Schafly is now completely nuts. Responding or even viewing this drivel is painful. Please people, boycott this site! Stay away and maybe it will go away. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 15:38, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:While I don't know yet whether Mr. Schlafly's idea has any validity yet, I think it at least deserves examination rather than mockery. [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 22:24, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-20T10:15:25Z

Humblpi: /* Deletion */ the question is about METHODS, not results

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:Margery said that the likly cause of breast cancer was putting of having children to an older age, which is a developing trend right across society. As it is trend across society and not just amongst Hollywood types then this undermine your thesis that breast cancer rates are higher among Hollywood types as the rest of society's breast cancer rates would increase accordingly.

:Also in your statement that prompted Margey's comment you said that breast cancer rates where higher amonsgt Hollywood types, something you still haven't yet managed to demonstrate in any statistically significant way.

:90% of breast cancers are not family related? Call be cynical but I think you pulled this statistic from the same place you pulled the 5 to 10 times increase than the general population and your 100 pop singers in the world. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 01:40, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think you misunderstand, Aschlafly. It would indeed be inappropriate to attempt a prospective randomised double-blind study, but that is very far from saying that there should be no formal study of any kind. What is required is some sort of retrospective case-control study. That doesn't mean years of gathering data. In fact, it could be a fairly quick desk study — but what is absolutely critical is that you must follow rigorous methods. Your "unsanswered question" is completely the wrong question, because it focuses on results rather than on methods. The quality of an epidemiological study (or indeed any scientific study) is judged on its ''methods'', not on the magnitide of its ''results''. Any significant (i.e. ''statistically'' significant) increase in cancer incidence would be a "cause for concern", but only if it was a real increase, and that means one that has been determined by proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

== Just amazing ==

I thought I saw it all but while perusing the recent changes I can across this article and the "Motivations for the Theory of Evolution" essay. Mr. Schafly is now completely nuts. Responding or even viewing this drivel is painful. Please people, boycott this site! Stay away and maybe it will go away. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 15:38, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:While I don't know yet whether Mr. Schlafly's idea has any validity yet, I think it at least deserves examination rather than mockery. [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 22:24, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-20T06:26:33Z

Humblpi: /* Deletion */ clarify some epidemiological points

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:Margery said that the likly cause of breast cancer was putting of having children to an older age, which is a developing trend right across society. As it is trend across society and not just amongst Hollywood types then this undermine your thesis that breast cancer rates are higher among Hollywood types as the rest of society's breast cancer rates would increase accordingly.

:Also in your statement that prompted Margey's comment you said that breast cancer rates where higher amonsgt Hollywood types, something you still haven't yet managed to demonstrate in any statistically significant way.

:90% of breast cancers are not family related? Call be cynical but I think you pulled this statistic from the same place you pulled the 5 to 10 times increase than the general population and your 100 pop singers in the world. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 01:40, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It does indeed seem as if this entire article contravenes Conservapedia Commandment No.1- "Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''". [[User:BenG|BenG]] 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think the problem here is verifying Mr. Schlafly's estimation of the number of female popular musicians under 30. He says there are 50, but I'm wondering how accurate that figure is. If we can ascertain the number that qualify under whatever parameters are set, and then figure out how many of those have developed breast cancer, we will have some solid preliminary figures to work with, which can at least set up a hypothesis, though we will still be short of having a final scientific result. If the numbers are indeed higher than the overall population (which we have solid figures for, I believe) then there may well be something to this. It would at least qualify as the stated "mystery". [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 19:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Humblpi, what evidence would you consider significant? If 10x the expected cancer rate is not alarming to you, what would you require? 100x? There isn't going to be a formal, double blind study, nor does there have to be if the expected incidence is exceeded by a high enough factor. Demanding a formal study is like the tobacco companies demanding more, and more, and more studies before admitting the obvious, as the tobacco companies did for decades as they continued to cause the deaths of millions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand my objections. Of course 10x the expected cancer rate would be alarming. But the quality of the evidence is judged not on the significance (or magnitude) of the results but on the reliability of the methods used to gather those results, and I'm afraid you have no clear methods at all. I am referring to proper epidemiological evidence, gathered by proper methods and properly analysed. And of course a randomised double-blind study would not be appropriate - that's not the right study design for this sort of question. What is required is a case-control study - exactly the sort of study carried out by Richard Doll, indeed, to demonstrate the tobacco/lung cancer link. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 02:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, it wouldn't be possible to do a double-blind study. You can't randomly assign anyone to either be a rock star or to get a cancer diagnosis. I can't speak for anyone else I suppose, but I don't think anyone is asking for a formal study. The problem that keeps being raised is the estimate of the denominator, which appears (to me and apparently to others) to be a substantial underestimate; specifically, you haven't explained how you got the number. This is the point of Method sections in research papers - to explain how you did what it is that you did. Without that explanation, no matter how solid your case actually is, you leave yourself open to doubts. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, we agree there won't be a double-blind study, or any formal study. But my question remains unanswered: what increase in cancer incidence would you require to admit cause for concern? 100x? 1,000,000x?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::Murray, don't presume ASchlafly has no evidence. This is his site, and I'm sure he, more than anyone, is ready with verifiable evidence, just as his Commandment #1 demands. Mr.Schlafly - I'm sure you're about to provide that evidence, and I'm sure you realize that asking rhetorical questions of your interlocutors is not the same as providing the methods behind your theory? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

== Just amazing ==

I thought I saw it all but while perusing the recent changes I can across this article and the "Motivations for the Theory of Evolution" essay. Mr. Schafly is now completely nuts. Responding or even viewing this drivel is painful. Please people, boycott this site! Stay away and maybe it will go away. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 15:38, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:While I don't know yet whether Mr. Schlafly's idea has any validity yet, I think it at least deserves examination rather than mockery. [[User:DonaldG|DonaldG]] 22:24, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-19T18:50:44Z

Humblpi: /* Deletion */ why I say "no evidence"

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:31, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Shirley Temple ==

I am surprised that Shirley Temple remains to be included given the hypothesis proposed above. She was married at 17, had a daughter at age 19 (January 30, 1948 - Shirley was born April 23, 1928). She then had two more children - April 29, 1952, and April 9, 1954 (aged 24 and 26). It certainly doesn't sound like she was putting off having children nor her family life for her career. Could you please elaborate as to why Shirley Temple fits the hypothetical reasoning? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Merely having a relative who suffered from [[breast cancer]] does not explain a diagnosis at the young age of 31. As you can see from our entry on [[breast cancer]], one relative having had the disease is not dispositive. Something like 90% of breast cancer cases are not explained by family history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:OK, but then what is the theory here? Because since most of these women did indeed have children, I can't see what the connections are to the theory? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 18:34, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Reread what Margery Campbell said. It's not difficult to understand, and no subsequent comments have contradicted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::If it's that airtight, I would think it would be time to publish it somewhere other than here. Where are you going to send it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: There's no need to publish it anywhere other than here. This site has an audience that is larger than most journals. If you take comfort in the [[censorship]] exercised by some [[liberals]], like that illustrated above, that comfort is misplaced and anachronistic. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it, and for those who do not seek the truth it may not matter to them anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

You know it occured to me Aschlalfy that when you are using the '100 or so singers' as an example you need to remove people like shirley temple from the list. You cant use her in relation to todays singers!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

MR.Schlafly, please don't keep creating new sections, as the conversation starts to spread, and it seems you didn't read my comments from the section above, which I've now moved here for clarity:

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

::::It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Re. Margery Campbell's theory, I'm afraid that for your theory to be valid, the women listed here would have to be childless, which is not true in most of the cases, as I've pointed out above. In fact, the cases listed in this article could not seem to have ''less'' relevance to such a theory, and without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Soraya needs to be removed, as in her case, it was clearly hereditary. So what is the proposed theory that is so obvious? [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 17:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Reread what Margery Campbell said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You have free will to reject logic. None of your information contradicts what Margery Campbell said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat myself here also......Because until M.Campbell was involved you never mentioned this.
Aschlafly, if what Margery said is what you actually meant then A) Why didnt you just state this a long time ago and avoid wasting your time and B) you just stated you learnt something from her which looks to me like you had no idea in the first place. Seems someone is straining to do some explaining.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:Margery said that the likly cause of breast cancer was putting of having children to an older age, which is a developing trend right across society. As it is trend across society and not just amongst Hollywood types then this undermine your thesis that breast cancer rates are higher among Hollywood types as the rest of society's breast cancer rates would increase accordingly.

:Also in your statement that prompted Margey's comment you said that breast cancer rates where higher amonsgt Hollywood types, something you still haven't yet managed to demonstrate in any statistically significant way.

:90% of breast cancers are not family related? Call be cynical but I think you pulled this statistic from the same place you pulled the 5 to 10 times increase than the general population and your 100 pop singers in the world. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 01:40, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, you have an interesting thesis, but you are lacking the following:

a) a data set that is relevant to your thesis
b) a defined population
c) the research to support your theory
d) an understanding of even basic statistical analysis

In short Mr.Schlafly, you have nothing, nothing at all except a hollow vessel, a wisp in the wind, a ship without water to sail upon. But you do still have your interesting theory. If you had properly defined your hypothesis, determined the population, and conducted the tests correctly, I can believe that you may well have a case. But the problem is that this 'article' actually hurts your case terribly as it is so utterly lacking in credibility - and it also destroys any credibility you might have had as an analyst in future because you have chosen to fall upon the argument that is no argument at all - "It is so because I say it is so". Finally, when all you needed to prove your case was a simple, cold analysis of the facts, you instead choose to say "You have free will to reject logic". I - we - all of us who have stood in front of this vestigal edifice of thread and dust, rest our cases. Please delete this mystery without mystery. Good day to you. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 10:49, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Since Schlafly has cut and run rather than try to back up his little pet thesis here, can we get this deleted now?--[[User:ChandaM|ChandaM]] 18:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: No, we can't. That kind of censorship works on [[Wikipedia]], but not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::So that's it, then, is it? You are going to ignore all the helpful statistical advice on the talk page and just let the groundless assertion in the article stand? Up to you. It's your website. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I just dont understand why Andy cant answer the simple questions presented? Its his theory.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: I thought I did answer them, several times in fact. But there is so much [[talk pollution]] by [[liberals]] here that it is not always easy to find a substantive question. It would help if [[liberals]] would curb the excesses on their side to facilitate debate.

: Try again with a clear, meaningful question, and I'll address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::OK - here is my simple question. Where is the evidence to support the assertion that breast cancer incidence is higher among "Hollywood" women than in a general population of age-matched controls? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The evidence is most striking with female rock stars. Estimate the size of that population (perhaps 50) and look at how many have been stricken by breast cancer at a young age. If they were working in a coal mine and you saw the same data, would you brush it off and ignore it? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Sorry. I asked for evidence, and you reply with nothing more than an assertion. I am quite prepared to believe that it might be so, but there is nothing to demonstrate whether it is or not. You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high. How is the study population defined, and how big is it, and what is is the incidence of breast cancer? What is the control group, and how does the incidence there compare with that in the study population? And how do you control for biases such as reporting bias? It's an interesting idea, and deserves proper study, but without such a study you simply have no grounds for the assertion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You wrote, "You present no evidence that the incidence is unusually high." Did you look at the list??? I'm sorry, but I want to see some "evidence" that you're looking at this with an open mind before I waste more time discussing it with you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, an absolutely open mind. And yes, I have looked at the list. It is just that, a list. I could make a similar list of women of my acquaintance who have suffered from breast cancer, and it would produce an apparently high incidence (I won't right now go into the reasons why it would appear high, but I could do so if you really want to know) — but it would be meaningless. There is no defined study population, no defined control group, no stipulated method for gathering the data, no apparent attempt to take account of the biases inherent in compiling such a list. There is much detailed commentary on some of the statistical pitfalls and problems above, from various people, and I will not repeat it all here. What it comes down to is this: A statement that "Group X is particularly prone to develop problem Y" can only be made if the data are gathered by proper methods, and subjected to proper statistical analysis. You show neither adequate data collection nor adequate data analysis, and therefore have no evidence worthy of the name. I am quite open to the possibility that Hollywood women have a higher than normal incidence of cancer, and I can even think of some reasons why it might be so, but I see nothing to persuade me that it is so. The apparent high incidence looks much more like an artifact. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

==Confused==

What is Soraya Arnelas' relation to Hollywood?[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-19T18:02:34Z

Humblpi: /* Deletion */

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-19T17:27:49Z

Humblpi: /* Deletion */

Scotland

2008-05-19T16:12:30Z

Humblpi: /* Famous Scots */ remove some dubious ones

{{Country
|name =''Scotland''
|map =Scotland-map.jpg
|flag =Flag of Scotland.png
|arms =Lion rampant.png
|capital =Edinburgh
|capital-raw =
|government =Devolved parliamentary democracy
|government-raw =
|language =English, Gaelic
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Gordon Brown
|pm-raw =
|area =
|pop =
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =
|gdp-pc =
|currency =
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Scotland''' is the second-largest and northern-most of the four countries in the [[United Kingdom]].
It is about three-eighths the size of its southern neighbour England, but is much less populous; most of the population lives in the ''central belt'', a band across central Scotland between the capital [[Edinburgh]] and the city of [[Glasgow]]. Other cities are [[Aberdeen]] and [[Dundee]]. [[Inverness]] and [[Stirling]] were granted city status recently but are in fact smaller than some of the larger Scottish towns like Paisley and Perth.

The symbol of Scotland is the [[thistle]]. The Scottish flag is the Cross of St. Andrew, a white diagonal cross on a dark blue background. The design originated in the 9th century and it is the oldest national flag still in use anywhere in the world. Other things associated with the country are [[kilt]]s ([[tartan]] skirtlike garments worn by Scotsmen), and the haunting music of the [[bagpipes]]. Famous Scottish products include [[pie]]s, [[haggis]] and Scotch [[whisky]].

Scotland's motto is ''Nemo Me Impune Lacessit'' ("No one provokes me with impunity")<ref>http://www.scotland-guide.co.uk/ALL_AREAS_IN_SCOTLAND/Glasgow/Areas/Centre/Mercat_Cross.htm </ref> which translates as ''Wha daur meddle wi me?'' in [[Scots]] and in [[English]] as ''Who would dare mess with me?''.

==Geography==
Scotland is split into three distinct geographical regions; the mountainous Highlands to the north, the rolling countryside of the Central Lowlands (where the major urban centres are located) and the hilly Southern Uplands that lie next to the English border. Scotland also includes the island groups of [[Orkney]], [[Shetland]], the [[Inner Hebrides|Inner]] and [[Outer Hebrides]], the islands of the [[Firth of Clyde]] including [[Arran]], [[Bute]], [[Cumbrae]] & [[Wee Cumbrae]], the [[St. Kilda]] archipelago, [[Rockall]] and various other smaller islands.

[[Ben Nevis]], the highest mountain in the [[United Kingdom]], is in the Scottish [[Highlands of Scotland|Highlands]], as are most of the nation's highest mountains. Those with heights above 3000 feet are eponymously named [[Munro| Munros]] after Sir Hector Munro, the first person to compile a list of such mountains.<ref> for a complete list of Munros see http://www.sol.co.uk/d/dickwall/munroes.htm</ref>

Scotland has some 2,300 miles of coastline, much of it in broad or narrow bays called ''firths''. Major rivers include the Tay, Tweed, Clyde, and Forth. Freshwater lakes (or ''lochs'') are abundant; Lochs Lomond, Morar, and Ness are the largest in the British Isles and well-known for their picturesque beauty, with Loch Ness having additional fame as the home of a legendary monster.

==People==
====Famous Scots====
Author J.M. Barrie. 
Actor Sean Canary, formerly a milk man in Edinburgh, and later James Bond star. 
Inventor John Logie Baird, inventor of the television. 
Scientist Alexander Fleming, discoverer of Penisillin. 
Artist Charles Rennie Macintosh, painter and inventor of the Macintosh coat. 
Scientist Alexander Graham Bell, pioneer of the telephone. 
Musician Phil Collins, born in Paisley, Scotland. 
Sportsman Kenny Dalglish, footballer. 
Industrialist and Philanthropist Andrew Carnegie. 

====Religion====
Scotland is historically Christian; the national church is the [[Church of Scotland]]. Scotland was traditionally a fiercely Protestant nation and was at the vanguard of the Reformation. Notable figures from that time include John Knox and George Wishart. However, from the mid 19th century until the interwar period, there were large scale immigrations of Irish Catholics to Scotland's industrial urban centres and this had a profound effect on the religious demography of Scotland. Today there are a similar number of communicants of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland although both religions have suffered considerable declines in church going attendances. There are also significant populations of Muslims, Jews and Sikhs in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

====Sports and culture====
The national preoccupation, indeed obsession, is [[football (soccer)]]. Other diversions include [[rugby]], [[lawn bowls]], [[motorsports]], [[horseracing]], [[shinty]] (similar to hockey), [[curling]], sports of the [[Highland Games]] - such as tossing the [[caber]] and, of course, [[golf]] - Scotland is the home of golf. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club at [[St Andrews]] is the governing body of world golf.

Scotland is famous for its disproportionate amount of inventions and discoveries (as immortalized in [[Wha's Like Us]]), its world class universities, the Scottish Enlightenment, being the one of the first industrialised nations while still preserving some of the last great wildernesses of Europe.

==Government==
Scotland has its own [[Scottish Parliament]] comprising 129 members (MSPs) as well as sending 59 Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent its interests in the [[United Kingdom]] parliament which sits in [[London]]. Scottish MPs have historically been recognized for their political skills and appointed to the Cabinet in larger numbers than is proportionate. The current Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]], is Scottish, and formerly he was [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]].

The '''Scottish Government''' (formerly known as the Scottish Executive) is the government in Scotland for devolved matters. Responsibility for all devolved matters was passed to the Scottish Executive from the
'''Scottish Office''' and other UK Government departments in 1999. The members of the Scottish Government are chosen from the party or parties holding most seats in the Parliament. The Scottish Government is led by the First Minister, who forms a ministerial team of Cabinet Secretaries. In the election on May 3 2007, the [[Scottish National Party]] won the largest number of seats, but not enough for an absolute majority. At the moment the party forms a minority government.

===Principal Government Officials===

===Relations with England===
Relationships between Scottish and English MPs before [[devolution]] were sometimes tense because of what the former [[Conservative|Conservative Party]] MP, by then an [[Ulster Unionist]], [[Enoch Powell]] dubbed ''The West Lothian question''. The name arose in 1977 after [[Tam Dalyell]], Labour MP for West Lothian in Scotland, asked during a debate in the [[Houses of Parliament]] over Scottish and Welsh [[devolution]]:

<blockquote>''For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?''</blockquote>

He pointed out that he as MP for West Lothian could vote on matters affecting English constituencies but not his own constituency.

==Economy==
Scotland's position at the forefront of the industrial revolution in the 19th century bequeathed a legacy of heavy engineering and manufacturing that lasted well into the 20th century. However with de-industrialisation from the 1970s onwards and latterly the relocation of manufacturing jobs to countries with lower labour costs (eg. Eastern Europe) the Scottish economy is now heavily dependant on tourism, agriculture, the service industry and public sector jobs.

==History==
Scotland has been inhabited since the first [[Mesolithic]] hunter-gatherers are thought to have migrated to Scotland.<ref>At least 8500 years before recorded history dealt with Britain, according to the uniformitarian timescale. [http://www.scotlandhistory.net/ Scotland History], Wormland, Jenny. Scotland: a History. 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Press. p.1</ref>
These inhabitants showed advanced knowledge of astronomy, creating several [[Stonehenge]]-like monuments.

At the time of the [[Romans]] the tribes in what became Scotland were similar to those further south, and can be considered to be [[Celtic]] peoples. Those from the North-East were called ‘Picti’ (Picts) by Roman writers, which could mean ‘painted people' and refer to tattoos. The Romans never subdued these northern tribes, and after a brief period when the Antonine Wall between the Firths of Forth and Clyde was the Roman Empire’s northern frontier, they drew back and had [[Hadrian’s Wall]] as the frontier. They did try and influence the tribes between the two Walls, and when kingdoms like Strathclyde emerged in the early [[Dark Ages]], their rulers often bore Roman names or titles, the dynasties having been founded by Roman officials. The Scots themselves began arriving as settlers in the West of Scotland at this time (AD 400-500). They were from a part of the north of [[Ireland]] and spoke Old Irish, which changed to become Scottish [[Gaelic]], and eventually replaced Pictish. They sometimes warred with the Picts and [[Briton]]s and sometimes allied with them, but a unified kingdom under the Scottish king Kenneth Mac Alpin was established in AD 843, called ‘Alba’ (still the [[Gaelic]] name for Scotland). This kingdom took over Strathclyde in the early 11th century to form the basis of Mediaeval Scotland. [[Normans]] and their decscendents such as Robert the Bruce ('de Brus' was a Norman surname) became important nobles in Scotland.

====Union with England====
After the death of Queen [[Elizabeth I]] of England in 1603, James VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England, becoming [[James I]] of England. He was the first monarch to call himself King of Great Britain. This is referred to as the Union of the Crowns. James was also at this time King of [[Ireland]].

The Parliaments of Scotland and [[England]] were not united until 1707 and it is this date that is recognized as the formation of [[Great Britain]]. This is referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. (The [[United Kingdom]] was to come into being with the addition of [[Ireland]] in 1801.) The formation of the Irish Free State in 1922 resulted in the current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

==External Links==
*[http://www.n-cyclopedia.com/scottish-history/index.htm A Brief History of Scotland]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scotland]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Scottish Culture]]

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-19T09:45:56Z

Humblpi: /* Deletion */

Talk:Painting

2008-05-14T23:08:52Z

Humblpi: /* Christo */ Not a painting. Doesn't belong here. End of story.

== Christo? ==

He's not really a painter - more of a sculptural/installation artist, no? [[User:BrentM|BrentM]] 18:00, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Yes. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:47, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:Related follow-up: Then why is the "surrounded islands" shown on this page on painting? I'm no art student, but if this is an example of a painting (which I highly doubt), then it definitely needs an explanation. I will remove the image for the time being because it completely looks out of place in its current form. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 12:07, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:: He made a painting that day, it is enough to be an example. Before deleting see the reply or wait. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:40, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::So we're keeping a non-painting as an example for painting because the artist had also made a painting that day? Please, either replace the image with the painting in question or delete it. Right now, that part of the entry flat out makes no sense. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 12:53, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Perhaps we could see if there was a copy of the painting which is in the public domain. That way we could put the two pictures side to side to provide a comparison between subject and result (although there are probably better examples out there). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:17, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I came here to say "why is such an obvious non-painting, by an artist who is not primarily known as a painter, included (and given such prominence) in an article about ''painting''?" I see I'm not the first! Why is this even (apparently, reading between the lines of the above comments) contentious? Delete it. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:57, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

: In the article there is: "''Painters have the freedom to invent their own visual language and to experiment with light and new forms, materials and techniques.''" The image shows precisely that; an example that shows how wide is the world of painters. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:48, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

::It isn't painting, it is [[installation art]]. Painting is a little narrower in its scope. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:58, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Have you not seen "Mural painting" that is installed or moved? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:30, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

 
[[Image:Kellner Oil Spill.jpg|thumb|Oil Spill by Lisa Kellner]]

Is this installation art or sculptural painting? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:42, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Post-modern sculpture. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:50, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:: The juries of that art exposition had to learn it.

Oil Spill.

Quilting pins and paint on prepared board

8’ x 4’ x 5.5

As the article says:

''Painters have the freedom to invent their own visual language and to experiment with light and new forms, materials and techniques. ''

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:23, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
2006

:While the quote is correct ''in context'', you are misapplying it. It does not mean that a sculpture is a painting, or an installation piece is a painting. Kellner's piece, for example, was ultimately not defined as installation art because the pins were not applied directly to the gallery wall as originally intended. By misusing the "new forms" quotation above you have redefined the art world. This article talk page, for example, can now be called a painting: I have simply used a new material and technique to paint it. I call it '''פּופּיק ''':) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:35, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:: In art, for centuries experts do not agree of what is this or the other. I can not expect to have universal applause. I could accept to remove the image in question after a serious debate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::: ''Some adhere to a rigid definition of "art", such as paintings, sculpture and other traditional genres, while others believe that art should not be strictly defined, and thus believe that anything progressive may be labeled as such.'' Source:Our own article on [[Aesthetics]].

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:07, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::::That is about defining ''art'' - not defining "painting". [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:10, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Does that mean that painting is not art? Amazing! No more is needed. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:12, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Joaquín, you are plucking random quotes and applying them incorrectly. I'm sure this isn't at all deliberate, and is more a linguistic thing than anything else, but you are butchering what the quotes originally intended to mean. ''Most'' painting is of course art: slapping a coat of white emulsion on my bathroom ceiling isn't strictly art. The quote you used above is about defining the boundaries of "art" - it has nothing to do with justifying a sculpture being labelled a painting. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:18, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, lets see what happens. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, that's not really an option - the article won't fix itself. People will become bored of trying to explain in as inoffensive manner as possible that you are wrong and someone will have to come along and completely rewrite the entire thing from scratch. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:37, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Joaquín, I agree with Fox here. While painting may be "art" that does not mean that all art is painting, and while "installation art" may be considered art, I know of no-one who would consider it painting. I don't wish to be rude here but is there perhaps a language difference? I think the islands picture should be moved to an article on installation art which '''''is '''''worthy of its own page. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:38, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

==Dating is incorrect==
I doubt that the paintings in those caves are 17,000 years old - how could they be? The Flood would have destroyed them, so they must be post-Flood. They must only be a few thousand years old at best. 14:59, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

==Ruined==
Thankyou for ruining another article and locking it to prevent it being fixed. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:33, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
:Hey Fox! It's nice to see you're back again by the way, and I hope you're able to get right back into editing again. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:23, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Protected ==

The article will be protected until a serious debate is done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:33, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
:It was done. You were wrong. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:34, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

I have invited Sharon and Bethany to be the jury in this debate. It has to be well done with time to search for the opinion of experts and time to consider the arguments. NOT TO CHANGE THING IN A HURRY!
I expect to be clear enough. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:42, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Care to have a third vote on the jury? Setting aside what use was made of it, Aschlflay seemed pleased with my last stab at resolving article disputes, and I'm trying to find ways to be helpful around here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:09, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Christo ==

On his own words:

Christo: First, we should discuss why it takes such a long time. I'd like to explain why some art historians, critics or writers have some problems in grasping this project.

Christo: All interpretations are valid.

Jeanne-Claude: But if you told a painter who has finished painting a horse, "This is a cow," the painter would be very furious.

Christo: The use of cloth in the history of art is as old as the history of art. Artists use the fabric in sculpture and painting and the fabric has taken enormous dimensions, enormous sizes [Christo shows a book, with a multitude of classical paintings and sculptures in which fabric has a dominant role]. The fabric creates formality. This is why we do this in all the projects, we play with the fabric, using the resource of that material to create these works.

[http://www.jca-online.com/christo.html] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:14, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

As artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude are as unclassifiable as their art. '''They are at once painter and sculptor, and yet neither...''' [http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/christo/elsen.html] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:20, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

His use of Cubist-derived collage to unite drawings, materials, maps and photographs is the mark of a modern artist. Beginning with his training as a painter working on stretched canvases, fabric has always been essential to Christo and Jeanne-Claude's art. The fabric itself supplies the colour: the off-white of Wrapped Coast and Running Fence, the rich gold of The Pont Neuf Wrapped, the flamingo pink of the Miami Surrounded Islands, the planned golden gates for Central Park in New York City, the yellow and blue of The Umbrellas project. [[Ibidem]] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:24, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni was a painter. But nobody has ever called the Statue of David a "painting". [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:32, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

No, the David in normally considered an statue, but Chisto and Jeanne are not Michelangelo:

They define themselves as environmental artists ("Labels are important mostly for bottles of wine") who "borrow space and create gentle disturbances for a few days. But, they say, their work is not about improving the landscape. Rather, "It is interpretation. Claude Monet painted the Cathedral of Rouen. One of his paintings is pink, one blue, one yellow. He never says that the cathedral is not beautiful. He makes an interpretation of the Cathedral of Rouen. This is art." [http://painting.about.com/b/2006/11/04/interview-with-the-artists-christo-and-jeanne-claude.htm] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:37, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Find a quote where anybody other than you calls that piece of installation art a "painting". [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:47, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
:You keep harking back to quotes about the definitions of "art" , NOT the definitions of "painting". Nobody is saying it is not art, but that doesn't make it a painting! [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:49, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::Perhaps we're missing the metaphor [[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] is shooting for: The earth, the island itself is the canvas, the fabrics and their colors the "paints".
::If the "sculptures" that Christo creates are seen, not as a three dimensional work but rather as a 3-dimensional work masquerading ''as'' a two-dimensional work which is what a painting is at heart. Perhaps a compromise could be reached by creating a sub header realizing this? [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 18:45, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:That is quite an... interesting interpretation, MargeryCampbell. Thank you for, once again, providing another perspective to the issue, which perhaps had not been considered. :-] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:52, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Like I said earlier, I have decreed this talk page one of my paintings - stop graffittiing on it :P [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:50, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I completely fail to understand what is going on here. That work by Christo is '''not a painting''', and therefore should not be used to illustrate the article on painting. What is there to argue about? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 19:08, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Painting

2008-05-13T12:57:12Z

Humblpi: /* Christo? */ not a painter, not a painting. Delete.

Republic of Ireland

2008-05-13T09:59:17Z

Humblpi: /* Principal Government Officials */ bring up to date

{{Country
|name =''Éire''
|map =Ireland.jpg
|flag =Flag of Ireland.png
|arms =Ireland arms.png
|capital =Dublin
|capital-raw =
|government =Republic and Parliamentary Democracy
|government-raw =
|language =Irish and English
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Mary McAleese
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =27,133 sq mi
|pop =4,239,848 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$177.2 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$43,600 (2006)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =
}}

'''Ireland''' (official description: '''Republic of Ireland'''[http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1197556861&view=ag-view&numhitsfound=2&query_rule=%28%28$query3%29%29%3Alegtitle&query3=Republic%20of%20Ireland%20Act&docid=19310&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&dbname=SIs&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1]) is a parliamentary democracy in north-western Europe consisting of 26 counties on the island of [[Ireland]].

==Geography==
The island of Ireland is located in the [[Atlantic Ocean]], to the west of Britain. Of the thirty two counties of Ireland, twenty six are in the republic, including all counties in the provinces of Connacnt, Munster and Leinster. Of the nine counties of [[Ulster]], three ([[Cavan]], [[Monaghan]] and [[Donegal]]) are in the republic and the remaining counties remain in the [[United Kingdom]]. The longest river in Ireland, The Shannon -- also the longest in the British Isles -- divides the Republic into a largely urban eastern section, dominated by Dublin, and a more rural, less economically vibrant western area.

==People==
The Irish people are mainly of Celtic origin, with the country's only significant sized minority having descended from the Anglo-Normans. English is the common language, but Irish (Gaelic) is also an official language and is taught in schools.

Anglo-Irish writers such as Swift, Sheridan, Goldsmith, Burke, Wilde, Joyce, Yeats, Shaw, and Beckett have made a major contribution to world literature over the past 300 years.
*Population: 4,234,935 (2006 est.).
*Cities: Capital--Dublin (pop. 505,739). Other cities--Cork (119,143), Galway (71,983), Limerick (52,560), Waterford, (45,775).
*Population breakdown 0-14 years (21%), 15-24 years (15%), 25-34 years (17%), 35-44 years (14%), 45-54 years (12%), 55-64 years (10%), 65 years and over (11%)
*Population growth rate: 1.14 (2007 est.).
*Ethnic groups: Irish, with English minority.
*Religions: Roman Catholic 86.8%; Church of Ireland 3 %; Presbyterian 0.5%; Methodist 0.25%; Muslim 1 %; Jewish 0.1%; other 8.35%.
*Languages: English, Irish (Gaelic).
*Education: Compulsory up to age 16. Enrollment rates: first (primary) level 449,508, second (high school and vocational) level 335,162, third (university and college) level 133,691. Literacy--98%-99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.2/1,000. Life expectancy at birth--male 75.3 yrs., female 80.7 yrs.
*Work force: Services--66%; industry--28%; agriculture--6%.

==Government and Political Conditions==
Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state with a parliamentary system of government. The president, who serves as head of state in a largely ceremonial role, is elected for a 7-year term and can be re-elected only once. The current president is Mary McAleese, who is serving her second term after having succeeded President [[Mary Robinson]] - the first instance worldwide where one woman has followed another as an elected head of state. In carrying out certain constitutional powers and functions, the president is aided by the Council of State, an advisory body. On the Taoiseach's (prime minister's) advice, the president also dissolves the Oireachtas (Parliament).

The prime minister (Taoiseach, pronounced "TEE-shuck") is elected by the Dail (lower house of Parliament) as the leader of the political party, or coalition of parties, which wins the most seats in the national elections, held approximately every 5 years (unless called earlier). Executive power is vested in a cabinet whose ministers are nominated by the Taoiseach and approved by the Dail.

The bicameral Oireachtas (Parliament) consists of the Seanad Eireann (Senate) and the Dail Eireann (House of Representatives). The Seanad is composed of 60 members--11 nominated by the prime minister, 6 elected by the national universities, and 43 elected from panels of candidates established on a vocational basis. The Seanad has the power to delay legislative proposals and is allowed 90 days to consider and amend bills sent to it by the Dail, which wields greater power in Parliament. The Dail has 166 members popularly elected to a maximum term of 5 years under a complex system of proportional representation. A member of the Dail is known as a Teachta Dala, or TD.

Judges are appointed by the president on nomination by the government and can be removed from office only for misbehavior or incapacity and then only by resolution of both houses of Parliament. The ultimate court of appeal is the Supreme Court, consisting of the chief justice and five other justices. The Supreme Court also can decide upon the constitutionality of legislative acts if the president asks for an opinion.

Local government is by elected county councils and -- in the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford -- by county borough corporations. County councils/corporations in turn select city mayors. In practice, however, authority remains with the central government.

Irish politics remain dominated by the two political parties that grew out of Ireland's bitter 1922-23 civil war. Fianna Fail was formed by those who opposed the 1921 treaty that partitioned the island. Although treaty opponents lost the civil war, Fianna Fail soon became Ireland's largest political party. Fine Gael, representative of the pro-treaty forces, remains the country's second-largest party. The Progressive Democrats, Labour, Sinn Fein, and the Greens are the other significant parties.

The May 2007 national elections brought the Fianna Fail party and its leader Bertie Ahern back to power in a coalition government for an unprecedented third five-year term. Coalition members joining Fianna Fail were the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats. In recent months the Mahon Tribunal has been investigating allegations of corruption against the PM when he was Minister of Finance in the early 1990s. However, the PM has not suffered politically -- the coalition remains intact and in September 2007, he survived a vote of no confidence on the issue. Ahern appointed Finance Minister Brian Cowen Deputy Prime Minister (Tanaiste, pronounced "TAW-nish-tuh"). The Foreign Minister is Dermot Ahern (no relation to the Taoiseach).

Local and European elections took place in June 2004 and saw gains for opposition parties. The election also featured a referendum on citizenship. Until that time, Ireland had granted citizenship on the basis of birth on Irish soil. Concerns about security and social welfare abuse prompted the government to seek to bring citizenship laws in line with the more restrictive policies prevalent in the rest of Europe, and the 2004 referendum measure passed by a wide majority. Now, persons with non-Irish parents can acquire Irish citizenship at birth only if at least one parent has been resident in Ireland for three years preceding the birth.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Mary McAleese
*Taoiseach (Prime Minister)--Brian Cowen
*Tanaiste (Deputy Prime Minister)--Mary Coughlan

====Taoisigh (Prime Ministers) of the Republic of Ireland====

*'''Éamon de Valera''' (Fianna Fáil): 1937-1948, 1951-1954, 1957-1959.
*'''John A.Costello''' (Fine Gael): 1948-1951, 1954-1957.
*'''Seán Lemass''' (Fianna Fáil): 1959-1966.
*'''Jack Lynch''' (Fianna Fáil): 1966-1973, 1977-1979.
*'''Liam Cosgrave''' (Fine Gael): 1973-1977.
*'''Charles Haughey''' (Fianna Fáil): 1979-1981, March 1982 - December 82 and March 1987 - February 1992.
*'''Garret FitzGerald''' (Fine Gael): 30 June 1981- 9 March 1982 and 14 December 1982 - 10 March 1987.
*'''Albert Reynolds''' (Fianna Fáil): February 1992-1994.
*'''John Bruton''' (Fine Gael): 1994-1997.
*'''Bertie Ahern''' (Fianna Fáil): 1997-2008.
*'''Brian Cowen''' (Fianna Fáil): 2008 to date.<ref> [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=349&docID=-1 Government of Ireland website] </ref>

===Political Parties===
'''Fianna Fail''': (Pronounced Fee-Na Fall which is Irish for 'Soldiers of Destiny'). Ireland's main political party, they do not class themselves as either left or right wing but are generally considered centrist and traditionally the choice for republicans (in the Irish sense, meaning supporters of a United Ireland) due to its foundation by Eamon de Valera; considered by his supporters to be the greatest of all Irish nationalists. Fianna Fail is traditionally a Populist party, spearheading the disease and slum eradication programme's of the 1950's and 1960's. Nowadays however, it is considered to be on the pragmatic centre as well as supportive of the construction sector and its representatives. Currently the largest party in the ruling coalition. Led by Bertie Ahern, current [[Taoiseach]]([[Prime Minister]]) of the Republic of Ireland.<ref>[http://www.fiannafail.ie/]</ref>

'''Fine Gael''': (Pronounced Finna Gale, Irish for 'Family of the Irish'). Ireland's second largest party. Fine Gael is traditionally socially and fiscally conservative. Traditionally the party of Big Business and the farming community, although generally liberal on social issues (though probably not by American standards) Under the leadership of [[Garret FitzGerald]] in the 1980's, the party embraced [[social democracy]]. Today the party likes to characterize itself as a party of the "progressive centre". Led by [[Enda Kenny]]. <ref>[http://www.finegael.com/index.cfm]</ref>

'''Labour Party''': The Labour Party has traditionally been the left wing force of Irish politics, though in the recent election under the leadership of a former member of the communist leaning Sinn Fein Workers Party, [[Pat Rabbitte]], the party moved over to the centre in order to join in a possible coalition government with Fine Gael. Although they lost the election, the coalition helped to modernise the party more in line with European Social Democratic Groups. The party is currently led by [[Eamon Gilmore]], a center left politician.<ref>[http://www.labour.ie/]</ref>

'''Progressive Democrats''': The second party in the ruling coalition, it is very right wing on economic issues, favouring low-taxation, pro-business policies, were once liberal on social issues such as divorce and contraception, but now dominate the centre ground on these issues. [[Mary Harney]] is the current interim leader and Minister for Health of the Republic of Ireland.<ref>[http://www.progressivedemocrats.ie/index-main.php]</ref>

'''Green Party''': A left-wing party and member of the current leading coalition who are in favour of environmental protection, renewable energy and a stronger system of social security. Led by John Gormley, the current minister for the Enviorment.

'''Sinn Féin''': (Pronounced Shin Fane, Irish for 'Ourselves') Remnant of Ireland's oldest poltical party, it is closely connected with the Provisional [[IRA]], a terrorist/guerrilla movement that sought a United Irish Republic that have since disbanded. They have recently embraced a more democratic approach. They are a party of left-wing socialist economics which espouses liberal social issues such as gay marriage. They organise in all 32 counties of Ireland. Led by former IRA commander Gerry Adams. <ref>[http://www.sinnfein.ie/]</ref>

===Foreign Relations===
Ireland is a member of numerous international organizations, including the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the European Union. Ireland has been an important contributor to numerous international peacekeeping missions, such as in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Liberia (UNIMIL), and the Balkans (KFOR and EUFOR). Ireland's overseas development assistance focuses on Sub-Saharan Africa and stands at 5 percent of GDP.

===Relations with the United States===
U.S. relations with Ireland have long been based on common ancestral ties and shared values. These relations have broadened and matured, given the significant U.S. role in Ireland's economic success and cooperation on global challenges. Besides regular dialogue on political and economic issues, the U.S. and Irish Governments have official exchanges in areas such as medical research and education.

With Ireland's membership in the European Union, the discussion of EU trade and economic policies, as well as other aspects of EU policy, is also a key element in the U.S.-Irish relationship. In recent years, Ireland has attempted to act as a diplomatic bridge between the United States and European Union. During its 2004 EU presidency, Ireland worked to strengthen U.S.-EU ties that had been strained by the Iraq war, and the current EU Ambassador to the United States is former Irish Prime Minister John Bruton.

Emigration, long a vital element in the U.S.-Irish relationship, declined significantly with Ireland's economic boom in the 1990s. For the first time in its modern history, Ireland is experiencing high levels of inward migration, a phenomenon with political, economic, and social consequences. However, Irish citizens do continue the common practice of taking temporary residence overseas for work or study, mainly in the U.S., U.K., and elsewhere in Europe, before returning to establish careers in Ireland. The U.S. J-1 visa program, for example, remains a popular means for Irish youths to work temporarily in the United States.

==Economy==
Ireland boasts a vibrant, globalized economy, with GDP per capita second only to Luxembourg's in the EU. The "Celtic Tiger" period of the mid to late 1990s saw several years of double-digit GDP growth, driven by a progressive industrial policy that boosted large-scale foreign direct investment and exports. GDP growth dipped during the immediate post-9/11 global economic slowdown, but has averaged roughly 5 percent yearly since 2004, the best performance for this period among the original EU 15 Member States. Since 2004, the Irish economy has generated roughly 90,000 new jobs annually, attracting over 200,000 foreign workers, mostly from the new EU Member states, in an unprecedented immigration influx. The construction sector has accounted for approximately one-quarter of these jobs, and economists caution that any slowdown in Ireland's vibrant housing market would have ramifications for continued GDP growth.

Economic and trade ties are an important facet of overall U.S.-Irish relations. In 2005, U.S. exports to Ireland were valued at $9 billion, while Irish exports to the U.S. totaled $28 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The range of U.S. exports includes electrical components and equipment, computers and peripherals, drugs and pharmaceuticals, and livestock feed. Irish exports to the United States represent approximately 20% of all Irish exports, and have roughly the same value as Irish exports to the UK (inclusive of Northern Ireland). Exports to the United States include alcoholic beverages, chemicals and related products, electronic data processing equipment, electrical machinery, textiles and clothing, and glassware. According to Ireland's Central Statistical Office, Irish exports to the United States from January to September 2006 rose by 7% compared to the same period in 2005, while Irish imports from the United States from January to September 2006 fell by 14% compared to the same period in 2005.

U.S. investment has been particularly important to the growth and modernization of Irish industry over the past 25 years, providing new technology, export capabilities, and employment opportunities. As of year-end 2006, the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment in Ireland stood at $84 billion, more than double the U.S. total for China and India combined ($31.2 billion). Currently, there are approximately 620 U.S. subsidiaries in Ireland, employing roughly 100,000 people and spanning activities from manufacturing of high-tech electronics, computer products, medical supplies, and pharmaceuticals to retailing, banking, finance, and other services. In more recent years, Ireland has also become an important research and development (R&D) center for U.S. firms in Europe.

Many U.S. businesses find Ireland an attractive location to manufacture for the EU market, since it is inside the EU customs area and uses the euro. In 2005, U.S. firms accounted for 61% of Ireland's total exports of euro 89 billion. Other reasons for Ireland's attractiveness include: a 12.5 percent corporate tax rate for domestic and foreign firms; the quality and flexibility of the English-speaking work force; cooperative labor relations; political stability; pro-business government policies; a transparent judicial system; strong intellectual property protection; and, the pulling power of existing companies operating successfully (a "clustering" effect). Factors that negatively affect Ireland's ability to attract investment include: increasing labor and energy costs (especially when compared to low-cost countries in Eastern Europe and Asia), skilled labor shortages, inadequate infrastructure (such as in the transportation and internet/broadband sectors), and price levels that are ranked among the highest in Europe.
*Nominal GDP (2006): $180.7 billion.
*Real GDP growth (2006): 6%.
*Nominal GDP per capita (2006): $44,500.
*Natural resources: Zinc, lead, natural gas, barite, copper, gypsum, limestone, dolomite, peat.
*Agriculture (3% of GDP): Products--cattle, meat, and dairy products; potatoes; barley; hay; silage; wheat.
*Industry (32% of GDP): Types--food processing, beverages, engineering, computer equipment, textiles and clothing, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, construction.
*Trade (2006): Exports--$119.8 billion (excluding services): machinery, transport equipment, chemicals, food, live animals, manufactured materials, beverages. Imports--$87.4 billion (excluding services): grains, petroleum products, machinery, transport equipment, chemicals, textile yarns. Major suppliers-Great Britain and Northern Ireland 31%, U.S. 11%, Germany 8%, China 7%, Japan 4%, France 3%, rest of the world (including other EU Member States) 36%.

==History==
The earliest inhabitants--people of a mid-Stone Age culture--arrived about 6000 BC. About 4,000 years later, tribes from southern Europe arrived and established a high Neolithic culture, leaving behind gold ornaments and huge stone monuments. The Bronze Age people, who arrived during the next 1,000 years, produced elaborate gold and bronze ornaments and weapons.

The Iron Age arrived abruptly in the fourth century BC with the invasion of the Celts, a tall, energetic people who had spread across Europe and Great Britain in the preceding centuries. The Celts, or Gaels, and their more numerous predecessors divided into five kingdoms in which, despite constant strife, a rich culture flourished.

The coming of Christianity from across the Irish Sea brought major changes and civilizing influences. Tradition maintains that St. Patrick arrived on the island in AD 432 and, in the years that followed, worked to convert the Irish to Christianity.

The pagan druid tradition collapsed before the spread of the new faith, and Irish scholars excelled in the study of Latin learning and Christian theology in the monasteries that flourished. Missionaries went forth from Ireland to England and the continent, spreading news of the flowering of learning, and scholars from other nations came to Irish monasteries. The excellence and isolation of these monasteries helped preserve Latin and Greek learning during the Dark Ages. The arts of manuscript illumination, metalworking, and sculpture flourished and produced such treasures as the Book of Kells, ornate jewelry, and the many carved stone crosses that dot the island.

Two hundred years of Viking invasion and settlement was later followed by a Norman conquest in the 12th century. The Norman conquest resulted in the assimilation of the Norman settlers into Irish society. The early 17th century saw the arrival of Scottish and English Protestants, sent as colonists to the north of Ireland and the Pale around Dublin.

In 1800 the Irish Parliament passed the Act of Union with Great Britain, and Ireland was an official part of the United Kingdom until 1921. Religious freedom, outlawed in the 18th century, was restored in 1829, but this victory for the Irish Catholic majority was overshadowed by a severe economic depression and the great famine from 1846-48 when the potato crop failed. Millions died, and the millions that emigrated spawned the first mass wave of Irish emigration to the United States. A decade later, in 1858, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB--also known as the Fenians) was founded as a secret society dedicated to armed rebellion against the British. An aboveground political counterpart, the Home Rule Movement, was created in 1874, advocating constitutional change for independence.

Galvanized by the leadership of Charles Stewart Parnell, the party was able to force British governments after 1885 to introduce several home rule bills. The turn of the century witnessed a surge of interest in Irish nationalism, including the founding of Sinn Fein ("Ourselves Alone") as an open political movement.

Nationalism was and is a potent populist force in Irish politics. A home rule bill passed in 1914, but its implementation was suspended until war in Europe ended. Believing the mantra: "England's problem is Ireland's opportunity," and tapping into a mood of Gaelic revivalism, Padraic Pearse and James Connolly led the unsuccessful Easter Rising of 1916. Pearse and the other 1916 leaders declared an independent Irish republic, but a lack of popular support doomed the rebellion, which lasted a week and destroyed large portions of Dublin. The decision by the British military government to execute the leaders of the rebellion, coupled with the British Government's threat of conscripting the Irish to fight in the Great War, alienated public opinion and produced massive support for Sinn Fein in the 1918 general election. Under the leadership of Eamon de Valera, the elected Sinn Fein deputies constituted themselves as the first Dail. Tensions only increased: British attempts to smash Sinn Fein ignited the Anglo-Irish War of 1919-1921.

The end of the war brought the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921, which established the Irish Free State of 26 counties within the British Commonwealth and recognized the partition of the island into Ireland and Northern Ireland, though supposedly as a temporary measure. The six predominantly Protestant counties of northeast Ulster--Northern Ireland--remained a part of the United Kingdom with limited self-government. A significant Irish minority repudiated the treaty settlement because of the continuance of subordinate ties to the British monarch and the partition of the island. This opposition led to further hostilities--a civil war (1922-23), which was won by the pro-treaty forces.

In 1932, Eamon de Valera, the political leader of the forces initially opposed to the treaty, became Prime Minister, and a new Irish constitution was enacted in 1937. The last British military bases were soon withdrawn, and the ports were returned to Irish control. Ireland was neutral in World War II. The government formally declared Ireland a republic in 1948; however, it does not normally use the term "Republic of Ireland," which tacitly acknowledges the partition, but refers to the country simply as "Ireland."

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3180.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:Ireland]]

Republic of Ireland

2008-05-13T06:19:39Z

Humblpi: add reflist

{{Country
|name =''Éire''
|map =Ireland.jpg
|flag =Flag of Ireland.png
|arms =Ireland arms.png
|capital =Dublin
|capital-raw =
|government =Republic and Parliamentary Democracy
|government-raw =
|language =Irish and English
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Mary McAleese
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =27,133 sq mi
|pop =4,239,848 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$177.2 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$43,600 (2006)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =
}}

'''Ireland''' (official description: '''Republic of Ireland'''[http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1197556861&view=ag-view&numhitsfound=2&query_rule=%28%28$query3%29%29%3Alegtitle&query3=Republic%20of%20Ireland%20Act&docid=19310&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&dbname=SIs&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1]) is a parliamentary democracy in north-western Europe consisting of 26 counties on the island of [[Ireland]].

==Geography==
The island of Ireland is located in the [[Atlantic Ocean]], to the west of Britain. Of the thirty two counties of Ireland, twenty six are in the republic, including all counties in the provinces of Connacnt, Munster and Leinster. Of the nine counties of [[Ulster]], three ([[Cavan]], [[Monaghan]] and [[Donegal]]) are in the republic and the remaining counties remain in the [[United Kingdom]]. The longest river in Ireland, The Shannon -- also the longest in the British Isles -- divides the Republic into a largely urban eastern section, dominated by Dublin, and a more rural, less economically vibrant western area.

==People==
The Irish people are mainly of Celtic origin, with the country's only significant sized minority having descended from the Anglo-Normans. English is the common language, but Irish (Gaelic) is also an official language and is taught in schools.

Anglo-Irish writers such as Swift, Sheridan, Goldsmith, Burke, Wilde, Joyce, Yeats, Shaw, and Beckett have made a major contribution to world literature over the past 300 years.
*Population: 4,234,935 (2006 est.).
*Cities: Capital--Dublin (pop. 505,739). Other cities--Cork (119,143), Galway (71,983), Limerick (52,560), Waterford, (45,775).
*Population breakdown 0-14 years (21%), 15-24 years (15%), 25-34 years (17%), 35-44 years (14%), 45-54 years (12%), 55-64 years (10%), 65 years and over (11%)
*Population growth rate: 1.14 (2007 est.).
*Ethnic groups: Irish, with English minority.
*Religions: Roman Catholic 86.8%; Church of Ireland 3 %; Presbyterian 0.5%; Methodist 0.25%; Muslim 1 %; Jewish 0.1%; other 8.35%.
*Languages: English, Irish (Gaelic).
*Education: Compulsory up to age 16. Enrollment rates: first (primary) level 449,508, second (high school and vocational) level 335,162, third (university and college) level 133,691. Literacy--98%-99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.2/1,000. Life expectancy at birth--male 75.3 yrs., female 80.7 yrs.
*Work force: Services--66%; industry--28%; agriculture--6%.

==Government and Political Conditions==
Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state with a parliamentary system of government. The president, who serves as head of state in a largely ceremonial role, is elected for a 7-year term and can be re-elected only once. The current president is Mary McAleese, who is serving her second term after having succeeded President [[Mary Robinson]] - the first instance worldwide where one woman has followed another as an elected head of state. In carrying out certain constitutional powers and functions, the president is aided by the Council of State, an advisory body. On the Taoiseach's (prime minister's) advice, the president also dissolves the Oireachtas (Parliament).

The prime minister (Taoiseach, pronounced "TEE-shuck") is elected by the Dail (lower house of Parliament) as the leader of the political party, or coalition of parties, which wins the most seats in the national elections, held approximately every 5 years (unless called earlier). Executive power is vested in a cabinet whose ministers are nominated by the Taoiseach and approved by the Dail.

The bicameral Oireachtas (Parliament) consists of the Seanad Eireann (Senate) and the Dail Eireann (House of Representatives). The Seanad is composed of 60 members--11 nominated by the prime minister, 6 elected by the national universities, and 43 elected from panels of candidates established on a vocational basis. The Seanad has the power to delay legislative proposals and is allowed 90 days to consider and amend bills sent to it by the Dail, which wields greater power in Parliament. The Dail has 166 members popularly elected to a maximum term of 5 years under a complex system of proportional representation. A member of the Dail is known as a Teachta Dala, or TD.

Judges are appointed by the president on nomination by the government and can be removed from office only for misbehavior or incapacity and then only by resolution of both houses of Parliament. The ultimate court of appeal is the Supreme Court, consisting of the chief justice and five other justices. The Supreme Court also can decide upon the constitutionality of legislative acts if the president asks for an opinion.

Local government is by elected county councils and -- in the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford -- by county borough corporations. County councils/corporations in turn select city mayors. In practice, however, authority remains with the central government.

Irish politics remain dominated by the two political parties that grew out of Ireland's bitter 1922-23 civil war. Fianna Fail was formed by those who opposed the 1921 treaty that partitioned the island. Although treaty opponents lost the civil war, Fianna Fail soon became Ireland's largest political party. Fine Gael, representative of the pro-treaty forces, remains the country's second-largest party. The Progressive Democrats, Labour, Sinn Fein, and the Greens are the other significant parties.

The May 2007 national elections brought the Fianna Fail party and its leader Bertie Ahern back to power in a coalition government for an unprecedented third five-year term. Coalition members joining Fianna Fail were the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats. In recent months the Mahon Tribunal has been investigating allegations of corruption against the PM when he was Minister of Finance in the early 1990s. However, the PM has not suffered politically -- the coalition remains intact and in September 2007, he survived a vote of no confidence on the issue. Ahern appointed Finance Minister Brian Cowen Deputy Prime Minister (Tanaiste, pronounced "TAW-nish-tuh"). The Foreign Minister is Dermot Ahern (no relation to the Taoiseach).

Local and European elections took place in June 2004 and saw gains for opposition parties. The election also featured a referendum on citizenship. Until that time, Ireland had granted citizenship on the basis of birth on Irish soil. Concerns about security and social welfare abuse prompted the government to seek to bring citizenship laws in line with the more restrictive policies prevalent in the rest of Europe, and the 2004 referendum measure passed by a wide majority. Now, persons with non-Irish parents can acquire Irish citizenship at birth only if at least one parent has been resident in Ireland for three years preceding the birth.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Mary McAleese
*Taoiseach (Prime Minister)--Bertie Ahern
*Tanaiste (Deputy Prime Minister) and Minister for Finance--Brian Cowen

====Taoisigh (Prime Ministers) of the Republic of Ireland====

*'''Éamon de Valera''' (Fianna Fáil): 1937-1948, 1951-1954, 1957-1959.
*'''John A.Costello''' (Fine Gael): 1948-1951, 1954-1957.
*'''Seán Lemass''' (Fianna Fáil): 1959-1966.
*'''Jack Lynch''' (Fianna Fáil): 1966-1973, 1977-1979.
*'''Liam Cosgrave''' (Fine Gael): 1973-1977.
*'''Charles Haughey''' (Fianna Fáil): 1979-1981, March 1982 - December 82 and March 1987 - February 1992.
*'''Garret FitzGerald''' (Fine Gael): 30 June 1981- 9 March 1982 and 14 December 1982 - 10 March 1987.
*'''Albert Reynolds''' (Fianna Fáil): February 1992-1994.
*'''John Bruton''' (Fine Gael): 1994-1997.
*'''Bertie Ahern''' (Fianna Fáil): 1997-2008.
*'''Brian Cowen''' (Fianna Fáil): 2008 to date.<ref> [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=349&docID=-1 Government of Ireland website] </ref>

===Political Parties===
'''Fianna Fail''': (Pronounced Fee-Na Fall which is Irish for 'Soldiers of Destiny'). Ireland's main political party, they do not class themselves as either left or right wing but are generally considered centrist and traditionally the choice for republicans (in the Irish sense, meaning supporters of a United Ireland) due to its foundation by Eamon de Valera; considered by his supporters to be the greatest of all Irish nationalists. Fianna Fail is traditionally a Populist party, spearheading the disease and slum eradication programme's of the 1950's and 1960's. Nowadays however, it is considered to be on the pragmatic centre as well as supportive of the construction sector and its representatives. Currently the largest party in the ruling coalition. Led by Bertie Ahern, current [[Taoiseach]]([[Prime Minister]]) of the Republic of Ireland.<ref>[http://www.fiannafail.ie/]</ref>

'''Fine Gael''': (Pronounced Finna Gale, Irish for 'Family of the Irish'). Ireland's second largest party. Fine Gael is traditionally socially and fiscally conservative. Traditionally the party of Big Business and the farming community, although generally liberal on social issues (though probably not by American standards) Under the leadership of [[Garret FitzGerald]] in the 1980's, the party embraced [[social democracy]]. Today the party likes to characterize itself as a party of the "progressive centre". Led by [[Enda Kenny]]. <ref>[http://www.finegael.com/index.cfm]</ref>

'''Labour Party''': The Labour Party has traditionally been the left wing force of Irish politics, though in the recent election under the leadership of a former member of the communist leaning Sinn Fein Workers Party, [[Pat Rabbitte]], the party moved over to the centre in order to join in a possible coalition government with Fine Gael. Although they lost the election, the coalition helped to modernise the party more in line with European Social Democratic Groups. The party is currently led by [[Eamon Gilmore]], a center left politician.<ref>[http://www.labour.ie/]</ref>

'''Progressive Democrats''': The second party in the ruling coalition, it is very right wing on economic issues, favouring low-taxation, pro-business policies, were once liberal on social issues such as divorce and contraception, but now dominate the centre ground on these issues. [[Mary Harney]] is the current interim leader and Minister for Health of the Republic of Ireland.<ref>[http://www.progressivedemocrats.ie/index-main.php]</ref>

'''Green Party''': A left-wing party and member of the current leading coalition who are in favour of environmental protection, renewable energy and a stronger system of social security. Led by John Gormley, the current minister for the Enviorment.

'''Sinn Féin''': (Pronounced Shin Fane, Irish for 'Ourselves') Remnant of Ireland's oldest poltical party, it is closely connected with the Provisional [[IRA]], a terrorist/guerrilla movement that sought a United Irish Republic that have since disbanded. They have recently embraced a more democratic approach. They are a party of left-wing socialist economics which espouses liberal social issues such as gay marriage. They organise in all 32 counties of Ireland. Led by former IRA commander Gerry Adams. <ref>[http://www.sinnfein.ie/]</ref>

===Foreign Relations===
Ireland is a member of numerous international organizations, including the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the European Union. Ireland has been an important contributor to numerous international peacekeeping missions, such as in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Liberia (UNIMIL), and the Balkans (KFOR and EUFOR). Ireland's overseas development assistance focuses on Sub-Saharan Africa and stands at 5 percent of GDP.

===Relations with the United States===
U.S. relations with Ireland have long been based on common ancestral ties and shared values. These relations have broadened and matured, given the significant U.S. role in Ireland's economic success and cooperation on global challenges. Besides regular dialogue on political and economic issues, the U.S. and Irish Governments have official exchanges in areas such as medical research and education.

With Ireland's membership in the European Union, the discussion of EU trade and economic policies, as well as other aspects of EU policy, is also a key element in the U.S.-Irish relationship. In recent years, Ireland has attempted to act as a diplomatic bridge between the United States and European Union. During its 2004 EU presidency, Ireland worked to strengthen U.S.-EU ties that had been strained by the Iraq war, and the current EU Ambassador to the United States is former Irish Prime Minister John Bruton.

Emigration, long a vital element in the U.S.-Irish relationship, declined significantly with Ireland's economic boom in the 1990s. For the first time in its modern history, Ireland is experiencing high levels of inward migration, a phenomenon with political, economic, and social consequences. However, Irish citizens do continue the common practice of taking temporary residence overseas for work or study, mainly in the U.S., U.K., and elsewhere in Europe, before returning to establish careers in Ireland. The U.S. J-1 visa program, for example, remains a popular means for Irish youths to work temporarily in the United States.

==Economy==
Ireland boasts a vibrant, globalized economy, with GDP per capita second only to Luxembourg's in the EU. The "Celtic Tiger" period of the mid to late 1990s saw several years of double-digit GDP growth, driven by a progressive industrial policy that boosted large-scale foreign direct investment and exports. GDP growth dipped during the immediate post-9/11 global economic slowdown, but has averaged roughly 5 percent yearly since 2004, the best performance for this period among the original EU 15 Member States. Since 2004, the Irish economy has generated roughly 90,000 new jobs annually, attracting over 200,000 foreign workers, mostly from the new EU Member states, in an unprecedented immigration influx. The construction sector has accounted for approximately one-quarter of these jobs, and economists caution that any slowdown in Ireland's vibrant housing market would have ramifications for continued GDP growth.

Economic and trade ties are an important facet of overall U.S.-Irish relations. In 2005, U.S. exports to Ireland were valued at $9 billion, while Irish exports to the U.S. totaled $28 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The range of U.S. exports includes electrical components and equipment, computers and peripherals, drugs and pharmaceuticals, and livestock feed. Irish exports to the United States represent approximately 20% of all Irish exports, and have roughly the same value as Irish exports to the UK (inclusive of Northern Ireland). Exports to the United States include alcoholic beverages, chemicals and related products, electronic data processing equipment, electrical machinery, textiles and clothing, and glassware. According to Ireland's Central Statistical Office, Irish exports to the United States from January to September 2006 rose by 7% compared to the same period in 2005, while Irish imports from the United States from January to September 2006 fell by 14% compared to the same period in 2005.

U.S. investment has been particularly important to the growth and modernization of Irish industry over the past 25 years, providing new technology, export capabilities, and employment opportunities. As of year-end 2006, the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment in Ireland stood at $84 billion, more than double the U.S. total for China and India combined ($31.2 billion). Currently, there are approximately 620 U.S. subsidiaries in Ireland, employing roughly 100,000 people and spanning activities from manufacturing of high-tech electronics, computer products, medical supplies, and pharmaceuticals to retailing, banking, finance, and other services. In more recent years, Ireland has also become an important research and development (R&D) center for U.S. firms in Europe.

Many U.S. businesses find Ireland an attractive location to manufacture for the EU market, since it is inside the EU customs area and uses the euro. In 2005, U.S. firms accounted for 61% of Ireland's total exports of euro 89 billion. Other reasons for Ireland's attractiveness include: a 12.5 percent corporate tax rate for domestic and foreign firms; the quality and flexibility of the English-speaking work force; cooperative labor relations; political stability; pro-business government policies; a transparent judicial system; strong intellectual property protection; and, the pulling power of existing companies operating successfully (a "clustering" effect). Factors that negatively affect Ireland's ability to attract investment include: increasing labor and energy costs (especially when compared to low-cost countries in Eastern Europe and Asia), skilled labor shortages, inadequate infrastructure (such as in the transportation and internet/broadband sectors), and price levels that are ranked among the highest in Europe.
*Nominal GDP (2006): $180.7 billion.
*Real GDP growth (2006): 6%.
*Nominal GDP per capita (2006): $44,500.
*Natural resources: Zinc, lead, natural gas, barite, copper, gypsum, limestone, dolomite, peat.
*Agriculture (3% of GDP): Products--cattle, meat, and dairy products; potatoes; barley; hay; silage; wheat.
*Industry (32% of GDP): Types--food processing, beverages, engineering, computer equipment, textiles and clothing, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, construction.
*Trade (2006): Exports--$119.8 billion (excluding services): machinery, transport equipment, chemicals, food, live animals, manufactured materials, beverages. Imports--$87.4 billion (excluding services): grains, petroleum products, machinery, transport equipment, chemicals, textile yarns. Major suppliers-Great Britain and Northern Ireland 31%, U.S. 11%, Germany 8%, China 7%, Japan 4%, France 3%, rest of the world (including other EU Member States) 36%.

==History==
The earliest inhabitants--people of a mid-Stone Age culture--arrived about 6000 BC. About 4,000 years later, tribes from southern Europe arrived and established a high Neolithic culture, leaving behind gold ornaments and huge stone monuments. The Bronze Age people, who arrived during the next 1,000 years, produced elaborate gold and bronze ornaments and weapons.

The Iron Age arrived abruptly in the fourth century BC with the invasion of the Celts, a tall, energetic people who had spread across Europe and Great Britain in the preceding centuries. The Celts, or Gaels, and their more numerous predecessors divided into five kingdoms in which, despite constant strife, a rich culture flourished.

The coming of Christianity from across the Irish Sea brought major changes and civilizing influences. Tradition maintains that St. Patrick arrived on the island in AD 432 and, in the years that followed, worked to convert the Irish to Christianity.

The pagan druid tradition collapsed before the spread of the new faith, and Irish scholars excelled in the study of Latin learning and Christian theology in the monasteries that flourished. Missionaries went forth from Ireland to England and the continent, spreading news of the flowering of learning, and scholars from other nations came to Irish monasteries. The excellence and isolation of these monasteries helped preserve Latin and Greek learning during the Dark Ages. The arts of manuscript illumination, metalworking, and sculpture flourished and produced such treasures as the Book of Kells, ornate jewelry, and the many carved stone crosses that dot the island.

Two hundred years of Viking invasion and settlement was later followed by a Norman conquest in the 12th century. The Norman conquest resulted in the assimilation of the Norman settlers into Irish society. The early 17th century saw the arrival of Scottish and English Protestants, sent as colonists to the north of Ireland and the Pale around Dublin.

In 1800 the Irish Parliament passed the Act of Union with Great Britain, and Ireland was an official part of the United Kingdom until 1921. Religious freedom, outlawed in the 18th century, was restored in 1829, but this victory for the Irish Catholic majority was overshadowed by a severe economic depression and the great famine from 1846-48 when the potato crop failed. Millions died, and the millions that emigrated spawned the first mass wave of Irish emigration to the United States. A decade later, in 1858, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB--also known as the Fenians) was founded as a secret society dedicated to armed rebellion against the British. An aboveground political counterpart, the Home Rule Movement, was created in 1874, advocating constitutional change for independence.

Galvanized by the leadership of Charles Stewart Parnell, the party was able to force British governments after 1885 to introduce several home rule bills. The turn of the century witnessed a surge of interest in Irish nationalism, including the founding of Sinn Fein ("Ourselves Alone") as an open political movement.

Nationalism was and is a potent populist force in Irish politics. A home rule bill passed in 1914, but its implementation was suspended until war in Europe ended. Believing the mantra: "England's problem is Ireland's opportunity," and tapping into a mood of Gaelic revivalism, Padraic Pearse and James Connolly led the unsuccessful Easter Rising of 1916. Pearse and the other 1916 leaders declared an independent Irish republic, but a lack of popular support doomed the rebellion, which lasted a week and destroyed large portions of Dublin. The decision by the British military government to execute the leaders of the rebellion, coupled with the British Government's threat of conscripting the Irish to fight in the Great War, alienated public opinion and produced massive support for Sinn Fein in the 1918 general election. Under the leadership of Eamon de Valera, the elected Sinn Fein deputies constituted themselves as the first Dail. Tensions only increased: British attempts to smash Sinn Fein ignited the Anglo-Irish War of 1919-1921.

The end of the war brought the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921, which established the Irish Free State of 26 counties within the British Commonwealth and recognized the partition of the island into Ireland and Northern Ireland, though supposedly as a temporary measure. The six predominantly Protestant counties of northeast Ulster--Northern Ireland--remained a part of the United Kingdom with limited self-government. A significant Irish minority repudiated the treaty settlement because of the continuance of subordinate ties to the British monarch and the partition of the island. This opposition led to further hostilities--a civil war (1922-23), which was won by the pro-treaty forces.

In 1932, Eamon de Valera, the political leader of the forces initially opposed to the treaty, became Prime Minister, and a new Irish constitution was enacted in 1937. The last British military bases were soon withdrawn, and the ports were returned to Irish control. Ireland was neutral in World War II. The government formally declared Ireland a republic in 1948; however, it does not normally use the term "Republic of Ireland," which tacitly acknowledges the partition, but refers to the country simply as "Ireland."

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3180.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:Ireland]]

Republic of Ireland

2008-05-13T06:14:01Z

Humblpi: /* Taoisigh (Prime Ministers) of the Republic of Ireland */ add cowen

{{Country
|name =''Éire''
|map =Ireland.jpg
|flag =Flag of Ireland.png
|arms =Ireland arms.png
|capital =Dublin
|capital-raw =
|government =Republic and Parliamentary Democracy
|government-raw =
|language =Irish and English
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Mary McAleese
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =27,133 sq mi
|pop =4,239,848 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$177.2 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$43,600 (2006)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =
}}

'''Ireland''' (official description: '''Republic of Ireland'''[http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1197556861&view=ag-view&numhitsfound=2&query_rule=%28%28$query3%29%29%3Alegtitle&query3=Republic%20of%20Ireland%20Act&docid=19310&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&dbname=SIs&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1]) is a parliamentary democracy in north-western Europe consisting of 26 counties on the island of [[Ireland]].

==Geography==
The island of Ireland is located in the [[Atlantic Ocean]], to the west of Britain. Of the thirty two counties of Ireland, twenty six are in the republic, including all counties in the provinces of Connacnt, Munster and Leinster. Of the nine counties of [[Ulster]], three ([[Cavan]], [[Monaghan]] and [[Donegal]]) are in the republic and the remaining counties remain in the [[United Kingdom]]. The longest river in Ireland, The Shannon -- also the longest in the British Isles -- divides the Republic into a largely urban eastern section, dominated by Dublin, and a more rural, less economically vibrant western area.

==People==
The Irish people are mainly of Celtic origin, with the country's only significant sized minority having descended from the Anglo-Normans. English is the common language, but Irish (Gaelic) is also an official language and is taught in schools.

Anglo-Irish writers such as Swift, Sheridan, Goldsmith, Burke, Wilde, Joyce, Yeats, Shaw, and Beckett have made a major contribution to world literature over the past 300 years.
*Population: 4,234,935 (2006 est.).
*Cities: Capital--Dublin (pop. 505,739). Other cities--Cork (119,143), Galway (71,983), Limerick (52,560), Waterford, (45,775).
*Population breakdown 0-14 years (21%), 15-24 years (15%), 25-34 years (17%), 35-44 years (14%), 45-54 years (12%), 55-64 years (10%), 65 years and over (11%)
*Population growth rate: 1.14 (2007 est.).
*Ethnic groups: Irish, with English minority.
*Religions: Roman Catholic 86.8%; Church of Ireland 3 %; Presbyterian 0.5%; Methodist 0.25%; Muslim 1 %; Jewish 0.1%; other 8.35%.
*Languages: English, Irish (Gaelic).
*Education: Compulsory up to age 16. Enrollment rates: first (primary) level 449,508, second (high school and vocational) level 335,162, third (university and college) level 133,691. Literacy--98%-99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.2/1,000. Life expectancy at birth--male 75.3 yrs., female 80.7 yrs.
*Work force: Services--66%; industry--28%; agriculture--6%.

==Government and Political Conditions==
Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state with a parliamentary system of government. The president, who serves as head of state in a largely ceremonial role, is elected for a 7-year term and can be re-elected only once. The current president is Mary McAleese, who is serving her second term after having succeeded President [[Mary Robinson]] - the first instance worldwide where one woman has followed another as an elected head of state. In carrying out certain constitutional powers and functions, the president is aided by the Council of State, an advisory body. On the Taoiseach's (prime minister's) advice, the president also dissolves the Oireachtas (Parliament).

The prime minister (Taoiseach, pronounced "TEE-shuck") is elected by the Dail (lower house of Parliament) as the leader of the political party, or coalition of parties, which wins the most seats in the national elections, held approximately every 5 years (unless called earlier). Executive power is vested in a cabinet whose ministers are nominated by the Taoiseach and approved by the Dail.

The bicameral Oireachtas (Parliament) consists of the Seanad Eireann (Senate) and the Dail Eireann (House of Representatives). The Seanad is composed of 60 members--11 nominated by the prime minister, 6 elected by the national universities, and 43 elected from panels of candidates established on a vocational basis. The Seanad has the power to delay legislative proposals and is allowed 90 days to consider and amend bills sent to it by the Dail, which wields greater power in Parliament. The Dail has 166 members popularly elected to a maximum term of 5 years under a complex system of proportional representation. A member of the Dail is known as a Teachta Dala, or TD.

Judges are appointed by the president on nomination by the government and can be removed from office only for misbehavior or incapacity and then only by resolution of both houses of Parliament. The ultimate court of appeal is the Supreme Court, consisting of the chief justice and five other justices. The Supreme Court also can decide upon the constitutionality of legislative acts if the president asks for an opinion.

Local government is by elected county councils and -- in the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford -- by county borough corporations. County councils/corporations in turn select city mayors. In practice, however, authority remains with the central government.

Irish politics remain dominated by the two political parties that grew out of Ireland's bitter 1922-23 civil war. Fianna Fail was formed by those who opposed the 1921 treaty that partitioned the island. Although treaty opponents lost the civil war, Fianna Fail soon became Ireland's largest political party. Fine Gael, representative of the pro-treaty forces, remains the country's second-largest party. The Progressive Democrats, Labour, Sinn Fein, and the Greens are the other significant parties.

The May 2007 national elections brought the Fianna Fail party and its leader Bertie Ahern back to power in a coalition government for an unprecedented third five-year term. Coalition members joining Fianna Fail were the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats. In recent months the Mahon Tribunal has been investigating allegations of corruption against the PM when he was Minister of Finance in the early 1990s. However, the PM has not suffered politically -- the coalition remains intact and in September 2007, he survived a vote of no confidence on the issue. Ahern appointed Finance Minister Brian Cowen Deputy Prime Minister (Tanaiste, pronounced "TAW-nish-tuh"). The Foreign Minister is Dermot Ahern (no relation to the Taoiseach).

Local and European elections took place in June 2004 and saw gains for opposition parties. The election also featured a referendum on citizenship. Until that time, Ireland had granted citizenship on the basis of birth on Irish soil. Concerns about security and social welfare abuse prompted the government to seek to bring citizenship laws in line with the more restrictive policies prevalent in the rest of Europe, and the 2004 referendum measure passed by a wide majority. Now, persons with non-Irish parents can acquire Irish citizenship at birth only if at least one parent has been resident in Ireland for three years preceding the birth.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Mary McAleese
*Taoiseach (Prime Minister)--Bertie Ahern
*Tanaiste (Deputy Prime Minister) and Minister for Finance--Brian Cowen

====Taoisigh (Prime Ministers) of the Republic of Ireland====

*'''Éamon de Valera''' (Fianna Fáil): 1937-1948, 1951-1954, 1957-1959.
*'''John A.Costello''' (Fine Gael): 1948-1951, 1954-1957.
*'''Seán Lemass''' (Fianna Fáil): 1959-1966.
*'''Jack Lynch''' (Fianna Fáil): 1966-1973, 1977-1979.
*'''Liam Cosgrave''' (Fine Gael): 1973-1977.
*'''Charles Haughey''' (Fianna Fáil): 1979-1981, March 1982 - December 82 and March 1987 - February 1992.
*'''Garret FitzGerald''' (Fine Gael): 30 June 1981- 9 March 1982 and 14 December 1982 - 10 March 1987.
*'''Albert Reynolds''' (Fianna Fáil): February 1992-1994.
*'''John Bruton''' (Fine Gael): 1994-1997.
*'''Bertie Ahern''' (Fianna Fáil): 1997-2008.
*'''Brian Cowen''' (Fianna Fáil): 2008 to date.<ref> [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=349&docID=-1] </ref>

===Political Parties===
'''Fianna Fail''': (Pronounced Fee-Na Fall which is Irish for 'Soldiers of Destiny'). Ireland's main political party, they do not class themselves as either left or right wing but are generally considered centrist and traditionally the choice for republicans (in the Irish sense, meaning supporters of a United Ireland) due to its foundation by Eamon de Valera; considered by his supporters to be the greatest of all Irish nationalists. Fianna Fail is traditionally a Populist party, spearheading the disease and slum eradication programme's of the 1950's and 1960's. Nowadays however, it is considered to be on the pragmatic centre as well as supportive of the construction sector and its representatives. Currently the largest party in the ruling coalition. Led by Bertie Ahern, current [[Taoiseach]]([[Prime Minister]]) of the Republic of Ireland.<ref>[http://www.fiannafail.ie/]</ref>

'''Fine Gael''': (Pronounced Finna Gale, Irish for 'Family of the Irish'). Ireland's second largest party. Fine Gael is traditionally socially and fiscally conservative. Traditionally the party of Big Business and the farming community, although generally liberal on social issues (though probably not by American standards) Under the leadership of [[Garret FitzGerald]] in the 1980's, the party embraced [[social democracy]]. Today the party likes to characterize itself as a party of the "progressive centre". Led by [[Enda Kenny]]. <ref>[http://www.finegael.com/index.cfm]</ref>

'''Labour Party''': The Labour Party has traditionally been the left wing force of Irish politics, though in the recent election under the leadership of a former member of the communist leaning Sinn Fein Workers Party, [[Pat Rabbitte]], the party moved over to the centre in order to join in a possible coalition government with Fine Gael. Although they lost the election, the coalition helped to modernise the party more in line with European Social Democratic Groups. The party is currently led by [[Eamon Gilmore]], a center left politician.<ref>[http://www.labour.ie/]</ref>

'''Progressive Democrats''': The second party in the ruling coalition, it is very right wing on economic issues, favouring low-taxation, pro-business policies, were once liberal on social issues such as divorce and contraception, but now dominate the centre ground on these issues. [[Mary Harney]] is the current interim leader and Minister for Health of the Republic of Ireland.<ref>[http://www.progressivedemocrats.ie/index-main.php]</ref>

'''Green Party''': A left-wing party and member of the current leading coalition who are in favour of environmental protection, renewable energy and a stronger system of social security. Led by John Gormley, the current minister for the Enviorment.

'''Sinn Féin''': (Pronounced Shin Fane, Irish for 'Ourselves') Remnant of Ireland's oldest poltical party, it is closely connected with the Provisional [[IRA]], a terrorist/guerrilla movement that sought a United Irish Republic that have since disbanded. They have recently embraced a more democratic approach. They are a party of left-wing socialist economics which espouses liberal social issues such as gay marriage. They organise in all 32 counties of Ireland. Led by former IRA commander Gerry Adams. <ref>[http://www.sinnfein.ie/]</ref>

===Foreign Relations===
Ireland is a member of numerous international organizations, including the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the European Union. Ireland has been an important contributor to numerous international peacekeeping missions, such as in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Liberia (UNIMIL), and the Balkans (KFOR and EUFOR). Ireland's overseas development assistance focuses on Sub-Saharan Africa and stands at 5 percent of GDP.

===Relations with the United States===
U.S. relations with Ireland have long been based on common ancestral ties and shared values. These relations have broadened and matured, given the significant U.S. role in Ireland's economic success and cooperation on global challenges. Besides regular dialogue on political and economic issues, the U.S. and Irish Governments have official exchanges in areas such as medical research and education.

With Ireland's membership in the European Union, the discussion of EU trade and economic policies, as well as other aspects of EU policy, is also a key element in the U.S.-Irish relationship. In recent years, Ireland has attempted to act as a diplomatic bridge between the United States and European Union. During its 2004 EU presidency, Ireland worked to strengthen U.S.-EU ties that had been strained by the Iraq war, and the current EU Ambassador to the United States is former Irish Prime Minister John Bruton.

Emigration, long a vital element in the U.S.-Irish relationship, declined significantly with Ireland's economic boom in the 1990s. For the first time in its modern history, Ireland is experiencing high levels of inward migration, a phenomenon with political, economic, and social consequences. However, Irish citizens do continue the common practice of taking temporary residence overseas for work or study, mainly in the U.S., U.K., and elsewhere in Europe, before returning to establish careers in Ireland. The U.S. J-1 visa program, for example, remains a popular means for Irish youths to work temporarily in the United States.

==Economy==
Ireland boasts a vibrant, globalized economy, with GDP per capita second only to Luxembourg's in the EU. The "Celtic Tiger" period of the mid to late 1990s saw several years of double-digit GDP growth, driven by a progressive industrial policy that boosted large-scale foreign direct investment and exports. GDP growth dipped during the immediate post-9/11 global economic slowdown, but has averaged roughly 5 percent yearly since 2004, the best performance for this period among the original EU 15 Member States. Since 2004, the Irish economy has generated roughly 90,000 new jobs annually, attracting over 200,000 foreign workers, mostly from the new EU Member states, in an unprecedented immigration influx. The construction sector has accounted for approximately one-quarter of these jobs, and economists caution that any slowdown in Ireland's vibrant housing market would have ramifications for continued GDP growth.

Economic and trade ties are an important facet of overall U.S.-Irish relations. In 2005, U.S. exports to Ireland were valued at $9 billion, while Irish exports to the U.S. totaled $28 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The range of U.S. exports includes electrical components and equipment, computers and peripherals, drugs and pharmaceuticals, and livestock feed. Irish exports to the United States represent approximately 20% of all Irish exports, and have roughly the same value as Irish exports to the UK (inclusive of Northern Ireland). Exports to the United States include alcoholic beverages, chemicals and related products, electronic data processing equipment, electrical machinery, textiles and clothing, and glassware. According to Ireland's Central Statistical Office, Irish exports to the United States from January to September 2006 rose by 7% compared to the same period in 2005, while Irish imports from the United States from January to September 2006 fell by 14% compared to the same period in 2005.

U.S. investment has been particularly important to the growth and modernization of Irish industry over the past 25 years, providing new technology, export capabilities, and employment opportunities. As of year-end 2006, the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment in Ireland stood at $84 billion, more than double the U.S. total for China and India combined ($31.2 billion). Currently, there are approximately 620 U.S. subsidiaries in Ireland, employing roughly 100,000 people and spanning activities from manufacturing of high-tech electronics, computer products, medical supplies, and pharmaceuticals to retailing, banking, finance, and other services. In more recent years, Ireland has also become an important research and development (R&D) center for U.S. firms in Europe.

Many U.S. businesses find Ireland an attractive location to manufacture for the EU market, since it is inside the EU customs area and uses the euro. In 2005, U.S. firms accounted for 61% of Ireland's total exports of euro 89 billion. Other reasons for Ireland's attractiveness include: a 12.5 percent corporate tax rate for domestic and foreign firms; the quality and flexibility of the English-speaking work force; cooperative labor relations; political stability; pro-business government policies; a transparent judicial system; strong intellectual property protection; and, the pulling power of existing companies operating successfully (a "clustering" effect). Factors that negatively affect Ireland's ability to attract investment include: increasing labor and energy costs (especially when compared to low-cost countries in Eastern Europe and Asia), skilled labor shortages, inadequate infrastructure (such as in the transportation and internet/broadband sectors), and price levels that are ranked among the highest in Europe.
*Nominal GDP (2006): $180.7 billion.
*Real GDP growth (2006): 6%.
*Nominal GDP per capita (2006): $44,500.
*Natural resources: Zinc, lead, natural gas, barite, copper, gypsum, limestone, dolomite, peat.
*Agriculture (3% of GDP): Products--cattle, meat, and dairy products; potatoes; barley; hay; silage; wheat.
*Industry (32% of GDP): Types--food processing, beverages, engineering, computer equipment, textiles and clothing, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, construction.
*Trade (2006): Exports--$119.8 billion (excluding services): machinery, transport equipment, chemicals, food, live animals, manufactured materials, beverages. Imports--$87.4 billion (excluding services): grains, petroleum products, machinery, transport equipment, chemicals, textile yarns. Major suppliers-Great Britain and Northern Ireland 31%, U.S. 11%, Germany 8%, China 7%, Japan 4%, France 3%, rest of the world (including other EU Member States) 36%.

==History==
The earliest inhabitants--people of a mid-Stone Age culture--arrived about 6000 BC. About 4,000 years later, tribes from southern Europe arrived and established a high Neolithic culture, leaving behind gold ornaments and huge stone monuments. The Bronze Age people, who arrived during the next 1,000 years, produced elaborate gold and bronze ornaments and weapons.

The Iron Age arrived abruptly in the fourth century BC with the invasion of the Celts, a tall, energetic people who had spread across Europe and Great Britain in the preceding centuries. The Celts, or Gaels, and their more numerous predecessors divided into five kingdoms in which, despite constant strife, a rich culture flourished.

The coming of Christianity from across the Irish Sea brought major changes and civilizing influences. Tradition maintains that St. Patrick arrived on the island in AD 432 and, in the years that followed, worked to convert the Irish to Christianity.

The pagan druid tradition collapsed before the spread of the new faith, and Irish scholars excelled in the study of Latin learning and Christian theology in the monasteries that flourished. Missionaries went forth from Ireland to England and the continent, spreading news of the flowering of learning, and scholars from other nations came to Irish monasteries. The excellence and isolation of these monasteries helped preserve Latin and Greek learning during the Dark Ages. The arts of manuscript illumination, metalworking, and sculpture flourished and produced such treasures as the Book of Kells, ornate jewelry, and the many carved stone crosses that dot the island.

Two hundred years of Viking invasion and settlement was later followed by a Norman conquest in the 12th century. The Norman conquest resulted in the assimilation of the Norman settlers into Irish society. The early 17th century saw the arrival of Scottish and English Protestants, sent as colonists to the north of Ireland and the Pale around Dublin.

In 1800 the Irish Parliament passed the Act of Union with Great Britain, and Ireland was an official part of the United Kingdom until 1921. Religious freedom, outlawed in the 18th century, was restored in 1829, but this victory for the Irish Catholic majority was overshadowed by a severe economic depression and the great famine from 1846-48 when the potato crop failed. Millions died, and the millions that emigrated spawned the first mass wave of Irish emigration to the United States. A decade later, in 1858, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB--also known as the Fenians) was founded as a secret society dedicated to armed rebellion against the British. An aboveground political counterpart, the Home Rule Movement, was created in 1874, advocating constitutional change for independence.

Galvanized by the leadership of Charles Stewart Parnell, the party was able to force British governments after 1885 to introduce several home rule bills. The turn of the century witnessed a surge of interest in Irish nationalism, including the founding of Sinn Fein ("Ourselves Alone") as an open political movement.

Nationalism was and is a potent populist force in Irish politics. A home rule bill passed in 1914, but its implementation was suspended until war in Europe ended. Believing the mantra: "England's problem is Ireland's opportunity," and tapping into a mood of Gaelic revivalism, Padraic Pearse and James Connolly led the unsuccessful Easter Rising of 1916. Pearse and the other 1916 leaders declared an independent Irish republic, but a lack of popular support doomed the rebellion, which lasted a week and destroyed large portions of Dublin. The decision by the British military government to execute the leaders of the rebellion, coupled with the British Government's threat of conscripting the Irish to fight in the Great War, alienated public opinion and produced massive support for Sinn Fein in the 1918 general election. Under the leadership of Eamon de Valera, the elected Sinn Fein deputies constituted themselves as the first Dail. Tensions only increased: British attempts to smash Sinn Fein ignited the Anglo-Irish War of 1919-1921.

The end of the war brought the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921, which established the Irish Free State of 26 counties within the British Commonwealth and recognized the partition of the island into Ireland and Northern Ireland, though supposedly as a temporary measure. The six predominantly Protestant counties of northeast Ulster--Northern Ireland--remained a part of the United Kingdom with limited self-government. A significant Irish minority repudiated the treaty settlement because of the continuance of subordinate ties to the British monarch and the partition of the island. This opposition led to further hostilities--a civil war (1922-23), which was won by the pro-treaty forces.

In 1932, Eamon de Valera, the political leader of the forces initially opposed to the treaty, became Prime Minister, and a new Irish constitution was enacted in 1937. The last British military bases were soon withdrawn, and the ports were returned to Irish control. Ireland was neutral in World War II. The government formally declared Ireland a republic in 1948; however, it does not normally use the term "Republic of Ireland," which tacitly acknowledges the partition, but refers to the country simply as "Ireland."

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3180.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:Ireland]]

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-09T20:40:59Z

Humblpi: /* Reply */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, maybe you should submit it to ''JPANDS''. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, nevermind... I see it was apparently solved after all. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:It seems to me, (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but ''besides'' all of these young(ish) women being in show business (Hollywood-types) '''and''' being victims of breast cancer, thay all (must have) put their careers before the thought and "action" of having a family. It is a well known factor in risk assessment for BC that delaying childbirth or having an abortion has the likely but (of course) unsought side-effect of breast cancer. The woman so situated usually has the choice to advance her career '''or''' start her family but (often) the one comes at the expense of the other. [[User:MargeryCampbell|MargeryCampbell]] 12:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly right. God bless you for stating what should have been obvious to everyone else on this page. All who commented above on this page, please take note of what Margery Campbell (whom I do not know, but am honored to learn from) has just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

:::But that simply ''doesn't make sense''. Of the first five in the list, one is the '''daughter''' of an actress, and one had two children in her early 20s. Not that this is even relevant - every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you move the goalposts.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 15:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually, Minnie Riperton had two children; Anastacia was the child of an entertainer and an actress; Soraya's mother herself had breast cancer (a cancer known to be strongly hereditary); Aisha Bicknell, daugther of an actress; Ann Jillian had a son; Amanda Mealing has two sons; Kylie Minogue is the daughter of an entertainer; Kate Jackson has a son; Jill Eikenberry has two children; Cynhtia Nixon has two children; Edie Falco is the daughter of an actress; Melissa Etheridge is gay; Julie Ege has two daughters; Shirley Temple had three children: Olivia Newton-John has a daughter; Sheryl Crow is the daughter of musicians.

It seems none of these individuals fit the thesis that is proposed here, and this 'mystery' seems like it doesn't exist, unless some better examples that fir the theory can be found. I vote for deletion unless the argument can be made in some sensible way that is not "because someone says it is so". [[User:GaryK|GaryK]] 16:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

::Knock it off. Andy says it is true, so it must be. all of us should strive to be like MargeryCampbell--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 16:40, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

::Indeed - assertion by Aschafly is better than proper data any day. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:40, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Bird

2008-05-09T16:42:26Z

Humblpi: /* Out-of-date quotes */

This article is a complete and utter disgrace.

Stand back from this, and ask yourselves what is going on here?
If this really is to be used as a resource, i.e. an encyclopaedia, then someone looking up the word 'bird', is looking to find out about birds, and not wanting to get into a discussion of whether or not birds descended from dinosaurs or not. This should have a typology of birds, in to different types, species etc, as well as discussing anatomical details, breeding habits and all sorts of stuff like that. Right at the end, perhaps there could be stuff about bird origins, but taking up 95% of the article, come on!
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 17:27, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:So far, this article has focussed on the supposition by evolutionists that birds and dinosaurs are related. If you can add some facts about birds which have nothing to do with the [[origins debate]], we'd all be happy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::then all the debate stuff should be moved to a page called "Bird-Dinosaur Controversy" or some such. It should not constitute the major part of an article on birds.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 17:42, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is the whole of the "Creationary view" section taken up with creationist critiques of the dinosaur-to-bird hypothesis rather than positive evidence for the "creationary" version of the origin of birds? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 13:08, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
: Probably because nobody's yet written that part. Are you offering? Actually, I think the section is a bit inaccurate in that perhaps only the first quote is to do with dinosaur-to-bird evolution, and the other two are to do with bird evolution regardless of whether it was from dinosaurs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
::No, not offering to write it. Because I don't take a "creationary view" of things, I'm really not qualified. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 10:52, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

==I'm sorry, but...==
This article states that the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs is not supported by ANY scientific data. I'm sorry, but this is plain and simply not true. There is burgeoning evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, though there are some aspects of their physiology that would suggest that birds evolved from thecodonts, the amphibious ancestors of dinosaurs. This is not a matter of liberalism, or conservatism, but a matter of highest scientific truth. Please understand that it is completely detestable to cloud truth, science, and progress due to petty bipartisan bickering. I feel obligated as a budding ornithologist to largely re-write the section of this article concerning the evolution of birds. {{unsigned|BirdEgal202}}
::The article does ''not'' state that there is no scientific data. It says that ''creationists contend that'' there is no scientific data. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:16, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, go ahead and rewrite. Bear in mind that the intro says, "It is commonly believed that birds have evolved from dinosaurs, although this view is disputed by both creationists and some evolutionists." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but the evolutionists who dispute the evolution of birds from dinosaurs believe that they descended from thecodonts. And creationism isn't really science, it doesn't use the scientific method, it's difficult to back up. {{unsigned|BirdEgal202}}
:Creationism is no less scientific than evolutionism. It uses the scientific method just as much, and is just as easy (or hard) to back up as evolution. It's better to refute an opposing view than simply dismiss it as not worthy of refutation.
:However, regardless of that, thanks for your addition to the article, although I will be editing it partly to remove the evolutionary view presented as truth.
:
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:16, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

That's just the thing. Everything I've written is true. I've presented cursorial theory as it is, a theory, and factual evidence that backs it up. For example, {{unsigned|BirdEgal202}}
:Didn't finish writing that?
:Yes, for the most part, you did present it as a theory. Most of my changes to your addition were simply for better wording. The one bit that I did delete outright, "Vertebrates consistently illustrate throughout their history that adaptive behavior probably evolves before anatomy in adapting to new niches and habitats.", was written as a fact yet presupposes the accuracy of the [[radiometric dating]] methods involved, which presupposes the naturalistic worldview.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:00, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Out-of-date quotes ==

I've deleted a hugely out-of-date quote by Ernst Mayr (1942), inserted by Philip J. Rayment. "Missing links" in biological evolution are being discovered all the time and the evolution of different types feathers in theropod dinosaurs (including birds) has now become an excellent example of gradual evolution of complex structures. The same could apply to the "Open Letter" quote from Storrs Olsen, given the very rapid development in theropod paleontology in the last 10 years. Please keep up with the current scientific evidence, especially in such a fast-moving area as this. [[User:JimBob61|JimBob61]] 06:50, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
: I've reinstated the quote, because it's not out of date at all. You are confusing Mayr's objection to how it ''could'' have happened with supposed evidence that it ''did'' happen. If Mayr was saying that there was no evidence, then you would have a point. But he was not saying that, and you've offered nothing to show that the particular point he was making is out of date.
: Storr's letter would only be out of date if he had retracted it, which is not a claim that you've made.
: The issue is not one of keeping up with the ''evidence'', but of keeping up with the prevailing opinions. Nobody has seen a dinosaur evolve into a bird, and nobody has produced a "finely-graded" (Darwin's words) sequence of fossils going from dinosaurs to birds. In other words, even if there really is one or more fossils of dinosaurs with feathers, dinosaurs with feathers are not birds, but dinosaurs with feathers.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry, Philip, but I must disagree. The quote from Mayr says "it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations" - and this is ridiculously out of date as a representation of evolutionary thinking. No evolutionary biologist's credulity is at all strained these days by the notion of random mutations leading to finely balanced systems. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:42, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Bird

2008-05-09T10:34:12Z

Humblpi: /* Evolutionary view */ an --> a

{{taxonomy
|kingdom=Animalia
|image=Grey_Wagtail.jpg
|phylum=Chordata
|class=Aves
}}
A '''Bird''' is a warm-blooded [[egg]]-laying [[vertebrate]] with [[wing]]s and [[feather]]s. For the most part, they fly.
[[Ostrich]]es, [[penguin]]s, and [[emu]]s are birds that don't fly, although penguins have sometimes been said to "fly" underwater. [[Robin]]s, [[sparrow]]s, [[cardinal (bird)|cardinal]]s, and [[eagle]]s are more typical flying birds.
__TOC__
{{clear}}
== Creationary view ==
[[Creationism|Creationists]] contend that birds being descendants of [[dinosaur]]s is unreasonable and is not scientifically supported with any evidence.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird Evolution], chapter 4 of Refuting Evolution.</ref><ref>McIntosh, Andy, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' 26(1):44–48, December 2003.</ref>

Creationary scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding birds being descendants of dinosaurs:

{{QuoteBox|The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the [[dino-to-bird]] advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-[[crocodile]]s. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry: A point by point response to Scientific American], Creation Ministries International</ref>}}

Evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] in 1942 wrote:
{{QuoteBox|It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.<ref>Brown, Walt, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood]</ref>}}

[[Scientific American]] stated:
{{QuoteBox|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp ''Scientific American'' admits creationists hit a sore spot], Answers in Genesis.</ref><ref>Prum, Richard O., and Brush, Alan H., [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American'', March 2003.</ref>}}

Creationist also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed.<ref>Menton, David N., [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" discovery?], Answers in Genesis.</ref>

== Evolutionary view ==
Many scientists claim that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs over 100 million years ago. The most-frequently claimed candidate for a [[transitional form]] is ''[[Archaeopteryx|Archaeopteryx lithographica]]'' which is from the late [[Jurassic]] (about 150 million years ago) of [[Germany]].
There are other claimed transitional fossils <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird</ref> also.

There are many papers in the peer-reviewed science journals such as ''Nature'' and ''Science'' that support the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs. For example:
{{QuoteBox|Several features, including a carinate sternum and reduced fibula, suggest that ''Mononychus olecranus'' is more closely related to modern birds than is ''Archaeopteryx lithographica''. The two skeletons are among the best preserved fossils known of a primitive bird, and emphasize the complexity of the morphological transformation from nonavialian theropods to modern birds. The occurrence of such a primitive bird in the Late Cretaceous reflects the paucity of Mesozoic bird fossils and suggests that the early radiation of avialians is only beginning to be sampled
<ref>''Nature'' 362, 623-626 ([[15 April]] [[1993]])</ref>}}

Almost all evolutionary biologists, with rare exceptions, believe that birds are the only extant group of dinosaurs, a branch of the theropods, which included ''Velociraptor'' and ''Deinonychus''. This view is disputed by [[creationism|creationists]], and also by a few prominent evolutionists, including Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds at the [[National Museum of Natural History]] at the [[Smithsonian Institution]], who said: {{QuoteBox|The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.<ref>Olson, Storrs L., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3385/ Open letter], 1st November, 1999.</ref>}}

Since Olsen's open letter was published in 1999, however, numerous theropod fossils with clear evidence of feathers have been discovered<ref>Göhlich, U.B., and Chiappe, L.M. (2006). "A new carnivorous dinosaur from the Late Jurassic Solnhofen archipelago." Nature, 440: 329-332</ref>, with the result that there is now little doubt about the close relationship of birds, as extant dinosaurs, to the extinct theropod dinosaurs. Birds appear to have split from other dinosaur lineages sometime before the mid-Jurassic, 155-150 million years ago.

=== Taxonomy ===
The conventional [[Linnaean taxonomy]] places birds in the Class Aves within the Subphylum [[Vertebrate|Vertebrata]]. [[Reptilia]], the conventional Class of reptiles, includes [[crocodile]]s and relatives, [[lizard]]s and [[snake]]s, [[turtle]]s, and the [[tuatara]]. However, as birds are now believed to be [[dinosaur]]s, they should be grouped with [[archosaur]]s, including the extant crocodiles and the extinct [[pterosaur]]s. Hence the conventional classification does not reflect the current state of the evolutionary view. [[Zoology|Zoologists]] continue to use Class Aves as the taxonomic group of birds but recognise that it is a sub-group of the Superorder Dinosauria, which in turn is a member of the Archosauria, including crocodiles and the extinct pterosaurs. The higher classification of reptiles (including birds) is not fully resolved but a common view is that current evidence indicates that the archosaurs (including birds) form a group of similar rank to the lepidosaurs, which include lizards, snakes, the tuatara, and the extinct mosasaurs and [[plesiosaur]]s.<ref>Benton, 2004. Vertebrate Paleontology</ref>

===Evolution of flight===

'''Cursorial Theory'''

Proposed in 1879 by [[fossil]] expert [[Samuel Williston]], the Cursorial Theory suggests that the ancestors of birds were ground-dwelling theropods that developed flight through leaping and jumping. Cursorial Theory is no longer popular among scientists, who generally favor the Arboreal "trees down" theory of flight, since taking off from the ground is energetically expensive, thus it is therefore considered unlikely that flapping flight evolved from the ground up.

However, proponents of the Cursorial theory point to the basilisk lizard, which possesses the ability to run on water for a short time to escape predators, yet also has the ability to climb with great agility. The ability to run bipedally is not evident from the basilisk anatomy alone, and this illustrates the plasticity of animal behavior. It is nearly impossible to determine an animal's behavior simply by looking at its anatomy, as animals are capable of behavior beyond what their anatomy would suggest.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Birds]]

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-09T10:14:41Z

Humblpi: /* Reply */ withdraw harsh words, and clarify

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to accept the help that is being offered, that's a pity. The ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia'' really should use trustworthy methods in its analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-09T09:56:37Z

Humblpi: /* Reply */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I’m sorry, Aschlafly, but I really have no idea what you mean. What is obvious? Why do you expect Hollywood types to have a higher incidence of breast cancer? But in any case (as Murray says), the hypothetical causal link is completely irrelevant to the study methods. And you have presented no data that provide any evidence whatsoever whether the incidence in Hollywood is higher, lower, or the same as that in the global population. Various people have pointed out flaws in the methodology. If you are not prepared to listen – well, it’s your website, and you are entitled to make a fool of yourself on it. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-09T09:55:15Z

Humblpi: /* Bias */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, if you wouldn't mind... would you like to pose a possible hypothesis as to what causes this apparent increased rate of breast cancer in Hollywood? What do you think is the explanation to this mystery? I've taken a guess already, although I don't know if I'm on the right track. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:17, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::The answer is obvious. He cannot. Or perhaps he will, after he makes up some "Schlafly statistics."--[[User:Whorton|Whorton]] 22:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually HumblePi is on to another problem that has been overlooked. You should start by defining 'Hollywood Types' before you collect your data not afterwards. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, DanielB, that's not quite true - Mr.Schlafly has agreed that the Control Population is defined as "Global Women 18-45", and the study population is "Global Women 18-45 who are Performers in the Entertainment Business and have been diagnosed with breast cancer", but he has not yet provided figures for the former population - either we are waiting for him to provide these figures, or we are expected to calculate them, I'm not sure. He has however, provided us with the second population, a total of 20 women. However, I believe he needs to be a little more precise, as we need to more clearly define ''when'' these women were diagnosed, how far back in time we must do this study, how long they must have been in the business for, and a few other conditions. We also need a little more information from his as to his theory of causation - I think the suggestion is that somehow 'lifestyle' are involved, in which case we'll need to filter the Control Population for these lifestyle traits - and it's hard to do so without the details of what it is about the lifestyle we are to investigate. Mr.Schlafly? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:40, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::No – the study population cannot have “and have been diagnosed with breast cancer” as part of its definition. You must determine a study population and a control population before you look for breast cancer cases, and both groups must include women who may or may not have BC. The study population is “women in the entertainment industry,” or “Hollywood women.” [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Folks, the comments above are long on talk and insults and short on insights. If none of the above naysayers are even willing to figure out why [[Hollywood]] types are expected to have higher incidence of breast cancer without even having to look at any data, then I'm wasting my time on this page.

In response to the request for a population, by the way, simply take the roughly 100 or so female pop singers (which I think I suggested before).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:It's not legitimate to take those 100 without knowing how the number was determined. Why the reluctance to clarify? And the cause is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the rate is elevated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:The Golden Compass

2008-05-08T16:29:38Z

Humblpi: /* My edit */

The movie was a disappointment to atheists because it toned down the anti-religious message of the book. See [http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4169/ Frank Furedi] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:44, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:They don't have to worry. The director made it clear that he's only doing that with the first movie to get in an young audience, then he's going to unleash the full anti-God diatribe. I feel sorry for those parents who believe they are allowing their children to watch a regular fun kids film. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:47, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::i don't want to seem like of those liberals that always has to get a word in edgewise (even though i ''am'' one of those liberals) but isn't it up to the parents to research the things their children watch instead of letting them jump into something blindly? I'm curious as to what people think.--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 17:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::That's absurd. On that note, I don't remember the death of any god being a major plotpoint. One of the gay angels, yes. Death of a god? Not so much. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:24, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::I'm pretty sure 'God' died, Barikada. There's a whole scene about an incredibly withered, ancient angel slumped on a palanquin. It's just that in that scene, Pullman never mentions Him by name. I actually thought it was quite a clever literary technique - dethroning Him in figurative terms and all that. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Pullman himself discusses his views and why he wrote the books, and it's not just to strike a blow against authoritarianism; this article will not be morphed to say as much. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

==Learntogether==
Please, let's not start an edit war. I understand you want to revert my edits[[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Golden_Compass&diff=448450&oldid=448385]], but can we discuss them here first? Young adult fiction is generally written for readers between 12 and 18 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_adult_literature]. I know we're not big on citing Wikipedia here, but it's not like literary demographics are a controversial subject...
As for Pullman's comments, fair enough - although he says it's an attack on any system in which control is enforced through faith. Perhaps instead of reverting it though, you could simply edit that specific section and add content. So with that in mind, do you think we could revert the reversion of the reversion? :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:29, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:You'll have to convince me that the information you presented was heading towards the direction of truth. The movie DVD has been advertised on Nick, hardly a hotbed for the 12 to 18 year olds. If you've seen the displays with the cute white bears that they add with the movie, that's hardly 12 to 18 either now is it?

:A more appropriate question would be what was lacking from the article as written that needed to be expanded that would still follow what was actually occurring? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
:: The Golden Compass is a novel aimed at 12-18 year olds that has recently been adapted into a film. Perhaps we could compromise on creating a separate subheading discussing the film version (which I agree was aimed at a much broader demographic)?

::I'm not trying to be snarky, but it's my understanding that we accept genuine submissions and then improve on them, not reject them because they don't meet our standards for comprehensiveness. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:55, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Underscoreb asked me to offer some advice here. It appears from the edit comments and the discussion here that the main or only issue is over the target age range, which make me wonder why all the rest was reverted as well. Assuming the facts are correct (e.g. that it has also been published as "Northern Lights"), and ignoring the question of the target age, then I generally prefer Underscoreb's version as providing more (and useful) information.
::: As for the target age range, I'm not sufficiently familiar enough with the book or movie to express a preference, but do wonder if there is much point in being as specific as "12 to 18", even if ''nominally'' that is true. Would it be okay to say "younger readers", or is that too vague?
::: Or is it really necessary to say much about the target range? Parents reading this will be more interested in the content than the target age (i.e. they will likely already have decided whether or not the book or movie suits their children as far as age is concerned).
::: Despite Underscoreb's claim that "young adult" means "12-18 year olds", I would think that most would expect the term to mean from 18 to somewhere in the 20s. Whilst I wouldn't have thought that Wikipedia was particularly biased on this sort of thing, the referenced article does actually seem to contain a fair amount of opinion (e.g. "...it displayed a truer, darker side of young adult life because it was written by a young adult."), and has very few references backing up the content. So I wonder if one can accept what Wikipedia says here, but even if it is correct, I think the term is misleading, as I don't think most would understand it that way.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:44, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks Philip, I appreciate your objectivity. I've made the appropriate edits in what I think is a compromise. By all means feel free to make additional edits, guys, but let's act in good faith and stop with the reversions. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::I already added in appropriate additions. This will not be turned into a "he said she said" with some people think its just an attack against authoritarianism or comparing it to a classic like Paradise Lost. It's not Paradise Lost. In Paradise Found, obtained by killing God or any vestiges of Him. We will not water this down to ignore that. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I enter this discussion in response to Ub's request and after seeing this edit:

:''While some interpret it as a blatant attack on Christianity, others argue that it represents a triumph over authoritarianism''

First of all, I don't see why we have to maintain a stance of neutrality. We are not Wikipedia, and we're not journalists. The author said he's killing God and that ought to settle it. Moreover, even a liberal source like ''[[Newsweek]]'' wrote that "...no one over four feet tall could mistake the Magisterium for anything but an oppressive theocracy."

The author is obviously portraying the Christian Church in the worst possible light. He accuses it of [[authoritarianism]], and so it makes sense for Conservatives to respond to this.

Certainly most churches have a dogma and a top-down governance which cannot be altered democratically. But since people (at least in the English-speaking West) can "vote with their feet" (i.e., join another church) then the label of [[theocracy]] is misapplied. The world in which a theocratic agency kidnaps and tortures children might have described the [[Spanish Inquisition]] centuries ago, but all of Christianity denounces this as an aberration. The closest thing in modern history would be Communism and Nazism.

It's ludicrous to think we have to be "neutral" on questions like:
#Is Pullman talking about the Judeo-Christian God?
#Is Pullman accusing the Christian Church of being authoritarian and/or theocratic?

Let's concentrate on issues like the age range of the target audience. I haven't heard of teenagers or preteens reading the book, because it's not as fun as Harry Potter. But I'm open about that. I'm not open about whether the book is anti-religious. On that score, Pullman couldn't be more blatant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:57, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== My edit ==

Can someone reinstate my edit please? I can't edit the page.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 11:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Honestly this is ridiculous, this is a slapdash article made of up quotes compiled by people who only seem to have second-hand knowledge of the topic.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 11:14, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I have also just come back to this article intending to do a bit more tidying up (e.g., to correct a number of grammatical errors and attempt to organise the material, which at present is scattered unhelpfully). It's a bit annoying to find it locked! If you have a problem with the edits of one editor, surely the right approach is to engage in a discussion, not peremptorily to lock the article. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::For the time being please supply the edits that you feel would be helpful/improvements. Your previous edit was an improvement and I'm guessing other alterations you would wish to make will be as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:56, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, for a start, why is the comment by Quinn Fox given star billing and not listed in an appropriate place alongside the other commentaries? It's surely better to describe the book/film before you start pulling it to pieces. I won't bother to list the numerous typos for you - you can find them yourself or unlock the article so that I can fix them for you. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:The Golden Compass

2008-05-08T16:29:22Z

Humblpi: /* My edit */

The movie was a disappointment to atheists because it toned down the anti-religious message of the book. See [http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4169/ Frank Furedi] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:44, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:They don't have to worry. The director made it clear that he's only doing that with the first movie to get in an young audience, then he's going to unleash the full anti-God diatribe. I feel sorry for those parents who believe they are allowing their children to watch a regular fun kids film. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:47, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::i don't want to seem like of those liberals that always has to get a word in edgewise (even though i ''am'' one of those liberals) but isn't it up to the parents to research the things their children watch instead of letting them jump into something blindly? I'm curious as to what people think.--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 17:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::That's absurd. On that note, I don't remember the death of any god being a major plotpoint. One of the gay angels, yes. Death of a god? Not so much. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:24, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::I'm pretty sure 'God' died, Barikada. There's a whole scene about an incredibly withered, ancient angel slumped on a palanquin. It's just that in that scene, Pullman never mentions Him by name. I actually thought it was quite a clever literary technique - dethroning Him in figurative terms and all that. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Pullman himself discusses his views and why he wrote the books, and it's not just to strike a blow against authoritarianism; this article will not be morphed to say as much. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

==Learntogether==
Please, let's not start an edit war. I understand you want to revert my edits[[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Golden_Compass&diff=448450&oldid=448385]], but can we discuss them here first? Young adult fiction is generally written for readers between 12 and 18 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_adult_literature]. I know we're not big on citing Wikipedia here, but it's not like literary demographics are a controversial subject...
As for Pullman's comments, fair enough - although he says it's an attack on any system in which control is enforced through faith. Perhaps instead of reverting it though, you could simply edit that specific section and add content. So with that in mind, do you think we could revert the reversion of the reversion? :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:29, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:You'll have to convince me that the information you presented was heading towards the direction of truth. The movie DVD has been advertised on Nick, hardly a hotbed for the 12 to 18 year olds. If you've seen the displays with the cute white bears that they add with the movie, that's hardly 12 to 18 either now is it?

:A more appropriate question would be what was lacking from the article as written that needed to be expanded that would still follow what was actually occurring? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
:: The Golden Compass is a novel aimed at 12-18 year olds that has recently been adapted into a film. Perhaps we could compromise on creating a separate subheading discussing the film version (which I agree was aimed at a much broader demographic)?

::I'm not trying to be snarky, but it's my understanding that we accept genuine submissions and then improve on them, not reject them because they don't meet our standards for comprehensiveness. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:55, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Underscoreb asked me to offer some advice here. It appears from the edit comments and the discussion here that the main or only issue is over the target age range, which make me wonder why all the rest was reverted as well. Assuming the facts are correct (e.g. that it has also been published as "Northern Lights"), and ignoring the question of the target age, then I generally prefer Underscoreb's version as providing more (and useful) information.
::: As for the target age range, I'm not sufficiently familiar enough with the book or movie to express a preference, but do wonder if there is much point in being as specific as "12 to 18", even if ''nominally'' that is true. Would it be okay to say "younger readers", or is that too vague?
::: Or is it really necessary to say much about the target range? Parents reading this will be more interested in the content than the target age (i.e. they will likely already have decided whether or not the book or movie suits their children as far as age is concerned).
::: Despite Underscoreb's claim that "young adult" means "12-18 year olds", I would think that most would expect the term to mean from 18 to somewhere in the 20s. Whilst I wouldn't have thought that Wikipedia was particularly biased on this sort of thing, the referenced article does actually seem to contain a fair amount of opinion (e.g. "...it displayed a truer, darker side of young adult life because it was written by a young adult."), and has very few references backing up the content. So I wonder if one can accept what Wikipedia says here, but even if it is correct, I think the term is misleading, as I don't think most would understand it that way.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:44, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks Philip, I appreciate your objectivity. I've made the appropriate edits in what I think is a compromise. By all means feel free to make additional edits, guys, but let's act in good faith and stop with the reversions. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::I already added in appropriate additions. This will not be turned into a "he said she said" with some people think its just an attack against authoritarianism or comparing it to a classic like Paradise Lost. It's not Paradise Lost. In Paradise Found, obtained by killing God or any vestiges of Him. We will not water this down to ignore that. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I enter this discussion in response to Ub's request and after seeing this edit:

:''While some interpret it as a blatant attack on Christianity, others argue that it represents a triumph over authoritarianism''

First of all, I don't see why we have to maintain a stance of neutrality. We are not Wikipedia, and we're not journalists. The author said he's killing God and that ought to settle it. Moreover, even a liberal source like ''[[Newsweek]]'' wrote that "...no one over four feet tall could mistake the Magisterium for anything but an oppressive theocracy."

The author is obviously portraying the Christian Church in the worst possible light. He accuses it of [[authoritarianism]], and so it makes sense for Conservatives to respond to this.

Certainly most churches have a dogma and a top-down governance which cannot be altered democratically. But since people (at least in the English-speaking West) can "vote with their feet" (i.e., join another church) then the label of [[theocracy]] is misapplied. The world in which a theocratic agency kidnaps and tortures children might have described the [[Spanish Inquisition]] centuries ago, but all of Christianity denounces this as an aberration. The closest thing in modern history would be Communism and Nazism.

It's ludicrous to think we have to be "neutral" on questions like:
#Is Pullman talking about the Judeo-Christian God?
#Is Pullman accusing the Christian Church of being authoritarian and/or theocratic?

Let's concentrate on issues like the age range of the target audience. I haven't heard of teenagers or preteens reading the book, because it's not as fun as Harry Potter. But I'm open about that. I'm not open about whether the book is anti-religious. On that score, Pullman couldn't be more blatant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:57, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== My edit ==

Can someone reinstate my edit please? I can't edit the page.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 11:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Honestly this is ridiculous, this is a slapdash article made of up quotes compiled by people who only seem to have second-hand knowledge of the topic.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 11:14, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:I have also just come back to this article intending to do a bit more tidying up (e.g., to correct a number of grammatical errors and attempt to organise the material, which at present is scattered unhelpfully). It's a bit annoying to find it locked! If you have a problem with the edits of one editor, surely the right approach is to engage in a discussion, not peremptorily to lock the article. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::For the time being please supply the edits that you feel would be helpful/improvements. Your previous edit was an improvement and I'm guessing other alterations you would wish to make will be as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:56, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, for a start, why is the comment by Quinn Fox given star billing and not listed in an apropriate place alongside the other commentaries? It's surely better to describe the book/film before you start pulling it to pieces. I won't bother to list the numerous typos for you - you can find them yourself or unlock the article so that I can fix them for you. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:The Golden Compass

2008-05-08T15:35:55Z

Humblpi: /* My edit */

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-08T10:09:51Z

Humblpi: /* Bias */ clarify

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to the same influences. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-08T10:06:25Z

Humblpi: /* Bias */ typo

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to that sort of bias. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a woman of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-08T10:05:33Z

Humblpi: Bias

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Then let's look at the data. Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide. In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched. That's the piece that we're missing here. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters? More than three, less than three? The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not! As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help. But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:

::::A) Total number of young women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' business globally; and
::::B) Total number of those women who have contracted breast cancer.

::::Am I correct? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: This obviously does require orignal research as no one has so far put up a study that is already done. If you are as you say "interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions" then that is what need to do, but this is the problem. You have a list of some names, what you don't have is
:::::# A working definition of 'Hollywood types'
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in that meet your definition of Hollywood type.
:::::# The number of women in the age range you are interested in your definition of Hollywood type who have had breast cancer.
:::::If you had these three things then you would be able to do the test discribed above and be able to draw importatnt conclusions. All you have now is your list, some rather arbitrary and vague numbers, which to be honest, you just made-up based on what you think is right and a hypothesis which is testable which you have not done. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt Aschlafly answer these simple questions?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:47, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One issue that I don't see addressed explicitly enough above (though I may have missed it, in which case apologies) is that of bias. I'll pick out just two sources of bias that (as far as I can see) completly undermine the article:
# What is the source of information on breast cancer cases among "Hollywood types"? It comes from the media, and is therefore heavily influenced by the Hollywood publicity machine and the priorities of the newspapers, TV channels, etc. The control group (the rest of the world, other female residents of California, whatever) is not subject to that sort of bias. Nobody reports a story about "32-year-old housewife dies of breast cancer". The only way to do this comparison is to ignore all information that comes from the media, and use an equivalent data source - which I guess means official epidemiological data - for both Hollywood and control groups.
# The selection of cases in the "Hollywood" group is subject to serious ''selection bias'', because a women of roughly the right age and roughly the right profession is assigned to the group after (and perhaps, one suspects, ''because of'') the diagnosis. You must ''first'' define the population (the denominator) and ''then'' look to see how many of those who are in that population have the condition (the numerator).
I'd be very interested to see (a) the hypothetical causal link between a high incidence of breast cancer and "Hollywood" and (b) some proper data, properly gathered and analysed. Insistence that "it's obvious", and labeling those who ask for evidence as "liberals", is no substitute for a solid hypothesis, hard data, and a proper analysis. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-08T09:37:31Z

Humblpi: Consistent presentation of facts. Delete all those "only"s

The average age of [[diagnosis]] of [[breast cancer]] is 64 years old.<ref>http://breastcancer.lifetips.com/cat/61849/breast-cancer-diagnosis/</ref>

In the [[Hollywood]] culture, however, there have been many tragic cases of breast cancer at far younger ages than expected:

* Australian soap opera star Belinda Emmett, who played in "Home and Away," was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 24.<ref>http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/entertainment/tv/home-and-away-actress-dies-breast-cancer-$457408.htm</ref>
* American singer Minnie Riperton was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 28.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0727986/</ref>
* Singer Anastacia was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 29.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=1666320&page=1</ref>
* Colombian-American singer Soraya was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 31.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-05-11-soraya-obit_x.htm?csp=27</ref>
* [[British]] Aisha Bicknell, daughter of actress Rita Tushingham, was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 33.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/health/2006/08/21/hknack21.xml</ref>
* Puerto Rican actress Adamari López was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 34.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0529982/bio</ref>
* American actress Ann Jillian was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 35.<ref>http://www.meredy.com/annjillian/</ref>
* [[British]] actress Amanda Mealing was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 35.<ref>http://www.holby.tv/db/index.php?id=41,1266,0,0,1,0</ref>
* American actress Danitra Vance was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 36.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0888503/</ref>
* Australian pop star Kylie Minogue was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 36.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/17/entertainment/main695716.shtml</ref>
* American actress Oni Faida Lampley was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 37.<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/oni-faida-lampley</ref>
* American actress Kate Jackson was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 39.
* American actress Jill Eikenberry was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 39.<ref>http://www.holby.tv/db/index.php?id=41,1266,0,0,1,0</ref>
* American actress Katy Cusack died from breast cancer at age 41, and was probably diagnosed with it in her late 30s.<ref>http://www.carolsutton.net/pink/famous_women_died_brcancer.html</ref><ref>http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol15/issue16/arts.articulations.html</ref>
* American actress Cynthia Nixon was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/104294.php</ref><ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0633223/</ref>
* American actress Edie Falco was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004908/bio</ref>
* Singer Melissa Etheridge was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 43.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=1666320&page=1</ref>
* Norwegian actress and nude model Julie Ege was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 43.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0250774/bio</ref>
* American actress [[Shirley Temple]] was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 44.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000073/bio</ref>
* Singers [[Olivia Newton-John]] and [[Sheryl Crow]] were each diagnosed with breast cancer at age 44.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=1666320&page=1</ref>

(add more)

== Risk by age ==

Here is the [[NCI]]'s published levels of risk by age in the [[United States]] (the risk is lower in other countries):<ref>http://www.mdanderson.org/topics/ethnicity/display.cfm?id=ffcc95a9-a03d-11d4-80fa00508b603a14&method=displayfull&pn=c1128f6f-4656-410d-96fa274b12a51d9d</ref>

By age 25: 1 in 19,608
 By age 30: 1 in 2,525
 By age 35: 1 in 622
 By age 40: 1 in 217
 By age 45: 1 in 93
 By age 50: 1 in 50
 By age 55: 1 in 33
 By age 60: 1 in 24
 By age 65: 1 in 17
 By age 70: 1 in 14
 By age 75: 1 in 11
 By age 80: 1 in 10
 By age 85: 1 in 9
 Ever: 1 in 8 (more accurately, 1 in 7.5 in the [[U.S.]])

== Analysis ==

Personal health is generally kept confidential, and there are financial reasons for one not to publicize his or her health problems. The disclosure can cause a loss in jobs or income. This is particularly true for [[Hollywood]] stars who rely on attractiveness and sex appeal. Michael J. Fox, for example, understandably kept his [[Parkinson's disease]] confidential for as long as he could.

But cancellation of appearances for health reasons begs explanations, and the population of [[Hollywood]] stars likely to disclose medical conditions will roughly be the size of those who are active in appearances, shows, movies, etc.

A rough estimate of this population is as follows. In the music world, perhaps there have been 50 women who are active, well-known performers willing to disclose a diagnosis of breast cancer. In the television and movie industry, perhaps there are 450 who fall into that category. The total population from which the above names are drawn is perhaps 500, depending on age.

The list of breast cancers above will grow, but already it is plainly way above the expected occurrence of the disease. For example, there are likely no more than 500 [[Hollywood]] performers under age 30 who would publicly disclose a condition of breast cancer, yet 3 developed breast cancer. But The typical incidence of that disease is only 2 out of 5000. The incidence in [[Hollywood]] appears to be more than 10 times that of the general population. If the population from which the above sample is drawn is twice as high, the incidence in [[Hollywood]] would still be more than 5 times the rate in the general population.

There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group.

(a start - improve)

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Mystery]]

Northern Lights

2008-05-07T12:42:15Z

Humblpi: /* See also */

The '''Northern Lights''' (''Aurora Borealis'') are a kind of phenonemon found in the sky in Alaska, Antarctica, and other Northern places of the [[earth]]. There is a similar phenonemon called the [[Southern Lights]], or Aurora Australis, which is found in the [[Southern Hemisphere]] ([[Australia]] and [[New Zealand]]).

The Northern Lights are similar in tone to [[Saint Elmo's fire]], which often appears on the masts of ships at sea. Sometimes they are accompanied by a buzzing or whistling noise. [[Scientist]]s in the past tended to discount claims of Northern Lights, blaming such stories on drunken [[sailor]]s, [[marsh gas]], or the planet [[Venus]], but these days the Northern Lights are accepted by the [[scientific community]]. This demonstrates the lack of certitude in science. (See [[scientific method]]).

For seeing the Northern Lights, one should travel to Alaska, or maybe to [[Iceland]], known as the "Land of the Midnight Sun" for the great deal of nightly luminance there.

==Scientific Explanation==
The effect is caused the interaction between the solar wind, the Earth's magnetic field and the upper atmosphere. Solar wind is composed of charged particles, so the glancing particles in the particularly strong area of the magnetic field creates what seems like an electrical fireworks display.<ref>[http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/dictionary/index.cfm?Display=Dictionary&Letter=A NASA Dictionary].</ref>

<references/>

==See also==
*[[Meteor]]
*[[Saint Elmo's fire]]
*[[The Golden Compass]] (originally published as ''Northern Lights'')

[[Category:Meteorology]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

The Golden Compass

2008-05-07T12:35:51Z

Humblpi: better phrasing?

'''''The Golden Compass''''' is the first in a trilogy of novels by [[Philip Pullman]] that deals with ultimately tracking down and killing the Judeo-Christian God ("Yahweh" is used in the book). It is promoted as reading for children to teenagers. Recently released in a film adaptation starring [[Nicole Kidman]] and [[Daniel Craig]] it was being advertised during Christmas specials on Lifetime. Plot summary (from [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com]):

*In the epic trilogy [[His Dark Materials]], Philip Pullman unlocks the door to worlds parallel to our own. Dæmons and winged creatures live side by side with humans, and a mysterious entity called Dust just might have the power to unite the universes--if it isn't destroyed first. The three books in Pullman's heroic fantasy series, published as mass-market paperbacks with new covers, are united here in one boxed set that includes The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass. Join Lyra, Pantalaimon, Will, and the rest as they embark on the most breathtaking, heartbreaking adventure of their lives. The fate of the universe is in their hands. (Ages 13 and older)

''The Golden Compass'' was originally published in [[Britain]] under the title ''Northern Lights''. It was retitled for a North American readership.

== Criticism ==
Allegations of an atheist agenda present both in Pullman's writing as well as the film adaptation have been raised by numerous conservative groups. Reporting on the issue has ranged from mainstream news outlets like [[Fox News]] and [[CNN]] to left-leaning blogs like [http://2log.audienceoftwo.com/?blog_id=141 2log]. While Pullman has watered down his rhetoric before the release of his movie, his interviews over the years have not been as guarded. <blockquote> ""I'm a great fan of J.K. Rowling, but the people - mainly from America's Bible Belt - who complain that Harry Potter promotes Satanism or witchcraft obviously haven't got enough in their lives. Meanwhile, I've been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God."<ref>
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/11/philip_pullman_realizes_underm.html</ref></blockquote>

Brian Rittmeyer of the ''Pittsburgh Tribune-Review'' wrote:
*St. Alphonsus Catholic Church in Pine describes the movie as "atheism for kids," and Pullman as a "militant atheist and secular humanist" whose objective is to bash Christianity and "kill God in the minds of children."
*"While 'The Golden Compass' movie itself may seem mild and innocent, the books are a much different story," the church bulletin says. "Each book in the trilogy gets progressively worse regarding Pullman's hatred of Jesus Christ." <ref>http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_541577.html</ref>

It should be noted the books have drawn a level of support from Rowan Williams, the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], who believes the book series by Pullman can be used to help address the "inadequacies" of some religious education courses which only teach pupils about religious festivals, and not the deeper theological issues of Christianity. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/10/npull10.xml</ref> <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml&page=1</ref>.

==Feature film==
The film based on the first book of the trilogy grossed only $25,783,232 its opening weekend,<ref>http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=goldencompass.htm</ref> a disappointment when compared to earlier blockbusters that it was trying to mirror, namely the Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings. Domestically it took in only 70 million all told, far less than the 300 million the other mentioned films each grossed. Worldwide it registered 370 million in gross sales, still far short of the 800 million to 1 million of the blockbusters.

The film originally cost 180 million to make, not counting marketing and distribution costs.

==References==
<References/>

[[Category:Movies]]

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-07T05:38:44Z

Humblpi:

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-04T21:20:40Z

Humblpi: /* An example of why this is fallacious reasoning */

Public school culture

2008-04-29T17:33:05Z

Humblpi: this is utter rubbish, but it would be better if it were at least correctly spelled, grammatical, and reasonably idiomatic rubbish

'''Public school culture''' is a culture fostered in [[public school]] which is characterized by:

* fashion that includes black ([[Goth (subculture)|Goth]]) clothing
* facial piercings and rings, [[tattoo]]s, and male earrings
* [[depressed]] demeanors
* an absence of [[morality|"right" and "wrong"]]; instead, a principal will say someone "made the wrong choice"
* a sense of hopelessness
* a lack of critical thinking about [[liberal]] indoctrination
* [[compulsive profanity]]
* general inability to look someone in the eye
* extreme [[anxiety]]
* feeling that it is funny to be dumb
* being so accustomed to [[censorship]] of ideas that there is genuine surprise when someone actually says something unfamiliar or [[politically incorrect]]
* cluelessness that prayer is censored in [[public schools]] and that teachers' unions are very [[liberal]]
* alcohol and drug abuse
* disrespect for teachers
* bullying
* gang activity
(a start)

Talk:Evolutionist style

2008-04-29T16:30:12Z

Humblpi: migration, homing, and whales

==Darwinism and the Holocaust==

DanH, I wanted to discuss my edit to see if it can be restored. I believe it's been shown that there is a clear link between Darwinism and the Holocaust. This is covered in the Expelled documentary, but it's self evident that Hitler used Darwin's work when he decided to exterminate the Jewish people in order to create a superior race. Moreover, Darwin's own cousin (Galton) invented the field of eugenics, also used by Hitler. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:46, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:Well, maybe it could be reworded a little. It's a valid point but the way it was worded seemed to imply that every person who believes in evolution supports eugenics. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:48, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ok, I'll reword it. Thank you for the constructive criticism! [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:49, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

The scientists who led the cruel experimentation on humans in Nazi Germany were trained in eugenics. One of their leaders had a Ph.D in an evolutionary related field. They all believed in [[survival of the fittest]], and that provided the intellectual justification for their horrific acts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you for your approval, Mr. Schlafly. I look forward to continuing to contribute to this great site! [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Isn't there a bit of a contradiction between "points" 11 and 12? Claiming that theistic evolution is possible while simultaneously refusing to allow the possibility that god exists must be quite a trick. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Evolutionist say so because they know that belief in evolution (theistic or not) will lead them to eventual separation from God. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, so separating man from God is now the actual goal of evolutionary biology? Makes sense, if all that stuff about "creating a coherent naturalistic model of human origins" is just a cover-story for our '''EVIL'''. Are we evolutionists supposed to be getting a commission ''directly'' from Satan for every soul we lead into eternal damnation? All _I_ ever got was a crummy lucite paperweight. I'll have to make a few calls... --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 01:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it, and get more than you bargained for.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

If you are going to draw a link between Evolution and the Holocaust perhaps you should draw a link between Christiananity and the Spanish Inquisition? Its the same logic.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Not so. The Bible does not support anything like the Inquisition. But the [[uniformitarianism]]/[[abiogenesis]]/[[evolution|common-descent]] paradigm does lend theoretical support to eugenics, and no evolutionist can cite any convincing moral prohibition of it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Wheres your proof buddy? I'm sorry but the crusades also lend weight to my argument. Also, if belief in evolution lead to such things why do holocausts based on evolutionary principles not happen nearly as often as religious bloodshed?
In saying that there is nothing about evolution that supports holocaust behaviour unless twisted by a madman. Much like there is nothing in the bible that supports the Inquisition unless twisted by a madman.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:51, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You clearly do not understand the [[Crusades]], or the history of [[Islam]]. Before the Crusades, the Moors conquered [[Spain]] and tried to conquer [[France]]. And you probably never learned how the Muslims provoked the Crusades directly: they destroyed the [[Church of the Holy Sepulcher]].
:I reject your defense of evolution. The evolutionary paradigm makes no ''positive statement'' that ''condemns'' a Hitler or a Sanger or a Mengele. The [[Bible]] says plenty about the sort of activities that the Inquisition represented. That's why [[Martin Luther]] finally nailed his nine precepts to the churchhouse door; he wanted to get back to the Bible and away from off-the-rails tradition.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::O RLY?
::{{cquote|(1 Sam 15:1-3 NIV)
Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. {2} This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. {3} Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"}}
::{{cquote|Exo 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.}}
::{{cquote|Martin Luther [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html The Jews and Their Lies]:
Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer selfglory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.
...
I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated."}}
::Yeah, I can't imagine how ANYONE could get craziness like the Crusades or the Holocaust from words of Love and Peace like those! Some people you just can't reach...
::--[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Look, you have missed my point. An unhinghed person could use evolution for justification for their actions just as easily as an unhinged person could use religion to justify flying aeroplanes into buildings. Evolution is science. Its like your saying "astronomy makes no ''positive statement' that ''condemns'' a Hitler".
Pffffft dont know why I bother because you'll come back with the same empty rehtoric about evolution bad this and god is the best that.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
== Is Evolution Truly Scientific? ==
:All right, [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]], pay attention: You have just proved the point, made by [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] and myself, about the "evolutionist style." You keep saying that "evolution is science"—and by "evolution" I mean here the full paradigm of [[uniformitarianism]], [[Big Bang]] cosmology, [[abiogenesis]], and "common descent from one ancestor."
:So let's talk. How do we know that sedimentary rock in a canyon wall takes "millions of years" to deposit? All we've ever had is Sir [[Charles Lyell]]'s word on that. He was a far better rhetorician than he was a scientist. He set the tone, and people like you are following right along with him in browbeating everybody into accepting a proposition with little or no supporting evidence.
:And while we're at it, let's talk about the Big Bang, and all the rest of deep-space [[astronomy]]. What's this [[dark matter]] and [[dark energy]] we keep hearing about? Back in the nineteenth century, and the beginning of the twentieth, astronomers tried to lay that "dark matter" trick on the world once before—they invented a "planet" named [[Vulcan (planet)|Vulcan]] (not to be confused with the fictitious world in the constellation Eridanus) to explain a precession in the orbit of the [[planet]] [[Mercury]] that exceeded anything that they could account for. They didn't even bother to explain how this planet Vulcan could remain undetected even by the ancients when it would have had a shorter year than the earth and thus couldn't stay on the far side of the sun all the time. Then [[Albert Einstein]] showed everybody a second-order correction, and now we never hear about any such planet anymore.
:Or don't we? The hypothesized planet Vulcan was the first "dark matter" object that any astronomer tried to get the world to accept, and it wasn't the last. Today we hear about dark matter, and dark ''energy'', all the time. Why? Because the Big Bang model is full of holes big enough to shoot a space probe through, that's why. And now we hear that people are spending billions of dollars to try to detect something called the "Higgs boson," an alleged dark-matter elementary particle.
:Prediction: any such finding will be incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Because we can explain the cosmos quite nicely, thank you, without resorting to dark matter ''or'' dark energy. The trouble is that the explanation posits that our galaxy is at the center of the universe (a thing [[Edwin Hubble]] knew perfectly well but refused to admit), the universe ''did'' expand greatly (an expansion of space itself) at its beginning, the expansion has now stopped—and by Earth-bound clocks the expansion occurred, and then stopped, about six thousand years ago.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Funny thing, Terry--the scientists '''threw those theories out''' when the evidence disproved them sufficiently. That's how science works. Unlike religion, which is why one gives us computers and space flight, and the other gives us Inquisitions. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::For some science that is true, Gulik, but scientists these days hold onto things like Global Warming, the Big Bang, and Evolutionism with a near religious fervor despite the fact that these hypotheses are unproven and often disproven. Believe me, when they can't find the Higgs Boson, they'll just say "Oh well, we just need a bigger supercollider." And then we see a billion more in wasted taxpayer dollars. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:43, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:This should probably go to one of our [[Debate Topics]], but here's my 2 cents: If a good idea is warped by madmen, we keep the good idea and criticize the madness. When a false idea is used by madmen to justify mass murder, we criticize both their madness and the false idea that used for justification. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Until that debate page is created, see my [[Essay: Evolution Is More Vulnerable than Ever|essay]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

=== ET phone home? ===
If it wasnt for people 'wasting' billions you wouldnt have your PC, your microwave, your fridge to chill your beer etc etc. This anti-science stuff is funny when you consider the irony.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:05, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:ROFL. And how did Project [[SETI]] give us integrated circuits, microwave cooking, ''or'' refrigeration? Refrigeraion predates that project—and the other two things you mentioned owe more to [[Project Apollo]] than to any other project. (Oh, and BTW, I don't imbibe [[alcoholic drink]]s or any other intoxicating beverage.)
:Of course, you missed the point of why I said that Project SETI is a waste of time: it's because they're looking for something, or rather someone, who cannot possibly exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::Because the Bible doesn't mention them? Last I checked, some other things the Bible doesn't mention anywhere: Microbes, North and South America, Space-time distortion in gravity fields, DNA, internal combustion engines, radioactivity, eyelash mites, the planet Neptune, heat vent worms, and democracy. Should we conclude they don't exist, either? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 02:09, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Concerning ET's: Not only because the Bible fails to mention them, but because their presence would contradict the purpose of [[Jesus Christ]]'s visit to [[earth]]. And also because no serious astronomer, when pressed, would be able to give an answer that could hold up to the question of where ET could come from. FYI, our [[Sun]] is in the middle of a thin "habitable ring" that is probably not much wider than the span between the perigalacticon and apogalacticon of the Sun vis-à-vis the [[Galaxy]]. Further to that, we're in a sparsely populated zone and hence not subject to lethal doses of ionizing radiation from neighboring stars. And don't go looking to [[Alpha Centauri]], either—that's a double star, and rocky planets cannot be habitable in double-star systems. (Again, too many rads.) In sum, ours is an extra-special star in an extra-special place in an extra-special galaxy, made [[anthropic principle|just for us]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:09, 19 April 2008
::::From the theological aspect, I think C. S. Lewis wrote some interesting fiction assuming that Earth was the only planet where the Fall happened--the aliens were JUST FINE until humans went and messed things up for them. As for the habitability zone, don't assume that life can't possibly exist anywhere just because it would be uncomfortable to your grandmother. Remember those heat-vent worms I mentioned? Their preferred ecological niche is around volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean, in ''boiling sulfuric acid'' at pressures that would crush wimps like you or me flat.
::::Marvelous stuff, nature. It's part of why I find most religion's "supernatural" so unconvincing--it's not even as weird as the things we KNOW exists. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:43, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::# Don't confuse allegory (and fiction!) with legitimate scientific modeling.
:::::# We have by now established that Mars and Venus are uninhabited.
:::::# You haven't even begun to build a model for extremophilic intelligent life forms.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:12, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

(EDT){{cquote|Pay no attention to the man working the muppet waldoes! The Great ET has spoken!}}

I would interested to know how you know that other species in the universe cannot possibly exist. Hahahahaha.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:24, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:This (yawn) is getting (yawn) so (yaw-w-w-wn) tiresome, but...
:Read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|first-ever essay]] for details.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:31, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

You are quite the expert Terry. You should hit the lecture circuit.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:33, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:42, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== migration, homing, and whales ==

"Deliberate ignorance about phenomena that evolution cannot explain, such as remarkable migration and homing, or the existence of the whale"? '''What?''' I can provide perfectly good evolutionary explanations for all of these. Do you really want me to do so? Or should this line simply be deleted from the article? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Edinburgh

2008-04-28T11:35:10Z

Humblpi: /* Education */ oops - spelling again

'''Edinburgh''' is the capital of [[Scotland]]. There is controversy over the origins of the name Edinburgh, which may derive from King Edwin of Northumbria (Edwins-burgh, burgh being the Northumbrian and later [[Scots]] word for fort or town) or from the earlier Gaelic 'Dún Eideann' (Fort of Edwin).

Edinburgh has a population of around half a million souls. It is the home of the [[Scottish Parliament]] at [[Holyrood]], the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the world's largest annual arts festival, the [[Edinburgh International Festival]].

== The City and Its People ==

The city is also a centre of banking, commerce, education, and food processing. Natives of Edinburgh are called 'Edinburgers'.

== Education ==

There are three universities in Edinburgh - the University of Edinburgh (1583), Heriot Watt University (1965) and Napier University (1992). The city also has many notable private schools including Fettes College (the ''[[alma mater]]'' of [[Tony Blair]]), George Watson's College, George Heriot Academy, Loreto College and the Marcia Blaine School for Girls. The school on which the [[St Trinian's]] films were based (St Trinnean's School) is also in Edinburgh.

== Sport ==

Edinburgh has two football clubs; Hibernian FC (nickname: the Hibees) and Heart of Midlothian FC (nickname: the Jambos). Both play in the Scottish Premier League. The famous author Sir [[Walter Scott]] wrote a novel ''The Heart of Midlothian'' based around the early days of the club and its founder Vladimir Romanov, an exile from Tsarist [[Russia]] and boyfriend of the author [[Alexander Pushkin]]. Rugby is also popular,especially amongst the homosexual community.

== Culture ==

[[Paganism]] is still practiced in Edinburgh. Every 30th April sees the Pagan Beltane Fire Festival conducted on Calton Hill near Edinburgh City Centre where sacrifices (human and animal) are offered by the actor Christopher Lee.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6610507.stm</ref>

== Famous natives of Edinburgh ==

*[[Sean Connery]] (actor)
*Irvine Welsh (author)
*Les McKeown (classical musician)
*[[James Connolly]] (trade unionist and Irish political agitator)
*Tam Paton (child psychologist)
*John Leslie (television presenter)
*[[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle]] (author)
*[[Robert Louis Stevenson]] (author)
*Ian Rankin (author)
*[[Walter Scott]] (author)
*James Clerk Maxwell (physicist)
*[[James Hutton]] (geologist)
*John Napier (mathematician)
*[[David Hume]] (philosopher)
*[[Adam Smith]] (philosopher and economist)
*[[Tony Blair]] (politician and entertainer)
*[[Malcolm Rifkind]] (politician)

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scottish Cities and Towns]]

Edinburgh

2008-04-28T11:34:43Z

Humblpi: /* Education */ spelling

'''Edinburgh''' is the capital of [[Scotland]]. There is controversy over the origins of the name Edinburgh, which may derive from King Edwin of Northumbria (Edwins-burgh, burgh being the Northumbrian and later [[Scots]] word for fort or town) or from the earlier Gaelic 'Dún Eideann' (Fort of Edwin).

Edinburgh has a population of around half a million souls. It is the home of the [[Scottish Parliament]] at [[Holyrood]], the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the world's largest annual arts festival, the [[Edinburgh International Festival]].

== The City and Its People ==

The city is also a centre of banking, commerce, education, and food processing. Natives of Edinburgh are called 'Edinburgers'.

== Education ==

There are three universities in Edinburgh - the University of Edinburgh (1583), Heriot Watt University (1965) and Napier University (1992). The city also has many notable private schools including Fettes College (the ''[[alma mater]]'' of [[Tony Blair]]), George Watson's College, George Heriot Academy, Loreto College and the Marcia Blaine School for Girls. The school on which the [[St Trinian's]] films were based (St Trinnean's School) is also in Edniburgh.

== Sport ==

Edinburgh has two football clubs; Hibernian FC (nickname: the Hibees) and Heart of Midlothian FC (nickname: the Jambos). Both play in the Scottish Premier League. The famous author Sir [[Walter Scott]] wrote a novel ''The Heart of Midlothian'' based around the early days of the club and its founder Vladimir Romanov, an exile from Tsarist [[Russia]] and boyfriend of the author [[Alexander Pushkin]]. Rugby is also popular,especially amongst the homosexual community.

== Culture ==

[[Paganism]] is still practiced in Edinburgh. Every 30th April sees the Pagan Beltane Fire Festival conducted on Calton Hill near Edinburgh City Centre where sacrifices (human and animal) are offered by the actor Christopher Lee.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6610507.stm</ref>

== Famous natives of Edinburgh ==

*[[Sean Connery]] (actor)
*Irvine Welsh (author)
*Les McKeown (classical musician)
*[[James Connolly]] (trade unionist and Irish political agitator)
*Tam Paton (child psychologist)
*John Leslie (television presenter)
*[[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle]] (author)
*[[Robert Louis Stevenson]] (author)
*Ian Rankin (author)
*[[Walter Scott]] (author)
*James Clerk Maxwell (physicist)
*[[James Hutton]] (geologist)
*John Napier (mathematician)
*[[David Hume]] (philosopher)
*[[Adam Smith]] (philosopher and economist)
*[[Tony Blair]] (politician and entertainer)
*[[Malcolm Rifkind]] (politician)

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scottish Cities and Towns]]

Edinburgh

2008-04-28T11:33:50Z

Humblpi: /* Education */

'''Edinburgh''' is the capital of [[Scotland]]. There is controversy over the origins of the name Edinburgh, which may derive from King Edwin of Northumbria (Edwins-burgh, burgh being the Northumbrian and later [[Scots]] word for fort or town) or from the earlier Gaelic 'Dún Eideann' (Fort of Edwin).

Edinburgh has a population of around half a million souls. It is the home of the [[Scottish Parliament]] at [[Holyrood]], the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the world's largest annual arts festival, the [[Edinburgh International Festival]].

== The City and Its People ==

The city is also a centre of banking, commerce, education, and food processing. Natives of Edinburgh are called 'Edinburgers'.

== Education ==

There are three universities in Edinburgh - the University of Edinburgh (1583), Heriot Watt University (1965) and Napier University (1992). The city also has many notable private schools including Fettes College (the ''[[alma mater]]'' of [[Tony Blair]]), George Watson's College, George Heriot Academy, Loreto College and the Marcia Blaine School for Girls. The school on which the [[St Trinian's]] films were based (St Trennean's School) is also in Edniburgh.

== Sport ==

Edinburgh has two football clubs; Hibernian FC (nickname: the Hibees) and Heart of Midlothian FC (nickname: the Jambos). Both play in the Scottish Premier League. The famous author Sir [[Walter Scott]] wrote a novel ''The Heart of Midlothian'' based around the early days of the club and its founder Vladimir Romanov, an exile from Tsarist [[Russia]] and boyfriend of the author [[Alexander Pushkin]]. Rugby is also popular,especially amongst the homosexual community.

== Culture ==

[[Paganism]] is still practiced in Edinburgh. Every 30th April sees the Pagan Beltane Fire Festival conducted on Calton Hill near Edinburgh City Centre where sacrifices (human and animal) are offered by the actor Christopher Lee.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6610507.stm</ref>

== Famous natives of Edinburgh ==

*[[Sean Connery]] (actor)
*Irvine Welsh (author)
*Les McKeown (classical musician)
*[[James Connolly]] (trade unionist and Irish political agitator)
*Tam Paton (child psychologist)
*John Leslie (television presenter)
*[[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle]] (author)
*[[Robert Louis Stevenson]] (author)
*Ian Rankin (author)
*[[Walter Scott]] (author)
*James Clerk Maxwell (physicist)
*[[James Hutton]] (geologist)
*John Napier (mathematician)
*[[David Hume]] (philosopher)
*[[Adam Smith]] (philosopher and economist)
*[[Tony Blair]] (politician and entertainer)
*[[Malcolm Rifkind]] (politician)

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scottish Cities and Towns]]

Liberal bias

2008-04-25T18:15:08Z

Humblpi: /* The Media Confronts Liberal Bias */ add one to the list

[[Image:Stossel.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|[[John Stossel]]]]
'''Liberal bias''' is partisan support for [[liberal]] positions or policies. This bias pervades encyclopedias, periodicals and [[broadcast media]], and the Internet. It is expressed by reporters and other journalists in mainstream media and by teachers in [[public school]] and in many private schools.{{fact}} It includes techniques such as [[placement bias]], [[photo bias]] and [[liberal style]]. There is a difference between being liberal, having a liberal perspective, and having a liberal bias.

In the absence of clear rules to prevent the bias, it will often occur due to:
*political correctness
*a tendency to exaggerate and deceive to attract attention
*a reliance on obscenity to attract attention
*an attempt to be "consistent" by treating men and women alike
*where images are used, an obsession with race

==The Media Confronts Liberal Bias==
[[Ann Coulter]] wrote:
*To obscure the overwhelming liberal dominance of the media, the few designated media "[[conservatives]]" are cited tirelessly in testimonies to the [[ideological]] diversity in the nation's [[newsroom]]s. Democrats in the media are [[editors]], national [[correspondent]]s, [[news anchor]]s, and [[reporter]]s. Republicans in the media are "from the right" [[polemic]]ists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth. Republican views must be accompanied by a conspicuous warning: "[[Partisan]] Conservative Opinion Coming!" [[Neutral]] news slots are reserved for Democrats exclusively. "Balance" is created by having a liberal host a debate between a liberal and a moderate Republican. <ref>''[[Slander (book)|]]'', P. 60</ref>

Although many prominent liberal journalists and teachers deny being biased - or indeed that liberal bias exists at all in the media - same have freely admitted it (e.g., [[Andy Rooney]]).{{fact}}

[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.]] has denied the the New York Times has a [[liberal]] viewpoint and has stated the New York Times has an "urban" viewpoint.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> However, in the summer of 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, published a piece on the Times' liberal bias and cited the example of their coverage of [[Homosexuality and Marriage|homosexual marriage]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> In regards to the [[Western World]], although the New York Times has a particularly heavy bias when it comes to the [[homosexuality]] issue, the New York Times is not unusual in regards to the media having a liberal bias when it comes to the subject of homosexuality; see [[Homosexuality in the Media]]. [[John Stossel]] is an author, consumer reporter, and a co-anchor for the [[ABC News]] show [[20/20]]. [[Cybercast News Service]] states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and [[Washington Post]]:
{{cquote|While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.

"The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he [John Stossel] said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200401/CUL20040128a.html</ref>}}

[[Image:Liberal Bias.png|none|500px]]
'''The following persons, organizations, television programs or media outlets have well known liberal bias:'''

* ''[[The New York Times]]'' <ref>Reporters and editors today are overwhelmingly liberal politically, as studies of the attitudes of key members of the press have repeatedly shown. Should you doubt these findings, recall the statement of Daniel Okrent, then the public editor at the New York Times. Under the headline, "Is the New York times a Liberal Newspaper?," Mr. Okrent's first sentence was, "Of course it is." [http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009203] </ref>
* [[ABC]], [[CBS]] <ref>Townhall.com, [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2001/12/04/enabling_media_bias Enabling media bias], Marvin Olasky, December 4, 2001.</ref>
* [[Dan Rather]] <ref>During a phone conversation, [[Bernard Goldberg]] asked him, "What do you consider the ''New York Times''? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." (''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]'', page 221)</ref>
* [[CNN]]
* [[NBC]] News
* [[LA Times]]
* [[Michael Moore]]
* [[The Daily Show]]
* [[Real Time]] with [[Bill Maher]]
* The [[United Nations]]
* [[Washington Post]]
* [[MSNBC]]
* [[BBC]]

==U.S. Universities==

Liberal bias is everywhere on American university campuses. Leftist professors dominate the universities.{{fact}} "Because of this slant, it is virtually impossible for political balance in our universities and, as a result, the curriculum, the culture, the values, the atmosphere and the underlying currents of thought resemble indoctrination." <ref>[http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/4134_2453.pdf?PHPSESSID=14d1b6b722914bc403636c401f9792ee Universities' liberal bias is real], Fred Singer, [[Denver Post]], January 29, 2003</ref>

"College faculties are not only mostly liberal, but lean even further to the left than conservatives have imagined."
<ref>[http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1809 Liberal bias in colleges bleeds into classroom], Cal Thomas, [[Townhall]], March 31, 2005</ref>

"The political tilt on campuses is decidedly to the left. If you're looking for balance, you're not going to find it."
<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3514.html Liberal Bias on Campus], John Eberhard, [[Intellectual Conservative]], June 18, 2004</ref>

Even the students admit the liberal bias. "Here at Columbia, as at most top universities, we enjoy belittling conservative beliefs."
<ref>[http://www.columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/27969 Liberal Bias is A-OK], J.D. Porter, Columbia Spectator, November 9, 2007</ref>

==Media==

===Associated Press===

AP has a consistent anti-police bias, for example, referring to "the 50-shot killing of an unarmed groom-to-be on his wedding day". Their article is designed to create sympathy for a person who talked and acted like he had a [[gun]] and then resisted arrest. The AP account reads more like an [[editorial]] than a straight [[news story]]. It is not until 400 words into the story that you read the judge's reason for acquitting the accused cops. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_re_us/police_shooting]

===CBS News===
[[Image:Bio-pic.jpg|right|thumb|180px|[[Bernard Goldberg]]]]
CBS insider [[Bernard Goldberg]] wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled ''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]''.
*He asserts that an ''"inability to see liberal views as liberal views ... is at the heart of the entire problem."''
*He wrote: "[[Pauline Kael]], for years the brilliant film critic at the ''New Yorker'', was completely baffled about how [[Richard Nixon]] could have beaten [[George McGovern]] in 1972: 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' Never mind that Nixon carried 49 states. She wasn't kidding." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222-223)</ref>

Goldberg also suggested liberals don't even see their liberal values as "liberal":
*"Their views on all the big social issues ... aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with ..." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222)</ref>

During the [[Vietnam War]], the [[Soviet Union]] was the principal ally of [[Communist ]] North Vietnam, providing weapons and training in what was a major conflict of the [[Cold War]] that took 58,000 American lives.{{fact}} ''CBS Evening News with [[Walter Cronkite]]'' regularly carried news reports from its [[Moscow]] Bureau Chief, [[Bernard Redmont]]. When peace negotiations commenced with North Vietnam in Paris, Redmont became ''CBS News'' [[Paris]] Bureau Chief. What Redmont never reported during the ten year conflict was, Redmont had been a [[KGB]] operative since the 1930s, and member of the notorious [[Silvermaster group]]. <ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/11581.html KGB file 43173 vol. 2 (v) pp. 46-55], Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949. Original document from KGB Archives [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page46.html].</ref> Redmont was the only journalist to whom his fellow [[Comintern]] party member, and North Vietnamese chief negotiator, Mai Van Bo, granted an interview to bring the Communist point of view into American living rooms in what has been called, "the living room war.{{fact}}"

===New York Times===
[[Image:Arthursulzbergerjr.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur Sulzberger Jr.]]]]
Peter D. Feaver of the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' noted on the sixth anniversary of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]] that [[MoveOn.org]] ran a full-page advertisement in the ''[[New York Times]]'' accusing General [[David Petraeus]] of activities befitting a traitor. The advertisement alleges, without [[evidence]], that Petraeus would not give an honest, professional assessment of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. Feaver noted, "The MoveOn.org ad is vicious ... a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his [[credibility]] as possible...part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the [[Iraq war]], and was foreshadowed by an unnamed [[Democratic]] senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful [[special interest]]s, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/ MoveOn's McCarthy moment], By Peter D. Feaver, ''Boston Globe'', September 11, 2007.</ref> Within a day it was discovered the ''New York Times'' gave MoveOn.org a “hefty discount” for its ad questioning Petraeus’ integrity. According to the director of public relations for the ''New York Times'', “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.” A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed that the [[liberal activist group]] paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad], Charles Hurt, ''New York Post'', September 13, 2007.</ref>

=== Media Bias===

A 2005 report<ref>[http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS] </ref> by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo political scientists at UCLA concluded that, based on estimated ideological scores, all of the news
outlets they examined, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, showed a strong liberal bias (scores to the left of the average member of Congress). Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
<blockquote>
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." <ref>http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664</ref>
</blockquote>

===Vision of the anointed===
[[Image:Thomassowell.jpg‎|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Thomas Sowell]]]]
Economist [[Thomas Sowell]] in his book published in 1996, ''The Vision of the Anointed'', discusses the anointed vision of liberals and liberalism to promote their agenda, and control the writing of history and the national consciousness.

Desperate evasions of discordant evidence, and the denigration and even demonizing of those presenting such evidence, are indicative of the high stakes in contemporary [[culture war]]s, which are not about alternative policies but [[Values clarification|alternative worlds]] and of alternative roles of liberals in these worlds. Opponents must be shown to be not merely mistaken but [[moral]]ly lacking. This approach replaces the intellectual discussion of arguments by the moral extermination of persons. This denigration or [[demonizing]] of those opposed to their views not only has the desired effect of discrediting the opposition but also has the unintended effect of cutting off the path of retreat from positions which become progressively less tenable with the passage of time and the accumulation of discordant evidence. The very thought that those dismissed as simplistic or maligned might have been right–even if only on a single issue–is at best galling and potentially devastating. Their last refuge in this situation are their good intentions.

For liberals, it is desperately important to win because their whole sense of themselves is at stake. Given the high stakes, it is not hard to understand the all-out attacks of liberals on those who differ from them and their attempts to stifle alternative sources of values and beliefs, with [[Hate speech|campus speech codes]] and ‘[[political correctness]]’ being prime examples of a spreading pattern of [[taboo]]s. Here they are not content to squelch contemporary voices, they must also silence history and traditions–the national memory–as well. This too is a larger danger than the dangers flowing from particular policies.

History is the memory of a nation–and that memory is being erased by historians enthralled by liberalism. Open disdain for mere facts has been accompanied by adventurous reinterpretations known as ‘revisionist’ history. This is all yet another expression of the notion that [[Moral relativism|reality is optional]].

A very similar development in the law treats the Constitution as meaning not what those who wrote it meant, but what one small segment of the public today wants it to mean. This is the ‘[[living constitution]]’ of ‘evolving standards,’ reflecting what ‘thinking people’ believe. The law itself has been prostituted to the service of [[ideological]] crusades. The social cohesion that makes civilized life possible has been loosened by the systematic undermining of families and of commonly shared values and a common culture. <ref>Thomas Sowell, [http://www.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Lewis/ba2350tlVisionoftheAnointedShortVersion.pdf ''The Vision of the Anointed''], New York: Basic Books, 1996.</ref>

{{Examples of liberal bias}}

==External links==

*[http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2admissions.asp Media Bias Basics] - Admissions of Liberal Bias

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Liberal bias|Examples of liberal bias from previous "Breaking News" articles]]
*[[More News/Liberal Bias|Articles about '''Liberal Bias''' from "More News"]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Media]]
*[[Conservative bias]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

{{liberalism}}
[[category:politics]]
[[Category: Deceit]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

The God Delusion

2008-04-24T13:40:15Z

Humblpi: /* Arguments for God's Existence */ this is a brief summary - criticism comes later in the article

'''''The God Delusion''''' is a book by the [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]], in which he attempts to show that belief in [[God]] is irrational.

Dawkins' main objectives are to convince his readers that the existence of [[God]] or any other [[deity]] is highly unlikely, that the Bible is incoherent, that [[morality]] does not come from [[religion]], and that if religion does effect morality, it only does so negatively.

Critics have called the book "surprisingly intolerant".<ref>{{cite book | quote=For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe. | publisher=Publishers Weekly | title=The God Delusion | year=2006 | month=August | url=http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004 | }}</ref>

Dawkins also intends to teach that atheists can live happy, intelligent, lives—perhaps even happier lives than religious people. He asserts that atheists do not do evil things in the name of [[atheism]], while [[religion|religious]] people have been known to commit atrocities in the name of their religion.

==Chapters==

=== Deeply Religious Non-Believer===
Dawkins attempts to establish [[Albert Einstein]] as an avowed atheist, and to prove that religion is unworthy of any respect.

===The God Hypothesis===
Dawkins explains the different kinds of religion, including the divide between [[Monotheism]] and [[Polytheism]]. He also asserts viciously that the founding fathers of the [[United States of America]] were nonreligious. He continues to explain [[Secularism]], [[Agnosticism]], and some basic assertions of the religious.

===Arguments for God's Existence===
Dawkins summarizes some common [[proof]]s for God and attempts to debunk them.

===Why There Almost Certainly is No God===
Dawkins gives his reasons for believing that God is about as likely as "[[fairy|fairies]] living under his garden", and asks the fallacious question of where God came from.

===The Roots of Religion===
Dawkins gives and explains some thoughts about the origins of religion that have been proposed by atheists, trying to undermine the [[Christianity|church]].

===The Roots of Morality: Why are We Good?===
Dawkins explains why he believes that morality "evolved" from [[animal]]s.

===The 'Good' Book and the Changing [[Moral Zeitgeist]]===
Dawkins suggests that morality does not come from religion, but rather a changing moral ''Zeitgeist''.

===What's Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?===
Dawkins shows why he believes that religion is [[evil]] and repressive, and must be stopped.

===Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion===
Dawkins explains why he believes that religion is a form of "[[child abuse]]", and that the scars from the "indoctrination" last into [[adult]]hood and even the child's entire life.

===A Much Needed Gap?===
Dawkins concludes his book on a more positive level, giving inspiration to those whom he may have convinced to "de-convert" from their religion.

==Criticism==
''The God Delusion'' has been subject to a great deal of criticisms from the religious and the non-religious alike.

===Andrew Brown: Prospect Magazine===
{{Cquote|
"It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works."<ref>http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803</ref>
}}
Andrew Brown of Prospect Magazine was unimpressed by Dawkins' book. Brown calls atheism "unnatural" and points out that many atheists were violent in their belief (or lack thereof), citing Stalin killing members of the clergy.

Brown also attacks Dawkins' argument that suicide bombers are caused by religious schools. While Dawkins states that if these children were not taught what he calls "faith without question", suicide bombings would not be an issue. Brown, however, says that religion is not a necessity in suicide bombings. He points out that it is a tactic used by Marxists in Sri Lankav.

===Marilynne Robinson: Harper's Magazine===
<blockquote>
"There is a pervasive exclusion of historical memory in Dawkins's view of science. Consider this sentence from his preface, which occurs in the context of his vision of a religion-free world: 'Imagine . . . no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers.'"<ref>http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20</ref>
</blockquote>

Robinson's major complaints about ''The God Delusion'' lie in how sheerly false the book is in many aspects. Although Dawkins claims that "the majority of us believe in free speech", she points out that most countries do not, pointing out that [[China]] (population 1.3 billion<ref>http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/chinapopulation.htm</ref>) does not. In her review, Robinson basically says that Dawkins purposefully ignored important parts of history in his attempt to convince his readers. "It's a shame," she says, "to see him reduced to one long argument from professorial incredulity."

===Terry Eagleton: London Review of Books===
<blockquote>
"Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins [...] are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding."
</blockquote>

===Alister McGrath: The Dawkins Delusion?===
''The Dawkins Delusion?'' is a response to Dawkins' ''The God Delusion'' by [[Alister McGrath]].

== Quotes from ''The God Delusion'' ==
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
::-Chapter 2

"I am one of an increasing number of biologists who see religion as a ''by-product'' of something else."
::-Chapter 5

"By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, [[evolution]]) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence... Books about evolution are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence."
::-Chapter 8

"... [Moral absolutism] rules the minds of a great number of people in the world today, most dangerously so in the Muslim world and in the incipient American theocracy... Such absolutism nearly always results from strong religious faith, and it constitutes a major reason for suggesting that religion can be a force for evil in the world."
::-Chapter 8

==References==
<references/>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.richarddawkins.net RichardDawkins.net]

{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Books]]
[[category:Atheism]]