Talk:Movember

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Movember article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Facts 2 pfft 3 controversy over copyright/non-profit status? 4 clarification and suggestions 5 clarification and suggestions 6 Rewrote

[edit] Facts

Some of the facts in the wikipedia entry I don't beleive are correct. While Movember may have been independently thought of in a few places, one of the earliest places (if not the first) was actually Adelaide, by a bunch of Adelaide uni students led by Mike Jerudini (sorry Mike on the spelling!) and Nick Goode. There was a news report on seven news in Adelaide, I think it might have been earlier than 1999 (1997 maybe? Cannot recall), and it was filmed at my friends house (Richard Smith) by Seven news reporter Jennifer Ashcroft (Now she is Jennifer Bennett and works for channel 9 in adelaide). That year the motto was 'grow whiskers for whiskers' - we raised a few hundred dollars for the RSPCA. We had the inaugural Mo-ball at the German Arms hotel and everyone turned up as their MOdentity - the character who's moustache they were trying to emulate. The orginal movember website is www.movember.org and is still running

Clarifying the above, Jerudini is spelled Jureidini. The inaugural Mo-Ball was held at the German Club, Adelaide. The news report (referred to on the original Movember website in the Mo Wars section) was actually screened in 1999.

Please ensure that modifications to this page do not merely delete original text for the sake of rewriting history. This is the equivalent of reverting.

I could not find the Movember.com's rules published still. I think it would be useful to include those in parallel to the original rules.

NB. The original Movember website was instrumental in building the starting blocks for the charity event Movember has become (starting in 1999) and its Movember celebrations still run parallel and separate to the charity event. Syscrusher 07:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pfft

Movember has been going on for years all around universities (and probably cricket clubs, footy clubs etc) The first one was not at 'your friends place' in adelaide. This whole page needs to be rewritten, I mean, in a way it is good to spread awareness of etc etc but the charities have hijacked the original concept of movember, and the wikipedia page should reflect this. Disco 12:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] controversy over copyright/non-profit status?

Someone told me they heard about Movember on one of the newsmagazine shows (Today Tonight or A Current Affair) about how Movember only forwards a small pecentage of the donations to the charities, and pays a large royalty to the "copyright holders" of Movember. In other words, the founders are making money off donations to charity, much more than reasonable costs of running the site. Does anyone have any information about this? I've been having trouble locating reliable sources. Jpp42 06:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

---

For the Movember Foundation (that runs the movember.com sites) this page has a brief overview of their financials, including links to obtain a full financial report, which apparently is currently being audited by price waterhouse coopers - http://www.movember.com/au/outcomes/07/Fundraising-Outcomes

---

I too have been told (but not seen) of this report, of which the founders of movember were on. The link shows quite the opposite. So the stats are being fiddled with by someone - who? Movemeber or Today Tonight... Disco (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I work for Movember, as a team leader, and can shed some light on the Today Tonight (TT) issue. There was a very misleading and inaccurate report run by TT before Movember 2007 and in the interest of balance that mention should be heavily qualified or removed, if that's possible. For the record, no other news organisation picked up the false story. Not one.

There is no question about the propriety of the Founders of the organisation but please don’t just take our word for it, visit the GiveWell Australia website, who looked closely at Movember’s annual report and audited financial records and were very pleased with the work Movember does and the funds sent through to the beneficiaries. Also, please see the websites of all the Movember beneficiaries for more details about Movember’s dealings with them (links below).

The Mo Bros and Sistas who participate in Movember do great work and continuing to give credence to the TT report does nothing for their morale. It’s for that reason, should the TT mention stay on the page, that it should be made clear that the TT story is a one-off and totally inaccurate. Movember has its audited financial records available through the website so please visit the Movember site to request a copy of the annual report and verify the situation for yourself.

Movember’s auditors are PricewaterhouseCoopers and their staff took out the top fundraising team award for 2007 raising $285,000 for beyondblue through Movember. Do you really think auditors would participate in Movember if it wasn’t operating in an exemplary manner? PwC gives cheque to beyondblue: [1]

Links: GiveWell Australia (not affiliated with US organisation of the same name): [2] beyondblue: [3] Prostate Cancer Foundation NZ: [4] Prostate Cancer Foundation UK: [5] Prostate Cancer Foundation CA: [6]

Wm329 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand how frustraing it must be to deal with current affair shows. Unfortunetely wikipedia is about citation rather than truth. At the moment we have the TT story, as well as your offical stats, so I would say it is fairly balanced. And it is not like we can write on the page "well their auditors raised money, therefore they must be exemplary". Any reports showing the percentage of money (not total!) donated comparing to other charities is welcomed on the front page - especially if we can link it! Any other media that we can link, other reports on movember is weclomed. We cannot remove TT since it is a story. We cannot say "it is totally inaccurate" unless we can find a source to cite that says that. If their are any media reports about how great movember is that are online, cite them here so we can add them. Having said that, I will add givewell's report to the link. Disco (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive comments and for adding the link to Givewell. I appreciate that. Just one further point of clarification. The TT report did not state nor imply that Movember was “… one of the worst charities to give money to, due to the amount of money being made by the owners[citation needed]” [[7]].

The TT report was about how much money raised in the name of charity goes through to beneficiaries. Movember was featured in the story and two Movember directors were interview about that. Other charities were also mentioned and representatives interviewed.

If possible, could you please change the TT paragraph to something like this:

The Movember Foundation was featured on Australian tabloid current affairs program Today Tonight in a story about the percentage of funds given to beneficiaries by fundraisers.[citation needed]. The Foundation state that their fees are well below the expected level.[11] This is backed up by GiveWell Australia, who report that Movember spent only 9% on its running costs in 2007. [12]

There are literally hundreds of online reports as to how good Movember is. I’ve add just a few here for your info:

Sydney Morning Herald - Mat urges mates to say mo the merrier: [8]; Edmonton Journal - Whiskers gone wild: [9]; News.com.au - Movember under way: [10]; Yahoo.com - Dr John D’Arcy – Movember: [11]; Abc.net.au - Wide Bay Burnett faces up to Movember: [12]; Abc.net.au - ABC Mo Bros take up Movember Challenge: [13]; Abc.net.au - The ABC have at least 100 stories that mention Movember: [14]; News.com.au - Ready, steady, mo! [15]; News.com.au Borat wants local lady: [16]; NSW Parliamentary Hansard: Movember: [17]. Wm329 (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording of "worst charities" to reflect what was actually said in the TT article. I can't really call it a "tabloid current affairs show" because, imo it is, but that is still PoV as some people will defend it as serious journalism. In terms of the links, I read the first couple, these articles are all about 'how great movember' is. Some stats there might be handy when people get around to expanding the article, but at the moment all I am doing is making sure what is there is accurate, and they don't seem to talk about the specific percentages of money given. Disco (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed my mind on the word "tabloid". The wikipedia entry on TT calls it a tabloid current affairs show, so I assume so can we. Disco (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Disco for considering our comments and for making changes. Cheers Wm329 (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] clarification and suggestions

Today Tonight and Byran Seymour who did the segment on Movember was just found guilty of 29 cases of defamation - http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/jurys-verdict-a-win-for-team-corby/2008/05/29/1211654221494.html

I don’t understand why Today Tonight is mentioned in the Wiki definition when none of the other literally 1,000s of positive articles from around the world aren’t. This definition of Movember is poorly constructed and needs a total re-write.

[edit] clarification and suggestions

This is the first time I have felt strongly enough to comment about a wiki. A leecher I have been until now. This page is a bit of a mess, it is misleading and the discussions don't really encourage editing.

Some clarification The movember.com sites are run by the Movember Foundation - http://www.movember.com/au/outcomes/07/Movember-Foundation The movember.org sites are run by the Movember Committee - http://movember.org/representatives.html

There was a hoax by an imaginary group who claimed to have international copyright on the phrase 'Movember' which was overturned by the Movember Committee. I can find no clarification of either sides of this story outside of movember.org, bar a youtube video that they provide a link for on http://movember.org/rules.html

Quite frankly while there may be debate over who came up with the idea first, and what the rules should be for growing a Mo, the movember.com group has the largest exposure to the public/media/charities, and whem poeple think about/discuss Movember, they will think of them. Movember.com is also by far and away the group that has generated the most help towards the spirit of Movember - both by bringing back the Mo to cult status and also supporting a good cause at the same time.

So I think the best way forward is to make an 'origins' section giving full credit to the people of the Movember Committee for the good work they did, and then move onto the more successful of the schemes today - the Movember Foundation.

I would like to note that I am not a member of either organisation, just a participant in Movember that was very confused by this wiki. Cheers, Big Merv

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Merv (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.12.233.21 (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Big Merv, while I understand that you are passionate about men's health, the fact is that the people who run and make money from movember did not come up with the concept, therefore the original wikipedia page should reflect this. Disco (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I might point out Wikipedia is about verifibility not truth. Please provide sources that Movember existed before either of these events.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

grrr, I knew someone would ask for that!  :) I'll do my best, but what more can I say other than "loads of people that I know have been participating for years". I suppose common sense would tell us that the news are NOT going to do a story about something that was invented a week ago, therefore it had been around long enough to build up enough cultural status to warrant a news story. Obviously, wikipedia needs citations... Since this article is very much in its infancy, I ask that these claims remain uncited for now until I can either find a citation or the page becomes good enough to warrent removal of all uncited claims. Disco (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrote

I've rewrote the lot, after watching the video and reviewing all websites.

Wikipedia is following sources, and is not necessarily supporting the Committee's claim that they invented Movember. However they are the only organisation claiming such a thing as verified in an semi-independent source (hooray Australian media outlets).

No earlier origins for Movember have been claimed by current sources apart from the apparently fictitious "Federation" in 1977.

Further, Movember as a national/international *charity* event seems quite likely to have originated from the Committee's 1999 events.

Also please don't link to the youtube movie, as good/useful it is, it is a copyright violation and we can't have those things here.--ZayZayEM (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care enough to fight you. By the way you might want to check out the Mozart page - they claim he was a composer without sourcing it! Disco (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:CK. I think several of the sources at Mozart do call him a composer, such as this randomly picked link--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a very bad example. Since you want to take me so literally, just ignore it. But this is my point - when it comes to academic articles it can be easy to gain references, but some things such as subcultured jokes (i.e. movember) are not going to be ever be sourced properly! Since this is a given, pretty much anything that has entered the public sphere will be attributed to whoever can claim it first. If I start a website claiming I invited knock knock jokes, and then get an article printed about it in my student magazine, wikipedia would HAVE to forever after claim that I invented them, unless a source appears claiming otherwise. It wouldn't matter how many users knew it was false. You might now reply "what you say is true but it's the way wikipedia works" and that is fair enough, which is why I am letting this point go. The reason I am frustrated is that this article had nothing in it until I took the time to rewrite that, but as soon as that happened you changed my work. Of course I assume good faith, but I'm sure you can see how that might be frustrating for someone else. One more point, this subject is over, I am not fighting you on this, just explaining my feelings, no matter how false it is, how many friends I could get on here to claim otherwise, according to wikipedia from now on movember was invented in 1999... Disco (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Another bad example. A student magazine would likely be questioned for its credibility per WP:RS, especially when presenting quite readily avialable opposing verifiable sources. If someone dug up a say 1940s authentic newspaper archive article that claims that "a new form of joke" was invented by humourist Gus Gussygus from Chicago, Illinois, wikipedia would include the claim. Wikipedia would say the source, and reference it as claim as it is a claim. As we do here, loaded language like "men who claimed", "The Committee still holds their claims of having invented Movember", whether their claims are true or not is not discussed, but the fact of the actual claims having been made are a matter of record. --ZayZayEM (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

HAHA, and I just watched the youtube clip (I can't steam movies on this one) the NEWS report was aired in 1999 and it CLAIMS that movember has 'been around for years'... Disco (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Really didn't notice that. Quote it and edit the article. Geez. (watched it for at least the fifth time now, definitely claims that Committee claims to have invented it)--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it was not clear, they claim to have invented it, but not in 1999. That was the date that the news report aired. The reason I did not change the article is because I wanted to run it by you first. Disco (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Again not noticing it. My impression is that it was only a few weeks old. Can you tell who says it and whenabouts. You can change the article. I'm just not sure how I'm missing it.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, if the 1999 committee invented it, why do we need the charity bit in the first paragraph? Disco (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What "charity bit"?--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Since 2004, the Movember Foundation charity has run Movember events to raise awareness and funds for men's health issues, such as prostate cancer and depression in Australia and New Zealand. In 2007, events were launched in Canada, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States." Disco (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is predominantly about Foundation activities (and criticism). The Foundation is bolded in the lead and this article serves as the equivalent article for both Movember and the Movember Foundations. Two articles at this early stage seems premature.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming a second article! Premature would be an understatement. I am saying the way that movember is now used as a part of the charity should be reserved for its own section. The intro should be about what it is and when it was invented. Disco (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)