Talk:Bell Let's Talk

Template:WikiEd banner shell This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 September 2018 and 18 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kae14 (article contribs).

Non-External Sources

I plan to remove information used from reference #2 and #4. Upon observing, these sources are not external and are directly published by Bell Canada and the Bell Let's Talk campaign. Does anyone have any other suggestions? Thanks. --Andreamays (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I have some concerns with the sources as well. CTV and the globe and mail are both Bell-owned and Bell-controlled companies. Approximately 1/3 of the sources are therefore subject to WP:SELFSOURCE and should be scrutinized and more appropriate sources found and/or content adjusted to reflect this. Arbitrarycomplexity (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit

I made an edit after the Bell Let's Talk Day. I added a period and started a new sentence to make it a little less choppy.Hportmann (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

My contribution

Hello! I worked hard to develop the page for Bell Let's Talk. I removed primary sources, and added in new secondary sources. These secondary sources were found from numerous databases. I linked these original primary sources as external links at the bottom of the page. I felt that a big part of this campaign was the well-known Bell Let's Talk Day, so I created a subsection for this, as well as a smaller subsection for another event. I also felt that it was necessary to discuss the impact that this campaign has made across Canada. I think the impact section could definitely benefit from the help of fellow editors. --Andreamays (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Expanded Article

Hi there! I was working on this article as part of a school assignment with the WikiEd foundation. We've been learning a lot about Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines and I've tried to keep it within the requirements seen on WP:NPOV. However, if you see something you think can be improved on to prevent it appearing too commercial, I would appreciate your help! Hopefully over the next few weeks we can add to the 2019 impacts section. Kae14 (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Kae14, this edit was spectacularly unhelpful, though I wonder to which extent you should be held accountable for it. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Characterization of the campaign

"initiative" is less specific, and certainly less accurate than "advertising campaign". I'm unclear what bias an accurate characterization introduces. I would also note that the article elsewhere uses the word "campaign", not "initiative" I would further note that the footer lists this article under "Advertising and sponsorships" 134.41.45.30 (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jaobar: ^ --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the question. In an attempt to maintain a more neutral perspective on a controversial topic, I thought a generality would be more appropriate. The term "advertising campaign" is biased towards one perspective - "corporatization", and is different from the more general term "campaign". Charities run campaigns all the time that are not for advertising purposes. I maintain my position that the term "advertising campaign" is not accurate, and violates WP:NPOV based on the external sources cited that see the initiative as something different from an ad campaign. The initiative appears to be many things, not just about advertising. --Jaobar (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

If I understand your concern, it is that the phrase “advertising campaign” is biased and therefore is not a neutral point of view? I would argue something that implies Corporatization of a corporate campaign is not biased, as it is literally a campaign by a corporation. Bell is clearly not a charity. They are a corporation. I can’t understand how Corporatization is biased against corporations. I maintain it accurately describe their relationship with the campaign. Regarding advertising specifically, it’s clear from the article and primary sources that Bell donates when you mention them by name. The advertising article says “Advertising is a marketing communication that employs an openly sponsored, non-personal message to promote or sell a product, service or idea” The article already states that the campaign “was designed with a marketing motive in mind” It’s a communication, selling an idea, openly sponsored by Bell. At the very least it is unquestionably a marketing campaign, and I maintain my position that it is more specifically an advertising campaign. Arbitrarycomplexity (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Arbitrarycomplexity, thank you for your comments. Unfortunately it appears that you're not seeing what I'm saying. The suggestion that the campaign is an "advertising campaign" has a negative connotation. To describe it only in this way, as opposed to more broadly, limits the description, which might include more interpretations. I should add that your edits about the campaign involving donations on one day likely isn't accurate, as I assume donations are made throughout the year. This should be modified. --Jaobar (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Why would advertising campaign give a negative connotation, apart from the reasons you’ve provided bad I’ve already refuted of course? Repeating it doesn’t make it true. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. It’s also a bird. A duck isn’t “other than neutral”

Bell let’s talk day, is in fact for a day. Thus the name let’s talk “day.” Arbitrarycomplexity (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrarycomplexity your text says Bell donates money for a day. This likely isn't accurate. Bell Let's Talk Day is one day, but distribution of the funds takes much longer, I'm sure. --Jaobar (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

it is based on donations that day. They only count them that one day. Which is why it was in the part about bell let’s talk *day* I’ll add a citation and change that back assuming you’re interested in accuracy. Arbitrarycomplexity (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing self-published flag

Greetings, I am removing the self-published flag as I believe it is unjustified. The article has more than 50 citations and many are not self-published sources. What may be happening here is that this particular topic and initiative are contentious, as is noted in the summary and in the criticism section. A review of the history also demonstrates how this contentiousness contributed to a debate over the phrasing of the opening sentence. It is likely that the flag was (in my opinion inappropriately) added for this reason. --Jaobar (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC) cc: Daniel Case

I believe the self published flag should remain, as over a third of the citations are by Bell Canada, or by Bell Media companies such as the Globe and Mail and CTV news. They are not even arms length organizations.

Your opinion assumes bad faith, which you’re generally quick to pounce on.

Arbitrarycomplexity (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

COI, excessive content, etc.

User:Jaobar, yes I am a bit saddened at this edit summary. I don't know about AGF--I do know that you are employed by York U, and that a significant chunk of the non-noteworthy and promotional content in the article relates to York. And some of this is just complete filler--a table with social media platforms? And how does content like this fit in? "Since its opening in 1980, the Douglas Bell Brain Bank has become one of the largest brain banks in the world. With their collection of over 3,000 brains in various conditions of physical and mental health, they are a major contributor to many research projects"? So yes, I have tagged this for excessive content, excessive use of primary sources (duh--look at how many times the document in note 21 is cited), and the apparent COI. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, thank you for your comments. Unfortunately I see little evidence of WP:AGF in them, which is disheartening. I would prefer that we praise the newbie editor who expanded the article considerably last month, and who added a photo to the Wikimedia Commons for the first time. Instead, you suggest (incorrectly) that two sentences in this section represents a conflict of interest. You also refer to these two sentences and original photo as "a significant chunk of the non-noteworthy and promotional content". I don't see how 20 words out of 3,000 added is a significant chunk, and I don't see how a local picture is non-noteworthy. For some reason you have also chosen to flag the article with the suggestion of COI, which implies a disheartening violation of WP:Civil. I have no professional connection to Bell Canada, or their initiative, and I am also not the one who did the editing.

In terms of your concern about the table with the social media references, the BellLet'sTalk campaign is a unique social media campaign, apparently one of the more successful relating to the subject matter, that donates money based on specific social media contributions. Explaining the nuances of the donation structure, what counts and what doesn't, makes sense to me. Simplifying this to something like "social media posts = donations" fails to tell the story. This effort to shorten articles may enhance readability in some cases, but also results in ambiguity. Instead of seeing only promotion, why not see the content as sharing information about a contentious-yet-successful digital campaign that has contributed in a variety of ways to a number of unique charities and other projects. I can tell you that in Canada it is quite a story, and one that is worth sharing. I would hate that someone in another country looking to emulate or learn about such an initiative would only get half the story because of false accusations and violations of WP:AGF. --Jaobar (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC) CC: User:Shalor (Wiki Ed)

Yeah, shortening an article to cut the fluff rarely results in ambiguity. Please don't call on {{U|Shalor (Wiki Ed)]] to intervene: you'd put her in a very awkward position. As for the COI, I found it so striking that there's a picture there related to York, but at least that problem is easily solved: cut the entire "Post-secondary outreach" section, which lacks secondary sourcing to begin with. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.

This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute related to this page. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ~~~~ (DRN Volunteer)

Arbitrarycomplexity (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Shorten or remove the Results section

The section "Results and major contributions" needs to be shortened or removed. It appears to be a giant list of accomplishments - usually referencing Bell Canada itself or a Bell-owned news station like CTV which may come off as WP:PROMO. It's pretty silly that this section gets longer every single year with content that doesn't exactly add any substance to the overall article other than promotion for Bell. Limmidy (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that continuous yearly updates isn't sustainable in the long-term and contributes to the article being written like an advertisement. The information about the organizations that received donations is also rather lengthy. Maybe summarizing the total contributions and referencing key impacts like the largest endowments, the most note-able research projects, and supporters of the campaign would help condense the section? --Rpaylor (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Expansion of Criticism

I believe that the article's Criticism section could benefit from some additional sub-sections of criticism of Bell Let's Talk, outside of those already stated (Treatment of Bell Employees and Profits from Jail). For example, per the news, many have criticized Bell Canada Telecommunications, stating that Bell Let's Talk is more of a marketing stunt than a mental health awareness campaign, given that they include the name of their company in the campaign. What do other contributors think about this?

D3032447367 (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, as long as the additions follow WP:NPOV and WP:V. Limmidy (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend criticism section be more paraphrases of quotes rather than copied of direct quotes themselves. This section is generally very well cited! Jerrysong1324 (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

A Grammatical Error

I believe there is a grammatical error on this sentence, 'the program is supported by dozens of other self-described 'team members,' who's stories surrounding their experiences with mental health are promoted on the Bell Let's Talk website and other Bell Media properties leading up to Bell Let's Talk Day'. 'Whose stories' should be the right words instead of 'who's stories'. Markowijaya (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

The introduction does a great job summarizing the main points of the article. In the history section, the article briefly mentions something called "Bell Lets Talk Day", but does not go into much detail about it. This seems like important content that the article should cover. The year by year summary of results is effective in conveying the successes of this program. The criticism section perhaps should be relabeled controversy, as the content there seems a bit more serious than just criticism. Overall, good job.Adamash981 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Adamash981: Thank you so much for your peer review; it was very helpful. I know that we have discussed going into more detail about "Bell Let's Talk Day", but did not get that far - we will make sure to add that in, since you're right, it is a substantial part of the movement. I like the idea of relabeling the criticism section to controversy, and will make that change now. Thanks again! D3032447367 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section: There is a good amount of quotes from different sources used in this section to provide critique of the movement. In particular to the "Treatment of Bell employees", perhaps adding more information about legal actions that McLean/other employees have taken or Bell's response to the critique may help take it to the next level. I do agree with Adamash981's comment on perhaps the criticism section should be relabeled as controversy of the movement. It's seems that the section currently notes not about criticism towards the movement itself, but rather Bell as an organization, which seems to be a separate issue. 23gobears (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@23gobears: Thank you so much for your review, and your compliment of usage of different sources. I have relabeled the section as Adamash981 and yourself suggested, and I agree with that point. I also will look into doing more research of the "Treatment of Bell employees", particularly legal actions and Bell's response, as I agree this could make the article more competent. Thanks again! D3032447367 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I'll try to provide a broad overview of my thoughts on the Wikipedia Article. Introduction: The introduction could use more external sources to support claims stating that the movement was the "single largest corporate commitment to mental health in Canada." I would also say that certain parts of the intro can be cut out to make it more concise. For example, the line in the middle of the paragraph states "the CSR initiatives encourages the use of various platforms ...increasing awareness of mental health and reducing stigma" all of which was mentioned in the beginning. I do find the "Criticism" portion of the article to be the most interesting! I do agree with other comments already here mentioning the distinction between the criticism against the company itself vs. the movement, but I think having "Criticism" or "Controversy" are good, broad terms to encompass different problems. Maybe having sub-headings can help? Hope this was helpful to some extent! Mary Mijares (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mary Mijares: Thank you so much for your peer review. And, to your point, it was very helpful! I will look into perhaps finding a source to support that respective claim, but I believe this is widely known information throughout Canadian society, so I'm not sure it is crucial to do so. Does anyone else agree with this? I agree with your point of cutting that respective clause to make it more concise, and will do so right now. I have changed the heading to Controversy as others have suggested. Although I do believe they encompass different problems, I think the respective problems we discuss are more closely aligned with Controversy, so I have gone with that. Thanks so much again! D3032447367 (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I will also provide a broad overview of my thoughts on the Wikipedia Article. Introduction: I think the introduction did a great job of giving an overview of the movement and also does a fantastic job of setting up the format of the article. I do agree that more external sources would reinforce the claims made in the introduction, the aforementioned quote is from the movement website and I believe and outside source that could corroborate the claims would strengthen the introduction. History: I like the concise nature of the history section, however, I believe after reviewing source 11 that the last sentence could be elaborated on. The article provides pertinent information on why it was designed with a "marketing motive" in mind. Methods: For methods I really like how interactions are defined. With this, I think adding some analytical results from social media such as searches and events would add deeper layer of how the movement has progressed prior to showing that progression in results. Results and major contributions: I think this section is great, I really like the layout year by year. Criticism: As mentioned multiple times above, I believe this should be broken up into criticism and controversy. I believe the critical articles are spot on, but as soon as the freedom of information revelations are introduced, I think this develops a tangible controversy which exceeds the limits of just being criticism. Far out mate (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Far out mate: Thank you so much for your inputs. They are really helpful in improving this article and I will definitely add some of your suggestions to it. For the introduction, I concur that adding more outside sources makes sense and will make the article more credible. As for the 'history' section, I think the purpose of the section is to simply introduce the movement briefly and more elaborated information about the marketing motive is discussed in the 'controversy' section. What do you guys think? I agree that more analytical results would add a better overview of the progress of the movement. Thanks once again! Markowijaya (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The introduction does a great job of setting up the rest of the article and provides high-level oversight. I agree with my classmates that say more external sources would back up the claims made and make for a stronger article moving forward. The results and major contributions section feels a bit tedious and could be cleaned up and shortened to only include the most relevant and insightful talking points. By having it year by year, it is hard to determine which years were most important and where to find the most impactful information. Any exciting result gets lost in the rest of the section. Lastly, separating the criticisms of the company and the criticisms of the movement could be a great distinction and could be done with subheadings. It also seems that each criticism is only cited by one source, so it would be nice to have more sources and more perspectives which may correct any bias that exists. By only having one source, any bias coming from that individual article can easily make it into the page, and it is important to have a neutral point of view. AprilGa91962893 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@AprilGa91962893: Thank you for the suggestions. I totally agree that more external sources should be added in order to strengthen the article's claims, as mentioned by others as well. I think that other people find the layout of the 'results and major contributions' to be really neat, but I understand your concerns. How about adding the most relevant and impactful results in the overview of the section? This way, readers know which years are the most impactful, but are still able to know the results from other years. Lastly, since this article is about the movement, I think most of the criticisms written on this article should be about the movement instead of the company. I will add more sources for the criticism as well! Thank you once again Markowijaya (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I really liked the Timeline section! It is really detailed and very illustrative of the events happened in Bell Let's Talk. The introduction is also well-articulated. I would love to see more on the impact of the movement itself, whether in Canada or internationally. As well, seeing more promotional materials of the movement would be interesting! ie. bus stop signs, banners, etc, to really show the penetration that the movement was able to reach. Cathymeng123 (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)