Talk:Movember

message: Movember started in Australia in 2003. It has spread from down under to South Africa and Europe, and five years ago it reached American shores. 
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)
thread_title:  Background 

message: 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)
thread_title:  pfft 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  clarification and suggestions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: Just curious, but when did these 'rules' get sanctioned officially, or is it like the game of pool where different places interpret the rules slightly differently? Having been part of the original group in Adelaide as this was developing, I distinctly remember the original guidelines as being:
1. At the beginning of November, no matter what state your facial hair was in, you did not shave at all until the last weekend in November.
2. On that last weekend, we would arrange to meet up, usually at Mojowest, Worldsend (sometimes, not often, Supermild) or somewhere with an outdoor area on Hindley West.
3. On the day of the get together, we'd shave our beards,  leaving only the mo and where it connects to our chins, thus presenting with a thick, porn star looking mo.
Later on, cheesy outfits a la Beastie Boys Sabotage style became a favourite. There was none of this "must conduct yourself as a true country gentleman" crap as it was a pub crawl, pure and simple. I get the feeling these were either from the American spinoff, or developed late after this trend gained momentum. (118.210.151.85 (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rules... 

message: Any second opinions on whether this image of a group of Movember participants is more or less appropriate and representative than this image of a single participant? --McGeddon (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: The current history section (and its sources) seem to claim that Movember began both in 2003 and in 1999. Were the Adelaideans from 1999 just using the name "Movember" by coincidence, or was the Huffington Post wrong to say "They set a humble goal back in 2003: get 30 men to grow their facial hair for 30 days" (a goal which is less ambitious than the "80 men" listed in the 1999 coverage). --McGeddon (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the section was just giving a lot of weight to an alternate group which claims to have formed in 1999. I've bumped it out to "similar events", given that it is unaffiliated. --McGeddon (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I moved this back from 'Similar Events' to 'Origins'. The name, Movember, its rules, format as a monthly charity event, etc. defined on Movember.org from 1999 were lifted almost word for word when Movember.com was first published in 2004. There is no doubt that the original Movember was instrumental as the foundation for the event and it deserves to remain in the Origins section. Syscrusher (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Someone remove this so-called Israeli celebrity "Gil Telio" off the ambassadors' list. Ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.224.241 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 5 November 2012‎
:, given that no Gil Telio article exists. --McGeddon (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambassadors 

message: Seems to be focusing mainly on high profile supporters of Movember from Australia and New Zealand. May be worth mentioning the likes of Sam Allardyce, Peter Crouch, Michael Owen, Toby Flood off the top of my head. (i.e. to show how wide reaching Movember has been, nothing particularly to do with Australia or England).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.1.42 (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Mos 

message: I was fully expecting to read something about Movember being essentially the counterpart to breast cancer awareness in October, with the wearing of pink, etc. Why is there no mention of that in the article? Both are very gimmicky, with cancer awareness as their campaign, and occur on consecutive months. Seems like more than coincidence to me. At least link to something via the See also section. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  October/breast cancer awareness 

message: User:Urorao has uploaded :File:Movember1.png, which appears to be eight pictures of the same man (presumably the uploader himself) with eight different moustache styles over the course of Movember, the images rotated at various angles on a black background. I reverted it for being something of a poor-quality image - at thumbnail size, the already small images are made even smaller in order to apply a the jaunty rotation effect, and the poor lighting-from-above on the bottom four photos makes it hard to even see the moustaches. I'll improve the caption, but is this really a useful image? --McGeddon (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: With no response in three months, I've gone ahead and cut the image. --McGeddon (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eight-photo montage 

message: This may sound daft but I've had a moustache all my adult life and so have never been able to participate, thus explaining my ignorance. Exactly how does Movember raise money? I can see how it might raise awareness but I don't get the fundraising part. Do people sponsor the moustache growers or do they pay the charity or what? Personally I think it would improve the article to include a brief explanation of how it works as otherwise it makes it seem like little more than a bit of jolly jape posturing by silly boys a la the Ice Bucket Challenge. Keresaspa (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear 

message: Hi, tried adding a link to a Movember Foundation funded project out of Canada, but it was removed. That's fine if isn't appropriate to add here. The project is for a Men's Depression website: http://headsupguys.ca/ (I am the project coordinator for this website). Much of Movember funding goes to more research based projects that aren't as easily linked too, but since this is a website resource I thought it would be good as an example of where funds are going - and of interest to people looking up Movember on wiki. 
I had added the link to the end of the sentence referencing Canada as being one of the top funding nations for Movember. Is there someplace better that a link to this project could be added? Thanks!
(Jrb604 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Movember funded project? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Movember. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090105193841/http://ie.movember.com/outcomes/content/Fundraising-Outcomes/ to http://ie.movember.com/outcomes/content/Fundraising-Outcomes/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Movember. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131106195626/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/article-1355809508227/ to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/article-1355809508227/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Movember. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111204095318/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/11/movember_shave.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/11/movember_shave.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: essentially same subject, duplicate content  DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes agree merge would be best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Movember Foundation]] 

message: Can I suggest this section be pruned? (1) The American Mustache Institute has no more reason to be linked than any other organisation that promotes mustache culture, and has no links with Movemeber, nor does it share any of Movember's aims. (2) Play off beard is completely irrelevant and has no connection with Movember. (3) No nut November is an internet challenge with no link to Movember, except a possible publicity-style attempt to hijack a useful cause's advertising. I think the common aims between Movember and Distinguished Gentleman's ride/Miles for Men justify their inclusion. If we put the first three in, we might as well accept links to absolutely anything that is to do with the concept of moustaches, while if we put no nut in, we might as well put in anything that plays on the November name. Elemimele (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  And your comment associated with removing the link to "moustache" made me laugh, so thanks for that! :-) CT55555 (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See Also" section