This is an archive of past discussions about Breast. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I believe that this may not be legal in some states including in California if this young woman turns out to be a young girl and its a felnoy CALIFORNIA CODES PENAL CODE SECTION 186-186.8. Also many of these image have images of peoples breast. Did they release permission to show their breast? LOL. Just wondering if this is an issue of ownership. Like in girls gone wild they do a background check on each person and I believe they sign away their rights. Some of the girls were not even legal age. Wikipedia doesn't do background check on these images. It says on Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act "2257 Regulations (C.F.R. Part 75)), part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, require producers of sexually explicit material to attain proof of age for every model they shoot, and keep those records on hand." This information is not open with public domain images. I just think Wikipedia should just be more careful so they don't get sued or challenged legally so maybe old women or mature images maybe okay but not young woman.Getonyourfeet03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Honeymane do you always have to be a dick? Never mind it’s a rhetorical question. Getonyourfeet, I would have to say that's not for the editors of this page to decide and probably should be handled by wikipedia legal council or discussed at the village pump policy discussion page and then set as wikipedia policy before editors could start requesting images be deleted for the reasons you mention. If you are familiar with Florida law (servers are in Florida so California law may not apply) and know for a fact that a law is being broken I would say that you contact an administrator for additional help. Most likely the issue has been brought up before and discussed to great lengths so someone else may be able to point you in the right direction for an answer on why the images do not violate a law you may be questioning. --I already forgot07:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is nothing wrong with the female breast. Its purpose is to breastfeed infants. It's only considered a sexual body part in countries that make it out to be, when in reality it is no more sexual than legs, lips, the booty, etc. or any part of my body
Hah! Then, African/Oceanic boy, say to your girlfriend you're not touching her breasts anymore, instead touching her legs! LOLOLOL -- Euyyn
There's no way to know, as getonyourfeet's original post makes no sense. Under US law, one cannot "sign away" any rights of any kind. He may be referring to personally identifiable images, but since these images are not personally identifiable, I don't see the problem there. As they're also obviously images of fully-developed postpubescent breasts, I also don't see where there could be a concern over pedophilia. If somehow (which I doubt very much will ever happen) we were to learn the actual age of one of the models of these photos, and the age was low enough to cause a legal problem in Florida, which is where WP's servers are sited, then I think something would probably be done. But I don't see how we've failed in any way to do the right thing on this page. The images here are informative without being prurient; exactly what is called for in an encyclopedia article. Kasreyn22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Source of Breast pic If you look at the upload summary in Wiki Commons for the image in question, you'll see that the original source was from a Flickr account here. If you look at some of the other pictures in the collection, it seems pretty obvious that the woman is not "underage." It appears to be a German couple who had a baby together recently and posted pictures of the mother throughout the pregnancy. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware, as I'm the one who added the image to this article. What puzzles me is why the descriptor "pregnant" (as in, "a photo of a pregnant woman's breasts") was removed from the image caption. I've been offline for some months, you see. Was it determined to be an unimportant or frivolous detail? Kasreyn22:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I remember that for a long time, the caption indicated the woman was pregnant; I have no idea why it was removed. It should be restored. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually that's not the image in question, OhNoitsJamie - it's the one just under "Changes" about half-way down the article. Ciotog23:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I guess I didn't read the debate close enough...I didn't realize there were two "pregnant" breast pictures. I don't see how a California law is applicable to Wikipedia (especially since there's nothing about the picture that suggests that individual is underage). OhNoitsJamieTalk23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
One thing people forget, is that the law is always above any disclaimers or company policy's. E.g. if a shop says we do not take goods back, but the law states they have to then the shop is in the wrong and you can pursue the matter further; or if a shop says our policy is to sell cigarettes to over 12's, but the law states 18, once again the business is in the wrong and action can be taken. No company or business can surpass the law, no matter what. They can write all they want, but if it is not in harmony with the law, it is dismissed without a second look in court or legal disputes. So it doesn't matter what wikipedia has written in their disclaimer, if it is against the law, the matter can be pursued. And yes, Wikipedia cannot verify the age of the female in the picture, and bearing in mind in Europe and the US to upload or allow nude pictures without the personal verification of the subjects age is illegal and against the law, the picture should be removed unless someone can get the female to verify her age in writing. So 65.34.119.91 has a point. I hope this clears matters up, and I will personally write a letter to wikipedia in regards to this article, or request ISP's banning this article. --78.86.117.16418:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)--78.86.117.164 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
What is the matter with you?
There is a big notice saying discussion of whether the picture should be allowed is available at the given link and then the first thing you do is write a heading saying breast photo not allowed.... Jesus, some people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.38.111.126 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
Brief question...
I'm feeling a bit perverted even asking this...but why are all the breasts of pregnant women? 4 pictures on here, 2 pregnant, one drawing...why not go the whole nine yards? Srsly. Lulzatron03:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe it has to do with the fact that the primary purpose of the female breast is that the mammory gland produces milk for babies. And milk production begins when a woman is pregnant. I remember reading somewhere that male breasts can produce milk in certain situations.
Breasts are also a visual signal of sexual maturity - hence they form during puberty. It's probably not a stretch, by any means, to note than in many societies they are a visual stimulus for male attention. The milk producing tissue is a relatively small portion of the breast compared to fatty tissues that create the volume. It's common sense that breasts have more than one function. That said, the photos of pregnant women do a perfectly good job illustrating the topic so why worry about it? Mattnad16:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Nooooo! Puaaaajjj!!! -- Euyyn
I did a little math. According to this article, the average american woman has 2.09 children in a lifetime, and lives for about 80.82 years. Assuming a 9 month term, this means that a typical american woman spends 1.93% of her life pregnant. What about the remaining 98%? Ghostwo21:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
What's the soviet poster trying to show? I don't find any relation between it and any part of the article. -- Euyyn 07 March 24 - 14:54
It discusses breast health/disease prevention. The Russian says something like "Are you taking care of your breasts? Harden your nipples with daily washing in cold water". Atom14:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
In Soviet Russia, health has nothing to do with you!! Sorry, couldn't resist. As far as I can see, it's just in relation with the topic it's nested in. I'm not sure why hard nipples are a good thing, but it's important to remember that it was created in the 1930's--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam05:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
If you change "harden" to "strengthen" or "toughen" it makes a lot more sense; I don't know how literal our translation is.
Breastfeeding is hard on nipples, and if you have an enthusiastic baby it can lead to damage to the tissue, bleeding, pain, and a general inability to breastfeed further. The advice, therefore, is presumably to toughen the nipples up for feeding, to make them less likely to get damaged. (I cannot believe I have just written this explanation) Shimgray | talk | 15:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe split article between general and gender-specific?
I'm wondering why the article titled Breast deals only with human female breasts? I mean, sure, they are much more interesting than goat breasts or Dave and Dan's breasts, but for NPOV purposes, could we not just give human female's their own breast page? Ideas? Rhetth02:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Human males are mentioned in the lead, and I can't think of anything more that could be said about them. It would probably be good to add a section about non-human breasts (for example discussing apes, monkeys, elephants and other animals with breasts), just like the "sleep" article has a section on non-human sleep. Ciotog04:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This already exists; this article is about humans only, because we're the only ones with this sort of mammary gland. The article on the glands talks more about them as a whole. Or, at least, it should.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam07:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, all mammals have breasts, it is a definition of the group: mammals, mammary, breasts. Both the males and the females have breasts in all mammals I have ever studied. All men have some glandular tissues in the many patients I have evaluated over the many years of my career. There is already a male breast specific section called Gynecomastia which goes into the male specific issues. Separating out men from the basic Breast entry makes no sense since breast are common to both, just to different degrees. --Plastic Surgeon11:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I think some would argue that udders aren't breasts. As for us being the only one with this sort of mammary gland, the article is "breast" not "the particular sort of mammary gland that only humans have" :)
The main difference between us and other mammals that have "breasts" instead of "udders" is that human female breasts stay relatively large even when not lactating. Do you think a section on non-human breasts would detract from the rest of the article? Ciotog22:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Back to the question
As to Ciotog's comment, for the amount of non-human-female breast info in relation to the entirety of the article, I can't see how it is enough to support this article as a general breast article rather than specific to females. To Honeymane's comment, this article is not about humans only, despite the article's 3rd sentance. That the article is entitled 'breast' not 'breast (human female)', it kind of contradicts itself. My question was, shouldn't we seperate the human female info from the general breast info which is common to all mammals? So basically, I'm proposing either changing the name of this article to 'Breast (human female)' and keeping the general breast info for the 'Breast' article. And lets try not to go utterly off topic.. Thanks. Rhetth11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Breasts are unique, or semi unique, to human females. If you wish to talk about mammary glands in general, such an article exists.
All breasts are mammary glands, but not all mammary glands are breasts. Udders are not breasts, but are udders, for example, but they are mammary glands.
Well, you said it, breasts are semi-unique to human females. Yet fowl, primates, and other mammals have breasts, and men have breasts (even breast cancer). While there is some of this information about men and other animals in this article, it takes up less than 10 sentences. We should split the artile not because of how it is currently written, but because, in principle (NPOV, encyclopeadic inforation), 'breast' is a topic pertinant also to male humans and other animals. Just because you don't know about them, doesn't mean that the information doesn't exist. So we should change the article to a general breast article and give either links to the respective specifc breast articles (Breast (human female), Breast (human male), Breast (fowl), &c) or create alternate sex/species sections (Female, Male, Animal kingdom), such as Ciotog proposed. My 2c. Rhetth11:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that you continue to come up with these silly arguments? Fowls are birds, they don't even have mammalian glands, and, like so many words in the English language, the word breast has multiple meanings, such as "1. a) The superior ventral surface of the human body, extending from the neck to the abdomen. B) A corresponding part in other animals." Which is what the breast of the fowl is.
The fact of the matter is that even if you did create an article about 'Primates breasts' it's likely just to be deleted very quickly. If not because it's non-notable, for it's lack of references. There is reason that their is a mere 10 sentiences on the topic; there is nothing to discuss. In addition to this, Wikipedia doesn't give undue weight to subtopics within the article, hence vetoing making sections.
However, in the interest of being fair, you should create the said articles on a subpage of your Userpage, and then see how much information you can really dig up, and if any of it warrens a article.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam23:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Silly? Just because something seems silly, is it for you to decide? One of the effects of wikipedia is to allow people to learn about other people's perspective on a topic. If you think it's silly an therefore it shouldn't be included, well how does that help things? Just because there is 10 sentances now on a subject, does that make it forever moot? If it's been recently and it failed, then so be it. But let's try to stay above the fray, and not let our emotions get the best of us. Hey, I hate to see an article be overridden with extraneous sections, just like everyone else, but you can't disregard something before you even give it a chance, especially just because you feel its silly. Cheers, Rhetth00:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Obviously fake breasts
I'd like to know why the first image of the allegedly "pregnant woman's breasts" have a huge breast implant scar along the bottom of the breast? how about changing that to "artificially enhanced female breast," or better yet, get an unaltered breast in there instead? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by King Mongo (talk • contribs) 07:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
take a thread, take off your top, now press it tightly against your breast tissue. Use something to hold the thread there all day.
Come home, remove the thread, and notice the mark it left on the tissue. It's not a scar, it's a mark left from a bra. This picture :was probably taken moments after the bra was removed, giving the flesh no time to 'bounce' back, so to :speak.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has a lot of excellent support for the functional aspects of breast but I think more could be done on the role they play in women's sexual identities, and another function as a signal to men. The "Cultural Significance" sections touches on this but seems too limited: the content focuses more on how breast are about fertility, or how some societies squelch female power. These are oft discussed themes, but there's an elephant in the room that nobody's written about. This article completely ignores how men and women fixate on breast for their sex appeal. Mattnad21:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I made some edits which were reverted, and I don't understand why. This was removed from the section on art and culture, where I thought it fitted in well with other legends:
The legendary tribe of Amazons bared their breasts, and in some accounts removed one breast to allow better combat and archery.
The picture of breasts got moved to the plastic surgery section and given the misleading caption "Closeup of female breast with implant and visible scar."
There are no details of plastic surgery on the original photo source's page (flickr), in fact the photographer claims they are "real" (as opposed to augmented). There is no "scar" visible on the breasts, all that can be seen is the indentation left by a bra underwire.
I would edit this shocking mistake out myself, but you don't let not-logged-in untermensch like me edit this page any more; instead, you let editors like "cruzlee" add nonsense to the page because all logged-in editors are infinitely better than not-logged-in ones. 86.131.190.22517:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected, untermensch... I do wish to explain how I made this mistake however. Back when I moved the picture, the caption didn't state anything about pregnancy. Because more people aside from me made the remark that those breasts seemed a little to round to be real, I did the only right thing that sprang to mind. I just didn't think of how an underwire could also make such a mark, which is indeed a more 'insightful' explanation. Furthermore, by all means feel free to create an account, because your input is appreciated.--Cruzlee21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
A Typo in the Breast Article AND Help for a Wikipedia Orphan
So, i was looking on wikipedia to remind me of the name of a certain part of the breast because i think my friend has a lump there- not cause i'm perve! it's the part of the breast that extends into the armpit and its called the "Tail of Spence." (with a c) In the wikipedia article its called "tail of Spense" (with an s) and its highlighted in red, meaning, "no link!" however, i googled it, and google was like "are you sure you didnt mean "Tail of Spence"? with a c? and then when i googled that, it led me to the wikipedia article that DOES exist, on the "Tail of Spence"! And behold! that article is tagged as an orphan, oficially sad, because there are no links to it. could somebody fix this? i think editing the "breast" entry is off limits, plus i am not web savvy enough. i think the typo needs to be fixed, and a link created to the correctly spelled "tail of spence" (with a c) entry.
thats all.
thanks! Warm18218:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Warm182, for bringing this to our attention. Please feel free to be bold and jump into the Wikipedia swimming pool! Leave a message on my talk page if you want any help. BrainyBabe13:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you'll find that they couldn't fix it because of the article's semi-protection. Their action by bringing it to the talk page is the correct thing to do under the circumstances. They created their account at 04:31, 9 September 2007. When their account gets to 4 days (I think) old, they will be able to edit semi-protected pages. Oh, and I'd like to thank them for pointing out that article because it is relevant to mastectomy and breast prostheses articles and possibly others in that general direction. --AliceJMarkham13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
About the so-called 'young' breasts.
Apparently people have been complaining about a picture of a supposedly 'underage' womans breasts...
Two things.
A. Yes, Wikipedia is hosted in The United States (and 3 or 4 'technically commonwealths' :-) of America. But a picture of (I'll guess those breasts in the top picture are MAYBE from a 16 year) a 16 year olds breasts for use in medical/informative literature and information doesn't exactly constitute child pornography....
Seriously... look in a book on anatomy or one of many books. Notice the pictures of naked babies???. Yeah... it's not child pornography and not defined as 'underage' because it's used for informative and medical purposes without an intention to sexually excite. Yeah yeah yeah... that picture of breasts can excite someone (it sorta excites me). But most anything (shoes, books, people, whatever) can 'excite' and 'arouse' people.
So before we go on a OMG ZXOMG UNDERAGE CHILDPORN NO PREJUSTICE I CAN'T SPELL AND AM A LITLE FJRSGJER crusade...
Note that pictures of nudity are often used (outside wikipedia) in medical, anatomical, and otherwise informative literature and media.
B. While it's questionable... seeing if that photo IS below 16. Whether the person could have given consent and/or this, that blah blah blah. Note that for EVERY picture of someone on Wikipedia the consent is not 100% guaranteed. And that really shouldn't matter anyway since it's only a picture of the mammary glands and no really identifying features (birthmarks discluded. But women don't normally go around topless and if they did these accusations of child porn wouldn't have been brought up in the first place.)
So that's my little bit of information on these supposedly 'underage' breasts.
So please... unless I'm wrong (and if I am correct me with decent spelling/grammar). Then the topmost picture of t3h b00bs are fine.
Nateland22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Well of course you are correct; just because there is a picture of a naked 13 years old boy, or a 15 years old girl doesn't make it child pornography any more than a picture of people at a nudist camp is nudity. --BiT23:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Same, i believe that its bullsh** that people keep saying its against the law. because i know, using my human BRAIN, that it wouldnt last 2 seconds in a court. Imagine this, and then tell me how smart it sounds...Going to court because someone has breasts , or a penis. Wow, congratulations, you found out that no one cares if you see a penis or Boob. because everyone has them. Thank you society for making anything natural, disguisting and non-social.
Why the possibly underage breast photo is legal regardless
We do not know that the picture that the picture depicts an underage breast. Given that only the breast and a bit of stomach is viewable is impossible to to tell and even then some legal women appear to be underage despite being legally adults. Also breast size and shape is no indicator of the age of a woman due to some adult woman breast remaining very small or retaining characteristics often associated with underage breasts such as puffy nipples. Even if it where indeed an underage woman who's breasts are depicted in the photo it would still be legal to display it in this article. The reason this picture is legal can be seen by looking at the relevant laws that apply directly to Wikipedia regarding child porn. Given that Wikipedia is hosted on servers located in Florida then that means both U.S. federal laws and Florida state laws apply in this case. The relevant federal law is the "TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2256" [1]. Under section 2, subsection B, it reads:
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
Take note of the bold text. Since the picture neither depicts "lascivious simulated sexual intercourse" nor does it depict "graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" (breasts do not qualify as genitals under the legally accepted definition.) it is not illegal. A common misunderstanding is that depictions of mere nudity involving minors are illegal under federal law which is not true. Not as far aa Florida state law is concerned, I point you to the following AP article: [2] which explains how a state judge ruled in 2004 that video of underage girls exposing their breast is not child pornography under state law. --Cab8815:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
1930 Soviet poster caption
The caption used to read
A 1930 Soviet poster. Are you taking care of your breasts? Harden your nipples with daily washing in cold water.
but now it reads
A 1930 Soviet poster advertising a self-healthcare practice which is not currently promoted. Are you taking care of your breasts? Harden your nipples with daily washing in cold water.
I don't see the need for the addition. The poster is clearly labelled as historical, and that is its value in an encyclopedia article, to give a perspective not limited to the here and now. It shows that concepts of breast health, and preventive hygiene in its early C20th sense, existed and were promoted. Wikipedia is not a manual for how to do things now. I will delete the phrase unless I can be persuaded of its merit within a day or two. BrainyBabe20:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
IMHO the historical context is not obvious as the poster is in a section on breast diseases. I have to take the translation from Russian to English in good faith, and so will almost all readers. Just because it is dated 1930 does not necessarily imply that it is out-of-date, and if it is to be kept here I think that it should absolutely clear what its context is and that is is historical. I am concerned that the poster is confusing and would prefer that it is unlinked. Snowman21:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for responding here. In my opinion the historical context is obvious, by the date given in the caption, and likewise the word "Soviet". (The social realism style is also a give-away -- granted, not to all readers.) I would hope that any advice labelled "1930", recommending something one has never encountered before, would be checked before being slavishly emulated. As to your second point, I don't read Russian. Would you like to put out a request for a re-translation? I am sure that can be arranged via an editor with a good reputation, if the wording is in doubt. The traditions of public health, including preventive medicine, are important parts of the overall picture of how people conceive of and treat their body. Also, the fact that breasts were deemed suitable for public display, in a non-sexual manner, is of interest. I would not object to repositioning the image within the article (although I think it is fine where it is). The poster is a valuable addition to the page (and cheers to whoever originally found the image). BrainyBabe21:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I was waiting for a consensus to emerge, so I had not replied earlier. I vote is that the English translation should be confirmed. Perhaps, you would reposition the posted, because it is in a section on breast diseases. Snowman22:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The consensus appears to be, nobody is all that interested! Oh well.... I have made a request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests for a check of the translation. Where would you prefer to see the image in the article? I have no objection to it staying where it is, or to moving it if there is a better place for it -- but see the lengthy and often heated discussion about images (in a separate section above), before you try to move it. BrainyBabe22:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
PS The repsonse to the request for assistance led me to [[3]]. Feel free to approach any of them to confirm the translation. I don't think the translation template is appropriate, because that requests a whole page, not a sentence. BrainyBabe22:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out; I hadn't seen it either. The explanation makes sense. Have you had any luck in requesting a re-translation? BrainyBabe22:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think, that we aren't obliged to answer every single person who says this. Every second or third comment is about people saying "you're evil", "this is child pornography", "this is indecent" etc. etc. I think we should rather make a template which says "if you take a picture of breasts, is that porn? is a picture of a penis porn? is a picture of a nude child child pornography?, no, only if it's in sexual context. Bugger off sir." --BiT08:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, porn is not merely a depiction of nudity, it has to be for a particular purpose also. None of the pictures on here constitute porn, as they are clearly not sexual images, they are educational. You will find medical textbooks etc. also use photographs of nudity. Sometimes the subjects are minors. That doesn't mean its child pornography, as it is not pornography in the first place. Regardless, what picture is it that people seem to be convinced is a minor?! None of these images appear to be of a minor to me. 80.195.246.301:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is there only one diagran and three pics of nude breast as the eye can see them. There should be pics of breast cancer x rays, a look inside a real boob(not just a drawing), and don't use that not"censored" excuse. If there is a reason to show a pic of round horizontal breast than there is a reason for show the insides of boobs in detail.YVNP18:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks but I think we need more diagrams some pics of animals and maybe some male breasts. I also think the "round breast" pic needs to be removed because we already have a pic of round breasts. The article should also deiscuss naturally large breast and the genetics behind them:)198.189.252.82 (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The existing images are fine, please do not remove any of them. If you would like to add more images, please propose them on the talk page or be bold and add them. Dreadstar†21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I found a nice one on google in an article about the mystery of why male humans have nipples. I think it is worth using.YVNP (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This page focuses entirely on female human breast. I mentioned that it has mostly nude pics of women but I think this is a small portion of a much bigger problem. The entire article focuses on female breasts. This is going to be a hard issue to solve. It is also unacceptable when you consider that the study of male nipples is a very large one that ties into many areas of research.YVNP (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the article focuses on what breasts are and do, and they just do more in females than males. Is it a POV issue? I'd say the article reflects the balance of citeable material available. If there's a bias, it's that female breasts get more attention in general - which is external to the encyclopedia. Ciotog (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
But I just mentioned male breast have a specific area of study. Thats worth discussion. I'm not saying that we should give equal discussion but that deserves a mentionYVNP (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Very common slangs are not mentioned in article. Since wikipedia is not censored, they should be allowed. That may be offensive, and feminists object it in a high note, but in a free speech encyclopedia they are worth mentioning. Kindly justify removal. Thanks. Watch each other (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Your addition of "slang includes "boobs", "tits" etc." was in the wrong place, written in unencylopedic language and adds nothing of merit to the article. If you want to develop a serious section in this article about slang terms from breasts, I suggest you seek the help of other editors on this talk page to create something more substantive that's worth including. However in general, Wikipedia is not a slang guide - you may want to try Wiktionary instead. Good luck, Gwernol04:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I had included slangs rightly in "In practice" section. Separate section is not demanded nor they worth it. But these slangs are so popular in practice that they are definitely worth mentioning and notable. Writing a sentence wont be "guide" as such. Term "boobs" redirects here and "tits" dabpage links to this article. Thanks. Watch each other (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I modified sentence probably in encyclopedic manner: "Boobs is an informal term to refer to breasts in practice, while tits is considered offensive.[1] ". This should be ok to fit in that section. Thanks. Watch each other (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Or this can be mentioned in lead while defining. I did not get what it got to do with NPOV :? But these are definitely 0notable and mentioning them in a sentence if not lead would be giving them due weight. Thanks. Watch each other (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
What about "hooters", "ta tas", "knockers", "melons", "dirty pillows", and so on and so forth? A list of slang terms does nothing to improve the quality of this article and like trivia sections, slang lists have the tendency to snowball. Neitherday (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Which is offensive and which is not is clearly defined in cambridge and also it consents with oxford, no POV here. And Neitherday, you are mentioning some non-notable (never heard) slangs, but boobs and tits are used (to refer to) more than breasts themselves in practice if not in medical terms. Not allowing a single sentence on notable and relevant things is nothing but heavy handed censorship from feminist POV. Thanks. Watch each other (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, all slangs Neitherday mentioned seems to refer to breasts, but point i insist is notability/usage of terms. Neitherday plz dont take my above feminist comment personally, notice that i had mentioned that in first sentence itself. Thanks. Watch each other (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but Cambridge does not define what is offensive and what is not, that is clearly POV. For Cambridge's opinion or statement of what is offensive to be included in any article, the statement would have to be attributed to them - something which is entirely inappropriate for this article. If none of the above convince you, then ultimately, there is no consensus for the additions you propose. Dreadstar†08:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
If we exclude the word "offensive" then it wont be POV. "These are the slangs used in practice.", thats all. Only problem would be undue weight or notability, question is, is it worth mentioning? That this is not a dictionary reduces its weight, but still they have weight worth mentioning. Thanks. Watch each other (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Image policy
Lcture should be removed unless someone can get the female to verify her age in writing. So 65.34.119.91 has a point. I hope this clears matters up, and I will personally write a letter to wikipedia in regards to this article, or request ISP's banning this article. --78.86.117.16417:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Luckily the law does not forbid the depiction of breasts. Pornography is a different story. According to Princeton, pornography is defined as "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire". None of the pictures on this page fit that description. All of the pictures are there for educational purposes.--71.3.64.7203:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. To my mind, this page is just a poorly veiled excuse to show pictures of nude women. If that were not the case, the page would not have needed to show said pictures, since the article can be complete without any of them. 68.122.222.231 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies don't say to only use images when strictly necessary, or when the article is incomplete without them. According to Wikipedia:images, "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic." Pictures of breasts are undoubtedly relevant to an article about breasts. I highly doubt that wikipedia users are laboring over this article for the sole purpose of showing pictures of nude women, especially considering that this is an article about a well-known and commonly discussed piece of human anatomy. Wikipedia is not censored, and my understanding is that generally, a high-quality, informative image is vastly preferred over no image at all. Ketsuekigata (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This has to be the most hilarious discussion ever. "boooo, it's illegal !" Sorry guys, but showing a picture of breast is not illegal, or a lot of biology books or even magazines would be illegal. And I advise you to look at the definition of the word "pornography", it means graphic depictions of sexual matter. So, big news, guys, theses pictures are anything but sexual, can you believe it ? Nope, a nude breast is not necessarily sexual, it can be nothing else but an anatomic part of the body. Seriously, guys, if you feel sexually excited by theses pictures, maybe you should consider to meet a real woman from time to time. Kaolol 20:36, 6 Aprile 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.53.96.18 (talk)
I agree that this article should be in Wikipedia. I agree it should have photos of female breasts. But flashing? If this is of a clinical nature and therefore not of a pornographic nature, then why include photos of societal constructs such as flashing? Also, if this is "clinical", those "Gallery Shots" of women with mastectomies and breast cancer should be part of the story, covering diseases and conditions of the breast as well. As for the above argument, scaring people about the validity of law is not the issue. Prove to us that a online picture of a naked female breast absent of any context is against the law. I want to see the USC section and Paragraph that says in no uncertain terms "No naked breasts anywhere online, period, regardless of context." If you can prove that, then you've made a point. If you can't, then where is this law you keep conjuring up? Any line regarding "children view this site" is a moral argument best answered by this: know your children, and if you don't want them to see this, block it. CyberPatrol, CyberSitter, and Net Nanny are all great services to accomplish this. If you don't want to pay for them, use the Content Advisor on Internet Explorer. Wikipedia is rated by the FOSI (http://checked.icra.org/), the former RSACi operators, so that all web-browsers that support FOSI will block responsible websites that contain parentally-objectionale material. The bigger problem that is being fostered by the internet, radio, television and film is the objectification of women, that parts of women are sexually motivated when seen naked. Women are human beings, just like men, neither goddesses or animals, equally as mortal and fallible. And that these are just parts. Nothing more superior than the woman herself as a whole. Promoting unnecessary special treatment of such matters is akin to something worse than pornography. Women and men do deserve to protect their decency, however, they deserve to know what the part is and what function it serves. (A similar argument can be made for the Primary Sex Organs as well.) An article should exist to inform in a mature and necessary manner (including pictures, otherwise, it's a Church Mandated Sex Education class where imagination is more important than facts) specifically WHAT a breast is for anyone wanting to read or see it.66.215.153.240 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Porn stars almost always have surgical modifications done to their breasts, so they would not be representative of breasts in their natural state. Asarelah01:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
sooo true, Asarelah, porn stars use plastic surgery, which makes it fake and false. Whereas natural should be shown because it's real and natural. =]
You's guys are weird, a boob is a boob, whether it's real or fake. You're too far up ur own buttholes; who's gonna care who owns the breast or if it's fake or not??? Nobody, that's who!! You actually think that soemone is gonna complain or moan about the picture? If so, then, my friends, you need to get a life!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.249.123 (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that breast fetishism, mammary intercourse, and breast bondage are appropriate links for this article. These links seem to focus on prurient interests which do not serve to further understanding of the topic. They do relate to the issue of breasts, but not in a way that adds anything useful to an encyclopedic article. 71.244.215.105 (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It's my understanding that articles relating to the the issue in question are exactly what should appear in the See Also section of an encyclopedia.--70.168.88.158 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Any information linking to sexual acts involving the breast other than standard intercourse is not relevant to this topic if it's truly 'clinical' in nature. This isn't a Kama Sutra, or a medical reference either: not everything has to be covered. I'd hate to say it, but what's the notability of this? It can't be a lot. 66.215.153.240 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Which only matters in regard to Women's Clothing, where you can read all about bust sizes. The size of a breast doesn't alter their physiology. 66.215.153.240 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Line-drawing gallery of all most common breast shapes.
A dingbat font called "Mannequin" contains all the most common breast shapes and sizes. The black-and-white vector drawings are anatomically accurate, but much less provocative than photos would be.
The images are available online for free preview, and I (as the author of the font) can give permission for their use on wikipedia pages.
I still see the "Boobies are the best!" thing at the top of the page, but according to the page history and vandal's talk page, it has been reverted. Why is this happening? 71.186.198.238 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It's possible that you're looking at a previous version of the page, or that you need to reload. It's also possible that the vandalism was added again sometime between when you looked at the history and when you looked at the article again. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Terminology
I have been looking for the non-vulgar term for a human female breast. "Breast" is not really adequate, because it can also refer to a part of the male body. Same with "bosom." "Mammary" seems only to apply to the milk producing gland within the female breast. Does such a word exist? Are the male and female breasts are too homologous to justify a separate word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostoner (talk • contribs) 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Culteral differences regarding breasts in Euorpe and Africa.
This article lacks any discussion as to the fact that Europe and Africa have different views on the bare female breast then the U.S., Asia, South America, etc. Europeans allow bare breasts in mainstream TV, magazines, etc. where the U.S. for example would not as well as toplessness at public beaches. African tribal societies have a even more relaxed view of the breasts then Europeans with female toplessness common in some African tribal groups. Probably something that should be added to the article. --Cab88 (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Not just that, but all the women that are shown - or the vast majority of them - are Caucasian. Some more diversity would not hurt this article.UberCryxic (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The lead image in the article eye IS a single blurry eye! In that case the blurry pic is the scientific one, and the clearer pic of an eye (with make-up?) is not. But i'm sure they don't have the same discusions about it - i wonder why? ;-)Yobmod (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Picture of breast for arsoual.
Let's talk this over, you say that not all cultures are exicted by female breasts, but it isn't about culture but biology. The breasts evolved to that size for sexual arousal. Also not all culture allow womanto walk topless shall we get rid of the image of the topless African? Bobisbob (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
But why include a picture of a woman's breasts in the section when we already have multiple pics of breasts? There is nothing remarkable about her breasts in the picture that has anything to do with female sexual arousal, whereas an African woman in traditional clothing has plenty to do with cultural attitudes regarding toplessness. Furthermore, if you're arguing that woman's breasts evolved to be fairly large for male sexual arousal, please include a citation, as it was my impression that they evolved to their size for lactation. Asarelah (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Small point here, but the humans are the only primates with significant breast size before pregnancy. There is a visual function for human female breasts that's separate from feeding babies. I'm sure we can find a reliable source to support this theory. I also agree that it's much better to show women from other cultures. Mattnad (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Busty needs to be moved to Wiktionary rather then redirect to breasts. Busty means big breasted. Im not sure I see where this is explained in the article Im just checking. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to guess that Jimbo Wales signature is faked by Pontorg but in case it wasn't. I don't care if you are the founder of wikipedia you should not use such hateful wording with people, just because in your opinion it is "dumb" why not just simply say your opinion without insults and leave it at that? The argument that Busty means big busted and not breast is a valid argument, a man who is flat chested and works out to develop muscles can be busty without breasts. And the response "I disagree" is a non-satisfactory response which holds no reference or scientific reasoning. The reason I believe the Jimbo sig was faked is because it was added by Pontorg, and because Jimbo has said "Here, we are polite, thoughtful, smart, geeky people, trying only to do something which is undoubtably 'good' in the world: write and give away a free encyclopedia." and to be a smart polite person you do not use such hateful language. 71.113.75.227 (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Moral Ethical explanations
There needs to be added a detailed scientific study of how or why female breasts are socially seen as a rude, improper or shameful act to be seen in public. A boy hits puberty, and by some unknown means he develops gynecomastia and now has mammary glands and large breasts.. it is legal for him to go without a shirt and people do not talk about him going without a shirt except only to tease him. Some say they find topless men sexy, so what is the scientific reason that it is legal and female breasts in public are not, why is it not talked about when a flat chested male goes topless on film or on the beach but if a female does so it is all over the news? There is nothing nasty, or immoral or weird or sexual about a female chest, or rather, there are equal portions of all that as there are with male chests weather he has gynecomastia or does not.
Basically what I am saying is that it is a natural work of art so why don't people just grow up out of their socially brainwashed mind sets and learn to think logically and for them self. It's just skin, Why the discriminative sexism? people need to open their minds, step outside the brainwashing and look at the bigger picture or at least present a scientifically evident reason for this social behavior.
no one I know can come up with logical or scientific or moral reasons why it is wrong for a female to bare their chest for fun, comfort or breastfeeding a child, and why it is right for a male to bare theirs? and why is it such a big deal that they (males) develop gynecomastia to the point that they must get teased? is it not just an insane opinion of social brainwashing which holds no substance or reason just like racism? And should those who oppose females or males who wish to go topless be charged with hate crimes? 71.113.75.227 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a talk page on how to improve the article, not a general forum on the subject of breasts. Please keep it on topic. If you can find citations from articles about cultural views towards toplessness and/or scientific reasons you are quite free to put them in. Asarelah (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
many of the gallery images are not needed
the first image from the gallery fits the top of the article better or a illustration of breasts for the top image. Many f the other gallery images are not needed and are just miscellaneous. Yami (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
that still doesn't explain undoing the other edit to the Gallery. The images i removed are miscellaneous and are no benefit to the article.Yami (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
You might see no benefit, but others will disagree. If you want to make significant changes, bring your concerns here first. Asher196 (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
a nude beach photo does not give me anymore of an idea of what breast look, feel, smell or heir purpose then the text of the article and the photos outside of the gallery.Yami (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I left that so cultural stuff would be covered. As for the porn star with big implants and a few other images that are just pointless they shouldn't be included.Yami (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The porn star's implants are important as they demonstrate a very specific type of implant and how it effects the human breast. I'm certainly with you on the need to change the lead image to this article, however, although my arguements were rejected by my fellow editors in the sections above. Asarelah (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I have informed a mod about your actions and we'll see where this goes. And that is a warning so that you don't revert anymore edits and retaliating by posting on my talk page is not appropriate conduct neither is removing the warning from your talk page and calling me a troll. Yami (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The Gallery Needs to be cleaned up. There are many images that are not educational. The bondage image is not needed, or at least not in this article. There isn't a picture of Feet in bondage on the Foot article why should there be a breast bondage photo on this article?
The show girl with the stars is not needed, the porn star with big implants is half and half, and if we need an image of a cultural view of breast the Himba women are enough.
The nude beach photo does not have the proper public domain stuff and other things. It doesn't even say rather the user the uploaded it was given permission by the women in the photo to use it. Neither does it say rather or not that they know they were photographed.
the pictures "Normal variation in shape", "Woman in brassiere showing cleavage" and "Woman wearing pasties" is a little miscellaneous. the picture of pierced nipples should be under the modification section of the article like circumcision is on the penis article.Yami (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photo_galleries: I think this gallery is too big and should be cropped out entirely; it does not add anything to the article ; bloating the article with lots of images in a gallery is not good and must not substitute with a commonscat template, commons categories are much more appropriate than galleries ; besides, the article is much longer to download with that lot of images. — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to reverting my hiding of the gallery, but it looks like consensus is heading toward removing the gallery altogether. Asher196 (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope. All of these images have nothing to do here: they have all their distinctive, dedicated, and specialized articles: Mammography, Gynecomastia, Inflammatory breast cancer, breast implant, Polypropylene breast implants, Breast cancer, Cleavage (breasts) , pasties, Breast bondage, breastfeeding, Breast pump, etc. (what a mess here!?) This article is centered on human anatomy first, or, what is important in first knowing and finding in a Breast article of an encyclopedia). All subsequent sections (Function, Cultural status and Health) are secondary important. Let's go back centering on the first goal of the article. Thank you for your understanding. — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]20:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Can't we at least keep the diagrams and the example of shape variation? If we can't have a gallery could I at least work them into the article itself? Asarelah (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
One diagram is enough in that article (please, no redundancy). The one from the anatomy section is better than the others in the gallery, these lasts are mono-colored with less details. For the Normal variation in shape image, it could illustrate Ptosis (breasts) but it would be better/indicated to show there a breast chart like that; or you could construct one with real photos (why not?), no faces to show (the breast is the anatomical subject); or as a temporary solution again, there, in the ptosis article, you could do it with a gallery (not in this Breast article, please! Or include it here with a finally constructed image and please: with standard thumbs); or fill in the subsection Shape and support here in the article, but the text should be harmoniously balanced with images: no bloat, no surcharge. You could engross the subsection with encyclopedic text to make right the balancing. IMHO. Ok, Im not sure if I explained myself well, let me know about it. So now, what about removing the gallery? ;-) — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
That isn't Ptosis, its just a normal shape varation, albeit in an older woman. And I also don't have the pictures available to make such a chart. Asarelah (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I know, but please look in the chart showing the normal state, it is after all the reference starting point. If it isn't ptosis, what is the point, then? You see: what is a normal shape regarding... what other shapes? What defines normal variation? I don't get it. And you don't mean average size but shape. What? On commons, we don't have that number of images? ;-) — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]23:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I never said there was a single "normal" shape. I said that there are variations in shape which are perfectly normal, and that the article should reflect that, especially given how insecure people are about their bodies. We don't have a lot of variety in shapes on the commons, and that was the only available one that stood out from the others. Asarelah (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you telling me that we can only have a picture displaying a variance in shape if there is a source stating that women's breasts vary in shape? I think that's rather absurd. Asarelah (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Just tell me what is a normal variation in shape between all this pictures. The majority of these women are normal. Just explain what is a normal variation in shape. Now, my point: you cannot tell or you must precise the context each time. But the context (pregnant, non-pregnant, old, young, big breast or small, etc.) is so plural that you won't be able to tell. Breasts are so diverse and... alive in way. Finally, what is the point in mentioning it? The lead image already gives us an indication of a normal variation of shape. It is more interesting of indicating anomalies or what is abnormal. — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]16:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The only images we need in the gallery are: Image:95C.jpg|Front view of woman's breasts, Image:Breastfeeding-icon-med.svg|International breastfeeding symbol, Image:449px-Manual Breast Pump 2005 SeanMcClean.jpg|Breast pump, Image:Breast self exam 1.jpg|Breast self exam, Image:Mammogram.jpg|Woman undergoing mammogram, and Image:Mammo breast cancer.jpg|Mammography pictures, normal (left) and cancerous (right)
I wanted very much to put the frontal view of a woman's breasts picture in as the lead picture, but my fellow editors where very, very adamant on keeping the blurry side-view picture that we currently have. I don't know where else the frontal view could really go other than in the lead or in a gallery.00:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. I like the large gallery showing a variety of intresting images. It gives the impression that there is a large variation. LAo, there are some good medical images there. Maybe a little clean-up, okay, but we should leave most of the images. Atom (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
well i tried to leave the medical images before but Asher reverted it saying it was to much of a change and of need of consensus. 50% of the medical images at the bottom need to be removed just to save space. Yami (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok everyone give me an idea of what you want
Gallery removed 100% (after all there is no gallery for the penis article or related anatomy)
I sufficiently expressed my views here which reflect a known policy here on WP. All of these images have nothing to do here and go in their main articles. Gallery to be removed. 100%. Or they agreement the texts (into sections, not in a gallery). Peer reviewers will give you the same advice or recommendation. — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]08:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we have too many pictures, but I also understand the need to show the various shapes of breasts, and medical images of them; I'd suggest that we remove all the others.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I returned the gallery again. Apparently someone put it under a link. We don't censor images on Wikipedia, which is one reason we don't hide them under links. I can see that some people have a perspective, different from mine, that no images, or less images are better. I can agree that too many images is not meaningful or beneficial. Hiding all of the images, or removing all of the gallery images isn't acceptable.
I've been monitoring this and a large number of other sexology and sexuality articles for several years. The Gallery has been fine, and no problem, with no controversy for all of that time. Now, all of a sudden someone wants to make a change. But a sudden change by a couple of editors harms the long standing consensus. If some editor wants to make a radical change then we have to go through a process of building a consensus. The changes need to be communicated on the talk page, discussed, and then made based on the consensus. In the mean time, I would appreciate it if people would leave the gallery alone.
My opinion, as I said before, is that the gallery full of images does no harm. As it has gathered a number of images, it is probably quite likely that it has more images than it really needs to be encylopedic. We aren't at this time anyway, working to build the article to GA or FA status. That means that we need no sudden changes, but small gradual changes that will improve tha article. The number and type of images will be only one factor omong many in improving the article to reacg GA status. The focus of attention, primarily by one editor, on removing images from sexuality articles does not, in my mind, improve the quality of the articles. The rationale for that editor was once that he did not like them, and that we did not want children to see them, and that they were not appropriate, or that they were offensive. Based on rationale to sustain the images by other editors, he has changed his tactics to be more in line with Wikipedia policies, and the stated reasons lately have been that there are too many images, and that an article only needs a few images. The end result is the same. The reason that we have a group of people on Wikipedia who fight against censorship (see Wikipedians against censorship) is because too many new editors don't understand the policies of wikipedia, and think anything involving nudity should be offensive, or other reasons.
SO, in summary, let's discuss how we can improve this article. This includes adding and editing TEXT of the article, as well as paring to make sure that each image is constructive and offers useful information in some way. If eventually we maintain a gallery, it should be of images that add useful secondary images and examples of things discussed in the article. We should, in my opinion, err on the side of too many images, over too few images. Atom (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You took this debate by the wrong side: it's not about censorship but about right editing lines. Im against censorship, FYI. I say it again: too much images in the end of this article breaks it from its encyclopedic goal. See Commons project for an image repository. Or text here on WP is meaningless? Think of it: what is more important here on WP? Texts or images? The gallery is really too big (: same size as the text if you count your screen downscrolling. And without counting the other included images in sections, it makes less text again.) and there are sufficient other main articles to include them. So, removing the gallery should bring back more encyclopedic text contents into that article (in first place, images are secondary concerns, really! They are NOT to substitute to the text, ever. Or we change WP's goal). And we should tend to FA or GA this way imho. — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]14:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
If you look at my edits, I am all for editing on the basis of improving the article. Certainly this article could use improvement. My opinion is that constructive edits would be adding more material pertinent to the topic, supported by some of the images in the gallery. The focus of a few editors is on the images though, not on improving the article. Removing the gallery isn't acceptable. I don't agree that remocvng the material makes the article more encylopedic since there is useful and instructive material in the Gallery. Yes, the gallery is to big, and needs to be pared. Our focus should be one improving that as one of many improvements in the article. See the discussion in the next section on what gallery images are beneficial and which ones are not.
I am not claiming that you as an editor are trying to censor. There is another editor whose primary focus is removing images, under the guise of improving the article. Images are not secondary concerns, but incorporated as part of the article. The lede image is one of the most important pieces of GA. Yes, it suppplements the article, bnut is very important. So, it makes no difference if text should predominate. I think we agree that we need more text that constructively adds to the article. Consider some of the images I mentioned in the Gallery section below, they are interesting, but do not fit in any currently existing section in the article. This begs for someone to add a section that discusses the topic, and uses that image to support it. Editors should focus on that type of contribution, not trying to contribute by removing images. That's my opinion. Atom (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hiding the Gallery is not censorship. It is a tool to use for people's convince. Who wants their browser window to just keep stretching and stretching until everything loads?
Just like if i was to put the hide code on the talk page it would be just to allow easier navigation so people can see the part they want to see without having to scroll for five minutes to get to where they need.
Use your common sense please, I don't mean to offend but come on It was already explained why the gallery was hidden. Removing it would be censorship in a way but hiding it is only meant as a tool to improve.
We did the same thing in the Kanto (pokemon) talk page because it got so long it took to long to find where the discussion left off. Please do not undo the hide, and it is not a link. Links take you from the current page. Also we only need maybe 4-6 medical images of the cell pictures. I say 2 blue ones and two red ones and/or purple ones. We don't need 18 of them.Yami (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Removal of Puberty 101
Wikipedia does not allow sites to be used that are off topic, judgmental or user generated.
Here is their disclaimer.
Disclaimer: Answers to questions should not in anyway be considered as professional advice or used as an alternative to seeking qualified professional help or guidance from your parents or legal guardian. Answers to questions are strictly for educational and entertainment purposes only. If you need professional advice you should consult a qualified professional, health care provider, or doctor. If you need guidance trust the judgement of your parents.
Also many of those "answers" were judgmental
Q Matthew (15-17) asks:
I masturbate 3-4 times a day in private, and maybe once or twice with one or two of my friends. The thing is they only play with themselves once a day, am I normal or am I some kind of sicko?
A Matthew:
Well, as you can read from the other responses, masturbating a few times daily isn't necessarily bad unless it gets in the way of other activities. Now, I assume you don't mean that you masturbate with with your friends every day also? I guess that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but at this point, masturbating 4-6 times per day may be taking time away from other activities. You are probably in the normal range, although most boys don't "circle jerk" that often as they reach their late teens. If you're obsessed with masturbation, or masturbating with your friends, then perhaps you should take up a sport or hobby that will give you something else to do also.
Q Brian (15-17) asks...
When I am in Gym, I take a look around at other boys undressing and I get my penis gets stiff. When we are in the shower, it gets even stiffer. I'm not gay, but why is it doing this?
A Brian:
You're getting erections because it turns you on to see other boys undressing, and it turns you on to show them your own penis. Many people (gay and straight) get turned on by sexuality itself, regardless of the subject. True, you may not be gay, but I wouldn't totally rule it out. You should explore in your head what really does turn you on. And like I mentioned to Ryan, above, perhaps you should consider avoiding putting yourself in that situation.
The topic of the article is breasts. I don't see anything above related to that. Perhaps that is your point? Well, I looked at the site, and it seems to be a generalized web site on sex education for teens. There are sections on a number of topics within it, including breast size, female genitals and stages of breasts[4]. I'm not sure who added the link originally, but perhaps one of those sections was the reason. As this is an article on breasts, I suppose it is marginally related. Certainly information on sex for teens looking at the breast article because they have questions about their developing body would be constructive. However, I don't see inclusion of the link as essential.
I am confused as to why you brought up the masturbation topic though, as that doesn't seem relevant. Your stated premise was that it should not be allowed because "Wikipedia does not allow sites to be used that are off topic, judgmental or user generated." And that site does seem to be marginally on topic, if you look at the sections on breasts, rather than the section on masturbation. It doesn't appear to be "judgmental", and it isn't a user generated site. You said that the Masturbation section (unrelated to breasts) demonstrated that someplace on the site it was judgmental. However the text you gave seemed just the opposite of judgmental. The answers were open, honest and accepting. I am guessing that there is something in the asnwers that you may disagree with, and so that may be why you found it to be judgmental? As a sexuality expert, and a parent, I have to say that the answers are pretty much the kind of advice that I would give, or an counselor would give if asked by a teen.
As I said before, "Certainly information on sex for teens looking at the breast article because they have questions about their developing body would be constructive. However, I don't see inclusion of the link as essential."
Atom (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the website based on wikipedia criteria. I only used the masterbation Q&A because i was in a hurry but those were two of at least 5 examples i had listed on Asher's talk page but he kept removing them. There are other sections and the website disclaimer even aknowledges that the answerers are not professional or at least should not be considered so.
A professional would never tell a person to get a hobby and stop jerking it. they also would not say something like "You're getting erections because it turns you on to see other boys undressing, and it turns you on to show them your own penis." Yami (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
A professional would defiantly tell that to a person; their is nothing wrong with masturbation, unless you find it's taking up your whole day, just like there is nothing wrong with playing WoW, unless you find it's taking up your life.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
What about the "You're getting erections because it turns you on to see other boys undressing, and it turns you on to show them your own penis." part? Yami (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I have the same question...what is judgmental about that? It is the opposite. The quote from the web site is:
"You're getting erections because it turns you on to see other boys undressing, and it turns you on to show them your own penis. Many people (gay and straight) get turned on by sexuality itself, regardless of the subject. True, you may not be gay, but I wouldn't totally rule it out. You should explore in your head what really does turn you on. And like I mentioned to Ryan, above, perhaps you should consider avoiding putting yourself in that situation. Credit: J. Geoff Malta, MA, EdM, NCC Adolescent Therapist "
The person answering that question is a trained professional, and explaining his opinion honestly. I think his logic is that if the teen is getting sexually excited (evidenced by getting "stiffer") then it may be because of the reaons he said. There is no impled judgement. Judgement would be if the therapist had said "You are bad for feeling that way."
Atom (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
As per the criteria, of course you have read WP:EL I am certain. There is no need for the site to be offically run by professionals. You mentioned that you used the Maturbation section as an example. Well, to meet the criteria, it should be related to the topic of the article. In your haste, you skipped over the useful informaiton on breats in the article, that would have been the appropriate comparison. Atom (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can say they're a doctor and the disclaimer shouldn't be there if this is answered by a professional. Doctors should not be so blunt as to say "You're getting erections because it turns you on to see other boys undressing, and it turns you on to show them your own penis." That is judgmental, and to post it for display for people to see isn't proper conduct for a professional.
The site should be 86ed based on its disclaimer alone. If it was truly professional then a disclaimer wouldn't be needed.
Especially since it says the answers are for entertainment.
Just like you need a creditable source to cite articles, you need a creditable site to send people to. I would say number three on WP:ELYES dictates that the website should not be linked to because it isn't Neutral because of the judgmental tones of the article. WP:RS (which WP:ELMAYBE tells what should be considered) dictates that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Who is checking this "professional"'s accuracy and reliability?
Not to mention the illustrations on the website are crude and unprofessional. Not one internal anatomy illustration can be seen. The site is hosted on a site advertising web hosting which further makes the question on how professional the site is. They might have some true facts but in general the whole site is a prime example of how anyone can have a website.
A .Org or .Gov external site would be a much better replacement. Though there are some creditable .com sites with info on the subject in this article and other articles you have to be careful what you link.
I think we should let this site go and find a new one. I believe a site with professional, crisp clear photos and illustrations would be proper. Don't get me wrong puberty 101 is probably doing their best but a more professional and creditable place to send knowledge seekers is needed. Would you want a 11 year old girl who is suffering growth pains to come to this article and go to the site just to find a Q&A that is no more then entertainment? I don't even think the little girl would know to check the Disclaimer, and would take that quack's advice to heart. Yami (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course, I disagree. A site does not have to be run by a professional to be notable or citeable. I think what you are trying to say is that the link is not a reliable source? The comments you allude to are very objective, and not at all judgmental. Maybe you do not perceive them as professional, but consider that a therapist is going to talk to a teen in the language he understands, not technobabble.
At any rate, isn't this moot point, as no one has objected to your removal of the link? Why are you beating a dead horse? Atom (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of breast hair in the article, nor any mention of it on the nipple page either. It is not uncommon for female breasts to have hair on them, especially around the nipple and areola. Some women prefer to remove it. Any reason why this should not be mentioned in the article? The article seems to present a view that all female breasts are hairless, which I suppose if a very americanized and glamourized view. Any thoughts? --99.233.145.3 (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
well if you do the research I'm fine with its addition. I admit that's one feature of breast i rather not think to much about no matter how natural it is. at least not on a female anyways. Yami (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Leading image (1)
The current main photo seems really inappropriate. It is more an artistic photograph than one which properly depicts breasts. It's shot from a side angle so as to really only show one breast; the other breast is barely seen and blurry. Overall it is not the best choice. A better photo would be directly forward, showcasing both breasts in a more clinical sense. TheGoonSquad (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
We have images like that already in the article, and the lead picture doesn't nessicarly need to depict the image in a clinical fashion; also, finding good images for this article isn't exactly easy, you can see if you can't find a good image, and then we'll discuss it, but tbh, the lead is probably one of the better images in the article.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the lead picture ought to depict the image in clinical fashion. Its an encyclopedia article, it ought to take a clinical approach. Asarelah (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
So you stated, above me. But what exactly, do you mean by 'clinical fashion'? a Mammogram? a diagram with a cut away? Both yours and TGS's statements are extremely vague, other then you want a picture showing them from the front, in a supposed 'clinical sense'. Please propose an image or two so that they can be discussed.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam15:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
By "clinical", I mean displaying the subject in a manner that depicts it very clear, educational way. A mammogram or diagram can be "clinical", of course, but I just had a more clear photograph in mind, one where both breasts are clearly visible on the chest. A blurry picture of only one side of the subject isn't very helpful. Asarelah (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Honeymane. Find a better picture that suits your aesthetics and put it in. As it stands, the current picture may not conform to some notions of "clinical" (whatever that is), but it clearly depicts a single breast. The lack of depth of field helps focus the composition, so in my opinion, it serves a practical and not an artistic purpose. Mattnad (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Human Female breasts are a very wonderful thing, but we need to show at least one male breast. Maybe in a comparison between natural male and female breasts? Even though it's common knowledge, this entry is incomplete without a picture of male breasts. I also think wikipedia users should use pictures of their breasts in order to confirm and shut up anymore idiots that come here claiming that a picture uses an underage subject, and that picture is more porn than educational related. I thinkwe should also have black/african/african-american/jamaican or just plain dark breasts here to show differences between white and black breasts and just to keep it diverse. The article is lacking color, males, and maybe something about bra's and the positive and negative effects that they have on breasts.76.112.167.230 (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)srkelley76.112.167.230 (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
"Male Breast" is mentioned in lead and that's probably all we need. Generally, "Breasts" are a considered a female feature that has key reproductive functions. While men have chests, and some have enough fat to have a fuller breast shape, men do not have milk producing ducts. Similarly, they are not generally considered a "sexual feature" for men. It's a fine point on emphasis I'll agree. Perhaps we can create a concise subsection in this article? Probably doesn't warrant a photo of a male breast, but it would hurt to offer a bit more detail. I'm all for increasing the racial diversity of images. If we can find an appropriate image with a non-white person, let's get in here - perhaps as a substitute for the main image which seems to attract speculation and concerns about the subjects age. Mattnad (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Since female breasts and nipples come in many shapes, colours and sizes this picture does not even come close to providing a clear representation of what a female breast looks like. Moreover the guidelines in the Breast/sandbox clearly state that "Artwork is preferred over photographs". Pictures of a young woman's breasts add nothing useful to wikipedia.195.195.166.31 (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Bede
What guidelines are you talking about? I've never read anything on Wikipedia anywhere that said that art work is preferable over photographs. May I see a link please? Asarelah (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Its really funny that this Article have an female's breast picture. Did anybody think that nobody knows how an females breast looks like?? ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.49.26 (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The cat article has an image, but I'm sure that the people who added it didn't think that nobody knows what cats look like. When there is a useful, informative image pertaining to an article's subject, its inclusion is often appropriate for Wikipedia. Please remember that the talk page is an area for discussion of how to improve an article, not for general commentary. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel that this image (Closeup of female breast.jpg) should be replaced in the article. The image has a visible line, which some say is a breast augmentation scar and others say is an indentation left by a bra. I personally think that it's probably an indentation, but in either case, it's a misleading mark and I think it would be better to use a picture of a typical breast without such a visible mark. I feel that the first picture in an encyclopedia article should depict the relevant object as accurately as possible and with as few misleading features as possible. Most of the time, for the majority of the human populace, such (indentation) marks are not typical features of human breasts.
86.56.40.172 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Just let me download it first! Actually, I have no constructive commentary, other to say that while I am typically against the genital exhibitionists that try and put their pics up here, I personally have no problem with this image and find it to value. How can it be inaccurate, are you claiming that it is in fact not a breast? If anything I think it does exemplify the average breast. Tolstoy143 - "Quos vult perdere dementat" (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The article is primarily about the humanmammary gland, which is only rudimentary in males. It would be very difficult to show a picture of a male mammary gland as most males have relatively large pectoral muscles and, with age, fat deposits combined with almost non-existent mammary tissue, so all you'd have would be a picture of a rudimentary nipple and an area of skin covering mostly non-glandular tissue and bone. But if you can find a good picture or diagram of male human breasts, go for it. Search Commons and make some suggestions. --Doug.(talk • contribs)23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this article supposed to be about the human mammary gland? it's titled "breast". And mammary gland has it's own article. I agree that there should be some address of the breast in males, but more importantly beyond the female human. Perhaps this article could be renamed, but right now it is too narrow a discussion of breasts.Temporary Sanity (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
We clearly need at least one picture of a male breast. I've looked around over at Commons, but I'm having trouble finding good pictures of male breasts. Some of the nudes could be useful if we cropped the lower body. There are also plenty of sculptures of male torsos that we could use, eg Commons:Category:Torso.
We have one image of male breasts in the article already. It is in the disease section I think. None of "normal" male breasts. I don't really care for any of the images shown for the article. Atom (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
One image of abnormal male breast does not cut it; this is not female breast. We have an abundance of images of female breast that are clearly questionable (the gallery), so showing at least one image of reasonbly average male breast should not be a problem. Are there any more specific reasons for not including the above candidates?
I don't think the labels are desirable for the lede image, they're more appropriate for one in the anatomy or other section. Ciotog (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ciotog. Labels clutter up the lead. In addition, the first image is of a pregnant female and thus given that breasts are for feeding young, this photo for the lead seems particularly apt. Gillyweed (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you are satisfied with the picture that is there, but you haven't addressed any of the valid points that I've brought up (such as the blurryness and the angle), nor offered your opinion on the two images that I've offered as possible alternatives. Asarelah (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no objections to a lead photo being artistic and therefore the blurryness and angle do not matter. The breast itself is not blurry and the angle is one that would be seen by a baby! The other two photos are taken for particular purposes, viz, illustrating the changes to breasts during pregnancy and thus are appropriate for such a specific purpose. The current photo is fine for the lead. There, now I have addressed your other points. Cheers! Gillyweed (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Asarelah has brought up this topic in a previous thread and the consensus then was keep the current photo unless a better one can be produced. So far, the one we have is the best but I'm open to another. Keep at it and perhaps we'll find a winner in the process. Mattnad (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That one is better. I also disagree with Gillyweed on his point that a picture of a pregnant woman's breasts is better because breasts are used to feed young. That is all well and good, but the fact of the matter is, women aren't always pregnant. The picture should reflect how a woman's breasts usually look, not just how they look under a certain circumstance. Asarelah (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The current image has too many signs which distract from the idea of straightforwardness and neutrality. The angle of the model's body, her raised blouse, the mark on the skin, the ambiguous situation regarding her state (natural, natural and pregnant, augmented, pregnant and augmented), the ambiguous room temperature (is she cold?), the natural lighting, the yellow object, the minimal depth of field, the close proximity of the lens to the subject, the tightness of the focal point in relation to its distance from the top edge of the picture frame. The new image should reflect a general appearance, almost clinical, with a collection of average and plain signs. This image (of all the images at wikimedia) appears the most suitable to me, although the model appears to be standing in her garden, and the photographer seems slightly unaware of the breasts in the context of the body. Redblueball (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. It just isn't a suitable picture for our purposes, and its nice to have someone who actually knows about photography explain why. I'm going to list this into requests for comment so that we can get an outside opinion, as other editors have been rather insistent upon keeping it. Asarelah (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the present picture, largely because of the angle, is inappropriate and should be changed to one with a more neutral angle and showing the breast in the context of the chest as a whole. Jjshapiro (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
hmmm... there are about 50 billion pictures of breasts on the internet, so this shouldn't be that difficult. but let me make an alternate suggestion that might solve a lot of quibbling. why not use a breast cancer ribbon rather than a breast? it's highly recognizable as related to breasts, and no one's likely to object to it on moral grounds... --Ludwigs203:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The article is about 'Breast' -- not 'Breast Cancer' which is why there should be a picture of a breast, and not a pink ribbon. And, why would anyone have moreal objects to a picture of a breast? Is human anatomy somehow morally repugnant? Improving the lead image shold be the focus, not censorhsip to not offend the minority. Also shouldn't there be a picture of male breasts? Atom (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
don't take the 'moral objection' phrase too strongly - the objections to the current picture are partly artistic (fuzziness and etc) and partly moral (odd posture, and etc). I've got nothing against any particular aspect of human anatomy; just trying to help out. it might be worth your time to go check out the offerings on deviantArt. you'd have to ask use permission from the artists (though I think any of them would be tickled to donate a pic to Wikipedia for this article), but they have a broad selection of decent quality images. three examples (you'll have to be a registered member to view these, because they are labelled as mature content, but basic registration is free): [6][7][8] --Ludwigs215:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't taking a picture from DeviantArt just compound the supposed issue that the image shouldn't be artistic in any manner? The first two have color filters applied, and in the last one, you only see one breast, which is what people where complaining about above! The picture we have is fine.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam06:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The idea of displaying a "breast cancer ribbon" is far too symbolic, and not universal enough (it's time and culture specific) in my opinion. Perhaps, the answer is to request an image with an agreed set of parameters - i.e a formal image of a naked female from the waist up, in an environment of a comfortable temperature, standing, with her arms at her side or behind her back, relaxed, in front of a neutral background, comprehensively lit, and facing the viewer(s)/photographer. Redblueball (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the image that contained the errors (for the reasons already mentioned - the awkward angle of the model's body, the shallow depth of field ("fuzziness"), and the mark on the model's breast). The new image is matter of fact, uniformly lit, shot against a neutral background, and the breast is unambiguously natural and unmarked. I've also retitled and numbered the discussions that cover the leading image. Redblueball (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, I'm trying to have an open mind about it, but the new image doesn't look very good. It looks flat and two-dimensional. I would prefer something that looks realistic, say from the front. Atom (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There is a perfectly good full frontal shot in the gallery, its the first one in there. Why not use that instead? Asarelah (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
separate issue - just because I answered the RfC and happened to notice - why are the only facts under the first picture its latin name and its major artery and vein? that just seems like a bizarre contraposition of facts. isn't there anything more productive you can say than that? :-) --Ludwigs221:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point. A caption provides the context of the image: details that are otherwise invisible or ambiguous. But what is the context and description of the Closeup_of_female_breast image when put in a caption?... "Image of a post-pubescent and pre-menopausal caucasian female displaying her breasts to her partner. Females in the western world often request that their breasts are recorded during the day in a still image captured by a high resolution digital camera set to automatic mode. On this occasion, the image was taken within minutes of the removal of the females bra, as signified by the mark on the left breast." The basic erros in the image point to too much ambiguous context for it to be taken seriously, but I like the idea of using an image with a history and context - the painting Gabrielle d'Estrées et une de ses soeurs has such a thing, and the notability also provides sound reason for its use. I've also made a request at wikimedia for a new image of a naked female similar to this ("full frontal") as you both - Atom and Asarelah mentioned. Redblueball (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but I don't really see a consensus here, ether to change the image or which image to change it to. And to be perfectly clear, I'm one of the 'don't change' group, not one of the 'change it' group; my last post's point about taking the image from deviantArt was more or less "What's the point?" it's been argued over and over on whether or not the picture should be replaced because it's to artistic, and to me, suggesting that we replace it with another admittedly artistic image seems rather...circular in reasoning.
Further more, I fail to see the logic in using a painting as the lead, when we have a perfectly good, real life, photograph to use. And what is this nonsense about 'ambiguous context'? I dare say the photograph you replaced the lead with was rather ambiguous, as was the frontal view that replaced that.
I'm really trying to be civil here, but this never ending debate over a picture is really grinding down my patience; the fact is is that their is no consensus in any of these debates about this picture, and there isn't even a consensus on what could possibly replace it. I know I, as have others, have asked time and time again for a photograph that is equal or greater then that of the current lead picture and time and time again no picture has been put forward that does just that. The lead picture is like a the opening sentience of an essay; it's extremely important but means nothing; in the same vein, the lead picture is important, but means nothing, that is to say, it's important to the look and feel of the article but isn't educationally important, or, in other words, it doesn't need to show both breast equally, it doesn't need to be a diagram or have lines drawn all over it pointing out important parts, because all that stuff will happen in the correct sections. The only reason we don't use more pictures like the current lead is because such images don't grow on trees.
Frankly, I'm rather concerned that so much time and effort and debate has been put into this image, when, as Ludwigs2 points out, we could be improving the infoboxes and the content in the article that is the soul of this encyclopedic effort.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam07:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The visual representation of things is far from trivial, some even say that a picture is worth a thousand words... I also don't need to remind you that Wikipedia encourages change and improvements to all its content, and that includes the improvement of images. While there is a degree of visual naivete and apathy among some editors of this article for images and image making, a reason exists to employ that encouragement, make edits, and argue the cases for change. So, there appears to be a consensus for changing the lead image, or no consensus for keeping the lead image, or at least a consensus for substituting the lead image on the condition that the replacement is of better quality. Unambiguously, I've uploaded three new images, and propose that we vote on which image in the array (consisting of the new images, the current image, and the images that also appeared on the article this week) is preferred for the lead. Redblueball (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
No, What others and I have proposed is, in the unlikely event that we should find a free-to-use, well put together picture, that perhaps we would reopen the discussion, and see if the new image would make a better lead. After months of debate and discussion, no consensus has been reached, and it always ends up in the same way; we always end up going to trying to 'vote' and see if there is one image everyone likes and wants to become the lead image, and again and again we never reach any sort of answers other then 'lets keep the image' we have a whole sandbox of images for this article! And we still ended up at the same conclusion.
First of all, the only picture of any merit in the 6 you suggested is the lead and image number four, number 5 is far too dark and 6 is poorly contrasted between the breast and the rest of her body. Secondly, and more importantly, the pictures you just uploaded are all under review because their licenses from the website you took them from is incompatible with the creative commons license you uploaded them under, and maybe deleted, so until we can be certain of it's copyright status, we can't use them. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam21:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The style of "image 2" is not bad (I'd accept it), "Weibliche-brust.jpg" is a bit pixellated... I think we need to outsource to raise the surface quality? Redblueball (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Honeymane, indeed they have gone, but I'm perplexed by your rejection of "image 5" and "6", can you provide a link to an example image (of whatever copyright status) that you'd accept as replacement? Redblueball (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
But see, here's the problem; I don't feel the lead image needs to be replaced, I think the current image is one of the better lead images on Wikipedia. It would have to be an extremely good image to impress me and make me change my opinion on the matter, and frankly, I don't see the point in me searching through pages of google/deviantart/English Wikipedia/other wikipedias to find an image that we may or may not have the freedom to use. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam03:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The principle of changing the image is absolutely acceptable at Wikipedia (in our case if it leads to an improvement). But, if editors who wish to implement an improvement (in our case - because the image contains errors - disagreement self-evidently showing that the image is imperfect) are left in the dark regarding the qualities to which the current image was measured against, then how can the principle be realised? Redblueball (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagreement isn't showing the picture is imperfect and must be changed, if that was the case, then we'd have started censoring Wikipedia's images long ago, what with the amount of traffic we get from people coming here and demanding that we removing the immoral images from our articles. All this disagreement is showing is that some users are unwilling to let it go and realize that they haven't the consensus to make the changes they want to make. I'm fully aware of Wikipedia's ideals that we should revise, revise, revise, but I'm also equally aware that Wikipedia wants revisions that improve the article, and major revisions like changing the lead image requires consensus to do so. Further more I am fully aware of the history of this image, and the many, many nonsensical arguments that have been put forward for why we should change the lead image, everything from the breasts being implants (It took something like 6 months to get it into the heads of these people making the claim that the mark wasn't a scar, but from a recently removed, too tight, bra) to 'oh no it's too sexually explicit, it could turn people on'. You Yourself seem to claim that this mark makes the image 'ambiguous', although you never cared to explain exactly what you meant by that.
On Wikipedia, one of the most important principles is the idea that we should assume good faith for all actions taken by users, we should assume that every edit was by someone trying to improve the article, and every deletion request made under the context of perhaps they really don't feel that the subject is (for whatever reason given, perhaps not notable) correct for wikipedia, and we should realize that, even if we disagree and/or have to revise the edit or such. HOWEVER, there has been times, I'm sorry to say, in which some users will keep making the same edit over and over again, even if it's be revised, or continually nominates and article for deletion, even if the answer has been, for the last 10 times, 'keep'. At some point these edits stop being done in good faith and become bad faith edits. As much as I'd hate to say it, I can't help but feel that the continuing arguments and discussions are being made somewhat in bad faith. As Gillyweed points out above, Asarelah already started a discussion elsewhere, on the same matter, and got nowhere. To me that smells of bad faith.
Now, as I and others have said, time and time again, the lead photograph is fine, and one of the better lead images on wikipedia, but we have also said, time and time again, that, should a good image comes forward, and we agree that it's better then the current image, then it would be replaced. We are not unmovable statues, who never change our opinions. But we are also not going to start changing the lead image every time someone complains on the talk page about the flaws. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam18:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose as lead image [9] as appropriate for the article and not having many of the problems that have been identified with previously suggested images. Autrecourt (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Please excuse me, but as a relative newbie I can't figure out how to reference this image without displaying it! Autrecourt (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
How about we just stick image 2 in the lead section for now until we get a better image? I'm just so sick of looking at the current picture. Asarelah (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
If "Autrecourt" could provide a higher resolution of the image?... Isn't there some kind of "in house" procedure (other than long debates) we could follow to reach a conclusion? Redblueball (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, won't be able to get a high resolution image till August. Best I can do right now is an alternate image, [10], some may not think it's any better. Autrecourt (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
See, here's the problem, you don't have a consensus to change the picture, just like Gillyweed (I believe) pointed up near the beginning of this section, you've championed this subject before, and it was shot down. This discussions have been going on for as long as that picture has been the lead, and the consensus has been reached, over and over again that the lead is fine, and will remain so until, and only until, a image can be brought forward that, when discussed, brings about a consensus that the new comer image would make a better lead image then the current image. And, as of today, no picture has been suggested that does just that. I mean, you haven't even really be trying with these last few images, they all look the same, like you took a bunch of pictures from a line up of women, who where all the same build, and had all the same breast size, and had all had the same pregnancy history, and took a bunch of photographs of varying degrees of resolution, then cropped them so close that was in the image was the chest, and nothing more, all foreground, no background, etc. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam18:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I apologize. I jumped the gun in putting in another picture, and I'm sorry. Anyway, the last group of images I proposed were not poor for a lack of trying, they were poor because they were the only pictures of pregnant women's breasts I could find on the Wikimedia commons, and Gillyweed said that he thought a picture of a pregnant woman's breasts would be best. I don't know where to get public domain pictures of women's breasts, and I'm far too modest to take a picture of my own (although I'm very nearly tempted to do so out of frustration at this point!). It is my opinion that virtually any image on here would be better than the lead. I don't think that we'll ever get one that's totally perfect, so we should just pick the best one we can from the commons and put it up until one of superior quality can be produced. Asarelah (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No one is asking you to do anything that you'd be uncomfortable with. The problem is, the picture we have IS of a pregnant woman, and people like Gillyweed and I feel this (the current photo) is the best, which is what we've been trying to get across all these years; if a superior photo can be produced, then we'd use it, but none of these image are superior to it.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam23:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent):I was actually being facetious when I mentioned the idea of photographing myself. Anyway, I will keep an eye on the commons if anyone uploads a superior picture, and I will suggest them here if anything pops up. Asarelah (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd hardly call "number seven" a sharp picture, and it's obvious the nipples have been tampered with. You can see the round scars around the Areola. Inferiz (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The current photo seems fine for the lead. There are many different types of women, and different types of breasts; one has to be chosen, why not this?. This is a well framed artistic picture, which shows the breast perfectly well (it's main purpose), and could never be confused to be porn, so i consider it safe for work. Also, its artistic merit makes it interesting to look at even for those of us who have no interest in breasts.Yobmod (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
All the alternate offering are photographically very ugly. Science doesn't have to be devoid of artistic merit.Yobmod (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Think of it this way...if you wanted a picture of eyes for the Eye article, would you want a picture of someone looking directly into the camera, or someone with their head tilted with one eye visible and the other one blurry? Asarelah (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a silly and inconsistent argument, because I don't see you complaining about the lead picture of Ear. Or Arm. Why should it be a problem that one one of two gets depicted and that the rest of the photo is blurry? Inferiz (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't bothered with the ear or arm articles because this article is the one that I'm currently trying to improve. In the case of breasts, seeing them in context of the chest and the body is important. There is no reference point in the photograph for perspective. I also don't appreciate you calling my arguements "silly". Asarelah (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you're only trying to "improve" this article doesn't change the fact that the argument you provide is inconsistent. Almost none of the dual body part articles (ear, arm, leg, eye, ...) do not feature a photograph that provide a reference point for the article at hand. And even if one would follow your points, one could say that the images you provide don't provide a good reference point for perspective either: you'd need a full body shot for that. So your point is a bit moot, I guess. Inferiz (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
the current lead image is not appropriate for the top of the article. A better image would either be an illustrated frontal view or the first image from the gallery section which is already up for the position. Yami (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
How did you guys on this article allow the current lead image to be in the first place. Somewhere someone must have added it and that wasn't controversial yet switching it out is? You'd think with so many editors trying to keep the article pure and encyclopedic they would have kept the lead image to retain a medical kind of tone. a Girls Gone wild, or a girlfriend showing her man the goods tone is not appropriate for the article. Yami (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Gallery
This is a discussion of the images in the gallery. WHat images in the gallery could be moved into the article, and where? Which images are useful in the gallery as additional examples supporting text in the main article, but not right for that section? Which images are useful, and offering interesting examples of the topic, and which are redundant?
Frankly, looking through the gallery images, I can see very few that are not worth keeping. I can see a number of images that we should write sections of the article for, and include one or more images. That would include Image:ImmodestyBlaizeMEW2007Topless.jpg, Image:Himba ladies.jpg, Image:Nipples after.jpg, Image:Intricate rope breast bondage.jpg, Image:449px-Manual Breast Pump 2005 SeanMcClean.jpg, Image:449px-Manual Breast Pump 2005 SeanMcClean.jpg, and Image:MaxiMounds.jpg, Image:Inflammatory breast cancer.jpg, Image:Mastectomie 02.jpg and possibly others. The histopathology sections are interesting, but there are too many for the article section, maybe choosing one good one for that section would do. Atom (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
If we remove the gallery, that is fine including new sections with these images. Provided the fact these sections do not rivalise in size with their main articles as I suggested before: they will introduce by 3 or 4 sentences the main article, and that, is the best way to FA. Still imho. ;-) — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]15:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the hiding of the Gallery was reverted with a "return gallery -- can't see it under the link -- we don't link images -- Wikipedia is not censored)" The gallery wasn't put in a link, it was just hidden. You simply had to click "show" to unhide the gallery. Asher196 (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I checked the Finger page. I didn't see a gallery of fingers of different types, or diseases of fingers. I didn't find a gallery under Buttocks, Toe, Arm, or Chin either. I suspect I could do this with just about any body part with the same result. I wasn't opposed to the gallery before, but now I'm rethinking that position. Asher196 (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Actually the old image show/hide template was deleted on WP:NOT#CENSORED grounds. I'm not sure I agree with the decision, but whatever. Anyway, so the community consensus is — or at least was — that hiding images, and galleries by extension, is tantamount to censorship. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This isn;t the finger article. For a variety of reasons, our perception of the breast are uniquely different than the finger. Tjere was not a previous discussion to find consensus on maintaining a Gallery in the finger article, or anyone who felt necessary to make one. There were both in the breast article. Atom (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There have been a recent discussion here and Skeezix1000 is tending to my point of view in rightly balancing text and images. As a result, they took away the gallery in William Lyon Mackenzie King. In fr:, some admins are currently discussing of the possibility of making commons galleries attractive in designing a new template. This could be added in text sections:
I'd like to discuss what improvements other editors feel can be made to the Gallery images. The consensus has been, in the past, to have a Gallery in this article. Recently a few editors feel that there are more images than necessary. At a glance, I agree that thre are lots of images there, so let's discuss the individual images. Suggestions to "Just remove the whole Gallery" are lazy in my opinion. CLearly there are a number of great images in the Gallery, some of which I mentioned earlier.
Are there images in the Gallery that do not seem to add anything unique?
Are there images that clearly cry out for having a section on the topic, yet not discussed, in the article?
On Wikipedia, we first fix the problems in article. Then we (re)construct. These articles are public, don't you know? The gallery is wrong. Now. So, let's remove it. Now. You could discuss whatever you want after and prepare in a subpage (or in your user space) whatever changes you want for this article. That is the way it is. On WP. — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]14:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Or such is your opinion. You should build your articles that way. Another view might be that some Wikipedians specilaize in finding interesting images (or producing them) and other people like to revert vandalism, and yet others add on topic text to articles. Some may find images to supplement text sections that have no illustrative images, and some may prefer to generate text sections based on great images other people provide. It takes all kinds.
In this case I thin kthe breast article cries out for a sub-section under cultural status entitled breast modifcation, tattooing and piercing. Also under cultural could mention sub cultures and fetish interests in breasts such as mammary intercourse, breastsfeeding and bondage and other paraphilias. Brief mention and an image can redirecto to the more detailed articles on those topics. Someone has provided images for those already. Do we mention topfreedom in the article? (I can't recall -- we should)
You have a view. You have a right you your view of how an article ought to be built or managed. I respect that. Consider that other people have differing views. Wikipedia Policy allwos for a range of methods for getting things done, it doesn't have a one true path philosophy.
We need to respect the integrity of the article and the method, and precedence pursued by previous editors. We need to have a shared goal of improving the article. This is done by contribution and constructive critical review, not by descronstructing and removal of beneficial elements. The article needs work. It will be a work in progress for a long time. That is tha nature of Wikipedia. One must consider, would removing all of the Gallery items constructively add to producing a GA eventually, or does it inhibit that? If we were close to GA (we aren't) and trying to do last minute fine tuning changes to get it there, maybe removing the few images left in the gallery (by then) would be constructive. See the kind of work being done on the Saint Paul Minnesota article. But, at this stage, we need to trim the gallery of images that do not contribute, and add text section for images that offer information, but no text yet exists. Additionally, adding important aspects of the topic to the article, and finding new images to supplement those needs to be done. Removal of the Gallery at this stage hampers improvement, and at the same time removes images that offer valuable information for some readers. That is how I see it. Atom (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
If you could contribute to the discussion on what images in the gallery you feel are valuable, and why, and which ones are redundant, and why, that would be constuctive. Repeated calls to wipe out the whole Gallery are not seen (by me anyway) as constructive, but destructive and as an attempt at censorship under the guise of editorial oversight. Atom (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hiding the Gallery is not censorship. It is a tool to use for people's convince. Who wants their browser window to just keep stretching and stretching until everything loads?
Just like if i was to put the hide code on the talk page it would be just to allow easier navigation so people can see the part they want to see without having to scroll for five minutes to get to where they need.
Use your common sense please, I don't mean to offend but come on It was already explained why the gallery was hidden. Removing it would be censorship in a way but hiding it is only meant as a tool to improve.
We did the same thing in the Kanto (pokemon) talk page because it got so long it took to long to find where the discussion left off. Please do not undo the hide, and it is not a link. Links take you from the current page. Also we only need maybe 4-6 medical images of the cell pictures. I say 2 blue ones and two red ones and/or purple ones. We don't need 18 of them.Yami (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Yami: I left a message on your talk page. My apologies (again) for stepping on your toes. This section is for discussing what to do with which images. Removal of a bulk of the images, what I just reverted, without us working it out first is not polite. Discuss first, let's find a consensus and then act. There is no race, no hurry no urgent need to remove the images.
Putting the image behind a link is, regardless of your opinion, often considered to be a form of censorship. I am not asking you to change your opinion, only to respect the opinions of others. I know your desire is to improve the article, and you feel that hiding the images from view is an improvement. I am assuring you that not everyone, and perhaps few people see it that way. I offer to invite other editors to come take a look and comment if you like.
We are, in this section, currently trying to discuss each of the images, which ones we might remove, which ones to add to sections, where we might create a new section because the topic of an interesting image may not be covered and the like. Removing the images en masse, as you just did (and I reverted) and hiding images behind a link is considered to be a disruption to us trying to go through that process. Please stop, and instead discuss your opinions in each of the images with the other editors. Atom (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Menus are hidden (collapsed) in Wikipedia all the time, and this isn't considered censorship. What is the difference? Asher196 (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
"Putting the image behind a link is, regardless of your opinion, often considered to be a form of censorship. I am not asking you to change your opinion, only to respect the opinions of others. "
What others? you're the only one to say its censorship, that is your opinion. It is not censorship like Asher said. You are taking the "Wikipedia does not censor" thing out of context.
Also many of those images are in their own articles. Anything that is in its own article should be removed.
I was for keeping those Himba women in but they are in their own article We can add text that talks about them but a image here and an image in their article is overkill.
We don't need three images to try and show the differences in breast shape. 1 is a medical tone image while the others are magazine article tone and i don't mean a pornographic magazine so don't take that out of context.
The Illustration of saggital section of a human breast image seems a little random so i say get rid of that or put it on the saggital article.
The Diagram showing inframammary fold also seems random and the only reason it shows the inframammary fold it seems is because the person that made it put the word inframammary Fold in bold. Also the arrow looks like it was drawn in MS paint.
The picture of the bra is ok i guess but could be moved into the main article.
Woman wearing pasties is just miscellaneous and doesn't really add to the article. It just seemed to be put there just for the fact it got breast in it, not really to add value to the article about breast. a link to Pasties could be put in the main article but having a picture is a little miscellaneous as i have said. Maybe we could put it in a new section that speaks about accessories or something but right now the image is yeah miscellaneous.
We need a modification or alteration section where we could put the nipple that are pierced. The penis has Circumcision in that section on that article so i'd say this article needs something like that as well.
The breast Shields are miscellaneous.
The breast bondage is in its own article so its overkill to have it in multiple articles like that. We already have a link to breast bondage so no harm no in 86ing it.
Breast feeding symbol needs to be moved to breast feeding section.
Diagram of dissected lactating breast is questionable. I see no lactation (maybe its worded wrong) and it does no good to number stuff if you don't have what the numbers indicate in the article. If it was to be utilized to its fullest then it should be moved to the lactation article or breast feeding article.
Wax cast of a lactating human breast is just miscellaneous. If it was to be utilized to its fullest then it should be moved to the lactation article or breast feeding article.
Breast pump image is 50-50 remove 100% or move to main.
the breast of a pregnant woman is ok i say keep it or if its deemed to fit the article itself more then move it to the article out of the gallery.
15th century torture instrument designed to rip off breasts image is questionable. There is no citation or article that says rather that is what it is. To me it looks like some kind of Fireplace accessory or something used to pick up stuff.
Diagrams of cross sections of breast implants, subglandular (left) and submuscular (right) for me would have to be placed under the cosmetic and alteration section out of the gallery.
The implants i don't know about. There should be a breast implant article. I mean if bondage of the breast has its own article then the artificial growing of them does as well.
The porn star is miscellaneous and she has her own article. Maube mention her but a image isn't really that educational.
The common inferior pedicle breast reduction procedure with final result (red indicates incision lines) should stay with its own article. That whole overkill thing. besides it looks like something doodled in MS paint and not a serious medical illustration. I believe i'll just go ahead and remove that image from this article for now. I'll check into the credibility and other things that makes this notable.
the male with enlarged breast are ok i guess. Hate to say it but when i think breast i think women but they're all technically breast. I think that guy has bigger breast then the chick flashing the camera in the lead image.
Mammogram things i have nothing wrong with, Breast prostheses used by some mastectomy patients though i'm 50-50 on.
Drawing of inflammatory breast cancer is A OK! Maybe i could edit it and make both sides like the unswollen side and we can use that as the lead image. If both sides were the same that would be the kind of tone appropriate for the lead image.
I'll leave you to decide which of the cell stains should go but i say 50% at least 18 is a little much. Yami (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Gallery Image Discussion 2
The following images were recently removed the article without consensus. I am trying to be constructive in discussing the topic as it is irritating to be in the middle of working on discussing the topic, and then have someone remove them without discussion.
Anyway, the following images weere recently removed, and returned again. I can asusme that the editor who removed them did not feel that he liked those images. Let discuss those images then.
Please add your opinion on the following images.
Image:Julie Winchester 1.JPG|Normal variation in shape
Maybe for lede. I think this image is shows a variation of normal. I like it. I don't see anything particularly notable about it though. It could serve as an excellent lede candidate to introduce the article, in fact I like it better than the current lede image. Atom (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Should stay. This might be good for the brassiere article. It could be used in this article if we had a section on garments or support for breasts, or someting like that. I think that is not a far stretch, and could be a good topic. Atom (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a very nice image and the only one of its kind in the article. We are planning on adding a section for this image, probably it would cover breast bondage, and redirect to that article, and perhaps paraphilia. Must stay. Atom (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Must stay. Unique image and applies to one of the existing topics. We should incoorporate this into the article rather than having it in the gallery. If it does not go in the section on plastic surgery, then under body modification or paraphilia.Atom (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:Breastreduction.PNG|The common inferior pedicle breast reduction procedure with final result (red indicates incision lines)
The common inferior pedicle breast reduction procedure with final result (red indicates incision lines)
Image:Breast invasive scirrhous carcinoma histopathology (1).jpg|Histopathology of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast representing a scirrhous growth. Core needle biopsy. Hematoxylin and eosin stain.
Histopathology of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast representing a scirrhous growth. Core needle biopsy. Hematoxylin and eosin stain.
Image:Breast invasive scirrhous carcinoma histopathology (2) HER2 expression.JPG|Histopathology of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast representing a scirrhous growth. Core needle biopsy. HER-2/neu oncoprotein expression by Ventana immunostaining system.
Image:Intraductal papilloma histopathology (3) p63.JPG|Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Immunostaining for p63 protein.
Image:Intraductal papilloma histopathology (1).jpg|Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Hematoxylin and eosin stain.
Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Hematoxylin and eosin stain.
Image:Intraductal papilloma histopathology (2) smooth muscle actin.JPG|Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Immunostaining for alpha-smooth muscle actin.
Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Immunostaining for alpha-smooth muscle actin.
Image:Intraductal papilloma histopathology (3) p63.JPG|Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Immunostaining for p63 protein.
Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Immunostaining for p63 protein.
Many of those images are in their own articles. Anything that is in its own article should be removed.
I was for keeping those Himba women in but they are in their own article We can add text that talks about them but a image here and an image in their article is overkill.
We don't need three images to try and show the differences in breast shape. 1 is a medical tone image while the others are magazine article tone and i don't mean a pornographic magazine so don't take that out of context.
The Illustration of saggital section of a human breast image seems a little random so i say get rid of that or put it on the saggital article.
The Diagram showing inframammary fold also seems random and the only reason it shows the inframammary fold it seems is because the person that made it put the word inframammary Fold in bold. Also the arrow looks like it was drawn in MS paint.
The picture of the bra is ok i guess but could be moved into the main article.
Woman wearing pasties is just miscellaneous and doesn't really add to the article. It just seemed to be put there just for the fact it got breast in it, not really to add value to the article about breast. a link to Pasties could be put in the main article but having a picture is a little miscellaneous as i have said. Maybe we could put it in a new section that speaks about accessories or something but right now the image is yeah miscellaneous.
We need a modification or alteration section where we could put the nipple that are pierced. The penis has Circumcision in that section on that article so i'd say this article needs something like that as well.
The breast Shields are miscellaneous.
The breast bondage is in its own article so its overkill to have it in multiple articles like that. We already have a link to breast bondage so no harm no in 86ing it.
Breast feeding symbol needs to be moved to breast feeding section.
Diagram of dissected lactating breast is questionable. I see no lactation (maybe its worded wrong) and it does no good to number stuff if you don't have what the numbers indicate in the article. If it was to be utilized to its fullest then it should be moved to the lactation article or breast feeding article.
Wax cast of a lactating human breast is just miscellaneous. If it was to be utilized to its fullest then it should be moved to the lactation article or breast feeding article.
Breast pump image is 50-50 remove 100% or move to main.
the breast of a pregnant woman is ok i say keep it or if its deemed to fit the article itself more then move it to the article out of the gallery.
15th century torture instrument designed to rip off breasts image is questionable. There is no citation or article that says rather that is what it is. To me it looks like some kind of Fireplace accessory or something used to pick up stuff.
Diagrams of cross sections of breast implants, subglandular (left) and submuscular (right) for me would have to be placed under the cosmetic and alteration section out of the gallery.
The implants i don't know about. There should be a breast implant article. I mean if bondage of the breast has its own article then the artificial growing of them does as well.
The porn star is miscellaneous and she has her own article. Maube mention her but a image isn't really that educational.
The common inferior pedicle breast reduction procedure with final result (red indicates incision lines) should stay with its own article. That whole overkill thing. besides it looks like something doodled in MS paint and not a serious medical illustration. I believe i'll just go ahead and remove that image from this article for now. I'll check into the credibility and other things that makes this notable.
the male with enlarged breast are ok i guess. Hate to say it but when i think breast i think women but they're all technically breast. I think that guy has bigger breast then the chick flashing the camera in the lead image.
Mammogram things i have nothing wrong with, Breast prostheses used by some mastectomy patients though i'm 50-50 on.
Drawing of inflammatory breast cancer is A OK! Maybe i could edit it and make both sides like the unswollen side and we can use that as the lead image. If both sides were the same that would be the kind of tone appropriate for the lead image.
I'll leave you to decide which of the cell stains should go but i say 50% at least 18 is a little much. Also two of the stairs are the same one but different image. Yami (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
You can add your comments in-line with the images, as I have, and that way everyone who participates will keep their comments organizae don an image by image basis. Atom (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I finished reading your comments, and I see we are in agreement on a number of things. I will take a look again later, focusing on the ones that suggest changes in the article. Those would be easy to focus on right off the bat. I hope that we can get some other people to offer their opinions also. Atom (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Many of those images are in their own articles. Anything that is in its own article should be removed.
I agree. And it applies for all, imo. Good luck with Atom. Here, images are more important than encyclopedic text contents. :-( I let you deal with that repository. I can't believe the kilo-octets of discussion it produced here. We are not speaking of an article here but of an image bank. What a waste of time and of energy. WP is not intended to be this way. This discussion should be on Commons. My opinion. Still. — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]11:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you completely. It should not be a repository. Images should be there because they add information to the article, not merely because they relate to the topic in some vague or tenuous manner. We are currently discussing all of the images that editor Yami has said are not needed. This section in fact. I welcome your opinions (in-line, please -- (comment with the image)) on the above images that Yami indicated he wanted to remove. At the moment, he and I seem to agree a great deal on those images. So, I am not sure if you are commenting, more or less after the fact? At any rate, the consensus in this article has been, and currently is that a Gallery is desirable. Also, consensus seems to be that the Gallery has images not necessary. Since we are currently discussing the images, it looks like the process towards solution is underway.
You did note that my comment was "It should not be a repository." right? No need to argue with someone who agrees with you. The point of this section is which images should be removed. (in other words, how to reduce it to be gallery, and *not* a repository.) Atom (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Comment noted and now clear like pure water. I was fooled by your "It should not be ... (BUT) blablabla blablabla etc.". Now, if the consensus is to keep the gallery with (let's put a number here!) images, I will let the community decide. Since the policy is not clear here on WP. Except for consensus (but remember, Galleries are discouraged! what a policy, here!). — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]21:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, one point of yours I do disagree with. Images used in other articles are used in other articles. Usage in another article has no bearing on whether the image adds useful information in this article. There is no Wikipedia policy that I know of that suggests we should endeavor to only use any image in only one place. The editors of an article have discretion as to whether an image should be used in an article based on its value in offering information into the article or illustrating information discussed in the article. The ongoing discussion about the images Yami asked to remove focuses on precisely that. Atom (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
No text, no image may be how you operate. Many people look at it the other way around. A great image, create a text section to support the information given by the image (since it doesn't yet exist.) Really though, it is more about (text or image) "Does this offer useful information or insight into the topic or not?" WP is about information. Atom (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I would prefer to work it my way: fix the article (=remove the gallery) in waiting new sections written in articles. Then, people proposing images to be included within the texts. These articles are public but you don't care and you didn't respond to that point. Ok. Now that we agreed the repository is bad, I am just sorry for public readers if we stick like that for several months/weeks with 56 images in the article. For discussing these images here, I won't do it. I prefer making text sections, then agreementing these ones with images. I am not constructing my texts on great image basis but on text reference sources which are more important. I cannot believe how you are focusing firstly on images (they are still secondary concerns in articles). And encouraging this way of working is not a good one for an encyclopedia. Imo. — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]21:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, do what you like. Since we aren't going to be removing the Gallery, it seems like the wrong approach to me. I am not focusing on the great image basis you discuss. I thing that approaching from both ends make sense. You must know how hard it is to find a great image for a new section. If you already HAVE a great image, then why not use it. Throwing out an image until you get around to making a text section that happens to be in topic is silly. Working from both ends is more efficint. Atom (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
All the images you speak of are not lost (!) You can always click on history button to find these old images from the deleted gallery. And browsing Commons cats might you allow to find new uploaded images sometimes ... Is it so hard to work this way? To add texts rather than images (in first place)? Yes, because it is what WP brings about: texts with referenced sources. I know it will always be easier for people to add galeries rather than text sections. But that is the poor way to work an encyclopedia, imo. And THIS should be discouraged. And be honnest, only Yami felt concerned up to now in discussing the images. Always easier, I tell you. Now, if people prefer to work your way, I am willing to create a Breast/gallery subpage where everyone could create and discuss further improvements about the end of the article. And after a while, we could ask an admin to wipe it out after final consensus and inclusion into the main article. What do you say? — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure of what you mean. Are you saying the article is too large of a file? I realize Wikipedia should try to make itself as usable as possible, but I have no problem loading the page quickly.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam23:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
"I have no problem loading the page quickly" is a typical response of someone who has cable or adsl internet access. But please think of others who don't have it? And if we are going to include big images, videos, mp3 music in articles, the size of the WP dump files is going to inflate monstruously! For a one laptop per child project with dump files, maybe the hard disk will be too small? And the pages slow to manipulate? — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]00:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Half of those images are Cut and paste from or to the Breast Cancer article. There is no need to have a gallery that has images in another gallery to a page that connects to the article. We can remove much of the gallery just because its already represented in an adjacent article. A Book wouldn't have a bunch of images then tell you to turn to a certain page just to show you the same images.
any and all images that are currently in use for other articles should be removed to lessen the load on this article and keep it more on topic not subtopic. Yami (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well think about it this way. Many of those images are not on topic but on subtopic. Breast Cancer is a subtopic of breast and all those images are in a gallery in the breast cancer article so they are not needed. They make the article bigger then it has to be. Yami (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Are we going for consensus on this yet? its been 3 days since this discussion left off. I think we can afford to lose the breast cancer images because they're in that article's Gallery.
It'd be the most encyclopedic thing because save for the table of content images, no encyclopedia would just show the same images like that. Yami (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Great image -- nice find. It has possibilities. The only downside I see is that, of course, we prefer an image of a real person over an illustration. We should add this image to the Gallery for future use. Do we have any existing images that are comparable??
It5s in the gallery and i tried that image and it got removed because it was part of the consensus but i don't remember any rule against using a image that wasn't in the original consensus ats a upgrade so i went and added this one. Its not really a find just a edit of another image where one side showed the breast swollen from cancer. Yami (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
We've been over this again and again, the previous discussion has established that the current image is fine, and that we're not going to use a drawn image when we have access to photographs; further more, we're established that the current image is better then 95c.jpg. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam02:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I like other images (such as 95C.JPG), I agree that the existing one is fine. If others don't want to change it, I can live with that. Atom (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see where consensus on the current image being used has been made. That image is unencyclopedic Yami (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The consensus has been established numerous times, both on this current talk page and it's archives. This has been discussed over and over. As for it being unencyclopedic, I don't know what you mean by that. You'll have to explain.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam02:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with in being unencyclopedic. I think it looks fine. It is just not from a medical text -- n reason it needs to be. Atom (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Only 1 person said any such thing about 95c not beign as good as the "pregnant" woman image. Lots of articles have illustrations. Take a look at MasturbationAutofellatioanal sex al have illustrations few actually have lead images so using a illustration is fine for the time being. A illustration is very encyclopedic and 95C is also encyclopedic and has a medical tone which is what this article deserves. The pose and way the subject of the current lead image carries herself is not a proper image for the article. They're a nice pair of tits but not something you'd see in an encyclopedia.Yami (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The inclusion or exclusion of images from other articles is not an argument against including it or excluding it in this article. It is merely your opinion that a photograph, this photograph, is unencyclopedic. Nor is Wikipedia Censored. This article isn't about a Medicine, so why do you demand a medical tone to it, as you have done on Talk:Ejaculation? --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam02:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer to change the masturbation to a real peson, rather than a drawing. s I recall there was a long discussion about that previously too. Also, the image on the anus article has been well discussed. But, Honeymane is right that what is or has been done on another article is not relevant. What is the best image toillustrate the topic on this article? Atom (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1. you used the wrong image
2. i'm not censoring
3. there are many other images that fit the article more
4. medical tone pictures are rule of thumb encyclopedic. People come here for information that should be quick reliable and text book or in this case encyclopedia worthy. When was the last time you opened a encyclopedia and looked up breast and saw girls from Mardi Gras saying "This is what breast looks like" and the image is taken upclose or at a angle or by a obsolete or poor source such as a 1999 image that has film scratches or a 2005 image taken on a cellphone.
4. What citation have you for this rule of thumb? People come to Wikipedia because wikipedia is not a paper Encyclopedia, because we offer information on topics normally not covered in paper encyclopedias, in detail not offered by paper encyclopedias. If people are coming to an article on Breasts, and are offended by a picture of one, they probably shouldn't have been searching for this article.
The current lead image is the proper image for this article, and you've offered nothing to the contrary, other then your claims that it's not 'proper' for the article and questioning whether or not the women in the image is really pregnant. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam03:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
two images are at the top of this discussion.
how is it censorship explain the logic of it being censorship. It should be common sense that medical tone images are best. Yami (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
"
Lots of articles have illustrations. Take a look at MasturbationAutofellatioanal sex al have illustrations few actually have lead images so using a illustration is fine for the time being.
"
Autofellatio has a photograph, thus my point.
This is really starting to get foolish, You've replaced the lead image before, got shot down, engaged in a edit war with another user, and then made threats that you'll be reporting them to an administrator for calling you a troll. Then, when you manage to get a discussion about the gallery going, you decide to replace the lead image again, again ignoring the former discussion. IF you want to engage in a discussion about the lead image, do so, but you'd better have better reasons then 'it should have a medical tone'.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam03:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That was taken care of by a admin, and they started the edit war. you are not providing any better reason to why the current lead should stay other then its there and been there for a while. time for a upgrade. and what does the gallery have to do with the lead being replaced? stop jumping between debates. Yami (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Also you guys stopped discussing the lead image so i say that means its free to replace since no one is discussing it in the lead image 3 section. ive found a better image then what is there so i'm being bold and upgrading the article. Yami (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
No, Yami, you started it by ignoring the discussion on the talk page. Your image is not an upgrade, it's a downgrade as it has been discussed before. The lead image has been discussed numerous times and the results have always been to keep it, unless a better image comes a long; but your images, both of them, are not better images, and no matter how much you insist they are, they're not going to suddenly become such.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam04:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
that is your opinion and i didn't ignore anything. you guys dropped the lead image discussion its right up there lead image 3 Yami (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
And We're not going to keep talking for the rest of our lives about the lead image once we've ready reached consensus (or lack of), but that doesn't make it a freebie. And learn to format your messages correctly.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam04:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Your tone is not appreciated and if you don't want to talk about the lead then it is free to edit. Yami (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
that image isn't poorly drawn and the photo is not that bad either. Also i don't see where consensus was made on the current lead there. just someone giving up and saying its over because he said so. Yami (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
if you guys won't discuss it up there i'll bring it down here
"the current lead image is not appropriate for the top of the article. A better image would either be an illustrated frontal view or the first image from the gallery section which is already up for the position. Yami (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
How did you guys on this article allow the current lead image to be in the first place. Somewhere someone must have added it and that wasn't controversial yet switching it out is? You'd think with so many editors trying to keep the article pure and encyclopedic they would have kept the lead image to retain a medical kind of tone. a Girls Gone wild, or a girlfriend showing her man the goods tone is not appropriate for the article." Yami (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Because it's (not indenting) annoying and makes posts difficult to read? I do not claim ownership to this article, but when the issue has been discussed many times, and you know altering the lead image of this article is the type of thing you should discuss on the talk page, especially when someone reverts your edit and says take it to the talk page, you should do so, not engage in disruptive edits..--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam04:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The lead image is inappropriate for the article i don't care how many times you guys act like it's been decided you guys decided wrong. I think the problem here is to many editors reign over the article to long. How about we just get ride of the lead image and end the entire debate? Yami (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yami, I'm glad you mentioned those policies, as I was about to mention one of them myself (wp:civil). Please read them before you quote them though.
Here is the deal Yami. Honeymane is right in that there was a recent discussion about the lede image. The discussion essentially resolved to make a consensus. We began discussing a potential change in the lede image here in the past day. That is legitimate. If we want to change thye lede, we need to cmplete the discussion. Other people, such as Honeymane, may have chimed in and opposed the change in the lede image. But -- you did not give him or others a chance. You changed the image before letting others respond. If four or five others had jumped in saying that your graphic was a great idea, or that Image95 was their preference, we might have had a consensus that any one editor might have had a hard time with.
I think, perhaps, that part of the issue is that you want to make rapid changes to an article instead of having patience. It could take a number of weeks to propose a change in the lede, and then wait for dicusssion, and then make the change. If you make that change and get away with it on a small article with few interested editors, then your "being bold" works. If it is a hotly contested article, like this one, then it takes more time and patience. Consider that the circumcision article and the female genital cutting article are ten times as hot as this one when it comes to changes.
In the fermale genital cutting article, one editor wantged to change the name of the article, and proposed that on 14 July move. I opposed that change, and there was substantial discussion. Ten different editors discussed and offered their view as supporting or opposing the change. On 31 july an admin closed the survey and move request, judging it as non consensus for changing the article title. The tally was four supporting the name change and six opposing the name change. This was a fairly quick process compared to some.
If you are sincere about changing the lede image in this article, I will start a survey (for you), and we can keep it open for two weeks (or longer if you wish) and you can propose your preference for lede, discuss why you feel that it is the best choice, and try and convince others of that. In the end, we (myself, Honeymane, and everyone else that has been discussing here) will almost certainly support any consensus coming from that survey. Keep in mind it is not a vote. A Consensus is needed. Without a consensus, a number of editors will probably object to a change in the lede image. Let me know how you want to proceed. Atom (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes i want a speedy change because the longer bad info stays the longer people want it to stay. the longer bad info stays the more it hurts the article. Also the discussion was still going on when I came in and you guys wouldn't answer a simple question as to why you guys let that image on here in the first place.
A full frontal view be it real or illustrated is more encyclopedic then a side view of a woman's blurry scared breast where her shirt is lifted up with trees visible in the backdrop and a caption that says she is pregnant yet you see only the breast and not much stomach.
The image should be replaced with a crisp clear picture that is fully in focus and provides a full frontal view. if 95c is not that image then the breast image i provided should be more then enough. The lead image represents the article, what kind of representing is the current lead doing? Yami (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yami, I answered your first questions a couple of times. That image entered because it was considered to be the best available choice at the time. I think it looks fine, that is just my perspective. I see no need for a speedy change. Is there something life threatening about the image?
Could you answer me as to if you want to take a survey to gain consensus for your desire to change the lede image? If we have a survey, will you respect the opinions of the people who reply? If there is no conseus for change, would you respect that?
And what were the images that it beat? I respect people opinions but there is no need for people like you to keep on saying i think this and that is porno graphic and that i want to censor a article on tits by replacing it with tits. Yami (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
So, I am suggesting a Survey, where you can express your view as much as you like, and gain consensus. Some of your points have merit, as I have said before. If you want to change the existing consensus, then a survey may be your best bet. Atom (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
i noticed you are avoiding the subject of you accusing me of censorship and falsely accusing others of it.
I don't feel i can trust you editors in this, you say one thing do another. If you want the best for this article then you should hand the torch over to someone new.
you mentioned 7 years or so well i say its time for new air in this article because its not going grow with the same editor(s) always hanging over head and wanting consensus for something as small as a period. Yami (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked, and found: the image was added on June 6, 2006 after a Discussion. It replaced nothing, because we had no lead image at the time, but I looked back further, and found the image you are suggesting (the drawn one) has already been the lead image, but it was removed.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam05:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are talking to me, I have been refactoring this talk page all night to make it readable. Posting enormous images throughout the text is confusing. Also I have been fixing indents to promote clarity. Asher196 (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Also i never agreed to this survey i migth post in it but i didn't agree and you are still avoiding the subject of you accusing me of censorship. Yami (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The survey is, nevertheless, under way to see if there is a consensus for change. At the end you may do as you wish. But -- it will leave a pretty clear record of what editors think. If there is no consensus for change, anyone will have a hard time trying to change the lede image anytime soon. If your prose convinces others, and there is a consensus for change, then you will get what you asked for. Either way, I know I am moving onward without wasting much more time arguing on the talk page. You may not understand it, but I've treated you fairly and given you the best shot for what you asked for. Atom (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I might have uploaded it under a old name but that image is bran new its a edit of the swollen breast picture in the gallery. i photoshoped it today. Yami (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
An editor has suggested a change in the lead image. For various reasons he does not find the current image, File:Closeup of female breast.jpg to be appropriate. Two possible images to replace the current Lead image is Image:95C.jpg or Image:Breast Image 289.jpg. I am starting this survey on his behalf to discuss opinions on whether the lead should be used, or another image. If you feel that another image is better, if you could give which lead image you prefer, and explain why.
Feel free to state your position on the proposal to change the lead image by beginning a new line in this section with*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions. Comment period to end August182008.
Oppose Although I do like the Image:95C.jpg as it is a frontal view, there seems to be an existing consensus for the current image, and it is nearly as good as the one I suggested. Atom (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose As per everything I've said before, many times; it's a good image, it's okay for an image to be somewhat artistic if it's the lead, we don't have a better one to replace it with, etc.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam05:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Support the current image is blurry and does not show the subject matter to the fullest. I favor either Image:95C.jpg or Image:Breast Image 289.jpg or a better image to replace the current lead image. The current image has the wrong pose, and is not encyclopedic. Yami (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The current image is adequate in its portrayal of the subject and none of the proposed images appear to constitute an improvement. Further, hopefully sticking with the one image for a while might at least slow down the rate at which we repeat this cycle of arguing about change. This whole argument is a waste of time unless someone actually finds a remarkably salient photograph that is dramatically better than the current one. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Support. Both Image:95C.jpg and Image:Breast Image 289.jpg are significantly better than the current image, and more accurately depict the full image of the breast. Opposers wanting to keep the original image because its "artistic" and such is ridiculous. This is an encyclopedia, not an art/image gallery. Artichoker[talk]13:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Support. The current image is technically deficient (inadequate and intrusive depth of field, a poorly prepared model [her bra was not removed in sufficient time before the image was taken], the model is positioned awkwardly, and the image is composed awkwardly). The current image shows a bias towards pregnancy contrary to the fact that all women have breasts, but not all women are pregnant. I support the change to Image:95C.jpg, although this too is imperfect, the naivety is more matter-of-fact (or neutral) than an artistic image poorly executed. Redblueball (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to edit the article or its talk page, but I Support a change in the lead image to image 289. That one is a more crisp image, takes a more encyclopedic angle, and actually provides more information. If you want to move my comment to that talk page or link to it from there, go right ahead. Useight (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Preceding comment copied from here. Artichoker[talk]16:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Support The current image is blurry and gives no sense of proportion of the breasts to the models body. The woman is pregnant which is a specific and unique condition that affects the models breasts and does not reflect the general population, as women do not spend their lives pregnant, and the indentation from her bra is visible. We need a clear, full frontal view, and virtually any full frontal view would be better than what we have now. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the current image is utterly inadequate. Asarelah (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose the current image has a great resolution when you click on it (light, number of details, angle of view, artistical photographic work, the bra adds to it) and yes, it focuses on one nipple (the other blured one should be like the other!). Maybe we should add upright=1.5 code to magnify it a little? Image:95C.jpg is small and lacks of all these other great features. — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]23:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussion on "Survey on lead image"
"Star Trek Man" wrote: "Oppose. The current image has a great resolution when you click on it (light, number of details, angle of view, artistical photographic work, the bra adds to it) and yes, it focuses on one nipple (the other blured one should be like the other!). Maybe we should add upright=1.5 code to magnify it a little? Image:95C.jpg is small and lacks of all these other great features." Comment copied by User:Redblueball from "Survey on lead image".
I'm sorry but "light, number of details, angle of view, artistical photographic work, the bra adds to it" is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia, not photography community. Images should be clear and informative, not artistic. Artichoker[talk]23:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
You are right, these criterias of good photograph practices are from Commons, not here. For clear and informative details, we already have a diagram in the article. Combining art with photos is better than crude frontal view with no details. Or please propose better shots of frontal views rivalising with the current one. — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]23:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
But both breast should be shown and a non pregnant model would fit more. Image:95C.jpg is a little bad in terms of resolution but it has a better pose. Also lots of articles have low res images. Image:Breast Image 289.jpg Is crisp clear and despite my preference for a pair of breasts to be closer together, its a nice illustration.
With both images we see both breast, no indentation from a bra (i thought it was a scar at first) and they are more realistic in terms of being encyclopedic. Yami (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
How is a drawing more 'realistic' then a photograph? And how can it be 'more realistic in terms of being encyclopedic'? If anything, the current lead is more 'realistic' because in reality, women get pregnant, they wear too tight bras, which leaves marks on their breasts. Further more, why is an image of non-pregnant model more appropriate?--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam01:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
People get lung cancer too, but that hardly means that a photograph of a cancerous lung should be in the lead of the Lung article. The current picture was taken under a very specific set of circumstances (pregnant, too tight bra) which do not reflect the state in which breasts generally are. To insist that the breasts of a pregnant model are a better choice than the breasts of a non-pregnant model would be like insisting that the article for Woman must have a photo of a pregnant woman in the lead. The breasts should be shown in their default state. I do not believe that the photograph should be replaced with a drawing, but even a lower resolution full-frontal photograph would be better than the one we have now. I think that these factors take priority over the fact that the current picture is of higher resolution, which is just about the only thing that it really has going for it when compared to other photographs. Asarelah (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
My post was in the context that Yami was claiming that somehow the drawing he was suggesting was more 'realistic' then the current, further more, as with the last time this was discussed with you, this isn't Woman or Eye. Why is it you feel that this lower resolution photograph is better then the current lead?--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam02:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that the drawing would be a poor choice over a photograph, even the one we have now. I was merely offering my rebuttal to your arguements in favor of the current image. And yes, this isn't the woman or eye article, I was just using them as comparative examples to bolster my arguement. And as I stated above, I think that the issue of resolution is of less importance than the various other issues I mentioned. Asarelah (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that you're basically comparing pregnancy to lung cancer or eye infections; you wouldn't have, for example, a picture of lung cancer tumors as the lead image for Lungs because that wouldn't make much sense, as that's not what the article is talking about, on the other hand, you may use a picture of an eye with a blue iris, over a brown one, as it's a natural variation on it. The difficulty I have with this whole 'they shouldn't be of a pregnant woman' issue is that you're trying to claim that breasts do not look like 'that' most of the time, and yet any doctor would tell you there is a great variation over what a breast would look like; to put it another way, one could argue that the only images of breasts we should use as a lead image are those of post-pregnancy women, because the majority of the woman's population's breast end up looking like that. Further more, I could be argued that we should include an image of a woman's breasts with bra markings on it because the majority have ill fitting bras! It's not as if the current image is of some rare and horrible mutant, who really doesn't represent the majority of woman. I've never really understood the insistence for a 'full frontal' photograph of a woman's chest to be honest; the article is about 'breast' not "breasts"; I don't see them using a picture of a person flexing or what not for the article on Arm with two arms in the picture, and the article on the Eye does not include a picture of someone's face, full on, to show that we typically have two of them. So why is this necessary here? The lead image is suppose to introduce the subject, not be something you glance at and instantly assimilate all the information in the article, and it's not as if the second breast isn't being shown. And I fear I'm rambling. I hope this makes some coherent sense.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam10:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The majority of the women in the world do not wear bras, therefore the bra indentation is far from typical. Furthermore, most of our organs in our body are symmetrical. The kidney article does not show a diagram of one kidney, it shows a diagram of two kidneys, side by side. Now I know of course that a diagram and a photograph are two different things, but my point still stands. Symmetry is an important aspect of human anatomy, as Da Vinci's famous Vitruvian Man (often used as a contemporary symbol of medicine!) demonstrates, and the photograph ought to reflect that. Asarelah (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Symmetry is an important part of all animals and plants, but we're not discussing symmetry in the article. It's important to note, but it's not really important enough to argue that the lead image should be front on. The image you're suggesting, if nothing else, only highlights the lack of symmetry in the human body; The Vitruvian Man is suppose to be a perfectly ratioed human, but real humans are riddled with flaws.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam03:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course humans are not always perfectly symmetrical. But they are roughly symmetrical, and symmetry is an important aspect of human anatomy. Why do you believe that image resolution quality and the "artistic" quality of the picture (which is entirely a subjective evaluation, purely a matter of personal opinion) are more important than the issue of pregnacy (which is not the default state of the body, as women spend only a small percentage of their lives pregnant), bra indentation, angle, blurryness, and lack of a frontal, symmetrical view? How high resolution does the picture really need to be? It isn't as though breasts are filled with tiny, intricate details (like the taste buds visible in the picture in the lead of the tongue article).Asarelah (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say it was realistic in that sense.
It gives the viewer a full frontal view of the subject matter which is what a real encyclopedia uses.
Having marks is not a trait you will see in a encyclopedic photo.
Not all women are pregnant nor does that illustrate what breast normally looks like.
Unless you do research on the picture or know what a pregnant woman's breast looks like you won't even know that is a pregnant woman. If you replace it with a image of a non pregnant woman then you remove the cotroversy of "Is this woman really pregnant woman?" Yami (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
In what sense do you mean realistic then? It's not as if realistic has all that many definitions.
The vast majority of encyclopedias don't have images at all, and it's merely your opinion that a 'real' encyclopedia wouldn't use a photograph like this.
As per above, you won't find photographs in paper encyclopedias.
No, they're not all pregnant, but that is what the general function of the breasts are,
1. You know what I mean by realistic. If you want clarity I'll give it to you. Realistic as in You might never know what sex is like as a Gorilla.
2. A encyclopedia, dictionary or any reference book with information would have a illustration or medical photograph not a guy's wife/girlfriend showing him her tits.
3.they might be for that reason but there is no reason in having a awkward picture just to illustrate breast is for feeding young. plus we already have articles on that already.
The definitions i mean for realistic is the same as the kind you tell a person to be. "Be realistic about it"
Tomato Tomoto its the same thing. I'm not going censor what i call something every time i tlak about ti. Tits is three words breast is 6 I cut down 3 letters and save time while still getting the point across.
careful you'll suck in pollution doing that
I see Sarcasm is lost on you. I was saying the caption is to small and a person is not going read it at that size. I hardly got past the lead image to even notice a caption. I'm pretty sure the caption is new since i remember having to fill out the caption area when i did a edit. Yami (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It was altered a day or two ago to make it more clear, but it's always been there, and just because you yourself didn't notice doesn't mean everyone will also miss it.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam05:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
no, stop twisting my words you know very well what i mean. I mean that a picture liek what is there is not going be in a informational reference book of any kind.
well so are a lot of things doesn't mean it'll change.
Any thing that wouldn't be in a Encyclopedia is not suppose to be in wikipedia. A image of Larry the Cable Guy would not be the lead image in John Holmes article because it would be unencyclopedic and UNREALISTIC. People know Larry the cable guy does not have a porn career and did not die from aids.
Dictionaries (or the more expensive ones) have illustrations of the breast in them. It might be crude and no more then line art but both breast are viewed from the front or at least front and side. if you find one with real photos you won't see anything like the lead image.
Encyclopedia that do have pictures do not have Images of slanted blurry outdoors images of breast.
A Medical Journal entry on breast would not have a image of a woman showing her breast for beads at Mardi Gras.
Just because this is not a paper encyclopedia does not mean it shouldn't be treated and kept to the realistic approach of a paper encyclopedia. Yami (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a Web Encyclopedia article with a image that might not be the best but it has the right tone for what a Encyclopedia uses as far as images go. Wikipedia can use real subjects but encyclopedias do not use images like the current lead. Yami (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I can't follow anymore the discussion of the Breast article, Im in vacations now and going away from internet for a while. If I have to answer any further, this will be in early September. Cheers and good luck to all in improving the article. The gallery needs to be reduced. At least we agree all on this (?). :) — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]12:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well 5.5 want it changed and 4.5 want it to stay if you count the neutral vote as half of a vote to both sides. other wise its 5 in favor of change 4 in favor of keeping the current lead. Yami (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
My count today is four opposed, five support and one neutral. This would be a result of no consensus for changing the image, if the survey were finished. We have until the 18th. Does anyone think that we should get an RFC to draw some more opinions, or will we be satisfied with this result? Let me know, and I will start an RFC. Atom (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Well i would say that it would result in a consensus. If more people had known about the second image their decision might have been different. A lot of people focused on the 95C image. Yami (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree that six supporting, four opposing, with one neutral is a victory for those in favour of change, but unfortunately "consensus" means something other than this result. Who decides when a consensus has been reached and what the conditions are for judgement is open to any interpretation... but is likely to fall into the lap of an editor with a favourable reputation among his/her peers. Redblueball (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
First, consensus is not a vote; second, 6/4/1 does not a consensus make; and third, I don't see a compelling argument to change the image, so there's no consensus for a change from the current image. Dreadstar†21:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Many of the images in the Gallery are already in use in adjacent articles that connect to this article. Some of the images can be moved to adjacent article so that they are not removed from wikipedia entirely.
At least 50% of the images are in the Breast Cancer article in a gallery as well.
To lessen the load on this article and to keep from having replication of materials, I am starting this survey. In doing so I hope to get consensus on making the Gallery a little smaller and helping keep the gallery on topic and not subtopic.
To take part start a new line beginning with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''' sign your comment with~~~~.
For a pacific section of the gallery such as the Brest Cancer Section, indicate it with *'''(Section) + positon'''
:Example:
(*Breast Cancer Support I think that since the gallery is so big, and that the images are already in the breast cancer article and so all those images should be removed from this article's gallery.)
Because This is the talk page and polls/surveys are no subsitute for discussion please give a reason for your position, Thank you. Comment period to end August202008.
Support I believe that any and all images that exist in a article that connects to this article in any way should be removed. A user does not need to see a picture of breast bondage in the gallery then click the link to that article and see the same image on the respective article. The same goes for all those breast cancer pictures that are already represented on the breast cancer article in its own gallery. Yami (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Yami, polls are not a substitute for discussion, nor should they be abused, and only rarely should they be used, when a discussion is clearly deadlocked, which is currently not the case with the gallery.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam02:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
ResponseWell everyone stopped talking about the gallery and went to the lead image, and this seemed to be one of the more easy ways to get consensus and lower risk of uncivilized attacks and other things prone to the subject. Also we can get a better idea of what images peopel think can safely go, but i guess i did limits people options with the conditions of the survey. I'll tweak it some.Yami (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Everyone has not stopped talking; just because we're not posting replies to every message as soon as they're posted is not an indication that we've stopped talking about it, some of us have lives outside of wikipedia, or live in different timezones.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam02:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
ok i guess i can wait for the discussion to pic up but even if we reach consensus today its do no good for obvious reasons. we'll put this poll on the back burner. Yami (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Honeymane. Furthermore this is kind of disruptive as there is another section where the content of the Gallery cleanup is underway. In fact you participated in that and it looks like at least you and I agree on a number of the images there. So, do you see this survey as beneficial in that effort? I mean, your survey says, "To lessen the load on this article and to keep from having replication of materials, I am starting this survey. In doing so I hope to get consensus on making the Gallery a little smaller and helping keep the gallery on topic and not subtopic." My comment to that is:
What do you mean by lessen the load? The load on Wikipedia servers that exists by displaying or serving text and images is unimportant. The "load" of this article is miniscule. It would be like saying "We need to reduce the gas mileage on my car, let's get rid of that pack of gum on the seat." You could have ten packs of gum in the car and the difference in gas mileage would ne neglible. The breast article could have ten times as many images and the load difference on the server would be negligible.
There is no need to "get consensus on making the gallery a little smaller..." as the consensus is already to make the Gallery a little smaller. The section discussing the images in the Gallery asserts that we all agree with that. I assumed that your participation in that section making recommendations on removing images was part of that?
"Keep the gallery on topic, and not subtopic". The gallery is, by nature, when editors choose to use a gallery, for the purpose of miscellaneous stuff, rather than stuff directly related to sections in the article (or the image would be there). Also, there is no desire to avoid "sub-topic", that is in fact desirable. For instance, the breast self exam, the breast bondage and the cancer images are all sub topics, and relevent to different aspects of breasts. And image of a clown wearing a "boob" sign would probably fit the category of not sufficiently on topic.
Load as in how long it takes you to get those images to load. If i deleted my cookies and cache and all that other stuff it'd take me a minute to get everything to load, but i have highspeed internet (the speed is there but the computer takes a little time now adays.) God help anyone with a dial-up connection. Back in the day when i used it it took me 5 minutes for a article to fully load. 3 minutes to submit a edit and there was no censorship in the world to block the language that came out of my mouth if i waited all that time just to find out someone has edited the page while i was editing.
There is a difference between making it smaller and hacking it up. While we can remove many of the images, if we remove to much we might as well remove the whole thing. With this survey we could at least see if only a certain sections of it should be removed or giant section.
It might be all related to breast but there is no need to have images that are on sub-topics of breast such as breast cancer or bondage. If you editors are so focused on keeping the article on topic to prevent people from censoring it somehow. (i know thats your premise on the ejaculate article.) then you should remove things such as the porn star and the himba women. They're interesting subjects (if i have the time i'll read them) but not really needed and a description in the main article or mention of them with a link would work better then a image that justs adds more to load in the end.
it is not disruptive, and I already said put it on the back burner. Coming along after its been settled is where you get into trouble. What is disruptive is you commenting on this after i had realized and admitted that i should and can wait for the discussion to pick up. That is disruptive on your part. If you get chased by bees and jump into the water, you don't go back and hit their nest after they leave and you dry off. Yami (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
placement
Ok should the image i provided to the gallery be higher up for now until the gallery clean up or should it remain next to the picture that it was edited from? Yami (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It's out of place in it's current location, but it is also basically the same image as the first image in the gallery, albeit a drawn one. Asher196 (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Breast Cancer Section of Gallery
Is it ok if i remove the Breast Cancer section of the gallery since all those images are already in the Breast Cancer Article's own Gallery.
No use in showing the same info on both articles. Yes they're all informational, but they';re also already on another article in the same fashion and both articles connect to each other so its redundant. Yami (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there one good image (from the above discussed collection) in the gallery that would work in the article? If these images exist in a seperate article, and we have a main article redirect, then I agree too. Atom (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't really think any of the stain images are needed in this article. as for the other two i have no opinion one way or another.
The image I provided which is nothing more then a edit of its twin image could go in the main article. I might even be willing to make a diagram version if and only if it would help the article. No need in providing images that just clutter the article.
I do think the self-breast exam is needed in the article. I've switched out the breast exam link to be in a better place. I also added some sentences about the importance of breast exams and mammograms. Yami (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
So lets be clear, if i, or someone else removed the images that are in the breast cancer article it won't get reverted over and over causing a edit war? Asher is the one who wanted consensus to be made on the gallery all together. Yami (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we should at least get rid of the stain and tumor images, they don't really add much, and they're in the breast cancer article anyway. Asarelah (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Do we need the painted breasts with shield? It is not essential. It would be in the article if there was space (already two images for that section. I think it should stay. It is clearly not redundant with the piercing photo, as it is an image and example of breast painting, and also of a breast shield -- niether of which is illustrated in the article. It should stay, IMO. Atom (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
well if you look closely it is also a peirced nipple pic which could be called redundant, i think we need to get rid of the Pastie picture it seems to be miscellaneous. The himba women i don't know about we already have a in article image talking about cultures with no or few restrictive rules on clothing.Yami (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes it is pierced, how else would you keep the shield on? It's benefit is the painting and shield, not the piercing. I think we should keep the Pastie and the Himba too. Again, both unique, interesting and offer something. I pretty much like the Gallery as is. Would like to figure out how to move at least one of them to the article though. Atom (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The only one i can see going into the article is either the breast feeding symbol or the himba under the other picture. Yami (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What educational value does this particular site provide. all it shows is a gallery of breast nothing really worth putting as an external link.
Just a bunch of men and women taking photos and putting them up with their life story underneath. How is this really educational. It seems to me that all it is doing is just showing breast to show breasts I see nothing sexual really to these images except the german girl with water trickling off her beasts. A lot of amateurish photography yes but how is a gallery of breast going educate?
The article need medical reports and articles not random out of nowhere sites.
Oh and i think, but I'm not sure, that the third link is against policy. it seems to be just an advertisement.
I'm going remove it but the other one i'm leaving alone until we can get feedback and discuss it. Yami (talk)
19:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I am for leaving the images of female breasts external link. It isn't in the article, it is on topic, it isn't commercial. Most of all, it serves a valid educational purpose. YOu would be surprised how many women (of all ages) are concnerned about whether their breasts are "normal", or how they compare to other women. This link can be helpful towards that purpose.
The Breasthealthonline site I think could be removed. On the surface, it is related, but it requires registration. We should remove that.
), but it is fully protected. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
![[9]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Breastsofadultwoman.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Breastsofadultwoman2.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Breastsofadultwoman3.jpg){kind=link}
Gallery: King of pop
.jpg)
.jpg|Histopathology){kind=link}
_HER2_expression.JPG)
_HER2_expression.JPG){kind=link}
_p63.JPG)
_p63.JPG|Histopathology_of_intradu){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg|Histopathologic_image_of_breast_fibroadenoma._C){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg|Histopathologic_image_of_breast_fibroadenoma._C){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg|Histopathology_of_intraductal){kind=link}
_smooth_muscle_actin.JPG)
_smooth_muscle_actin.JPG|Histopath){kind=link}
_p63.JPG|Histopathology_of_intradu-1){kind=link}
