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.
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)
Leading image (2)
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): [1][2][3] --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 File:Closeup of female breast.jpglead 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 [4] 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, [5], 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
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)
archive segment that doesn't seem to move discussion forward
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
An editor has suggested a change in the lead image. For various reasons he does not find the current image, Image: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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
Well can you make a compelling arguement to keep it over a different image? I've looked through this entire debate and you haven't really offered us your opinion on this issue. I'm open to your input. Asarelah (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
<ec> The existing 'keep' arguments above are at least as compelling as the ones to replace the image. What I meant was, there are no arguments in favor of replacing the current lead image that are so compelling as to override the arguments of those desiring to keep the current image, so there is no consensus for a change. Yet. Dreadstar†23:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The compelling arguments supporting the change are (i) the current image has technical flaws, and (ii) it is inappropriate to use an image of a pregnant woman; because it has never been the case that all women are always pregnant (but generally, it is always the case that all women always have breasts). Redblueball (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with point 2. The primary function of the breast is to provide milk, so the image of the pregnant woman's breast is more than relevant. Asher196 (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The primary function of the stomach is to digest food, but that would hardly mean that a picture of a dissected stomach with half-digested food still in it is a better picture than an empty dissected stomach. Asarelah (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Asher196 - the primary function of women is not "pregnancy", so why describe their breasts as either objects of pregnancy... or otherwise redundancy? Redblueball (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh, In a word. No. The image should not change, as there was no consensus for change. Six for, 4 opposed is not a consensus. The end date is the 18th and not today (17th). Atom (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to go to the Wikiprojects that cover this article and ask for their input, as we are clearly in a deadlock. Asarelah (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a little late for that now. It is not a deadlock, it is a lack of consensus to remove the image, and so the image will remain. Of course, people can continue to discuss a variety of images in order to build a new consensus. But, the survey will soon end. Atom (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I already put up an RFC on the image. I'll wait and see if the Wikiproject members have any input that may help with the issue, if not, then well, I guess I'll just have to live with the picture we have now until I can find a better one that suits everyone. Asarelah (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, the discussion is already ended. Of course we can still discuss other changes. But, there is currently no RFC on the article, as there would be an RFC tag someplace here, and there is not. See Wikipedia:RFC for a description of that. It would be in one of the talk page sections, and would look something like: {{RFCsoc | section=are TS/TG women MSM's !! reason=Scientific literature says TS/TG women are considered MSM's but a court case says otherwise... !! time=01:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)}}'''
What do you mean consensus wasn't made? the survey showed clearly that there were more people in favor of changing the image.Yami (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Please note, there was also no consensus to keep the image. As long as there is "no consensus" to do anything in particular, we should put in the image that the majority prefers. I see no reason why "no consensus" should default to that particular image. 216.49.181.128 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
What was the point of the Survey if you were just going declare no consensus. More people feels the image should change then people who wish for it to stay the same. The image should be changed. Yami (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yami, The point is that people got to express their viewpoints in a communication process to build a consensus. If the people who wanted to change the image had a convincing case, there would have been a consensus. It is my hope that someone will generate a solid and convincing image that immediately garners support and consensus. My guess is that of the options, none was convincing enough to clearly win a consensus for replacing the lede. I think that image will come along though. Atom (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I was brought to this discussion via WikiProject Medicine. My opinion on this matter is that the lead image is clearly more artistic than encyclopaedic. An encyclopaedic image would be front-on allowing a full-view of the entire breast, or a front-on image showing both breasts. However, until there is a reasonable alternative (I haven't checked the above discussion thoroughly, it's huge) then the image should stay. If there is an alternative which is actually encyclopaedic, by all means it should be changed. This is an encyclopaedia, not deviantART. —CyclonenimT@lk?17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I seriously am believing that WP:OWN applies here.
There are two images that have equal or close to it(i think 95C got more noticed) support for being switched with the current lede. If you really want the lede image to stay on the article then we can move it to the gallery. But the whole article is not a art gallery, we need to keep things to a encyclopedic tone. That includes more trimming of the gallery and a more encyclopedic representation for the breast and breasts in general.
95C.jpg and Breast Image 289.jpg are both reasonable encyclopedic replacements. They show both breast, and are not artistic like the current lede image. Encyclopedias are meant to update from time to time and its time for that update. Yami (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree about Forum Shopping. As we just completed a lengthy survey, and got opinions from many editors, it gives a clear indication of opinions. There were a variety of opinions, and yet no editor was able to convince enough of the others of the need to change the lede. A claim of WP:OWN when discussing with only one editor might have been plausible, but to think that of all the people that replied to the survey that all of them failed to see that claim seems implausable. Atom (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Concern about forum shopping crossed my mind when I posted on the Wikiprojects, but given the fact that we seem to be split down the middle on this issue, the fact that the three projects in question are just as likely, in my mind, to support the current picture, and the fact that I've seen plenty of posts on Wikiproject pages about similair issues on talk pages that needed to be resolved, I therefore reasoned that contacting the relevant Wikiprojects would be appropriate. Asarelah (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Also you didn't convince the people who support the change to keep the current image. We've all given you the reasons yet you still ignore them and claim the image should stay and try to claim consensus. Yami (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
If everyone would just calm down for a moment, that'd be brilliant. Firstly he was not "forum shopping" as I wasn't brought to this article via him. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY really applies here, by the way. I don't give a monkey's about your last survey as it came to a "No Consensus" result. This, which some of you seem to be forgetting, means there is no leaning either way. So using that survey in any of your arguments is now pointless, it was a stalemate. The current lead image is a nice photograph artistically, but it doesn not show both breasts front on. Would you suggest that we make the lead image of Chest a side on image showing just the side of the body? No, because that would not be encyclopaedic, nor helpful to the reader. The same applies here, a front-on image needs to start the article. If you wish for an artistic image to appear in the article, it should be applied later on. As far as I'm concerned, the image needs replacing and 95C seems to provide what the lead image needs. The other image as a diagram is an option if it can be cropped to remove the text at the bottom. At the end of the day people, this isn't a big deal. The argument for replacing the image (i.e. not encyclopaedic) is far stronger than what the opposers are suggesting that there isn't a decent replacement, because there is. —CyclonenimT@lk?21:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Note that the survey was only claimed to bring no consensus by Atom who started it, and claims that we didn't persuade the others to change it. The Survey still had more in favor of changing it that were posted before the deadline. someone said six though but i count 5 for change and 4 for kkeeping it as is. The 4 being editors that have been here a lot longer. One changing to a neutral position.
I am not a judge, I only stated the facts. The end result was quite clearly FIVE people opposed to changing the lede, SIX people supporting changing the lede image, and ONE person neutral on the issue. FIVE out of ELEVEN people is not considered a consensus on Wikipedia. The proposed action was to remove the lede and replace it with another image. As thre ws no consensus on removing the image, the previous standing consensus for the lede remained. The survey also did not form a consensus that the current lede image should NOT be replaced. A new consensus may be formed, the survey in no way prohibits that. As we do not desire the lede to change daily based on the last editors preference, the existing image should stay until we have a consensus for a different image. Atom (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that one is that it is an illustration. That would be fine if we had no real images. We have an abundance of real images that do a better job. It's not like a picture of human breasts is lurid or something, it is simply another part of the human body. Atom (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
That is only you POV and if a proper real image can't be found a illustration is the next best thing not some artsy angled shot of the real thing. This is where i believe that WP:OWN comes into play when you comment like this. If a illustration is more encyclopedic then any other choice then it should be used. If a real image is more encyclopedic then it should be used.
Also 4 people opposed the 5th can't be counted because it is marked after the ending period. 5 people voiced change and there is a neutral party member that is 10 people. where do you get this part about it not being consensus on Wikipedia?
And the image doesn't change everyday, so that does not help your argument. I'd be surprise if the image could change once a year with how you are causing so much trouble in the consensus process. I'm not to sure, but im pretty sure that image was on the article before i went to college 2 years ago, and if so that means the image has had a good run and is time to retire. Yes changing the image daily is redundant but keeping the same image so long is just as redundant. Yami (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec x2)
Atom's closure is correct. If there is no consensus to change, the result is to keep the current image. Yami, if there is 50% to change, that also means there is 50% to not change. See Consensus. For example, at WP:RFA users don't get promoted to adminship unless there's a consensus. In terms of %, that translates to mean they're not promotable unles they get a % of about 75-80%, generally speaking. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The picture is dated 4 March 2006. As i said before i was sure i saw that image before i left which was 21 June 2006. If this image has been on here two years then indeed its time for a change. especially if its been debated for that long Yami (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
We have 10% neutral so that means only 40% is for keeping it. Also i don't think Admin appointment is really a source to use in this type of situation. Yami (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No Yami, you do not understand percentages. Neutral's do not count in the overall percentage, pretend they were not there. Count the support votes, there are 5. Count the oppose votes, there are 5. That is defined as no consensus. —CyclonenimT@lk?22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No there are 5 support 4 oppose. The fifth Opposer can't be counted because it was voiced after the end of the comment date posted. That would be like trying to count all the people who opposed Bush's presidency two years after he was elected. This means there is a consensus if the neutral party can't be counted.Yami (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No i'm starting the facts. Also i think that is a little vicious especially with out history. Keep good faith, and focus on the facts and/or content not the editor. Yami (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Says who? Says Atom who was miss representing the numbers. Also what about Atom and his whole deal with the illustration? I would say that WP:TEND would apply there. Not to me correcting people and using their logic to show that if 50-50 isn't consensus then 50-40 would be.
There are 5 support 4 oppose. The survey was open until the 18th not 19th when the last post which happened to be oppose was posted. the editor had plenty of time to voice their opinion and from August 4th i believe to the 18th there was no new opposes or supports. Yami (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really saying he misrepresented the numbers on purpose, I admit its hard to count them when you have to scroll to see the rest and might lose your place. But a non existing support was added, and a oppose added to late was counted. Yami (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You are right, the last oppose came in too late. I should have noticed that. That makes 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral. The result would be no consensus.
Six supported (Otolemur crassicaudatus, Yami Takashi, Artichoker, Redblueball, Useight, Asarelah) Four opposed (Atomaton, Honeymane, AliceJMarkham, Star Trek Man) and One neutral (Star Trek Man). User Vsmith posted after the deadline. Consensus would be roughly 80%, and support for removing was only ~54%. There really isn't any need to discuss it anymore, or other people will feel that it is tenditious also. My recommendation: Find another great image (not an illustration) and propose it for the new lede, ask opinions, if it seems positive, let's get a consensus and put it in. I only suggest not an illustration because I don't think that it will be acceptable by a consensus as the lede, even though it could gain some support. If you choose not to do that then I will follow up with a new lede proposal so that we can get closure. Atom (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Its is 5 not 6, and its 60% over 40%. Also provided as well as other provided images that would be much better replacements.
95C and Breast image 289 are both celebrated as being better then the current image.
Many people have already voice their opinion on what the image should be of and both thos images met those standards. And who are you to decide that a illustration is not acceptable. That is where the WP:TEND would apply as well as WP:OWN and it was as i have said many times Useight who was the first to tell me that WP:OWN would possibly apply here because of the nature of your arguments.
Tell me why are you so bent on keeping that image? is that you wife or girlfriend in that image? Also why can't you just accept the images that have been expressed to be better? And why does it seem that the same three people involved in my blocking seems to be the three against me? Dreadstar much to my dislike contacted me telling me i was being WP:TEND But it would seem that you three are more or less falling under that.
I feel that you are just mad that more people were against you and you cant handle it. On the ejaculation article it is clear that i won't get consensus on the removal of the video but here it is clear that there was a building of consensus for the replacement of this article's lede. I can accept the consensus that the video survey will draw why can't you accept the clear out come of this survey? Why must you drag this out? The survey was up for weeks and its clear that people want a change. Its a image that has been expressed by multiple people in and out of the survey to be need of replacement.
95C is the best replacement if not the Breast image 298. how would you've handled it if 2 more people had voiced support for change? that would have made the 80% that you and it seems only you seem to be asking for to constitute the consensus for change. Would you've made it higher? lower what? 60% is closer then we got in the 2 weeks or so the survey was up why can't you honor the survey? Yami (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
NOw that the survey is over, please see my advice on asking for the image you prefer, above. My advice generally to others is DNFT. Atom (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The survey was introduced becuase there was a deadlock in the discussion. The result of the survey shows that of those who chose to comment more editors were in favour of changing the image than those who wanted no change; therefore it seems fair to me that change should now take place, unless of course there's a consensus for keeping the deadlock by further discussion. I suggest that we now begin to discuss which of the two images we would prefer as the new leading image, or to speed things up - we could just implement a new survey with the new images as the subject. Redblueball (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The survey did not gain a consensus for changing the existing image. My thoughts/opinions are that if you, or someone else would like to replace the lede image:
It must be done by consensus, not by one or two editors -- hence a survery suggesting an image may be in order, as you suggested.
Another survey will end in no consensus also unless there is some focus, one good image, and not a list of several alternatives, or there will be mixed support with no one image gaining consensus.
The previous images suggested did not seem to garner more than mixed support. So, I suggest you propose a NEW image, but find one that most people will find acceptable, per their comments in the last survey.
My opinion in a new image that might get consensus is that it have the characteristics of being clinical with neutral background, a front shot, not from the side or an unusual angle, showing both breasts -- but not the face or lower body, the subject should be average, rather than unusually small or unusually large, should have neither tattoos or piercings, the image should not indicate disease. It makes no difference if the person is caucasian or of color, but an image of someone of color would be nice, as most of the other images are not. Atom (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I requested an image fitting this description a while ago at the commons, it has not been produced yet. However this image fits the description more so than than the current lead, but has not been supported by those who show a blind devotion to high pixel counts, "closest to the nipple is best" style of photography (and infantilism), and resist change for the sake of grooming the protocol of Wikipedia consensus. If it is not supported becuase it is an illustration then we have a problem with believing the cases in which painting is superior to photography (see the bodies by Lucien Freud for an example of superiority). There's a grammar to artwork that shares similarities with that of written language - we don't baulk at the editors who correct poorly written sentences, so why the fuss about the attempts to fix the image by adding an alternative? I doubt the authors who write the articles at Britannica are also given the responsibility for editing the pictures, yet here we find ourselves in an situation without precedent in which the equivalent of txt speak is supported and advocated by the "house" policies - it's like the lunatics running the asylum. So, my point here is that this image is imperfect but does not have the obvious grammatical errors to anybody who knows anything about art (or at least from what I understand from my education in the visual arts) that the current lead displays, and should be replaced as a matter of competency rather than over an issue of style. Redblueball (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Redblueball, please don't say things like "Blind devotion", "paraphilic infantalism", and "lunatics running the asylum". I'm just as frustrated as you are, but that doesn't help. Please remember Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thank you. Asarelah (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that you mean this image, which can also be written as this image. The pipe ( | ) in your links broke the link. I can't work out what the Paraphilic infantilism reference has to do with this unless this is an attempt to insult editors who don't agree with you. I sincerely hope that that is not the case. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a reference to the way in which children approach subjects when drawing and using cameras, and how the behaviour can also be seen in adults, like a manifestation of infantilism, or in another sense - a type of cognitive dissonance towards the language of appearances and art. I don't consider this an insult... Man Ray arrived from the childishness of dada, of which I have great respect for. Redblueball (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
How does, and I quote "[...]a paraphilia characterized by the desire to wear diapers and be treated as an infant or toddler.[...] have to do with cameras or drawings? You clearly intended it as insult, and it's not appreciated.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam00:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
My advice clearly was that a new image, and not one previously given would be best. The image that comes closest to that within the existing set of images would be Image:95C.jpg. It was clear that there is little support, and little chance of consensus for Image:Breast_Image_289.jpg. The reason I don't like it is that it is an illustration, and we have, and can obtain, real images of the topic. It would make no sense to select an artifical representation over something that is real. Although I personally would be fine with Image:95C.jpg. It did not seem to gain consensus, hence my suggestion that a new image might fare better in that discussion. Possibly if we brought up only Image:95C.jpg, it would allow us to focus. I feel certain that if we suggest two, three or four images, we will not get consensus, but split support of each image with no consensus. What do you think about proposing Image:95C.jpg? Or should we find a new image of similar characteristics? Atom (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
What about this one: Image:Weibliche-brust.jpg Its just like image Image:95C.jpg, except its bigger. Its the same as the image that is ALREADY PRESENT in the article with anatomical labels, only it has no labels. I think if its good enough for the labeled article picture, then its certainly good enough for the lead. Asarelah (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I am looking at them side by side.
Yami's complaint
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yamis complaint
You editors go ahead and use 95C or a image similar. 289 is in the gallery so not much foul there. Weibliche-brust.jpg|Weiblich-brust is already being used and it has shadowing on one breast.
As for this lede business go ahead and decide for yourself, I'm going to other articles.
I just want to say I think it's messed up that you guys are being too controlling of this article. Like Asher196 who edit warred with me and wanted me to get consensus on removing 8/57 images from the gallery when I first came here.
But you guys went ahead and start removing images like crazy and putting them in the article when it was unprotected, and i didn't see any consensus for it.
Or when Asher196 put the gallery in hidden mode, Atom pulled out the Censorship card, and edit wared with the two of us.
Both Asher196 and Atom's actions were ignored, and I was singled out because I am the new guy to this article and Dreadstar knows you all. At least that is how I'm feeling about this horrible situation and mediocre article.
I've been been accused of censorship, animal cruelty/necrophilia, Grinding an Axe and a multitude of other things. I have been blocked 3 times because of this article, and I'm not going for a record of the most blocks in one month.
Cheers and Godspeed to the next poor sap who comes here and gets trapped into this endless hell of debating, and trying to reach consensus with the same group of editors over and over.
![[4]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Breastsofadultwoman.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Breastsofadultwoman2.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Breastsofadultwoman3.jpg){kind=link}
Gallery: King of pop
.jpg)
_HER2_expression.JPG)
_p63.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_smooth_muscle_actin.JPG)
.jpg|Histopathology){kind=link}
_HER2_expression.JPG){kind=link}
_p63.JPG|Histopathology_of_intradu){kind=link}
.jpg|Histopathologic_image_of_breast_fibroadenoma._C){kind=link}
.jpg|Histopathologic_image_of_breast_fibroadenoma._C){kind=link}
.jpg|Histopathology_of_intraductal){kind=link}
_smooth_muscle_actin.JPG|Histopath){kind=link}
_p63.JPG|Histopathology_of_intradu-1){kind=link}
