Talk:Bra/Archive 2

message: I think this page needs quite a lot of work. I have written quite a bit on this subject from the perspectives of women's health and women's studies, and have started to incorporate some of that material. Inevitably there will be controversy, and as pointed out above, we need to be careful about consistency with other related articles, as well as being balanced. I have given more voice to feminist theory and writing, than was evident before, and incorporated current scientific research. In addition I have expanded the source material. This is obviously very much a 'work in progress', but it is a topic that has become a big issue in women's studies, since bras represent far more than an item of clothing but a whole icon of both women's body image, and status. 
I am also trying to improve the citation styles. Frankly it is difficult to determine whether the material already posted here was copied from other internet sites, or the other way around. I have tried some rather more authoritative sources. I am drawing on qualitative research done with women's groups about their relationships with bras, or not. I will eventually get to a literature review on the biomedical science.    
Mgoodyear 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're doing a fantastic job. This article is really coming along. Thanks for your hard work. =) —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 19:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have continued to trace the evolution of 'support' and restraint of the breast.Mgoodyear 15:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume it is inevitable that a subject like this is prone to vandalism Mgoodyear 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd be surprised how many articles get vandalized, many times by people making tests or just goofing off. At any rate, it's simple enough to revert vandalism. The page history makes vandalism both easy to spot and correct. Generally the edit note rvv for revert vandalism is used to edits reverting vandalism. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions 

message: Aiden: would you kindly provide a definition for 'fetish bra'?Mgoodyear 00:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In view of your history of contributions, to date, I am deleting itMgoodyear 22:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fetish Bra 

message: I think it approperiate to share some discussion from my talk page, although ideally I should review the entire history of this article at some stage.
A question has been raised, quite reasonably, as to whether the article has become unbalanced, and this requires some examination. Someone started a question asking if bras were necessary, and elswhere there is a section on culture that makes reference to the rejection of bras by feminists. 
While the bra seems like a simple garment, understanding requires a thorough review of its history, rationale, culture and relation to the breast, its structure and engineering, and a thorough knowledge of breast biology, and the relationship between a woman and her breasts, which has occupied a fair bit of my time over a number of years. 
The bra has been controversial since its inception, and discussions about bras are nearly as convoluted as those about breasts. It is ctually difficult to write a 'balanced', if that means for and against brs. Thatis because while many women appear attached to their bras, under the surface their is a deep tension, a dichotomy of atraction and repulsion. Their is an enormous amount of misinformation, particularly on the internet, and a fair share of mythology. A review of the literature and the research fails to demonstrate any need, reducing it to a fashion accessory. The health professions are fairly united in stating that there is no necessity for bras, they can cause a lot of problems, but despite claims of serious health problems including cancer, it is difficult to substantiate this, although less serious problems seem to occur frequently. 
As Dr Susan Love, one of the most influential writers on women's health, puts it, it is a matter of choice. But that choice should be informed. Qualitative research suggests that women wer bras because they think they have to, but are generally much happier when they are not.
My strategy in being 'encyclopaedic' was to examine critically the evolution of garments that surround the breasts, refer to the relevant material on breast biology, and the evidence for and against bras, and review the scientific literature on bras. This all has to be interpreted against the cultural significance of bras which is complex and related to the social status of the breast as icon.
The article could be split up I suppose. Oh, and by the way, I am a physician in women's health and women's studies. Mgoodyear 04:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have recast the section on are bra necessary as a debate. The problem is that like cigarettes it is difficult to create a balanced article when the only 'for' statements are some opinions in fashion articles, and some advertisements. All the more scholarly work is aginst bras. Therefore it comes down to informed choice, not that 100 years of tradition is going to change overnight. Mgoodyear 20:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is on Bras, as an Item of clothing; whither or not they should be is another question altogether and pointless for Wikipedia's article on this _item_ if you which to create an article on what you think is importent and relevent to the topic, then you should create such an article, however, it also has to be with out bias, which, IMO, this article no longer is.-142.177.121.25 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias or Slant 

message: Spute writes:
"It is a fact that most women in western society (90% at a guess?) wear bras"
That may or may not be true, accurate statistics are hard to come by, and the manufacturers and retailers would like you to believe that. The number has fluctuated considerably since the modern br of the 1930s was introduced, and depends on where you live and what circles you move in, and whether you mean continuous wear or have ever worn. 
However the critical word is Western in n Encyclopaedia that should be universal. Although there are massive marketing campaigns the bra has not penetrated much outside major urban centres in developing countries. There are websites asking women to donate bras to send to Africa where women have never known the benefits of a bra (but, see below).
A Harvard cross cultural study correlating bra size with breast cancer, had to abandon the Japanese part of the study, because they simply could not find many women who actually owned a bra.
We had an international health convention here recently, and obtained funding to bring women from a number of African countries here, and they were billeted with local delegates' families. Naturally they were interested in Western clothes, but when they saw a bra they were astounded, a Muslim woman from Somalia thought they were some sort of "industrialized torture device". Eventually they asked if they could take examples home to show their friends how oppressed and uncivilised Western women were. The local women were equally intrigued at this new perspective, and gladly donated their bras in this educational exchange. Interestingly the only study on bras and their efects on breast shape, which was from Japan, also concluded that they were a form of torture similar to Chinese foot binding. Interestingly that study showed that the bra forced the breasts apart and downwards, the exact opposite of what many women believe they are supposed to do.  
We have to be careful about making cultural assumptions, which are themselves a form of oppression.  
Mgoodyear 17:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point yes, and i think the article has continued to improve. It's much more balanced than even a couple of days ago. Spute 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevalence of bras 

message: Gruk
I removed your changes. The peephole bra information and picture added nothing, and was not appropriate. if you want the 1888 patent included you wil need to provide some context - it does not relate to the text. I note that your contributions to Wikipedia to date have been largely of a sexual nature, requiring removal. 
Mgoodyear 22:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate Images 

message: Marketing: kids, third world
Culture: feminine icon or denial of femininity. Opinion leaders, entertainment industry, what women want, barriers to social change in fashion, bra alternatives, the nipple factor, bounce, relation to top freedom and nudity
Biomedical research (complete to date)
Trivia: uses for dead bras
Outsourcing: In progress
Stubbing of glossary terms not in Wiki: in progress
Rewrite Size and fit and reorganise; ?outsource parts
Mgoodyear 15:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being flippant, but the article could do with more pics. The text is kind of thick :) - Francis Tyers · 16:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, do you have any that are allowable on this site. It also strikes me that historically the use of illustrations tends to be contentious around here and related topics. Mgoodyear 18:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately not at the moment, there are a couple more on commons, but they aren't great quality. I'm keeping my eye out for some more though. - Francis Tyers · 19:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Plan 

message: Are the measurements/fittings for bras global? Is there an ISO standard (or equivalent?) - Francis Tyers · 16:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have read on. It is mentioned, but this should be made more clear in the section "Bra sizes". - Francis Tyers · 16:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the bra sizes section appears muddled, it is because it is muddled. Especially after I pointed out all the problems on top of the original desciption. It is inconsistent, impractical, irrational and illogical. The section is probably ripe for a rewrite now that most of the critical articles have been added. Mgoodyear 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalise 

message: Someone removed the headings, I think it is much neater and more useful with headings
Mgoodyear 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I have printed out various versions since 2003. Some elements of history, and some degree of concern about the necessity of bras has actully been there from the start. The latter was mainly in the form of a reference to an external link, but Dr Susan Love has been there from an early time. The 'necessary' question was internalised in the Autumn of 2005. Hope that helps! Mgoodyear 15:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the History section could do with splitting out per Wikipedia:Summary style. The summary of the section should be about half the length. - Francis Tyers · 16:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (which certainly messes up your footnotes) Mgoodyear 20:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that does quite a lot for the readability of the article. Good call. I like the change. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 09:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Note 

message: A comment was made that this article lacks illustrations. I don't pictures of bras are helpful at all. Some of the technical material is nicely illustrated in medical and scientific journals. They may let us use them with attribution, if we contact them.  Also a photograph of a 'bra-burning' demonstration, might add something, if in the public domain.
I loaded a few onto a website, and linked them, but they were removed.
Mgoodyear 21:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia welcomes Pictures, as this is not a pen and paper encyclopedia, and it only costs time and energy to generate an article, it is for that reason that wikipedia welcomes image. I'm no expert on the subject of images, however, I do believe that the reason your links where removed is because that wikipedia perfers it's users to upload the images, so the information can be posted (like the copyright information).Honeymaneis watching 01:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations 

message: It is very important that this and the Breast article be tightly linked, consistent and not redundant. Therefore the breast information here should be linked and kept to the minimal to make the brassiere article make sense. And vice versa.
Mgoodyear 02:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency and Coordination (Breast) 

message: Sally B deleted 3 sources, without discussion. Please don't remove source material. It is unfair to people whose work was drawn upon to construct the article, and allows people to determine if theur work was used fairly, and not plagiarised. Citing all sources used is an important part of scholarly style. In case you were concerned about the plcement, I moved them to 'sources' to be more explicit.
Mgoodyear 14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of sources, you seem rather one sided to a few sites and books, it would be nice to see some other links, such as using a Book like Gray's Anatomy or such for the biological info. You are suppost to be a doctor, surelly you have access to better material then a website for the breast anatomy! Honeymaneis watching 23:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see five academic journals used as references. In addition, this article has more sources than most other articles on Wikipedia. I don't see what it is you're complaining about. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 02:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not complaining, I'm just suggesting.Honeymaneis watching 03:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links , sources, references 

message: Defining the bra, and its relation to various classes of garment is always tricky, lacking a standardised system and having many terms. Some of this could be left to separate articles on lingerie, underwear etc. I just could not go for 'bedroom' as a definition. I think the link to lingerie (see OED) is problematic, it is poorly researched, and places undue emphasis on the erotic. I did make some minor changes there a while ago.
Mgoodyear 18:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's why we listed all three... undergarment, foundation garment, and lingerie. That covers the "sexual" aspect without placing undue emphasis, wouldn't you say? —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 20:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure it really is all that complex Mgoodyear; it's an undergarment (assuming that we define it as being clothing next to the skin) and lingerie (refering to women's undergarments, although, because of the male bra...) Foundation garments are not really garments, but a set of garments designed to alter the human body. This isn't Rocket science! Honeymaneis watching 22:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not arguing, just saying that in real life, the collective terms are frequently used interchangebly, and there is no one universal standard definition. Which does not really matter tht much anyway.Mgoodyear 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions and categories 

message: I reviewed Brassiere for WP:GA status and I'm afraid I don't think it meets the criteria at this point.  Specifically, it's under NPOV dispute; the History section is unreferenced; the lead section is disjointed and the last paragraph is mostly redundant (sounds like a couple of lead sections were combined); and the Biological and social roles section often reads like a list of factoids rather than a coherent article.  The photos are good and the Mechanical principles section was interesting and not something I would have thought of.  There's a lot of good information here.  It could be a really good article, it's just not quite there.  - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. Thank you for your valuable feedback, and I look forward to bringing Brassiere back to GA in a month or two! —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 00:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've tried to address the comment on the lead section, basically by gathering the material which was there into 3 main paragraphs, which a) define the bra, b) say what it's for, and c) discuss the need for it and its cultural and political significance.  --Stephen Burnett 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad I could help! I think the new organization of the lead section is much more intuitive. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 17:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for that. I've moved the last paragraph into the Etymology section - it concerns the origin of the name, so that, if anywhere, is surely where it ought to go. I think it ended up at the bottom because someone considered it too frivolous to appear early in the article. there seem to be two possible answers: remove it from the article altogether (which would be a pity), or move the Etymology section down. It seems to me that it's less important than history, although kind of related, so maybe it could go below that? --Stephen Burnett 22:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Etymology is generally the first section in an article that has such a section though, isn't it? I believe that's why we moved it up originally. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 01:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - best to leave it where it is then. --Stephen Burnett 08:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think its best at the top. - Francis Tyers · 09:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am currently attempting a rewrite of section 6.2 - I don't believe the overall divsion FOR - AGAINST works well, and it's better to present the arguments under each heading, ie health, functional, fashion and cultural. In effect this mirrors the structure of the intro. --Stephen Burnett 09:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work man. The article is really coming along. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 20:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: seems to conflict w/:
"The first modern brassiere to receive a patent and gain wide acceptance was a bra invented by a New York socialite named Mary Phelps Jacob in 1913."
Caresse Crosby.
Polly Jacob Peabody.
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta  | [[ %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  -]] 02:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: this phrase was actually in the article! Translated: Bras are a bad idea - that is scientific fact - there's no real evidence for it - but it is scientific fact! Spute 19:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "it is difficult to either prove or disprove this theory, as with a number of the other statements made about possible harmful effects" 

message: There's a lot i don't like about the way this article has gone, but I think having the See Also links is useful. Please discuss here if you think any particular ones should be removed. Spute 19:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also links 

message: I have (again) moved the section to the See also part. - Francis Tyers · 15:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male bra 

message: What is the source of the statement that the average American woman owns six bras, one of which is strapless and one of which is not white? It does not seem to be cited.
75.73.169.123 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Women, bras 

message: The article could use a little more proofreading to avoid repitition, but the copyedit tag can be removed.  This article will continue to undergo frequent revisions, some of which will harm the overall quality.  Putting more material in the off-shoot articles would reduce maintenance and length as well as improving readability. H Bruthzoo 20:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: These tigerbra images are illustrating a neither very typical nor very attractive bra. Alternative material is highly welcomed. --Nemissimo II 09:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images