Talk:Breast/Archive 1

message: Is this an anatomical description of human breast or breasts in all mammals. We should probably indicate which.  --rmhermen
The "super bowl halftime controversy" link. I don't know whether to leave it or cut and paste to "Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense". Philwelch 17:54, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'd cut it out, but I'll wait for some comments here. — Sverdrup 09:26, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Anatomy

message: Is there any reason we use tit, instead of breast (the title of the article) to describe the breasts through out this article? I don't know any place in the world where tit would be considered more social acceptable of a word than breast, and since it seems that breast makes more sense, and is the scientifically accepted word, I'm going to replace all there instances.  — マイケル ₪ 15:17, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
:Nevermind, it appears it was vandalism. I've converted it back.  — マイケル ₪ 16:00, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
I think 'tit' is a vulgar variation on the word 'teat'.
:There's nothing vulgar about it: it's a completely legitimate word. What you mean is that vulgar people use tits, but that teat is in less frequent use outside of animal husbandry and so more acceptable.
:Nuttyskin 03:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tits

message: I would urge that the articles on diseases of the breast be completed. Women's health issues tend to receive much less coverage as compared to men's, and Wikipedia is a good place to reverse this trend. I wish I had the expertise, but I don't. "I'm an engineer, not a doctor!" (With apologies to Dr. Leonard McCoy). jimaginator
Interesting that you say that, for my experience (in the UK) is very much the opposite. --Khendon 22:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfinished links

message: I've cropped the old breast image to make it more appropriate for this article... Feel free to add it to the article.
*Well I supported Sam Spade and thought the original picture was fine, but this cropped down image does seem somwhat more relevant to the topic and is better than nothing. Thanks and I hope we all agree to keep it. -CunningLinguist 11:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I vigorously oppose this line of reasoning. The purpose of the wiki is not to promote a politically correct concept of body size. This article is about the breast, and we need an image which represents the breast, not your concept of what is best for a womans self image, or what is most average, etc... A full breast is more representational than a flat one.  12:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the average size of female breasts, then? --Khendon 13:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I would tend to agree with CiaraBeth.  Here in East Asian breasts of that magnitude are singled out and placed in a specific classification in, say, the Japanese porn industry, where they are known as "Gigantic Breasts" (巨乳), itself a kind of objectification not very fair to women who have them.  Even in Europe those breasts are larger than most.  A good solution, in my opinion, would be to create a gallery in :Commons: showing a range of female breasts/nipples/aureola/pigmentation/etc, as well as male ones (both typical and ones with gynecomastia).  This particular cropped image is, in any case, not all that good (crooked).  206.149.212.104 08:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image 

message: Hi: Wikipedia is beginning to be peppered with photos that belong in "Playboy" etc. No moral person can accept the possible consequences of this development. Please express your views at:
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Nudity (full frontal) pictures in an encyclopedia? 
Thank you for giving this matter your serious attention! IZAK 12:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of full frontal nudity 

message: In the "Size, shape and composition" section, there is the following sentence: 
In the United States of America, 427,574 such surgeries were performed in 1973.
What's so special about this number or this year that we can't mention a more recent statistic? And as an aside, shouldn't the link come after the period? rWd 19:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the 1973 reference? 

message: I'm unprotecting the article.  Nine days is far too long; this article will always attract vandalism, but editors just have to deal with it (except in cases of major surges in anon vandalism). Superm401 - Talk 19:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: Lalalulu, I must say I don't understand why this image was added.  I have several objections to it.
*First, it is too large, and breaks up the page.
*Secondly, it wastes space showing the woman's face and lower torso.  A horizontally cropped image, like the three images above it, would be more appropriate.  Focusing on only the anatomy in question will reduce the possibility of the reader becoming confused.
*Thirdly, it's redundant.  We already have several images of breasts.  We need to avoid "image creep".
*Fourthly and most importantly, the breasts in that image are fake.  This is the article on breasts, not implants.  Of course, we could add a section on fake breasts, and that image would be appropriate there (assuming it were also cropped down as detailed in #2 above).
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.  If you don't object, I will be removing the image.  Thanks,  Kasreyn 17:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[03breasts-.jpg]] removal 

message: To add my two cents worth to the image debate... I think the current picture propogates the idea of the existence of 'perfect breasts', which in reality very few women actually have. Don't get me wrong, i think the image on the page is fine for what it's there for, but these perfectly round, perky and relatively small breasts are not representative of the variety of appearances seen in real breasts.
That's why i added a link to www.007b.com, which having been removed twice, i'll give up on - I would agree it is in a way an inherently biased page to link to, but it was the best i could find. Googling for images will always result in a biased sample (mainly of porn and breast enhancement photos), and i feel that Wikipedia is a suitable place to emphasise diversity, and perhaps the best way to do that is by linking an external site.
Maybe the link i chose was not ideal, does anyone know of any others?
Spute 22:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my vote, I found the link rather informative. Description with each photo explains effects of child birthing on breasts. --Kim Nevelsteen 17:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Likewise, as it happens. Informative and not biased towards porn - Pete C ✍ 18:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representative images 

message: :Image:Breast(mentor10).png has a label "Ducts" which I think should be "mammary gland" or "lobule of mammary gland". I was going to change it, but the image appears to be copyrighted and we can't use it at all. Does anyone have a suggestion for a better graphic? AxelBoldt 18:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic of breast cross section 

message: The 'Terminology Section' currently reads
: "There are many slang terms for the breasts. The terms boobs, tits, boobies, cans, rack, hooters, knockers, headlights, funbags, milk duds, twins, melons, and jugs are commonly employed, though are generally considered derogatory or vulgar."
I note that Body parts slang has now been deleted, personally i don't see why, particularly when List of sexual slang is still up, but that's a separate discussion. If people want to re-start that article, can i suggest they take up that discussion themselves, rather than adding an endless list of slang terms here. 
How about this for the terminolgy section, any way:
: "The words 'boobs' and 'tits' are two of the most commonly used English slang terms for a woman's breasts, though a great many more exist.  The reasons for using these informal terms are varied, and include euphemism and baby talk used to a feeding infant, as well as derogatory or vulgar comments. Wiktionary has a list of such terms."
That maybe isn't perfect, and i'd welcome any suggestions for how to improve it, but the current section just seems to invite people to pointlessly add to the list, with phrases which seem inappropraite here and would be much more at home at the deleted Body parts slang page or on wiktionary. What do people think? Spute 16:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree both here and with regard to all of the anatomical and sexual articles that generate these never-ending lists of slang words that tend to make the articles seem less like encyclopedia articles and more like opportunities for people to act out a need to rebel against the forces of sexual repression in their own psyches. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slang terms 

message: Please... I beg you.
-- I second that!
:Define "better", please. JFW | T@lk 21:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get some better examples of breasts 

message: The atypically small breasts are again being used for the top photo and I tried changing the caption to "Smaller than average human female breasts" but it was reverted back to "Human female breasts." Either breasts within one cup size of average should be shown or it should be mentioned that they're not average. I think a b should be shown for sensitivity reasons, but a c would be fine because it's supposedly the new average. An a isn't appropriate without explaining that it's smaller than average or mentioning the cup size in the caption, and if a size is mentioned in the caption that's more than one cup size away from average without explicitly saying it's smaller or larger than average, then a list of cup sizes from smallest to largest should be put in the first paragraph. -Barry- 01:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, as the word "atypical" implies deviation from the norm. A B-cup does not define the norm, it's the average. If you were to look at the tag of every woman's bra walking down a busy street right now, you wouldn't find that the majority have B-cups. Rather, you would find a variety of sizes that fall within the A to D range and occasionally some that fall outside of it. Anywhere from A to D is a normal sized breast. Samantha543 14:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving size in top photos 

message: Are all the photos really necessary? I am by no means prudish or breast-hating, but 8-10 pictures of the subject of any article seems excessive. tregoweth 19:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Gray wolf, I'm sure there's 8-10 pictures of gray wolves there. — Phil Welch 17:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of photos? 

message: Is it really necessary?  Seems kinda silly to me.
:Not silly at all - it's a common misspelling, and there are often disambig links to mis-spellings.  I'm going ahead and restoring it, as there was never any good reason for removing it.  In fact I'm pretty certain that a large percentage of English speakers when looking for a French city named Brest would spell it Breast. ENpeeOHvee 22:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I certainly don't see the harm in putting in a disambig link. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a good one. I remember first hearing (not reading) about this city named Breast; I was probably about 12. If I'd had Wikipedia handy, I'd have gone looking for Breast. (well, I did that anyway, but you know what I mean.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to the city Brest 

message: They shouldnt be showing these ugly ones, they should show jessica Albas one  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackietang33 (talk • contribs) .
:I don't see what's ugly about the breasts in the images on this article.  In fact, there's been some here who have said that we've been giving too much time and attention to breasts conforming to certain common standards of beauty, and not enough attention to their real variety.  Remember, an encyclopedia is supposed to report on the world as it really is, not the overly-perfect fake world on television.  Additionally, I have a hard time imagining we could find a fair-use image of Ms. Alba's breasts to use here.  Furthermore, it wouldn't be good practise anyway, even if we had such a fair-use image; it would be unprofessional and we'd likely get sued.  Kasreyn 09:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugly Breasts