Talk:Bra/Archive 1

message: I changed the See also: from a heading in accordance to The Manual of Style.  Sorry if it looks like it's part of the History section—that's just the way it works.  It is a see also for the whole article. :-) —Frecklefoot 18:40, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The server treats it as part of the History section this way. I think it is important that logical and formal sections correspond, otherwise the TOC is useless and confusing. I added some on this to the Manual of Style. - Patrick 21:18, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: Now that an External link section has been added it is even worse: the general link is ridiculously hidden in the History section. I will change that. - Patrick 00:06, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: Alternatively the internal link may be put just before the first section, i.e. just before the TOC. - Patrick 00:44, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  The way it usually is, is that external links go last in the article. It's just nicer that way, and makes the distinction between our ideas and external ones more distinct :) Dysprosia 00:48, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait wait wait, the way it's been done with the [1] following the History statement is perfect, just leave it like that, IMHO :) Dysprosia 00:49, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  To clarify, I did not object against the external link, but against hiding "see also" in a section in which it does not belong. Patrick 00:56, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: I have added some information to enhance the section on the Maidenform company and the innovations of Ida Rosenthal, et al. rmcox 18:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding information on Maidenform 

message: The word "now refers" to a baby's vest?  I'd say it "came to mean" that, but right now it doesn't.  I can't cite the reference but someone more familiar with French could chase this down.: a few years ago I read somwhere that as the French language had lost control of the word brassiere, which (as I read it) referred to a child's undershirt, the Acadeny came up with a new word for that and went with the flow (with the rest of the world) on the meaning of brassiere. ;Bear 16:23, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
:A brassière is indeed French for a baby's vest ("undershirt" in Yankeespeak), although in Quebec it still has the older meaning of what we call a brassière in English.  I'm not aware of any other words for a baby's vest in French, whether Academic or not.  Chameleon 17:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning in modern French 

message: With regards to "Training bras for newly developing young girls seem like an oxymoron, and in reality aren't really meant for support as much as for camouflage" could someone please expand on this? Camouflaging what and for what purpose? I feel it's vague but can't come up with anything to add. Thanks.
Celerityfm 23:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Camouflaging breasts! They are a good way to stand out in a crowd of teenage girls. Training bras are worn to press the breasts against the chest and hide them.
--Stereo 13:36, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
Ok that makes sense now. That is similar to the ace-bandage wrap technique. So training bras are more often used by people who have matured past the time they were intended to be used for! My understanding of training bras was they were intended to help girls get used to the feeling of wearing a bra before they wore one later. I think this phenomenon needs more study. I'll research it and get back to you :) Celerityfm 15:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok I figured it out. Did some hard research and found a book that discussed this very topic! I've digested it and I am going to communicate the ideas in the book and link to an external excerpt as well. Very interesting stuff!
--Celerityfm 18:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Training bras as camouflage? 

message: Gosh, I never realized it was such a science... 212.159.91.204 22:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Me, Personal effects on 

message: I've came accross these two papers:
I think a mention of such studies should probably be included in the article.
---
 If no one suggests, I'm going to some serious modification to these pages. For one, the statements about bras not sagging with age is contradicted in the  Breasts article. Second, sources 1 and 2 are quite flagrantly unreliable.
:Totally agree, the sources are clearly biased towards an extreme point of view. There may not be any medical studies, i wouldn't really no where to look, but it's pretty obvious that unsupported breasts sag with age, especially if the person does vigorous exercise without a sports bra. The article should be NPOV. Also this  is unreliable. It's on about breast weight being held on the shoulders - a bra doesn't hold the breast weight on the shoulders! A well fitting bra actually take most of the weight on the band round the body. Spute 21:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical studies 

message: I am new here but I think that we need a new photo for the first bra picture on the page.  The leopard print just kinda looks cheap.  And before anyone says it, no I will contribute one of myself. :P  SallyB 03:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo's fine by me. This article could definitely use more photos though. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 18:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Photo 

message: Could someone find out who invented/developed the Early Greek cloth/covering for womens breasts? If it was a male or female? As well as name of course - Timmah01
:No personal information about such an inventor would now be known -- and it's rather doubtful whether there would have been one single "inventor" in the first place... Churchh 23:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Futher History 

message: The user Lorieposes is persistently using this page as a means of self-publicity. Looking at the contribution record, the user has obviously been created solely for this purpose. I've twice reverted the changes and asked him/her to stop; if it persists, I will ask an admin to warn the user and/or seek a block on the user id. --Stephen Burnett 11:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Advertising 

message: Bravissimo's great in my opinion too, but Wikipedia shouldn't advertise it, i've removed the mention of the URL in the text, but put in a link to the as yet non-existent Bravisimo article. It'd be an interesting compnay to write about. Spute 17:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bravissimo 

message: That is, what i thought, the most common thing they are called.  And articles are supposed to be called what most commonly refers to the articles subject.  TrevorLSciAct 07:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree -- Bra is actually a disambiguation page, so that this article would have to take the title of "Bra (garment)" or something like that -- and what would be the point?  I don't think we have to name articles by ambiguous abbreviations when there's also a common unambiguous unabbrevated form... Churchh 11:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sort of agree, How about having bra redirect to brassiere, with a message at the top saying Bra redirects here, for other uses see Bra (disambig) ??Spute 21:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article should be Bra 

message: I'm not sure how you guys feel about this, but don't you guys think that it's kind of weird to have a picture of a guy in a bra in this article? For it to be one of the three pictures in this article draws a lot of attention to a phenomenon that I didn't even know existed. I hate to suggest it because I expect reactions to be mixed, but perhaps the section alone will suffice? Just putting the idea out on the table. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 04:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would suggest that "drawing a lot of attention to a phenomenon that we didn't even know existed" was precisely the point of putting it there. It has recently become very evident to me that certain people are pursuing a particular agenda through this article. Although I'm not unsympathetic to their desire to propogate their views or draw attention to something they feel to be important, I do think that it's being done at the expense of the article. An article which claims to be encyclopedic should aim at balance, and the male-bra issue is assuming a significance within it which is grossly disproportionate to the situation as it exists in real life. Yes, there are a few men who wear bras; the phenomenon does exist, and the point has been made. That doesn't mean that the article ought to present an even-handed unbiased picture of the bra as a unisex garment which worn by both sexes, because it's simply not. Personally I am in favour of the picture being removed. --Stephen Burnett 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the picture. Since nobody's chimed in to argue that it should be kept, I assume this isn't a problem. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article's Newest Picture 

message: From what I can tell, only the UK and the US base bra sizing on the imperial system.  I'm guessing that the majority of bras out there are measured on the imperial system simply because of the proliferation of US and UK lingerie retailers.  Most European countries use the metric system.  Australia uses something similar to the U.S. dress size and Italy uses some system that I'm still trying to figure out.  I've yet to find good references for any of this, so I'm making no changes at this time.  I'm working on cleaning this section up, though. Pippief (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurements: Metric vs "customary system" 

message: In France, it seems a Brassirie was where you buy cake etc, although that could have been a spelling mistake on one shop. 86.134.161.127 12:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let them eat cake 

message: edited the spellof organisations to organizations :-D it hurt my eyes when i read that part. MikelZap 20:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  only a quick edit 

message: Regarding the citation of "The Physics of Bras" by Anne Casselman in Discover, Vol. 26 No. 11 November 2005:
"But these weight values seem excessive.  A single breast weight of half of 7-10 kg which is 3.5-5 kg is a gallon (3.8 liters) or more.  Most women's breasts are below 1 liter, with the very largest approaching a gallon or 4 liters.  The largest implants (not custom ordered) are under 1 liter."
(This comment was made from 66.53.223.185, at 23:50, 2 June 2007 (moved by ENeville 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The numbers, though true to the cited article, seem off by several fold. ENeville 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For comparison, see numbers in gigantomastia article.  ENeville 01:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked into it a little, due to the recent verfication-tagging of the statement on breast weight. What I found was that the largest implants most manufacturers make are 800 cubic centimeters each (3.4 cups in volume). (The vast majority of implants sold are between 300 and 500 CCs.) If you look at 3.4 cups of contents in the corner of a plastic bag, for example, you can see that those would give even a member of the itty bitty committee at least a full C cup, if not a D. Weight for those is 3.75 pounds for a pair in silicone, or 3.38 pounds if saline. Because the density of implants is not terribly different from the density of the real thing, even a 5 pound pair of breasts would seem to be approaching the far end of the bell curve, and the 23 pounds mentioned in the article sounds like some combination of obesity and/or gigantomastia. I'll look around a little more for something we can cite on the subject, because while the current text doesn't seem to be untrue, it seems a little misleading to list a weight which is around 8 times average without qualifying that statement somehow. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've just been looking for information on this too (why I'm on this page actually :).  A study into breast volume and weight was carried out in 1979 by Katch et al. (registration or payment required).    The women in their study had a mean total breast weight of 484g, with the highest weight (in their 'high fat group') coming in at 845g.  (There was significant variance (219g overall) in the figures within and between groups.  Also, their sample of 45 18-31 YO is probably not representative.)  They used a breast density of 1.017g/ml.  While I'm sure that a significant number of large-breasted women would exceed these figures, 10kg - about 5 2l Coke bottles by volume - seems unusually large to me at least. Meloncholy 05:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breast weight 

message: Mattnad asked me to provide some perspective on this based on the last few years, noting that the people involved keep changing. 
I eventually gave up on this because it was so politically charged, subject to vandalism, and the constant attacks of certain individuals. There was also constant pressure to include bras for men. I have not looked too closely at what has happened since. 
I don’t think it will ever escape the NPOV criticism because people have some pretty fixed ideas. An awful lot of nonsense gets written about this garment. As you know Wiki has been the subject of manipulation by vested interests and industry. I don’t know if this is going on here or not. 
It is interesting that anything negative gets labeled ‘anti-bra’ which is a simplistic binary. Yes, it could simply be an article on a piece of cloth, but then that would not be very interesting and would attract criticism, since it represents far more than that. 
As it is I span off at least three leaf articles. One could put the social and cultural material into a leaf article too if you like (rather than history which is not really what that is about). However an article suggesting that this was a biological and social necessity would be equally misleading, since the emerging literature is increasingly questioning both that and the design in general. A huge amount of money has been spent by industry on promoting the idea of the sports bra, and indeed the idea that every woman needs a drawer full of bras for every occasion, a very expensive proposition. 
I originally questioned the very concept of support, as opposed to elevate but I see that has been reverted. I don’t actually see much reference to other cultures any more, although it is interesting how many people assume this is a universal garment, a subject of considerable amazement amongst women at an international health conference recently. 
As already mentioned, using industry sources is not recommended other than to acknowledge that they have a POV. The qualitative and quantitative data do suggest the majority of women have difficulty getting a fit because the design and measurements are completely illogical. We see large numbers of women with marks on their skin indicating poor fit. Actually I do believe that fashion overrides comfort, but you could make that statement for much of women’s fashions. I agree much of the fitting was supposed to be in the leaf article, it seems to have crept back. 
I think we need to be careful about what minority opinion is, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Yes the majority of women in western society wear a bra for at least some of the day (mainly work outside the home), but that does not mean they are happy about it. Sit down with any focus group on this subject and you will hear plenty of ‘anti-bra’ comments. Ask how many people remove them as soon as they get home. I see one of the critics of the 'anti-bra' position here is a member of Bras Suck. 
There is a high level of interest in this within women’s health, because the bra cannot be separated from breast, body image, and self esteem, and such things as cosmetic surgery.
Finally I would again caution distinguishing between opinion and data.--Mgoodyear (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: The woman in the main image is kind of gross. Who votes to replace it with a better looking girl?--eskimospy (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, the lead image is supposed to be illustrative, which it is, as it illustrates a brassiere quite clearly, and it's not needlessly overly sexualized, consistent with the encyclopedic tone of the article. Whether or not the woman is "good looking" is irrelevant; the picture serves its purpose. krimpet✽ 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ditto - and that pair of images have the advantage of showing the woman's back with the bra on. This has been discussed in the past. I will say I'd prefer a more conventional bra than the leopard print, but this is what we have with front and back views. Mattnad (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  just a suggestion, but how about combining the two images like this:
to save room--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 06:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Mattnad.--eskimospy (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Neat approach, but personally I don't mind the side by side as it stands.  Any other opinions? Mattnad (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could take both pictures and combine them into a single picture, for example, and just have them stacked on top of one another. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 04:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with two separate pictures? It's not really that big of a deal to have two images instead of one. Editmaniac (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This picture should not be near nude woman, that is practically pornographic. The picture should be an unworn brassiere. Posidon09 (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, if you have problems with this, then you'd really hate the articles relating to human genitalia.  I think you have an unusually low threshold for what constitutes pornography.  This image could just as well be a woman in a bikini top - something that we see in every public pool and beach across the country. At any rate, it's far easier to to see what a brassiere does, and what it looks like, when it's on a woman.  Mattnad (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree. Wikipedia is not censored. Besides, it's a reasonably full cut bra by modern standards. The line of the top of the bra is no more revealing than many outer garments (dresses and tops) commonly seen in public today. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Been brought up before.  If you have a nice fair use pair of images (front and back), bring 'em on.  Mattnad (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace article's main image?