Talk:Breast/Archive 3

message: The first photo looks like regular normal breasts. The woman might be pregnant -- I believe whoever says she is -- but it doesn't look particularly like a pregnant woman's breasts. The caption seems like an excuse for having the photo there. Maybe readers don't know what breasts look like, and that's why this article has so many photos, and needs one right at the beginning.
As the director of a research center on women's and kids health, we actually get emails from girls and women of all ages worried because their breasts don't look perfect. So, let's not have a wikipedia article contributing to that.
If the purpose of the photos is to educate, how about using some photos from this website, showing a diversity rather than mostly idealized versions: http://www.007b.com/breast_gallery.php 
I found the comments about "some people think that older women's breasts look unattractive" offensive. And, I don't think it adds anything to the article. 
If we're going to have a section on plastic surgery, then I would like to add some sociological analyses from books about the American culture's obsession with "perfect breasts" as well as psychological studies showing that women who undergo breast augmentation tend to feel worse about themselves and their lives than women who don't. There are 5 studies showing that women who undergo breast augmentation are twice as likely to kill themselves as other plastic surgery patients and other women of the same age and social class. But frankly, it was easier to just delete the 3 sentences about breast augmentation rather than add a few paragraphs. I didn't revise the content on breast reconstruction.
By the way, I was at a meeting with pediatricians today, who told me that 13-year old boys are using illegal drugs so that they can develop a 6-pack. If this continues, boys will be just as depressed about how they look as girls are.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drzuckerman (talk • contribs) .
::I would disagree that the pictures represent overly idealized breasts other then the one labled  which appear natural. The first picture is certainly plausible to be lactating, although the angle makes it hard to assess as you mention.
::The specific issue of mental illness/suicide among the implant group is more appropriately disscussed in the body dysmorphic and depression arenas as that's more of a correlative relationship with both augmentation and other cosmetic surgery procedures. This entry is ripe for  more discussion of cross-cultural attitudses towards breasts which would dovetail with your suggestion on American pop-culture attitudes on ideal breast aesthetics (from Twiggy to Baywatch) and the resultant psychologyDroliver 04:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drzuckerman, that site has been mentioned before, and as I said then, I see no problem with including images from it.  However, the site's watermarks are not particularly helpful - are there versions without the watermarks?  Additionally, the site's description of breasts as "immature" when pregnancy has not yet occurred, regardless of age, seems to fly in the face of commonly-accepted notions of what maturation is, so we would probably want to avoid bringing the site's POV in along with the images.  It would definitely be appropriate and informative to have at least one image of a woman with a distinct disparity in size between her breasts; as the site points out, it is quite common.  The watermarks seem to indicate to me that the site does not want their images re-used (as that is why most sites watermark); it might be best to contact an administrator of that site to ask permission before we use any of their images.  Who knows, maybe the administrator will let us have un-watermarked copies.  Kasreyn 08:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kasreyn, I've got some photos from my patients which are can demonstrate some signifigant varience issues effectively. I'll add that when I get around to it.Droliver 19:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be certain that these patients understand & release their images to be used on Wikipedia, otherwise it is likely that an editor will remove them.  A good way to avoid a row would be to make sure the photos are not personally identifiable (bluntly put, photoshop them and crop out the heads and other identifying portions).  But still, it would ease my mind to know that your patients were OK with the images being used.  Thanks for the offer!  Kasreyn 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  photos and questions about this article

message: inframammary line? Theirs no article about it...And its mentioned.--64.121.1.55 02:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please look in the section on anatomy. The inframammory fold (IMF) is the crease formed on the chest wall between elements in the skin and deeper connective tissue on the chest wall. It is boundry inferiorly of breast tissue & a landmark in cosmetic & reconstructive surgeryDroliver 14:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: New research of the anatomy of the human breast has overturned some of the data in this article. See breast anatomy for details.
:Wow.  breast anatomy is a great article, and without a "booby gallery".  So now, why is it necessary to have two different articles on breasts?  Jance 23:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Jance. Breast anatomy certainly needs more edits; it's just a start at updating information that most people still have totally wrong! (Pworms 10:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anatomy needs updating 

message: Jim, do you think that the diagram is acceptable for a lead pic?  As I said, "penis" does not even have a lead photo.  I am not entirely sure that a large photo of either a penis or a breast is necessary to identify the object about what we are talking.  It seems that Kasryn thinks we should also have a larg photo of a penis as a lead pic, but nobody else there seemed to think so.  So I would like to get a consensus here, as well.Jance 22:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede photo

message: The Anatomy section contains this sentence: "The rest of the breast is composed of connective tissue, i.e., adipose tissue (fat) and Cooper's ligaments."
This says that fat is a type of connective tissue. Is that medically correct? My understanding is that fat doesn't anchor anything to anything — it just sits there. Cognita 23:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Adipose tissue.  HTH, Kasreyn 05:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course it's false. Connective tissue primarily consists of the proteins collagen and elastin. I corrected it even before I saw that you pointed it out. Embryoglio 09:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fat and connective tissue 

message: I've created an archive, if I've accidentlly removed a still active discussion, please restore it.
(I did this under an IP address because I wasn't logged in)
--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: We do not need these pictures on Wikipedia they should all be taken off.  Anyone can access these because Wikipedia is not blocked by internet filters because it was not made to be a porn site.  We seriously should take these pictures down.  It is in no way necessary to have these for anyone but the perverts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Douglas Bradford Oliver (talk • contribs).
:It's not "porn", and I've reinstated the legitimate external link that you just removed. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Define porn. Images of the topic might help people not familiar with the topic. -- Ec5618 17:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, this is nothing in comparison with this one (from this article) ;-). 193.219.28.146 18:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ridiculous. This article does not have images of sexual intercourse, anal sex, oral sex, or ejaculations. It does not have putrid pictures of sagging granny breasts or naked obese women. It does not even have pictures of vaginas. Visual depiction is necessary in order to be thoroughly informative. Sometimes the value of informativeness and the value of decency must be weighed against eachother, but in this article there is only little compromise in decency (such as the ptosis picture). If you are not mature enough to handle that, then you may choose to discontinue reading wikipedia articles, rather than calling us perverts. Embryoglio 12:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is just a excuse to get porn past internet filters 

message: The addition of another image by user:Nemeton is disruptive.  Three other editors have clearly said that the image is not desired in the article.  I am taking the opportunity to explain why to you at this time.
*First, the lede image is important in any article, and the addition of the other image conflicts with this lede image.  The two images together, IMO are distracting, and reduce the quality of the article.  Perhaps a different lede image could be chosen, if these two images for sme reasons needed to be in the article together.
*Second, according the the guidelines underway, adding additional images that do not add additional information is not desirable.
*Third, if you wish to make a comparison of the same breasts, during and after pregnancy, that would be interesting, but the lede is the wrong place for that.  Are the pictures (prgnant/not pregnant) of the same woman?  Even if so, because the orientation of the pictures is different, it isn't really very useful.  If they are of a different woman, well, we already have many other pictures in the article of non-pregnant women's breasts, another does not seem to information to the article.
Your manner of adding an image into the article without discussing it first, especially as a lede image, and then reverting three other editors seems more trollish and disruptive than complementary to the editing process.  Please desist.  Atom 05:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of unwanted image 

message: Said user has twice blanked the image
which contrasts with the previous image in the shapes that it demonstrates.
He/she even posted the following message to my talk page, which makes incivil accusations of making false
accusations of vandalism:
:Breast Please do not make accusations of vandalism when requesting that you gain consensus to add images to the article. There has been much debate over images added to the article so discussing the inclusion of new images with other fellow wikipdians before inclusion should be performed to avoid edit wars.--I already forgot 23:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent blanking vandalism by [[User:I already forgot]] 

message: I'm asking various editors, particularly User:Embryoglio to stop edit warring and discuss the issues on the talk page.  I find the type of language and method being used to be non productive and disruptive.  
Also, I added a warning on User:Embryoglio for violation of the three revert rule.  Please stop reverting other editors work.  Please see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Regards, Atom 02:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my right to delete false accusations. However, I have left your above convincingly-worded false accusations alone because they reflect badly on you, not me. By the way 'edittors work' means additions, not deletions. Embryoglio 05:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring, disruption and 3RR 

message: Currently, there are eight images in this article. Here's the thing about images - they take a long time for a person with an old or feeble computer to load. That means that this article might not get read at all by a lot of people. That's just one of the issues about having 8 images in an article. I like all the images, but something's got to give here. Nina Odell 03:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The images were restored with comment here. I explained to Atom my reasons too. The images were in the article for a long time. They were removed without consensus which is a violation of policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breast&diff=prev&oldid=99217385 --MotherAmy 03:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi

message: In the above talk section 'Edit warring, disruption and 3RR', the user Atomaton has resorted to making false accusations of me, most obvious of which is a 3RR violation. Making a 3RR violation requires 4 reverts, and I have only made one (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&action=history) . False accusations don't get much more blatant than that. He/she has even put the false accusation on my talk page, so as to make it more convincing to third parties (yes, I am aware of that trick). He/she and User:I already forgot have even made a gang attack against me at Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard, in which they made false accusations against me.
I suspected that this would happen, because I am a very civil, unbiased, and convincing (in talk page discussions) opponent of theirs. Atomaton and Forgot therefore perceive me as the greatest threat of all of their opponents on this issue, and have therefore targetted me for destruction. Such behavior is utterly unacceptable on wikipedia, and if MotherAmy or some other user will support me, I will create user RfCs on those 2 users.
Embryoglio 04:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI - I was in the middle of posting almost precsiely the same message to you about 3RR and WP:CIVIL - he just managed to get his posted a minute ahead of me. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 05:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm warning you not to keep up this style of dialogue, it's disruptive and violates WP:CIVIL. And I note you arrived here a few days ago, and have targeted this article only, with obvious prior experience in editing here. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 06:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Atomaton]] and [[User:I already forgot]] resort to making false accusations of their opponents 

message: I discussed the issues that Motheramy has been concerned about in some detail in my talk page, and I see that it is a seperate issue from the issues that Embryoglio states.  I have attempted discourse withEmbryoglio, but he does not seem interested in compromise, or working with others at this point.
MotherAmy's complaint is that a number of images were removed since late December with no discussion.   Images that had been in the article for some time, apparently with consensus.  In review of her complaint, I see that there is a good basis and foundation for that.  As a method of working through the problems, I would like to deal with MotherAmy's issue first, and return the images to a state in late December.  This is a compromise, and may, or may not resolve the issue with her, but it is a starting point for discussion about that from a point in time when everyone more or less had consensus.  We can at that point discuss whether additional images need to be in the article, or if images in the article should be replaced, removed, or whatever.  I would like to discuss and come to consensus before we make changes however.  If we could leave the images and article alone until we come to that consensus, I would appreciate it.  I am not adding or removing any images, but going back to this point in time here from December 26th.
The issue with Embryoglio is much different, one of him trying to add an additional image, against consensus, and then incivility with anyone who disagrees with him.  After we work through the issue with Motheramy, to her satisfaction hopefully, we can attempt civil discourse with Embryoglio to determine the value of his image relating to the quality of the article.  Atom 13:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think the third image should be included. It illustrates the "opposite" of the second image, so it has very good context. .V. (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: At this point, there is one other image that user:MotherAmy says previously existed.  We want to work this out before discussing any new images.  Is the image you are talking about a new image?  Or a previous one?  Atom 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to previous state 

message: Should this article include an informative image of a contrasting breast shape type (which is displayed below, complete with caption), or should it be forbidden from the article?
It is the second image below that has been deleted by the opponents; the first image (which is already included in the article) is shown below for the sake of demonstrating the contrast in shape type. The images are from the top of the section 'shape and support'.
Currently, there is already consensus in favor of inclusion (shown in the section 'censorship' on this talk page), but the opponents have resorted to making underhanded false accusations of policy violation of the inclusion proponents. Thus I will see if an RfC will lead to an even more overwhelming consensus, or not. Embryoglio
Of course this should be included. To not include it would be an unnecessary censoring of Wikipedia. .V. 06:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC for additional input/ inclusion or exclusion of informative images 

message: Please join a discussion of the images to be used for this article.  (Click here to participate)
Atom 02:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please understand that it’s not whether the image is a nude photo or not but whether the image is appropriate for illustration purposes (and no, not appropriate in the sense of whether small children should see the image). Obviously the article already has an image of a child breast feeding so we end up back to the original argument of redundancy. Again, nude images are not a problem. The problem is created when the article becomes a mishmash of images without a direct relation to the article section, contains images to show changes without an appropriate comparison (before and after images) to illustrate changes, has multiple images that are basically duplicates but are added because everyone wants their picture up, or asserts to medical fact(s) without providing sources. Now if you are relating my one single famous edit of changing the top picture to the painting as being done because it’s a nude photo, that is not the case. When I came across the image for the first time, it looked like a big snapshot of a person leaning back pulling her shirt up in the typical mardi gras fashion. To a person who spends most of their wiki and other admin time fighting vandals, this raises a flag of suspicion so I gave a quick look at the talk page and noticed discussion about the images and then gave it a shot at a neutral layout that still contained nude photos. That’s it. So if we can put the nude photo issue and censorship talk behind us, I'm willing to work with you to help improve the editing but you must assume good faith before calling editors pro-censorship.--I already forgot 04:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image discussion 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atomaton&diff=prev&oldid=99503176 I noticed your rant talk on another user's talk page. Seems like you are not assuming good faith with me. I recommend you practice what you preach. Now, let us talk about the new non-nude image. --MotherAmy 04:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What was wrong with that message to Atomation and what does it have to do with you? It was a valid question as I thought I may have come across wrong but was unsure where it was done. Some users are unaware of what trolling refers to and often assume the user is calling someone a green short person with strange growths when they are actually referencing a type of editor. Anyway, I made a good faith attempt and you return it with accusations. You have made no real contribution and are intent on making something out of nothing so I'm going to keep on assuming you are trolling. XOXO and a goodbye.--I already forgot 05:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh if you are referring to the "don’t feed the trolls" image, that was for the other editor who was baiting Atomation on other pages... But so it goes. --I already forgot 05:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same Goes For You 

message: Note to everyone. Do not remove or rearrange any image without gaining consensus or it is vandalism. --MotherAmy 04:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message 

message: Please vote below. Voting will last for at least seven days. We must have at least a total of ten votes.
:Image:Cassatt Mary Maternite 1890.jpg 
*Add I vote to add new image. A high quality tasteful picture. --MotherAmy 04:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting Area For New Image

message: Why does this article only focus on human breasts? (89.240.74.127 09:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because nobody has written about the other kinds. If you have ideas, be bold and add something. If you have a lot to write on the matter, consider putting it in a separate article and linking from here. (You may need an account to create articles, or you can try the drawing board.) —xyzzyn 09:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why only human breasts? 

message: I have moved the sandbox, originally located at Breast/sandbox, to Talk:Breast/sandbox. Under all circumstances, sandboxes like this should be kept out of the article namespace because it isn't an article; most are located in a subpage of the article's talk, as this one now is. I've tagged the redirect currently at Breast/sandbox for deletion, and I'm leaving this message to make sure there is minimal confusion, and no mistaken recreation - the new location is in the deletion summary, as I requested, anyways. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox 

message: I was considering asking for a peer review in order to get comments to help improve the article.  I see that we have a peer review from some time back archived.  Those comments still seem to apply, and so we should fix those issues first, and then ask for a peer review.
Here are the comments:
I think this article needs to be thoroughly reviewed and vetted to ensure the quality of the information presented there. --evrik 02:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: How are you suppose to pronounce "breasts", is the s silent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siodine (talk • contribs) 15:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither s is silent.  The plural form can be difficult for people with speech impediments or to whom English was not a first language.  Cheers, Kasreyn 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of breasts 

message: I added a link in the "External links" section to a documentary about breasts called Busting Out. This was reverted by ArmadilloFromHell, but I think it's a perfectly valid resource (although naturally you would have to track down the documentary in order to see it). It's the winner of numerous rewards (see the web site for details), and airs occasionally on Showtime (must be in the US to see this page. Any thoughts? Ciotog 20:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Busting Out documentary