Talk:Breast

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Please note that this Talk page is for discussion of changes to the Breast article. Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and the images used to illustrate the subject matter are necessary for the quality of the article. Please refer also to Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer. Off-topic discussions, including discussions about the acceptability of images of nudity on Wikipedia, serve no constructive purpose in bettering the article, and may be removed. Thank you for your understanding.

Peer review Breast has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archive

Archives
1 2


Contents

[edit] Random Question

I have a question about the nude images on wikipedia. Who provides them? Do random people just takes pictures of themselves naked and put them on wikipedia? (If you're wondering, I don't find nude images offensive)


[edit] Propriety of Image

Forget morality, whether it's porn or not, and all that. What matters, first and foremost, is that it is A) Not work-safe and B) Illegal to view in some places. There should be an image, but a line drawing, diagram, picture of a statue, basically anything but a photo or photorealistic image is more appropriate. --anonymous

Wikipedia can't adjust its rules to particular foreign countries and so on. It's hard to please everyone. The current picture doesn't intend to arouse as it's not shown in a sexual context, so it can't really be classified as erotic, but rather informative. -- Jugalator 02:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
What about a not work-safe tag?
Even if it is illegal in some countries, wouldn't you just have to delete it on that country's launguage's page? Even so, I doubt it's illegal in UK/Australia/Canada. But perhaps put a NSFW tag to keep minors out.
How would a NSFW keep minors out? It would probably attract them. Also, if it's not-safe-for-work, why are you looking at the Wiki article on breasts at work anyway?
Last time I checked, medical textbooks didn't have "NSFW" written on every other page.--RITZ 15:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

I noticed most (or all) the pics are of white women's breasts... Isn't that undesirable given we're supposed to have a global point of view? Pics of, Asian, black, Latina etc. breasts would be a step forward (tho replace existing pics, wikipedia is not a gallary). Mikkerpikker ... 00:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this was covered as being tokenism in the Racism bit. You'll have to find that yourself I'm afraid, since I'm new here and don't know how to do stuff like that, but I hope this helps you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Damuna

[edit] Breasts of The World

I agree with the poster above.

Wikipedia should endeavor to create a library of breast pictures from every ethnic group imaginable. A sort of "It's A Small World" of titties.

Based on the documentary, "Journey of Man" http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html

We should create, "The Journey of Mammaries."

From the nipples of Nepal to the boobs of Bangladesh. The tits of Turkey to the areolas of The Andes.

Let's get a United Nations email directory and send the message: People of Earth... show us your tits!

There are thousands of ethnic varieties of soft, fleshy womanhood to explore. We should endeavor to preserve these for the future of humanity.

For future generations.

For our children.

Tastefully, of course.


NiftyDude 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem, errr, enthusiastic enough to be able to get us some varied pics... Mikkerpikker ... 14:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


I speaking with tounge-in-cheek.

While I do think it would be nice to have a cultural diversity of breasts in the article, I'm not going to go out and put together a video montage of naked breasts set to the "It's a Small World" song. Or perhaps, "We are the world... these are our boobies..." NiftyDude 16:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

† See, I think that's a neat idea Hizrael

[edit] Gender Bias

So I took a look at human penis size an lo and behold there is not ONE illustrative picture there, as opposed to the multiple pictures on this article. Seems a bit biased to me. Pschemp 00:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to post penis pictures if you'd like.

Start here:

Remember: It's not pornographic (or gay) when Republicans do it.

Speaking of gender bias, why are only [b]female[/b] breasts included in this article?

NiftyDude 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

oooh...good point. If I had a penis or male breasts, I'd take pictures and post them. Its best if these types of pictures have a clear history and have been volunteered by wikipedians though. You seem to be male. Go for it!Pschemp 01:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree too, and have said so here. -Barry- 03:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this article should really include the anatomical differences between male and female breasts. Pretty much everyone knows that guys have nipples, but not many people are aware that guys have smaller, less developed versions of all of the other anatomical structures that female breasts have, can actually lactate if their hormones are sufficiently out of whack, and can even rarely get breast cancer.


Agreed. It's weird to compare mature and young at the top, and never show male breasts. As far as the functionality of male breats, some male to female transsexuals have produced milk due to the hormones; the necessary parts are there.

[edit] Pictures that are Needed

Ok based on the complaints I think we need to a make a list of what is needed (and what is not) for pictures and then agree and act upon it:

  • Male Breast: at least for comparison.
  • Breast of other colors: I’m not the only one that thinks this page has got a racist problem here
  • Size range: the only picture showing a breast size other then the rest is disputed? What wrong with you people, it should be the other way around; more variation is needed to represent an accurate profile of what breasts are.
  • Animal Breast: why not? Again good comparison

Feel free to expand the list and comment.

Come on people get your dicks out of the floppy drive and start taking this article seriously, try to edit the article with wiki in mind rather then your gonads!--BerserkerBen 19:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

These feel like good ideas to me, although you should watch your words and accusations. As for sexism: A problem is often to find GFDL-compatible pictures, even moreso if we are to have a diverse racial, gender, size and species coverage. Focus is obviously given to female breasts as these are not vestigal and logically most interesting to document from an encyclopedic perspective. As for racism: see above. It is most likely a "problem" that the largest Wikipedia reader population is caucasian and photographing their or their spouses breasts and I doubt you need to look for more controversial causes than these. Come again if you found out an image was voted down simply because it was a photograph of asian breasts.
As for your non-aggressive comments: I do believe that they're good ideas though, especially the part about size range. Racial differences are covered in at least one image in the current article. Since male breasts are vestigal traits I find them less important from a documentary perspective, but could of course be covered in just one picture. As for animals, that could be useful for an additional section in the article, although then again, we need to find properly licensed imagery that focuses on mammals' breasts. -- Northgrove 12:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree here that there are more varieties of breasts that are needed to be pictured. I call on people to get more pictures up there of breasts of other varieties: more variety in sizes (they all look to be approximately the same size except for the larger ones - where are the natural smaller breasts?), male breasts, more variety of breasts from different ethnicities, etc. User:Svartulfr1 06:57 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How many tits do you really need to know what a tit looks like? You people are just horndogs XD 72.145.178.67 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits on culture

Changed the statement that "some cultures...forbid the public display of breasts"etc. Redundant considering earlier in the same section this is stated in the sentence "many cultures consider... display indecent." Instead I changed it to religions, and lumped in christianity to even things out a bit and make it a more inclusive category (subsection under "culture" for "religions" recommended). I also added that public breastfeeding is okay. Source for Islam's allowance of public breastfeeding: is here.

For Christianity: Here

Angrynight 10:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breasts1 and breasts4 images are missing

The images named breasts1 and breasts4 seem to no longer exist, but the code is still present and messes up the article. I assume the code should be removed, but I figured I'd ask. Not sure when it happened. -Barry- 16:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that western should be removed "some western cultures" when discussing a bias for larger breasts, as it is common also in Asian and African cultures 柱 05:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Sexual Records

Can someone familiar with the topic of anatomical records see if there's anything worth merging from this article to here? Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

Why are all the pictures of caucasians?

No, seriously, why use multiple boob pictures to "illustrate their differences" for "educational reasons" and then completely fail to illustrate any kind of differences at all?

Yeah, it's obvious that you sad nerds are just using this as an excuse for some titillation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M.L.K. (talk • contribs) .

We can only use photos that are GFDL compatable which limits what can be put into articles. If you can upload some better photos or find some on commons [1] or get permission then please do so and replace the photos with better ones.--Clawed 10:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't waste your breath. It's obvious "M.L.K." is just using this as an excuse to feel superior.  :P Kasreyn 11:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, i was clicking random article and found the page. And you guys are a little eccessive about you "pornography" theorys! I'm 11 years old and my eyes have not burned out! If this were hard pornography or somthing then they'd need a warning. I'm 11 and i lived. If i were 8, then how should i be able to touch-type? my point here is that "human knowledge" and "human knowledge not concerning the human body" are very different- Daniel_123

Well, I would say M.L.K. is a little excessive. Most of the rest of our editors realize that photos of natural human anatomy are quite appropriate at an encyclopedia that is not censored for minors. Kasreyn 17:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your eleven and you have a problem. HINT: DON"T HIT RANDOM UNLESS YOU CAN STOMACH WHATEVER MIGHT COME UP.

Please don't attack others here, especially not a child. Refer to WP:CIVIL. I personally enjoy randomly surfing Wikipedia and I think more kids ought to. You do have a point about Wikipedia's content, but Wikipedia is clearly an adult encyclopedia. The original poster's parents are the ones who should be making such decisions, not you or I. Please don't yell at people like that in the future. Kasreyn 04:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 oh that wasn't yelling that was just to distinguish the hint. I apoligize if it appered that i was yelling

† And at the same time, let's get away from referring to white people as "Caucasian". We really should save that term for the peoples of the Caucasus Mountains of Asia. Just using that term actually can be considered bias and/or cultural imperialism. But yeah, we need more color (and I didn't say black) in here.



[edit] Racism?

Why are there no breasts of color? I see three photos of white breasts, but none of color. Wombdpsw 04:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have access to images which meet Wikipedia's standards as regards copyright, feel free to upload and add them. Frankly, it's very hard to find images of any kind of naked body parts which haven't been ripped off of some porn website. If you can find some, and they're decent quality, by all means, improve the page! :) Kasreyn 05:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Because they look awful Cuzandor 21:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do not make racially offensive statements at Wikipedia. It is not tolerated. Refer to WP:CIVIL and try to be more responsible. Kasreyn 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not "racially" offensive, maybe offensive but not "racially". Cuzandor 18:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
You admit that it's offensive. That's a good first step. But I don't understand why you don't agree that it's racially based. When Wombdpsw said "breasts of color", did you think he was talking about breasts that had been painted green or blue? Or were you aware he was talking about the breasts of black women, asian women, hispanic women, and so forth? To say that the breasts of women of other races "look awful" is certainly racially based. Kasreyn 20:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I just think those fat breasts with huge dark areolas look ugly. For example: ((image removed - spam site)) . This "white or black or hispanic lol" and "ppl of color lol" thing from USA means nothing to me. Cuzandor 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, though it would behoove you to express them with a bit more tact. Regardless, Wikipedia cannot discriminate over images on such a subjective basis. Kasreyn 21:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
But they look awful, don't they? Cuzandor 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how either of our personal opinions could possibly matter. Kasreyn 04:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
White men say a lot of words with no meaning, but maybe the article should include ugly breasts too 201.23.64.2 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

THIS STATEMENT ABOVE IS JUST AS OFFENSIVE AND RACIST...WHERE ARE YOU KASREYN?

I have no objection to an image of 'breast of color' as you are suggesting, but wouldn't we then be calling it Tokenism?

I've made that point here before. It would not be possible to have exactly proportional representation unless we had hundreds of images, so we could represent proportions with differences measured in single percentage points. Since of course we can't have hundreds of images on the page, we're not going to be able to make it perfectly representational. Representations of the four or five most populous races is about the best we can hope for. Note that the need for such representation does not allow for any weakening of WP policy on copyright and free images. Kasreyn 01:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superior image

I've recently found this image at Wikimedia. It's a closeup of a breast showing much better detail than the three small images on this article. Specifically it also shows nipple tumescence in detail. As the article on the penis takes time to show flaccid and erect states, my feeling is that an illustration of the erect state of the nipple is worth showing in context at least once.

Plus, it's a very artistic and high quality photo of a very lovely example. Kasreyn 04:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I think there should be a "comparation" picture like the d*ck article 201.23.64.2 06:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are no pictures available of the same woman with un-erect nipples. It could be compared to a photo of a different woman, whose nipples are not erect. Thing is, we already have plenty of those. Kasreyn 07:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I have added the image as the first image in the article. I strongly feel that the first image should be a photograph and that there should be an image "above the fold" (visible on page load) for information purposes. If anyone disagrees with the inclusion of the above image, please reply here. Kasreyn 22:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not keen on that picture, because it's clearly a surgically enhanced breast (as well as the unnatural shape, there's also an obvious surgical scar). I agree with the plus points above, but i think the introduction and maajority of the article should primarily be about natural breasts. Not that ther's not a place for discussing surgery on here too, but it doesn't strike me as being a good introductory pic.Spute 19:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean the reddish line beneath the breast or the bluish one along its side? Kasreyn 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe these breasts are natural. I went to the flickr user's page to check for copyright and there are other photos and I believe she is natural. SallyB 04:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That's my opinion as well. Kasreyn 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a scar too, not the kind they use to insert implants but some to alter the shape, like Spute said Cuzandor 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Spute's comment messed up the threading. I was agreeing with SallyB, not Spute. They look real to me. Kasreyn 23:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The line along its side looks a scar, the one underneath is just a mark from a bra underwire (or that's how it looks to me). Maybe it is real, but it looks fake to me. Spute 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
As I am the original photographer of this image, I can assure you that this is a natural breast. The "scar" is due to her bra being removed a minute before or so. Inferiz 08:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought it was. Thanks, Kasreyn 09:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I should ask you: we at this page guessed from other images in your photostream, but perhaps you could state more clearly. Was the model pregnant at the time of the photo being taken? Because if not, I need to change the caption in the article. Kasreyn 09:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, she was pregnant at the time, around 20 weeks. If needed, I can crop other photos of her pregnacy, but I think this one is a excellent choice... Inferiz 09:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, it's not a scar then i was wrong. She's wearing a terribly badly fitting bra if that's wear the underwire lies though. Please, get her to find a bra that fits.Spute 21:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Size, shape and composition Section

I think we need to display a wider range of breasts and from women of different backgrounds. How do we go about getting decent images not just those someone ripped from pornography? SallyB 01:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you got your magical ability to look at a photograph of breasts and determine it was taken for pornographic purposes. I'd love to have such an ability myself. None of the images on this page have any information on their image pages linking them to pornography that I see. All are presented tastefully. No sexual paraphernalia are visible.
More seriously: whatever original purpose the photos were taken for cannot have any relevance. Only their current content can matter. In the article on feet, a photo of a foot would be informative and educational. How about adding the same photo in the article on foot fetishism? Would the very same image suddenly become pornography? Images are images. People get aroused for their own personal reasons, which are entirely unpredictable. It's not our job to try to anticipate those reasons.
I do agree, however, that a wider variety could be displayed. Perhaps images could be found and added of the breasts of women of other races - though that risks opening up the can of worms labelled "equal representation" - and I don't think we're likely to find photographs of Ainu or Eskimo breasts. All we would be capable of would be representing three or four of the most populous races. Kasreyn 04:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
agree, but why did you remove Brst-Lrg01.jpg? Surely that was exactly the kind of pic that should be added... I know the size/quality's not great but it's a start. People may well be embarassed to post pics because it looks like wikipedia has (so far) only accepted B/C cup Caucasian breast pics... it's always going to be a bit difficult to be the first 'different' one. Spute 19:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
We definitely need some African and Asian breasts. The big white breast bias here is quite ridiculous. pschemp | talk 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Why, do you think they are different?Cuzandor 03:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
pschemp, you are pretty. why not a pic of yours? :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.104.133.139 (talk • contribs) .
Because they are large and white obviously. We have plenty of those already. pschemp | talk 21:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

wow... look what i caused. the photos of this page appear to be legitmate. i was more referring to the photo I removed. i think the large necklace was one indication as well as being cropped. regardless, i was hoping we could represent some diversity without going overboard. Let's not be silly here.SallyB 04:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not being silly, but really, as it stands the article is a bit racist, and I agree, we can have diversity without going overboard.
Racist may be going a bit far. I think it just reflects the contributors backgrounds as well as some unconscious prejudice. There is also the problem with availablity. I'd consider taking photos of my breasts but like yours they are big and white. :P SallyB 00:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I second Sally. Do you really think it's overt racism?Anont 01:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What's this about "large and white"? I wouldn't say any of the current pics display particularly large breasts. That's actually the main misconception i wanted to challenge when i created the "size, shape, composition" section... this idea that C cup breasts are large. In fact, it's just about average. What we need is a range of say AA-HH cup sizes, this idea that breasts exist in sizes A,B,C and D is perpetuated enough elsewhere... everytime someone uses 'DD' as a synonym for 'unbelievably massive', it's ridisulous, and wikipedia should represent true diversity. Spute 18:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

HH? Surely those are fairly rare. I've only met one woman with natural H cup breasts in my life. Is it really needful that we show the entire range of all possible sizes? Kasreyn 01:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Really not that rare at all. I don't know the statistics, but over DD is very common. Spute 16:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

They are common in fake breasts, not real ones.Jance 06:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC) What planet do you live on? Very common? Why don't you approximate a percentage of the populace. SallyB 21:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with SallyB. I wouldn't know firsthand about frequency world-wide, as I've only been outside the United States once. But I've traveled a great deal within the United States and one of my favorite pastimes is people-watching (and, frankly, admiration of the world's feminine beauty). The average for (natural, of course) breasts seems to be somewhere between B and C, tending toward C. D's aren't particularly rare, nor are A's. Breasts over D in size are hard to find. Many C through E's are fake, since these seem to be the sizes women aim for in getting breast implants. I have no way of knowing how many C's through E's I've seen that were not natural (except for the cases when the implant is so bad it's obvious through clothing), so this skews my observations. Extremely large cup sizes are vanishingly rare regardless; I'm guessing not many women outside of the pornography industry opt to have implants to increase their size to F's or higher (heck, even E's is a stretch of the imagination), since on all but the largest frames they would be disproportionately large. Of course, note that these are nothing but recollections of observation and not real data. What we really need is some medical study on actual measured - not reported - cup sizes of a wide cross-section of races and ages. Kasreyn 22:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I wish i had statistics to back this up, but i don't - only my own observations. I agree that we need a medical study, but i've not found such scientific evidence online. It's commonly stated though that average is a C cup, but also that 75% of women wear the wrong size bra (too small), so i'd say that the true average is more like D, and that means there must be a lot of women above D. Which there are, all over the place. Anecdotally, you only have to look at the recent success of [Bravissimo, a UK-based lingerie shop set up to cater for the above-DD market (they don't sell anything smaller than a D cup), which is rapidly expanding, and has gone from one store to 12 stores around the UK (as well as a successful internet business) within the past 5 years. Spute 18:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it true that big breasts will sag more than smaller ones? Cuzandor 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you define "more sagging". how do you measure it ? Spute 18:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] computer teacher's perspective on the "pictures of boobs" debate...

During the 2005-2006 school year, I was the computer teacher at a small K-8 parochial school in the United States. It was because of content like the pictures of female breasts in this article and the nudity article that I was compelled to switch to websites like yahooligans in the classroom. As was noted by a previous poster, "having a range of photographs about these body parts could really perform a valuable educational function for young people..." I agree 100%, but the laws in my state...:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/aclu/co_16.htm

The rest of my post will assume that you have read the information from the above website. Had I allowed a student to view the breast article, I might have been protected by the statement, "...serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Showing nude pictures is acceptable in SOME sex education classes in the United States. HOWEVER, there is undeniably a tremendous taboo in the USA when it comes to allowing young people to view nudity. Furthermore, the definition of sexually explicit material can differ from community to community.

Therefore, I propose a compromise. I recommend that wikipedia continue to provide the pictures of female breasts, but with an added layer of protection for children, parents, teachers, and others. Is it possible to replace each picture with an empty frame. Then users could just follow the link below the frame to find the picture...? The pictures would still be available, but not as obvious to "innocent" children whose parents might object to nudity on wikipedia. Also, male breasts should be included in this article. Or, a separate article should be created. Discuss please. Gobbles414 04:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I still say a single, small drawing should be used. There are many other Wikipedia articles that are worse though. The rule about Wikipedia not being censored for the protection of minors is stupid. It's not suitable for grade school. -Barry- 05:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why that policy is stupid. As Mark Twain famously said, "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it." Censorship, in my opinion, is what is stupid. It is sad that Americans vote for censorship laws, but Wikipedia certainly has no compelling interest in observing them. Kasreyn 07:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The answer does not lie with wikipedia. Find or create a mirror of wikipedia content and censor it to your needs.--Clawed 05:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, we cannot comply with such requests. Wikipedia has the goal of providing a free and high-quality uncensored encyclopedia to the entire world. It cannot be limited by the local taboos and cultural myopia of any nation (and I say that as a fellow American). Prevailing American attitudes towards nudity are indeed a terrible shame, but the only hope is for those attitudes to change. Wikipedia is not censored for such reasons. Although, I must say you made your request far more politely than most people who ask that the images be hidden. Best wishes, Kasreyn 07:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedians can change almost all of the guidelines and policies. -Barry- 07:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed we can, and if you want to try to start a movement to change that policy, you're welcome to do so. I don't think such a proposition has even a miniscule hope of success, but perhaps it would be illustrative of just how firm the consensus is on the not-censored policy. Best wishes, Kasreyn 07:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No wikipedian wants to hurt kids. I could probably add a common sense qualification to the not-censored-for-minors policy without it being reverted. Then editors to articles like this might have a little more leeway. I assume there's already some more detail to the policy, but I don't feel like searching for it right now. Anyway, four photos as opposed to one drawing doesn't do all that much more educating, especially if parents and teachers will be hiding the page from kids. -Barry- 08:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Whose common sense? Several cultures are more strict than yours, and may feel that common sense warrants censoring any image of a female. (See also Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.) And obviously, not all wikipedians will agree that exposing a child to an image of breasts constitutes 'hurting children'.
In any effect, I think you'll find that most wikipedians oppose censorship. Period. -- Ec5618 08:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The entire issue of children is irrelevant. See Wikipedia's content disclaimer. It is made clear that Wikipedia's mission is to document all human knowledge, and that images and content may be found which are objectionable to some. Therefore it is made clear that Wikipedia is not intended for children but for an adult audience. It is impossible to adopt any local community's standards of "decency" without violating standards in another community somewhere in the world. Therefore, if any censorship were imposed, the logic of the situation would demand complete censorship to avoid offending the lowest common denominator, resulting in an encyclopedia empty of information. The disclaimer makes it sufficiently clear that such images may be found at any time without warning on Wikipedia, and it is also made clear that Wikipedia cannot prevent even worse images from being added by vandals, at least momentarily. If there is a problem, I'd say that the disclaimer should be a little more prominent on the main page. Beyond that, this entire section is moot. You are proposing altering the founding goals and structure of the encyclopedia. For that, I would recommend you contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Cheers, Kasreyn 08:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
There are many guidelines that preclude documenting all human knowledge. The content disclaimer says "Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted."
I think it's universal common sense that we should publish what would be least objected to if it provides essentially the same information as the alternative and if the alternative is likely to be censored or considered inappropriate by many people. Yes, that leaves room for interpretation, which is good. I'd use my common sense.
I'm not an anarchist or libertarian or even much of a liberal, and I don't like the "anything goes" vibe that I get from much of Wikipedia. I heard that Jimmy Wales is a libertarian and that most editors are young, which might explain how things are here. Don't think that Wikipedia's openness means it represents the kind of information that the general public wants.-Barry- 09:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right in pointing out that it would be presumptuous of us to pretend we know what the public wants; so that being the case, isn't it wiser to err on the side of over-inclusiveness rather than under-inclusiveness? If we include too much, people can simply hit the back button or look away, but if we include too little then we disappoint our readers.
I would also agree that, information content being equal, the less potentially offensive of two images is probably the wiser choice. But I don't feel that a line drawing carries as much information content as a photograph, plus the potential offensiveness of a photo of a breast, in my opinion, is so low that it doesn't warrant such an exchange. In general, though, your principle holds true and is good encyclopedic practise. Kasreyn 09:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
What is universal common sense?. In the UK topless woman are shown on page three of the sun newspaper. When I was in school movies that contained nudity and sex scenes where shown my English classes. I do not see how photos of breasts in this article can be seen as anything other than educational.
It is not completely "anything goes" on wikipedia - as long as it is encyclopaedic it can be included. Censorship and being minimally objectionable are not defining charactistics of an encyclopaedia but reporting verifiable facts in a neutral point of view is. --Clawed 09:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow! This is obviously still a very controversial subject! I read two comments that represent the most opposing points of view on this topic.
"The entire issue of children is irrelevant... It is impossible to adopt any local community's standards of 'decency' without violating standards in another community somewhere in the world..." AND "...it's universal common sense that we should publish what would be least objected to if it provides essentially the same information as the alternative and if the alternative is likely to be censored or considered inappropriate by many people."
In my opinion, both of these positions have merit. Should Wikipedia automatically yield to cultures and governments? Of course not...! Then we'd be in a situation where "controversial" topics like democracy and human rights couldn't be discussed. I don't think that any reasonable Wikipedian would want that kind of censorship. However, we should show some sensitivity for as many points of view as possible. For example, the number of Muslims who would have a problem with pictures of uncovered female breasts is probably huge -- it is more of a cultural taboo that I religious one, I have learned. So we're just going to say to Muslims, "Sorry, we're not going to respect you're right to learn about female breasts within the context of your own cultures because you're Muslim!" My question is, WHY CAN'T THERE BE A MIDDLE GROUND? Some possible compromises include:
• A children's version of Wikipedia. This was discussed years ago at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Childrens'_Wikipedia
• Duplicate the article and replace pictures with diagrams in one of the two articles. Then make a redirect that gives readers a choice
• My original suggestion... keep the pictures linked to the article but hidden until the appropriate link is clicked on
• Place any controversial pictures at the bottom of the article and place a warning at the top of the article (similar to a spoilers warning)
Gobbles414 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Or we simply accept that we are not in the business of deciding what is and isn't offensive. Placing "any controversial pictures at the bottom of the article" simply isn't feasable, as anyone can be offended by anything. I, for one, don't like to be treated like a child (as per the Mark Twain quote above). If images offend you, please configure your browser to hide them. Don't expect Wikipedia to censor itself.
And yes, I understand you are talking about some sort of "middle ground". But surely, no censorship is easiest. Let's leave the rest to personal responsibility and maturity. -- Ec5618 21:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your interesting summary. I'm flattered that you find my comment worth mention. So far, not many editors have weighed in, and so I think the consensus hasn't changed. All of your specific suggestions have been made before (typically at Sexual intercourse and Circumcision but occasionally here as well), and have never gained consensus in the past that I've seen. However, it appears there was recently a lively debate on this topic at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, dealing with the nuances of censorship and pragmatism involving censorship at Wikipedia. Perhaps someone there could help you more than I can. Best wishes, Kasreyn 21:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe this issue is STILL CONTROVERSIAL!! Its just BREASTS for godssakes! Only in America would this article recieve that kind of negative attention....--67.183.132.49 10:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion of images applies to numerous other articles, most of the sexology and sexuality oriented. I have begun a discussion of the broader topic on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines to have people participate in working on a guideline consensus (not a policy, or rules, as that hasn't been possible in the past). Having a consensus of people who have hashed this out and agreed on some guidelines will help in the future to combat against the types of problems we have had in the past. (Prudish people pushing their POV, Trolls trying to create controversy, Vanity images, etc.) Of course it won't be a solution to all problems, and they will still need to be dealt with on a case by case basis, but there really isn't a need to rehash the entire barrel of pickles on every image on every sexuality based page, and then again when someone tries to change an image. Atom 02:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link wording: http://www.007b.com/breast_gallery.php

I removed the word "normal" there, not because I feel the breasts shown at the site are not actually normal, but just because I'm a bit leery of any appearance of supporting any particular site's POV. After reading through the site's text, there are several claims which appear to directly contradict this article's claims. Of course, that's not really important when considering that their images are fine, so the link should remain.

The site makes some interesting points, but ultimately fails to recognize that complete de-sexualization of the female breast goes against their purpose as a secondary sex characteristic (per our article). Additionally, they make a very bizarre distinction between "mature" breasts and other breasts; their definition of "mature" breasts is, apparently, the breasts of women who have undergone pregnancy and breastfed their children. This would mean that, in their view, childless old ladies have "immature" breasts. To my knowledge there is no such distinction made by anatomists or doctors, so the site does appear to be pushing a rather odd, but probably harmless POV. Which is why I'd rather avoid using their descriptive adjectives. Kasreyn 10:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asymmetry

The text "It is typical for a woman's breasts to be unequal in size, particularly whilst the breasts are developing during puberty. Statistically it is slightly more common for the left breast to be the larger." was labeled {{citation needed}}, and I'm guessing this refers to the second sentence. The article I added (abstract available at [2]) confirms the "generally accepted clinical impression of left-breast volume dominance". A newer article is An Objective Evaluation of Breast Symmetry and Shape Differences Using 3-Dimensional Images, which also gives some fun figures (left larger than right in 62% of the cases, precise measures, and so on), no one has cited it (yet), so I didn't add it. -- Woseph 18:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


I want to see more pictures of breasts.


[edit] Spelling Error

I have found a spelling mistake in the article, but am unable to fix it myself.

In the article there is a bit where it says this:

"A long term clinical study showed that women with large breasts can suffer shoulder pain as a result of bra straps [1], although it shoiuld be stated that a well fitting bra should support most of the breasts' weight on the back strap rather than on the shoulders."

"Should" is misspelled there, could somebody please correct it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Damuna

[edit] "Male breasts"

Is this vandalism? :P I would assume so but edits have gone by without its removal and I guess it could have some pertinence. Should it be removed, nevertheless? Evan1109 01:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that was not vandalism. Discussion above stated that there should be an image of male breast, along with other variations. Therefore I posted one. Just because it is not a fully developed breast, does not mean it is not a breast. Svartulfr1 08:36 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Can't they get a picture that doesn't look like some dude took it to put on wikipedia for kicks? I mean it isn't the most attractive male "breast" i have ever seen in my life... but still it should be a picture that has less of a "is this supposed to be here?" appeal. At least in my opinion.--Tobyw87 02:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Discussion on Guidelines for images in Sexology and Sexuality articles
Click here

Apparently only well-endowed young white girls have breasts. Bias? Rmhermen 04:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This comes up all the time. I have attempted to cut down on the addition of new images of this kind (white). Other editors and I have repeatedly asked all editors who can to add free (ie., legally usable) images of breasts of other races to the article. I personally don't have any access to such images and I don't know of any on the WM or WP servers. If one were uploaded which was appropriate for the article, I would be the first to add it. Suffice to say that the ball is in the court of those who have the ability to obtain such an image. Kasreyn 10:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Some religions require that women always keep their breasts covered. For example, Islam forbids public exposure of the female breasts. Orthodox Judaism and Roman Catholicism has similar rules prohibiting exposure

I can't speak for either Islam or Orthodox Judaism, but I was brought up a Catholic and I'm certain that, while there's a deeply conservative vein running through Catholicism that would strongly disapprove of it, there is no Catholic doctrine which forbids display of female breasts. Nuttyskin 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. There is a general, often unspoken social understanding that the public display of female breasts is unacceptable throughout western / anglophone countries. It has partially to do with the dominance of Christianity in those lands, but there are other contributing factors as well. There isn't any specific Catholic dogma requiring it that I'm aware of; it's simply understood without being written. Kasreyn 06:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Really? I'm thinking of strongly traditional Catholic countries like Spain? Where topless beaches are the norm. Fishies Plaice 06:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
There's American Christianity and there's European Christianity. After so many centuries of inquisitions and crusades, the Europeans have learned to be a little more relaxed about dogmatic interpretation. I suppose after a few centuries of radical evangelist leadership, America will also weary of it. Kasreyn 11:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
We are quicker than that. It has only taken six years for us to grow weary of it. BTW, not that it matter to me, but doesn't the Catholic church consider America to be "too liberal", and europe to be more conservative in following their dogma? Atom 13:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose - minor point

I have heard (but unfortunately do not have a reliable reference) that one function of human breasts is to help women to carry infants safely, by cushioning the skull which is under-developed in new borns. Can anyone find a confirmation of this? Peter Grey 02:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIC, the breasts do not carry the infants. Their primary goal is for nursing. UBeR 22:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah they're used for nursing and some other things I can't remember.--SUIT42 03:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Not the whole infant, just the head, when carried in the arms. Peter Grey 05:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Mature" breast

I have removed the photo near the top of the article that purported to be the breast of a "mature" pregnant woman. I don't know who put it there, but I presume that it was done in direct response to the other photo which was entitled the breast of a "young woman".

  • We know that the other photo is bonafide, because its source says so, says that it is a "young" woman, says that she is pregnant and emphasises the changes due to pregnancy. Moreover, the clinical signs indicate that it is indeed the breast of a pregnant, young woman.
  • The removed photo hhas been lifted from Flickr. There is no written indication as to whether the woman that the breast belongs to is young or old, pregnant or a virgin (although, come to think of it, the two may not be mutually exclusive). The most pertinent comment is that the underwire mark should have been removed by the photographer.
  • The appearance of the breast did not support its description in this article. The breast in the removed photo had the appearance of belonging to a young female, rather than one that might be termed "mature", either in years or through childbearing. It didn't look like the breast of a woman who had given birth. And if it was indeed the breast of a woman who might be termed "mature" in years (shall we say 35-60) (rather than young or "aged"), then it was in remarkably good shape and had dropped remarkably little for a largish breast.
  • Concerning the phto of the young pregnant woman, I have pushed it further down the page, into the paragraph that describes breast function and where the enlarged nipples, and so on, are relavent to the information adjacent.
  • I have put in its place a nice pic which was in the area of shapes and sizes. The size of the photo was significantly different to the others and I thought it was superfluous at that point. It is, however, a nice, dare I say "normal" photo, in the sense that it represents breasts in the way that many people usually see them- not feeding a baby, not with heightened eroticism, not clinically, but in the context of one's mirror, a bedroom, a bathroom, a change room or any other such situation. More than 50% of us (people, that is) see female breasts every single day in these contexts without perceiving them clinically or erotically.

The thing that I like about the leading photo is that the breasts could be nicely interpreted in an aesthetic, clinical or erotic sense, depending upon ones viewpoint, or they could be just ones own breasts in the bathroom.

As for the one I deleted- It was a beautiful photo of beautiful breasts. Sorry to be so ruthless, but let's deal with accuracy.

--Amandajm 04:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's the other way round. Image:Closeup_of_female_breast.jpg had been there a long time as an introductory pic. the woman did happen to be pregnant at time, but that's not the main point. The main reason it was chosen as the intro pic is simply that's it's the best pic available. It was MotherAmy who introduced the "mature" label in the caption in order to justify the comparison with her own pic, Image:Breast and nipple changes during late pregnancy.jpg, which she called "young" and pregnant. I've now rearranged the pics. There's nothing wrong with either, and both do have a place.
Can i suggest that people don't try to change the main intro pic without discussing it first. There's been a lot of discussion about it, as you can read on this talk page, and we'd just about reached a consensus. That's not to say it can't be changed to something other than Image:Closeup_of_female_breast.jpg, but let's talk about reasons first, please. Spute 18:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


I went back to Flickr to check out that image and observed that there are other pics of the woman who owns the breast, who indeed is pregnant, although the pic of the breast in particular doesn't say that. It's certainly a great photo. It was the interpretation without solid evidence that worried me- but in I hadn't looked quite far enough. I like the current arrangement of pics.

--Amandajm 23:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brassieres

There needs to be better coordination between this page and the Brassiere page. There is a lot of overlap. Some material was shifted here the other day, which I don't mind, as long as the link is clear, but it is sitting a little awkwardly in its current position (size and shape). Understanding normal breast maturation is critical for understanding brassieres. Mgoodyear 23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As an editor who has added a fair a bit to both the brassiere and breast pages, i'd agree that as the 2 articles are getting to be more comprehensive, they are meeting in the middle and a bit of overlap is emerging. We should indeed coordinate the two better, so as not to add info to one which is really about the other. Spute 20:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
When I have finished updating the bra article, I might turn to that! As long as the links are clear, so that the reader can draw an argument from one to clarify the other.

Mgoodyear 20:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the breast maturation referred does not have much to do with the Tanner stages. However since it has been raised, I added it to the general links Mgoodyear 04:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size, shape, etc.

I've had a go at a tidy up of this section. I thought a bit of rearrangement of the text was in order, since the section had expanded so much. I've tried to make things more logical, but if anyone's got any better ideas, please improve it. One loss is the gallery of breasts in a column. It was me who introduced that, but i'm not convinced it was useful with the current pictures. It was intended to illustrate diversity, but never really had the required full range of sizes, ages and skin tones to do that on its own. Perhaps it makes more sense to put examples spread throughout the text as i've tried to do now? SputeTalk 22:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not a huge fan of illustrations in an encyclopaedia, unless they really add a lot, or say something that cannot be be easily explained in words. With an online version, it is easy to link to places where are such photographs such as 007 or Encuesta.
When you change subject headings or subsume text into another section, links from other topics - in this case brassiere, no longer work! I had not objected to text being shifted here from there because I could create that link!
Mgoodyear 04:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
My sincere apologies about changing the headings without considering links, i hadn't appreciated that you'd linked to individual headings. I'd offer to fix it, but i'm guessing you already have. Sorry about that.
As for the question of pics, i think that the inclusion of photos and other illustrations within article pages is crucial, and is an important part of how wikipedia works. Sites like 007 are clearly biased, and it is not sufficient to link to such places. Good, non-copyrighted pictures need to be presented in context, from a neutral point of view, and the best way to do that, it seems to me, is the obvious, established way, from within wikipedia itself. Spute 21:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

Why is the featured pic a PREGNANT woman's breast? Is this the article on lactation? How stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.194.114.227 (talk • contribs) .

The featured pic was decided on after a long debate, and just happens to be the best picture we were aware of. The caption states that the breasts belong to a pregnant woman because the woman was indeed pregnant when the photo was taken, so the caption just adds some info. If anyone (perhaps the person who posted above?) has a better intro pic, please suggest it here. Spute 21:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
As the person who originally added the image (at least, I'm pretty sure I was), I wasn't even aware at the time that the woman was pregnant; no one was. A more sharp-eyed editor than I noticed what he felt were signs of it in the appearance of the breasts (perhaps am OB/GYN?), and so we contacted the original creator of the image at flickr, and he confirmed that the model was pregnant at the time, so we added the note for completeness's sake. It really doesn't make a lick of difference to anyone (that I'm aware of) that the woman is pregnant; it's not particularly visible. The only reason I seized upon the image originally was that it was high-quality, well-focused, showed extremely good detail on the nipple, and above all, was tasteful. I think this last quality is the reason the image has kept the top spot for so long. It walks the tightrope between those who want the images here to be very sexless and clinical, and those who want them to look like something out of a porno. This one is neither. Kasreyn 06:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This photo does not appear realistic - it does look like a 'model' with fake boobs, imho. No, it isn't porno, but it still is not encyclopedic. Again, look at penis. Is there any reason this article needs a lead photo, where that one does not? That one has an anatomical model, and then futher in the content of the article, images that represent what is in the discussion.Jance 06:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction picture

I have found a far better introduction photo for this page. After reffering to the picture in question, if you believe it should not take the place of the original photo, I suggest .....you consult a local physician. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by THEBLITZ1 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Another suggestion

Hello all! I don't normaly edit anatomy articles and, after browsing through the article, I came up with a new section. I propose a section about the inclusion of breast physics in video games. It could sight how breasts went from the "mono-boob" to the independantly moving breasts today. It could be a type of pop-culture section on the article. I even found an article on another site about the history of breast physics. As a gamer, it is obvious to see that moving boobs in games nowadays are important to some gamers. Plus, with the way games are going now, pretty soon it seems like breasts will become their own character. Anyway, I won't add anything to the article without any feedback and will draft up a section in my sandbox. I really think that a more non-medical look at how breasts are seen in the world would be good for the article. So, if anyone else has an opinion on my idea, I'd like to hear it. Thank you. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this article looks very good as it is. The article is informative, and tasteful. The editors have done a good job here! Jance 02:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly not the most prolific contributor to this article, but I think I can speak for the others when I say, thanks for the compliment. :) Kasreyn 23:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] surgery of the breast

A contemporary position of the surgical community re. breast surgery in teens was added to the end of this paragraph. Not much exciting or controversial. Extraneous commen re. silicone neuteredDroliver 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not a contemporary position. And, it is contrary to what the FDA in the US recommends. The previous paragraph was sourced and accurate. Dr. Oliver, you really need to stop deleting what other editors write without explanation. Many surgeons do not agree with the 18 year age, and evidently the FDA does not either. You are not the sole arbiter of Wikipedia content on breasts or breast implants.Jance 06:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If you will re-read the statement, nothing was mentioned re. silicone and the ASPS position on teen augmentation (echoed by the other professional societies in the world BTW) is linked to. Also keep in mind that it's exactly one nation that has adopted the recomendation on the 22 yo. That's really a subject for other entries which we've both been working on. Please re-read the contribution as it is religiously vanillaDroliver 03:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photos and questions about this article

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 [3] 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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] What does this mean?

inframammary line? Theirs no article about it...And its mentioned.--64.121.1.55 02:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Please stop reverting - do not start another edit war, Oliver

A number of other editors have left the version on plastic surgery which you keep changing. THe version as it is now is accurate. Because you or some other plastic surgeons will operate on a teenager, does not make it consensus, or appropriate.Jance 16:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but looking at the edit in question, I see a highly informative and neutral version (Oliver's), and a less-informative version that seems to stray into anti-plastic-surgery advocacy (yours). Please describe on the talk page what problem you have with Droliver's version rather than blind-reverting and namecalling. Cheers, Kasreyn 23:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. It seems to me entirely appropriate to include a section on plastic surgery of the breast, as it is a widespread procedure and of legitimate interest to someone studying the overall subject. It's also certainly worthwhile to note what medical and governmental authorities have had to say on the advisability of said procedure. However, if we are to have such a section, it makes no sense for the section to say nothing of what the procedure is, how it is done, and why women (and men) elect to have it done to them. Motivation, availability, frequency, success rate - all these are factors which are not being covered by the section as it stands. Kasreyn 00:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You think all these points should be made in this article? An article on breast implants already exists. It is true that the US FDA only recently approved silicone implants for women 22 years old and older. However, change it back if you prefer. After all, doctorsare above rules, and are not required to defer to regulatory approvals and conditions, at least not in the US. I didn't always have any 'advocacy' regarding plastic surgery one way or the other. However, it is true that after reading the studies and seeing the short duration and the limitations, and having had so many problems from ruptured silicone implants (after reconstruction), I am sceptical of those who promote them. I wish women knew what they are getting into, but I fear they never will as long as plastic surgons continue to boast of how wonderful implants are while downplaying (or omitting) the risks. And, I have to say also, that after seeing some plastic surgeons in action, it would be a cold day in hell before I trusted one for any reason. But that is a personal bias. By the way, I only wrote the sentence on the FDA - somebody else wrote (and cited) the rest of it. And I find it interesting why you do not think a plastic surgeon who makes his living putting in breast implants, has no plastic-surgery advocacy (sic).. Jance 07:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologize if it seemed I was putting words in your mouth; but nevertheless, the version Droliver was favoring seemed to me more NPOV than yours, not to mention having more information about what the procedure was and the reasons why it is performed.
My standard test of encyclopedic notability is something I call the "alien test". If aliens came to Earth, hacked into the internet, and studied Wikipedia, what things would they be confused about? What would a complete outsider want to know about the topic? The first thing that occurs to me is, they would want to know why a woman would do this to herself. It's a very drastic and seemingly useless thing to have done (in my opinion), so there must be a compelling motivation behind it. Furthermore, they'd probably want to know what exactly is involved in the procedure, rather than just who approves and disapproves of it. Remember not to assume too much knowledge on the part of the reader; this is an encyclopedia after all, and it's probably better to err on the side of reader ignorance. Under-completeness is worse than over-completeness, in my opinion.
And I do agree with you that we don't need to duplicate the entire article on breast implants here. A few sentences should suffice; one to explain the general concept, one to describe what the procedure is, one to explain motivation, and a couple more to illustrate the public controversy over the acceptability/advisability of the procedure, should do it. I just feel that, both here and in the main article, the ongoing war over technicalities of failure modes, and over quotations of various organizations' statements pro and con, are being over-focussed on, with too little attention being paid to other aspects, including what is motivating people to have the procedure in the first place. Kasreyn 07:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Very reasonable comment, Kasreyn. Agreed, although I do not think Dr. Oliver's edits are NPOV. That said, they are mostly accurate here - especially since plastic surgeons can bypass FDA approval conditions as "off label" use. Motivation on this issue, of course, it a subject unto itself! I now agree with you that breast implantation is a useless thing to done, but I didn't always feel that way. I should have listened to my mother back then, who understood why I wanted to have the surgery but commented that she didn't think it was a good idea to put a foreign object in your body, unless it was absolutely necessary. Sigh; it is the proverbial "You should listen to your mother". She now has a heart stent, and a pacemaker, both of which are lifesaving devices. And at 86, she will not likely live long enough to worry about long-term "results". Breast implants are so very different. And the reasons women have them are diverse... but ultimately it comes down to appearance. This is true regardless of the individual circumstances. When I was a teenager, a doctor called my breasts 'deformed'. I was humiliated. His comment was accurate, but not very sensitive. Teenage girls - and boys - are impressionable, and concerned about how they look. That is normal. What should not be normal is a societal overemphasis on "perfect" or large breasts. Now, not only are absent or significantly assymetrical/tubular breasts portrayed as 'abnormal', but minor assymetry and small breasts are as well. I have perused some of the 'pro-implant' websites (for lack of a better term), and am stunned at the interest in D, DD, or even larger breasts. Are these women insecure? Mentally disturbed? Maybe, maybe not. However, many plastic surgeons do not question a woman's mental stability when it comes to inserting breast implants. They do, however, dismiss these same women as unstable when they later complain or want to have the implants removed (and not replaced). Indeed, some plastic surgeons have inserted larger implants than the women requested. And, others have encouraged larger sizes. Why? As I said, motivation is a hard thing to define. Jance 22:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've updated this reflecting the clin-med discussion. Several of the refs subsequently added re. breast feeding were attached adjacent to mention of that in the broad sentence describing what we tend to emphasize during a discussion with patients preoperatively. I'm not sure that the brevity of this segment requires disecting these risks further into the different procedures (reduction vs. biopsy/lumoectomy vs. implants) or by what kind of incisions are used even though both have a great deal of influence on lactation. The take home message is that those are common to any surgeryDroliver 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anatomy needs updating

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)
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))

[edit] Maybe you have too many pictures up

I was thinking maybe you have too many pictures of the same body part, turning the article into more of a "boobie gallery" than a legit article.

Agreed. Also, "normal" breasts vary widely in size and shape. Do readers not know what "normal" breasts look like, and is it necessary to define it for them?
Odd. We often get complaints that this or that ethnicity or breast type is underrepresented, along with accusations of racism and/or bias. If you are calling for the number of images to be reduced to one, which skin color of breasts do you think it should be, and how would you justify this? I don't see how having multiple images can harm the article if having one doesn't. There has been fairly firm consensus for quite some time to have enough images to display some variety in breasts. If you feel you can improve this variety (esp. in the area of so-called "abnormal" breasts), feel free to help! Cheers, Kasreyn 03:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Please look at the discussio below. I do not suggest that the photos be reduced to one. I am suggesting that something more lifelike be used, or a diagram as was discussed below. Look at the article on penis. Pretty good article, and it does not have a lead photo; certainly not one that jumps out at you and looks fake. Or like it is out of Playboy (or Playgirl, if that mag still exists?). The 'penis' artilce has only a few small photos, which all illustrate a point. "Breasts" might necessitate more, because of the function of the breast, but it surely does not need the lead photo that is there now. And as to diversity - all the photos in this article are white, so what difference would it make if the number of white photos were reduced? I do not see your logic. It would seem actually easier to justify one white photo the a dozen white photos.Jance 06:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any sign that the lead photo is of a fake breast. I wonder if Droliver (he's a plastic surgeon, right?) might be able to give us his expert opinion on that. If it's a fake, it's an awfully good one. I know the angle is not good for such determinations on that pic, but I have seen other pics of the lady in question (at flickr.com where originally uploaded), and they don't appear fake to me. The uploader claims the model is pregnant, and thus what you are seeing may be natural swelling of the breasts during pregnancy.
As to race, the first photo in the "Size and Shape" section is certainly not a white woman's breasts. If I were to venture a guess, I would say the model is of African or possibly Hispanic origin.
Note that I do not necessarily defend all aspects of the article as-is. I merely note that more diversity is better than less. The way to achieve this would be to replace images of white breasts with those of other races, not to simply remove images altogether. Kasreyn 08:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple photos of pregnancy

Is there any reason to have more than one photo of the breasts of a pregnant woman? Where did this first photo come from? It may have been there a long time, but does that make it a good thing? Jance 23:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Breast#Superior image above. Also, even if there is a consensus to use a different photo, there should be something in the lead. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you - I didn't see that. It appears that someone else also objected to that "lead" photo, and there was quite a bit of objection to the same things..

I am glad to know that I am not the only one (or two) that find it objectionable. What about one of the other photos or diagrams below (excluding the photo captioned "normal breasts".) What about the photo of the breast anatomy? That is more appropriate and does not look like a "boobie gallery". Jance 23:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's an appropriate lead photo, as it is one of the highest-quality photos in the article. Given the wide variety of breast shapes and sizes, I don't think the amount of photos is excessive (though I don't think we really need any more, either). OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Please note that while the cutaway drawing would be a useful addition to the article, it is certainly more appropriate to have an actual photograph of the real thing as our lead image. WP is not censored for minors, and it is reasonable to assume that our adult readers would want to see a photograph of the actual object under discussion in any given article. Kasreyn 03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it? This photo does not look like "the real thing" to me. I said this elsewhere, but take a look at the article "penis". Do you see a large, unrealistic photo (or any photo) as a lead pic? No. Why? Because it wouldn't occur to most people editing that article, most likely. Of course, it says something about the culture of "breasts" but I'm not sure it is a good thing. The quality of the lead photo here is not at issue. It is the content - it does not look realistic; it looks fake and frankly, rather tacky. I do not doubt that it was a compromise from something even tackier. But why not look at this with a different eye? I suspect if I got a large photo of a penis for the lead photo on that article, it would not be appreciated. It would look ridiculous and out of place. Well, that is how this looks. Ridiculous. Look at the photo that is on the penis article -- it looks lifelike; not perfect, large or an ornament.Jance 05:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You're talking to the wrong person; on Talk:Penis I have repeatedly stated my strong support for having a clear, detailed (ie., large enough to see easily) photograph of a penis in flaccid and erect states be the lead photo "above the fold". The article on Penis as it currently stands is not how I would prefer it to be. If a large photo of a penis were the lead image on that article, I would appreciate it, and would find it entirely appropriate for the article on penises.
As to what looks "real" to me, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. The lead photo on this article looks quite real to me. Again, I suppose we could ask the only plastic surgeon I know of on WP for his opinion (Droliver). Kasreyn 08:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
What makes you think that Oliver has a better understanding of what a 'real' breast looks like than anyone else? OR do you generally defer to him? This is still a collaborative effort, and I do not believe that he has the final word on this. My guess is that to him, fake breasts are what looks "real". And you know full what I think of his and his bias, so I don't know what your point would be in bringing this up.Jance 22:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Umm... I thought this would be obvious, I'm sorry for being unclear. If it is true that Droliver is a plastic surgeon IRL, then obviously he would know how breasts look before and after the procedure of implantation. It is also quite reasonable to suppose that he would be highly conversant in the telltale signs that "give away" an implant - after all, it's his job to reduce those telltales as much as possible when he is performing an implantation! If he does a poor job and makes the breast look obviously false, he is likely to lose business, as most women with implants aren't eager to broadcast the fact. Therefore it is in a plastic surgeon's professional interest to be as skilled as possible in recognizing and avoiding the typical telltales of an implant. Therefore I can't think of anyone more statistically likely to be good at telling natural breasts from fake breasts than a plastic surgeon.
As to "deferring", I'm curious to know what you mean. Have I failed in some way to act in good faith here? Because I thought I had explained my intentions clearly.
And as to my purpose in bringing it up, it simply ocurred to me that you and I (who are both, to my knowledge, amateurs) are sitting here debating something which neither of us really has the training to be competent in (visual implant detection). You specifically seem to accuse me of failing to detect an implant job in the lead photo. I have a healthy respect for my own margin of error; therefore, I felt consulting an expert would be advisable for us both. But then, it was only an idle suggestion and there's no real reason we would need to follow up on it. After all, I can't think of anyone but you who thinks the breasts in the lead photo look fake.
I'm dearly hoping this isn't the first sign of the endless, hellish Breast implant edit war boiling over to this article. I had to quit editing that one quite some time ago when it became clear that neither camp was listening to each other, merely screaming (and that neither was willing to listen to an outside opinion). I'd hate for that to happen to this article as well. Cheers, Kasreyn 23:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it that you think that photo is inappropriate, Jance, but I honestly don't see how. It's a high quality non-pornographic photograph. I don't understand...what would be appropriate? (BTW, if you want to see really inappropriate photos, you should see some of the stuff people have added that I've reverted.) -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you about the really inappropriate stuff. I don't know that I said "inappropriate" - I believe I said another (the anatomy diagram) might be "more appropriate". There is a difference. I guess my question about the lead photo would be "what is the purpose"? What is the purpose of the photo entitled "normal breasts"? What is a "normal breast" and who defines it? Jance 01:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree that "normal" as used here, unless we can cite a verifiable and reliable medical source (and maybe not even then), is a subjective opinion and should be removed. The offending caption, that is - not the picture! Kasreyn 03:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose is to illustrate the subject of the article. There should be a lead picture here for the same reason there's a lead picture in Hand, Foot, Hair, Automobile, Fixed-wing aircraft...anything you can point to. Turning the question around, why should there not be a lead picture in this article? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, or I did not express my self well. I did not ask what the purpose was of a lead photo. I asked what the purpose is of that photo. What is the purpose of having multiple photos? What I gave you was an alternative as a lead photo, that you did not address (either time I mentioned it). Jance 02:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, see my comment in the section "Pics" above. I was the editor who originally added the image, if I remember correctly. I did so because it seemed to be a good compromise between the extremely clinical presentation favored by some, and the overly eroticized presentation preferred by others. Over the following months the image has proved to be an effective compromise, if I'm not mistaken. While it's true that WP is not a porn site, it's also true that WP also has no obligation to deliberately avoid anything that might be titillating or aesthetic to someone. I felt the image's greatest value was in its tastefulness when compared to other images, which either overly-objectified the woman as sex object or overly-objectified her as a research subject, neither of which treats the subject as a human being. Human beings are more than just a collection of body parts, each of which can be clinically separated from the others and studied. Perhaps that would be justifiable in a medical text, but WP is not a medical text - it is a general purpose universal encyclopedia. I think the image should remain. Kasreyn 04:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see my comments (below). Compare this article to the article on "penis". A better choice would be Image:Illu breast anatomy.jpg. It is not an issue of "titilating" but one of encyclopedic style; the lead picture is indeed good quality, but does not look like most non-altered breasts, in my opinion. Out of curiosity, I did search for "penis" in Wiki, and I note that it has no lead photo. The very few photos that are there are far more realistic than what is here for breasts. There is also no discussion of penile implant, although that is done, albeit not as frequently as breast implants. It is not that big of a deal though, and I don't think it is worth arguing about. Jance 02:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, no, as a matter of fact. The current lead image does look more like most breasts, because it's very rare to see a breast with a cross-section cut out of it when you're out walking around. Not to put too fine a point on it, but a photograph is always more illustrative of the real world than an illustration. Illustrations are useful for providing detail and explanation of otherwise hidden parts of an object or system, and for that reason, photographs and illustrations ought to go hand in hand. But photographs represent things in the form the reader is likely to encounter them in, which makes them more valuable as identifiers and representatives.
You continue to drag the Penis article into this, which puzzles me. We here are not concerned with what is done with that article, and whether the editors of that article chose to do this or that thing. Consensus for this article is established by the editors here, and the opinions of editors there mean nothing unless they are brought into it by one of us. I happen to edit both articles, but I'm sure I'm in a minority in that regard.
I also begin to wonder what you consider a "realistic" photo of a breast, since apparently none of the ones in this article qualify for you. Kasreyn 08:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Kasreyn, keep the photo. It's not that big of a deal. And, I didn't say that the other photos are objectionable, did I? Where? You know, this is silliness, and I don't care to participate. If you want to keep it, keep it. Jim below was willing to consider another pic, why aren't you? Is that a problem? And no, I dont think Oliver is any more able to determine what is realistic than anyone else. I asked for consensus (see below). Is that a problem? If you want to minimize conflict (which is a good thing) then perhaps bringing up the one person whom you know was arguing with me on that page was not a good idea. Just a thought. But you do whatever you want. I'm bowing out.Jance 05:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I could be convinced that Image:Illu breast anatomy.jpg would work as the lead image. My major objection was that you just removed the lead image, leaving nothing there. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, my desire is not to censor, and I do not think the showing of breasts, or any body part for that matter, "hurts children" as one editor suggested. I do wonder about this choice, for different reasons.Jance 02:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, possibly I'm being obtuse, but your original edit didn't substitute a picture, it just removed the lead picture. And I don't see the phrase "normal breasts" anywhere in the article. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you are correct and I was mistaken. The photo does not say "normal" but instead "human breasts". My original edit did not suggest a substitute, but I did after you made your first comment. I suggested the diagram of the breast anatomy, or even perhaps a more realistic photo of breasts (the lead picture is indeed good quality, but does not look like most non-altered breasts, in my opinion.) If you or others are wedded to that photo, leave it. Out of curiosity, I did search for "penis" in Wiki, and I note that it has no lead photo. The very few photos that are there are far more realistic than what is here for breasts. There is also no discussion of penile implant, although that is done, albeit not as frequently as breast implants. It is not that big of a deal though, and I don't think it is worth arguing about. Jance 02:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I could be convinced that Image:Illu breast anatomy.jpg would work as the lead image. My major objection was that you just removed the lead image, leaving nothing there. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That is a fair objection, and I had not thought it through. My apology. I think Image:Illu breast anatomy.jpg is probably a better lead pic. It certainly looks more encyclopedic and less like a "boobie gallery" (as one user mentioned). Jance 02:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I should mention I tried to move the breast anatomy pic at the top, but in preview my attempt didn't work. I was unsure how to do it. Take a look at the article "penis" -- there is a box there that has the latin term and a few things. I don't know how to do that, either, but to insert a comparable box for breasts would be consistent, and informative. I just looked at the "edit" there and saw that it was not a box template but was created manually. Something like that would be useful here. Jance 02:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I made one minor edit, to which I hope nobody objects. I deleted the words "it should be noted that" as they are not needed in the sentence. It is minor change, but the unnecessary addition of that phrase bugs me. It is bad writing.Jance 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You're quite right. "It should be noted that", and other phrases of its ilk, are a form of "leading", or subtle editorializing, which isn't appropriate in WP articles. See also WP:AWW. You did right to remove it. Kasreyn 04:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
In this case, I didn't see it as editorializing, but simply bad writing style. It reminds me of "the fact that". Yich.Jance 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's also bad writing, which is true. But I call it editorializing because it has an imperative tone: "It should be noted", which is an implied command: "You should note". This is editorializing in that it instructs the reader in how to direct their attention, which is definitely not compatible with a neutral point of view. Cheers, Kasreyn 08:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead photo

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)

--I think a diagram would be better than a big picture of a breast. It would probably even reduce perv traffic at this article, saving a bit of bandwidth for wikipedia.

[edit] Fat and connective tissue

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)

See Adipose tissue. HTH, Kasreyn 05:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many photos?

I shuffled the photos around to include a subtle lead image and removed the redundant pregnant photos as the article looks more like a photo gallery and not an encyclopedic article on breast. --I already forgot 08:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A comparison of different sizes and shapes is very informative and is very encyclopedic. Any attempt to differ is censorship. --MotherAmy 01:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh please. Censorship my arse. Soon as anyone makes encyclopedic type of changes to an article that contains erotic images or nude photos, the users watching the article cry censorship. I follow no religion or political party and I have no children so I consider myself without bias. What I do follow is the desire to make all the articles on wikipedia more encyclopedic. When the article may be controversial or offensive, I try and use tact to present a more neutral tone. Moving the painting to the top as a subtle intro and removing multiple photos of supposed pregnant women makes for a better article. The photos removed were no different from each other (except for the changes caused by gravity) and gave no signs of pregnancy. Now if the breast were of the same person during different stages of pregnancy, that would definitely be encyclopedic and interesting to see. Crying censorship is an excuse to protect the article to how you see fit. Sorry for the uncivil tone but I do not like being accused of censorship when I have fought against it for many years.--I already forgot 03:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have to emulate traditional encyclopedias. I don't see the problem with an article about breasts including a tasteful, good-quality photo of breasts in the intro. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I want to make it clear that I'm not emulating anything. I want to help to improve the article to cut down on the types of discussion above (dec 5th) as its obvious some readers and editors think the lead image should be change. Whatever, I did what I could. I'll leave this article to the regulars.--I already forgot 05:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's see.
I follow no religion or political party and I have no children so I consider myself without bias.
No one is without bias, even if it's only the run-of-the-mill self-serving bias.
Your other point, about the two images being too similar and serving no purpose, seems worth discussing to me. If only you had discussed it first.
I would also tend to agree with you that MotherAmy's reply was overly harsh. For what it's worth, I don't accuse you of attempted censorship, IAF; just that your edits touch on something that's rather contentious at this article and would be better served by discussion and consensus-building rather than unilateral action. There is indeed such a thing as difference of editorial opinion, and it doesn't always equate to censorship. Cheers, Kasreyn 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/e/Talk%7EBreast_903e.html"