Talk:Brassiere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brassiere article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Fashion WikiProject
Fashion Portal
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within fashion.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Brassiere was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 29, 2006
Archive
Archives
  1. 29 August 2003 − 27 October 2006
  2. November 2006 - May 2007


Contents

[edit] Measurements: Metric vs "customary system"

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

[edit] Let them eat cake

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

[edit] only a quick edit

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

  • Noted and reverted. Would people please read WP:ENGVAR before changing the spelling of a word that has been spelt that way for literally years. --AliceJMarkham 03:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breast weight

Regarding the citation of "The Physics of Bras" by Anne Casselman in Discover, Vol. 26 No. 11 November 2005:
"But these weight values seem excessive. A single breast weight of half of 7-10 kg which is 3.5-5 kg is a gallon (3.8 liters) or more. Most women's breasts are below 1 liter, with the very largest approaching a gallon or 4 liters. The largest implants (not custom ordered) are under 1 liter."
(This comment was made from 66.53.223.185, at 23:50, 2 June 2007 (moved by ENeville 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)))

I agree. The numbers, though true to the cited article, seem off by several fold. ENeville 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
For comparison, see numbers in gigantomastia article. ENeville 01:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I looked into it a little, due to the recent verfication-tagging of the statement on breast weight. What I found was that the largest implants most manufacturers make are 800 cubic centimeters each (3.4 cups in volume). (The vast majority of implants sold are between 300 and 500 CCs.) If you look at 3.4 cups of contents in the corner of a plastic bag, for example, you can see that those would give even a member of the itty bitty committee at least a full C cup, if not a D. Weight for those is 3.75 pounds for a pair in silicone, or 3.38 pounds if saline. Because the density of implants is not terribly different from the density of the real thing, even a 5 pound pair of breasts would seem to be approaching the far end of the bell curve, and the 23 pounds mentioned in the article sounds like some combination of obesity and/or gigantomastia. I'll look around a little more for something we can cite on the subject, because while the current text doesn't seem to be untrue, it seems a little misleading to list a weight which is around 8 times average without qualifying that statement somehow. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just been looking for information on this too (why I'm on this page actually :). A study into breast volume and weight was carried out in 1979 by Katch et al. (registration or payment required). The women in their study had a mean total breast weight of 484g, with the highest weight (in their 'high fat group') coming in at 845g. (There was significant variance (219g overall) in the figures within and between groups. Also, their sample of 45 18-31 YO is probably not representative.) They used a breast density of 1.017g/ml. While I'm sure that a significant number of large-breasted women would exceed these figures, 10kg - about 5 2l Coke bottles by volume - seems unusually large to me at least. Meloncholy 05:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag?

An anonymous someone just tagged this article as having POV issues. The last mention of any was in November, and the article was extensively rewritten in December; nobody has complained about POV during this calendar year. I'd like to hear what the explanation for the tag is. Anybody? Poindexter Propellerhead 21:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(Under "NPOV" above, an unsigned comment: "Seeing as the neutrality of this article is obviously in dispute, I added a POV tag. July 14 2007")
OK, so I slogged through the whole article, and I can see where the anonymous editor above was coming from, the piece did not impress me as NPOV. I also found the quality of references to be wanting, for example half a dozen citations to "AR Greenbaum" without naming any particular publication; or reference to a planned (but never completed or published, from what I could find) study by some osteopathy students. All of these references were to medical aspects, and there are LOTS of good, peer-reviewed papers on the subject, why not use those?
As the person who last extensively rewrote this, that is odd, since it was extensively referenced then and evidence based. Someone (hopefully merely carelessly) appears to have edited these. A simple search would reveal 3 articles by Dr Adam Greenbaum in the British Journal of Plastic Surgery. I have corrected that.
Incidentally bias requires demonstration of deliberately ignoring data contrary to the statements made. I don't see any evidence of that. I would be cautious about citing manufacturers as unbiased sources. I was going to say that this article appears to have attracted a lot of criticism perhaps related to erotic connotations or feminist iconography, however someone else called it 'political'. Eventually I abandoned defending the article because of people who insisted on imposing binary pro-bra/anti-bra POV instead of actually reading the literature. --Mgoodyear (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I did what I could towards fixing some of these issues, but only had a few hours to work on it, and there's still a lot left to be done. Medical aspects, in particular, should conform to our standards for medical cites, they should not be to TV shows or popular books. Poindexter Propellerhead 05:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
What are the issues with it left? Voice-of-All 02:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the point of the NPOV contention is that wearing bras is generally accepted by the vast majority of women in Western society, and the article does not reflect this reality. Sure there a few woman -- a small minority (too few, IMO) -- who go without on a regular basis. But the article loses credibility with what appears to me to be an disproportionate amount of content devoted to the anti-bra POV. --btphelps (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Anti-Bra status et al

There is a rather pronounced anti-bra bias in this article, which flies in the face of basic commonsense -- that not wearing a bra for a large breasted woman is simply inconceivable in daily life, in terms of social decency, physical comfort, and fashion necessity. This need to be explained in further length. As a woman with DD/DDD breasts, there is NO WAY I could ever go without a bra, even by the reasons listed by the medical professionals, or social researchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.155.129.254 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that is personal choice, but it cannot be generalised. --Mgoodyear (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed not Mgoodyear. I wrote that comment unsigned when I was doing preliminary reserach for a history of bras and corsets, and I can assure you in the strongest terms that bra wearing for larger busted women is not a personal choice. It is a necessity, instead of the convetional wisedom you dismiss it as.
As I said, people have strong views on this so it is important to filter out what are the facts. Therefore, having interviewed many larger breasted women, I disagree with you. Possibly everyone is seeing a biased sample of women. The Bristol study was able to persuade women to go without bras regardless of size. --Mgoodyear (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The issue with the article is that minority veiws are overrepresented so greatly that the entire article's NPOV and integrity is compromised. A major rewrite is needed. Your previous efforts on the article are to be commended, but considerable work needs to be done for even Good Status. Finally, your comment on the pro/anti bra binary is interesting, since with your citations you have managed to increase it by making the article so anti-bra biased that most readers dismiss it. Zidel333 (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think people are confusing bias and balance. Balancing an article means representing the diversity of opinion not forcing it into a neutral position. We don't have to provide equal space to flat earth and round earth opinion. The level of evidence is very much favouring a round earth. An article deliberately suppressing what is actually being done in terms of studies would be the one that was biased. --Mgoodyear (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
While Wikipedia's rules are to provide information first, rather then such things as 'social decency', 'fashion' or such cloud an article, the article in question does have an bias in it leaning more towards 'anti-bra' then being a neutral presentation of the facts. Most of this was because of a single user months ago that completely alter the article's structure, we know the bias is there, but it's extremely hard to remove without a complete rewrite on the article.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe that is a reference to me. And I would describe it as a re-write, and bias is often in the eye of the beholder as I have commented elsewhere. Unfortunately for some, conventional wisdom does not always stand up to critical examination of assumptions. --Mgoodyear (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
What you see as common sense is a not a view shared by everyone. For example, large breasted tribal/indigenous woman traditionally did not wear any sort of breast support and generally went about their daily lives perfectly content. The same can be said of nudists who generally also don't see bras as necessary. Even among mainstream western society (outside of the nudist movement), some large breasted woman go without bras some or all the time and thus do see it as conceivable. Concepts like social decency, physical comfort, and fashion necessity are all subjective opinions often derived from society. Not everyone agrees that wearing a bra is more socially decent, physical comfortable, and a fashion necessity. I agree that the article should be clear that the majority in western cultures share the view that bras necessary (at least some of the time) for social decency, physical comfort, a fashion necessity, or all the above but it should also be clear not every culture or even every western Women shares this view. The article as it was originally, was heavily biased towards the view you share and was later expanded to include alternate views. What it probably needs is more info on the arguments used by bra advocates to support their claims regarding the necessity and benefit of bras. --Cab88 11:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This reminds me a little of the teach the controversy strategy used by opponents of the theory of evolution. A minority view that bras are unnecessary or bad is given too much weight. I know it's hard to remove material once it has been included, but perhaps we should just trim out some of the negative commentary to create a more credible balance. The observation that some cultures have alternatives to the bra should be a paragraph and no more than that. Mattnad 13:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the point of the NPOV contention is that wearing bras is generally accepted by the vast majority of women in Western society, and the article does not reflect this reality. Sure there a few woman -- a small minority (too few, IMO) -- who go without on a regular basis. But the article loses credibility with what appears to me to be an disproportionate amount of content devoted to the anti-bra POV. --btphelps (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking comment for rewite

I've reviewed this article and identified a few areas where a strong anti-bra sentiment could be reduced. Before I proceed, I'd like to elicit some comments from other editors.

I checked other garment articles like shoes, suits, dresses to see how these, less politically charged, garments are treated. There is significantly less criticisn of these garments even though one could pick issues will all of them.

Towards tackling this article and making it worthwhile, here are some major changes I'd like to work on (and FYI, I brought the Wonderbra article from a Stub to a Featured Article in 3 months):

  • Overall reduction of various points that not all cultures wear bras - while true, it's not relevant to the article. There are many cultures where men do not wear suits, shoes, neck ties etc. I don't see whole sections in those articles about how people in XXX country favor YYY to suits. or ties, or whatnot. Since no sane person is arguing the bra is universally worn, why bring up these straw man arguments?
  • Fitting Difficulties: This section is very large and gives an impression that bras are hard to fit for most women. This strike me as POV. Sure, some women are hard to fit, but many have bras that fit them well. Like shoes, we all find what works for us. I've checked the references and I'm not convinced these fairly represent the whole picture. I'd like to reduce this section and possibly incorporate it into measurements. Comments like "Fashion and image drive the bra market, and these factors often take precedence over comfort and function" are frankly off the wall and not true of all brands. Check out the www.wonderbra.ca (Canadian Wonderbra) site for a mainstream counterpoint which emphasizes comfort and fit. Like all fashion, form and function vary by design, but that is not unique to brassieres.
  • Size and Measurements - Amazingly, this has even more material than the so-called main article on the topic. I'd like to move a lot of the commentary to the other article and keep it at a summary level. And frankly, we do not need to be a pamphlet on how to fit a bra. That can be handled by the external links.
  • Social Pressure and Trends - IMHO this section is a laundry list right now with little cohesion. I think the History of brassieres article has a good balance. I'd like to draw some quicks points from that article and refer readers to it, possibly renaming the section or incorporating elsewhere.
Well that is a relief having written that from scratch myself, rather than lengthen this. --Mgoodyear (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll let this stew for a month before going to work on this. Please feel free to offer comments/ideas/challenges etc. Mattnad 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions:

  • I do think the article should make it clear that bras are not universal and that they are largely a western garment though I am not apposed to making this point in fewer sentences.
  • While I understand that some people do not like having so much info in the article on criticism of bras as modesty, health, comfort, or fashion necessities, I think it would be better to try and expand that arguments from pro bra sources to help balance out the arguments.
I agree there should be some mention of minority opinion, but I, like others, think it has been taken too far in this article. I'm also not sure how useful it is to cite articles that extol the virtues of bras for balance as you suggest. I suppose you're reluctant to remove material, but to me it distracts from what should be the core of the article. I actually don't believe bras are "fashion necessity" but "fashion choice" even here. Tour a lingerie section in a department store and there are many alternatives.Mattnad
  • I think we need to be careful about assuming that the anti-bra people represent in tiny minority. while they might represent a minority, I would suggest that it is a larger minority then people might realize, especially from a worldwide prospective.
I'm not for removing all criticism but it's a matter of weight. As I mentioned earlier, no one is saying bra's are universal, so do we really need to spend a lot of time pointing out alternatives in other countries? There are many, many items of clothing that differ by countries, so why not focus (mostly) on bras where they are worn (and not where they aren't). And we all know that Western women already have alternatives to the Bra - just like in footwear they have alternatives to high heels, or boots, etc.Mattnad
  • Regarding how this article compares to other garment articles, I would argue that the reason this article has more criticisms in it then say an article on suits or shoes is that fact this it is more "politically charged" then the other garments just as the article on George Bush has more criticisms then the article on Senator Barbara Boxer does. The fact that it is more "politically charged" would justify the greater level of criticisms included.
This is a fair point, but I'm not so sure how big is that constituency of critics anymore. In the 1950s, Bras and girdles were not optional for "proper" women and in the 1960's women and feminists objected. Things have changed since then. When I did my reading for the Wonderbra article, I got my hands on market research that tracked women's views of brassieres. The vast majority (>90%) of them them said they wore bra's sometimes or often (granted this was in North America). There are always vocal minorities, but how much air do we give them in this article (see my point above about Intelligent Design and Teaching the Controversy). I think we agree in principle that the minority view should be included, but it's now a matter of degree.Mattnad

--Cab88 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a word to the wise, when replying to people's posts, don't edit what they said so that your responises are below the points they made, that can make it rather difficult to read. I'll try to get around to commenting tomorrow--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 04:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually accurate to say, as some have, that bras are a feature of the Western society. Many women in all developed countries and in metropolitan areas of developing countries wear brassieres. The exceptions for the most part are women who live in so-called "fourth-world." --btphelps (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on all fronts Mattnad, go for it! Once that's done we'll revert the article and make more changes. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 17:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Mattnad asked me to provide some perspective on this based on the last few years, noting that the people involved keep changing.

I eventually gave up on this because it was so politically charged, subject to vandalism, and the constant attacks of certain individuals. There was also constant pressure to include bras for men. I have not looked too closely at what has happened since.

I don’t think it will ever escape the NPOV criticism because people have some pretty fixed ideas. An awful lot of nonsense gets written about this garment. As you know Wiki has been the subject of manipulation by vested interests and industry. I don’t know if this is going on here or not.

It is interesting that anything negative gets labeled ‘anti-bra’ which is a simplistic binary. Yes, it could simply be an article on a piece of cloth, but then that would not be very interesting and would attract criticism, since it represents far more than that.

As it is I span off at least three leaf articles. One could put the social and cultural material into a leaf article too if you like (rather than history which is not really what that is about). However an article suggesting that this was a biological and social necessity would be equally misleading, since the emerging literature is increasingly questioning both that and the design in general. A huge amount of money has been spent by industry on promoting the idea of the sports bra, and indeed the idea that every woman needs a drawer full of bras for every occasion, a very expensive proposition.

I originally questioned the very concept of support, as opposed to elevate but I see that has been reverted. I don’t actually see much reference to other cultures any more, although it is interesting how many people assume this is a universal garment, a subject of considerable amazement amongst women at an international health conference recently.

As already mentioned, using industry sources is not recommended other than to acknowledge that they have a POV. The qualitative and quantitative data do suggest the majority of women have difficulty getting a fit because the design and measurements are completely illogical. We see large numbers of women with marks on their skin indicating poor fit. Actually I do believe that fashion overrides comfort, but you could make that statement for much of women’s fashions. I agree much of the fitting was supposed to be in the leaf article, it seems to have crept back.

I think we need to be careful about what minority opinion is, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Yes the majority of women in western society wear a bra for at least some of the day (mainly work outside the home), but that does not mean they are happy about it. Sit down with any focus group on this subject and you will hear plenty of ‘anti-bra’ comments. Ask how many people remove them as soon as they get home. I see one of the critics of the 'anti-bra' position here is a member of Bras Suck.

There is a high level of interest in this within women’s health, because the bra cannot be separated from breast, body image, and self esteem, and such things as cosmetic surgery.

Finally I would again caution distinguishing between opinion and data.--Mgoodyear (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the need for revision but find it culturally significant that an open-ended article written by the general population was filled with such passion. Something that surely relates to the discrepancy between the 93% of American Women who wear a bra and (the reported) 80-90% who wear the wrong size. As one of the certified bra fitters, I see all to frequently the pain and misery an ill-fitting bra can cause simply because most women cannot imagine anything or any size better. 71.248.112.7 (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)alamodelingerie

[edit] Replace article's main image?

The woman in the main image is kind of gross. Who votes to replace it with a better looking girl?--eskimospy (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm, the lead image is supposed to be illustrative, which it is, as it illustrates a brassiere quite clearly, and it's not needlessly overly sexualized, consistent with the encyclopedic tone of the article. Whether or not the woman is "good looking" is irrelevant; the picture serves its purpose. krimpet✽ 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto - and that pair of images have the advantage of showing the woman's back with the bra on. This has been discussed in the past. I will say I'd prefer a more conventional bra than the leopard print, but this is what we have with front and back views. Mattnad (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
just a suggestion, but how about combining the two images like this:

to save room--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 06:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Mattnad.--eskimospy (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Neat approach, but personally I don't mind the side by side as it stands. Any other opinions? Mattnad (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
We could take both pictures and combine them into a single picture, for example, and just have them stacked on top of one another. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 04:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with two separate pictures? It's not really that big of a deal to have two images instead of one. Editmaniac (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This picture should not be near nude woman, that is practically pornographic. The picture should be an unworn brassiere. Posidon09 (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, if you have problems with this, then you'd really hate the articles relating to human genitalia. I think you have an unusually low threshold for what constitutes pornography. This image could just as well be a woman in a bikini top - something that we see in every public pool and beach across the country. At any rate, it's far easier to to see what a brassiere does, and what it looks like, when it's on a woman. Mattnad (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. Wikipedia is not censored. Besides, it's a reasonably full cut bra by modern standards. The line of the top of the bra is no more revealing than many outer garments (dresses and tops) commonly seen in public today. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the picture could be better in two senses: Firstly, leopard-print is hardly a standard bra style -- I would go for a plainer, more everyday, style for the main picture and move the leopard-print bra to elsewhere on the page. Secondly, it looks to me like the bra is too small for the person wearing it -- you'll notice that the back clasp isn't even properly fastened. KarenSutherland (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Bras and Cancer Risk

There has been a new subsection added that links bra wearing and breast cancer. Given it offers only one source (and a non-medical one at that), this may be a very controversial claim. I suggest we consider reducing the prominence of this paragraph. I think it's OK in one to two sentences, but beyond that it distorts the relative importance and authority of that particular authors claims (and agenda). Quoting the authors of the book:

"While more research is clearly needed to further study this link, we believe it is prudent medicine to recommend women abstain from bra wearing as a precaution. There is no reason for wearing a bra, apart from fashion. The human body was not designed with a flaw that requires modern lingerie for correction. Like the absurd and destructive fashion of foot binding in China, women in the West bind their breasts. Surely, we believed, once women understood how this practice is threatening their health and lives, they will stop wearing bras."

Equating bra wearing to foot binding is somewhat outside of conventional and scientific wisdom. I'd prefer we include offer other supporting evidence of the claim before giving this book such a large portion of the Wikipedia article. Mattnad (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The foot-binding analogy seems quite reasonable. I disagree that the authors have an "agenda" other than to find the cause of the epidemic of breast cancer. Their research was conducted in good faith and deserves to be reported. Please leave in as much of it as possible. --Jonathan108 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Their research is unique and to my knowledge unsupported by other scientific studies. Of note, they refer only to their own 1991-1993 study in their book. That tells me they found no other scientific research that correlates with their hypothesis that bras cause breast cancer.
We can differ on whether they "have an agenda" or operated "in good faith" even if the authors present themselves as "this dynamic duo is known worldwide for their willingness to stand up to the profit-oriented, treatment focused medical system."(see http://www.selfstudycenter.org/about.htm)
Your view that they are reasonable doesn't overcome the problem that their conclusions are not supported by independent research. They even admit their paper was ridiculed by the scientific community. I'll add that one of co-author's was trained as an optician. Not exactly the resume of an epidemiologist. Let's see if other editors chime in. Mattnad (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure that was right: an optician, as in the person who helps you decide what color eyeglasses look best on you and fills out the paperwork to order your contact lenses? (Perhaps it's different in other countries, but, in at least parts of the US, this person may have only on-the-job training and no medical license.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Check the "selfstudycenter" link above. No joke - she's an optician. Mattnad (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
How astonishing: She's an unlicensed optician (Hawaii's database is online), and he enrolled in four different doctoral-level graduate schools, but only managed to get a single Master's (in anthropology). Whether he dropped out or was kicked out of all these programs is unimportant: These are not the kind of credentials that give one confidence in an extraordinary claim like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've looked into these authors and they are really outside of bounds of accepted science. Including this section would be akin to including Intelligent Design counter arguments in the article on Evolution. See WP:WEIGHT. I'm removing the entire section. Mattnad (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the nature of wikipedia as report all opinions. Specially if a opinion is printed in a book. If a opinion by a source is wrong that have need of a note. Note the science is open. If one investigation say Yes and 100 investigation say No, there are constant a (very small) chance of as new investigation will say Yes.Haabet 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As a point of fact, Wikipedia does not report all opinions on all subjects. You will not, for example, find my neighbor's claim that she got breast cancer because she didn't have the milk of human kindness flowing through her. I suggest that you read WP:UNDUE again, with particular attention to the bit that says "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia".
The usual reliable sources uniformly reject this hypothesis,[1] [2] [3] [4] although some (but not all) studies suggest that normal-weight women with the most breast tissue (the women most likely to wear a bra) is associated with a greater rate of breast cancer.[5] This ref [6] is interesting primarily because they seriously considered wearing bras as a risk factor, but were unable to demonstrate that it had any effect other than as a proxy for breast size. Finally, the two individuals who make this claim failed to undertake really basic steps, like adjusting for known risk factors. So, for example, they apparently didn't consider whether their wealthy, urban, bra-wearing breast cancer patients had many fewer children than their poor, rural, non-bra-wearing comparison group, even though both pregnancy and breastfeeding are known to have an enormous impact on the likelihood of developing breast cancer (as in, pregnancy and breastfeeding may entirely explain as much as two-thirds of the cases of breast cancer in developed countries). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is a significant body of public opinion about this, we may actually need to include a short paragraph on the subject. But then it needs to be NPOV. After all, Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH but about being an encyclopedia. "Authors XYZ have suggested that wearing a bra increases the risk of breast cancer. This is contradicted by studies ABC and DEF that found no link, and authoritative bodies ABC and DEFG state in official guidance that a link between bra wearing and breast cancer has been disproven." Problem solved IMHO. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a great idea, especially since no studies have been done "disproving" the hypothesis. The only study I am aware of was published in the book Dressed to Kill. The "authoritative bodies" have dismissed it out of hand without bothering to test it. --Jonathan108 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Jonathan108, contrary to what these authors claim on their website, this theory was properly studied -- by two researchers at the Harvard Medical School. They concluded in 1991 that yes, young women who don't wear bras are less likely to get premenopausal breast cancer, but this was because they were thinner (obesity is a known risk factor) and had smaller breasts (more breast tissue = more chances to develop breast cancer, at least in that study), not because of their clothing. Don't just read the abstract (which is linked above): go get the real article and read it all the way through. It's only five pages long, including the refs. If at the end of that, you still believe that no studies have been done on this subject, or that this study somehow proves that bra-wearing is dangerous, then please let me know.
I have no idea why the "anthropology" people don't tell anyone about this study: perhaps their book sales will be hurt if people find out that a decent study, involving almost 10,000 women, disproved it?
JFW, I don't think that this information really belongs in the brassiere article. If it's important for Wikipedia to include this obscure hypothesis, then it belongs in Epidemiology_and_etiology_of_breast_cancer#Factors_with_minimal_or_no_impact_on_risk. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I maybe wrong but shouldn't they have created one group of women who didn't wear bras and a second group who did, and have breasts of all sizes? I mean, all this study seems to prove is that in women who don't wear bras and have small breasts have less cancer then women who do wear bras and have large breasts, it doesn't disprove that bras aren't a factor because it doesn't examine just the bras. I'm not saying we should give it a whole section, but it seems to me that, unless I'm misunderstanding the results you're citing, they haven't disproved anything.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. As mentioned earlier, this falls under WP:UNDUE. As far as I can tell, the only people promoting this hypothesis are the authors and they have books to sell. Mattnad (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a widespread as clothes is filled with cancer-producing chemical. Brassieres are stiffed and filled to the fashionable shape without consideration to the health. the list of baned chemical in textile is long.Haabet 00:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide a citation for that story? We'd need something reliable that says, for example, the chemicals in an organic cotton bra cause breast cancer, but the chemicals in a tie-dyed T-shirt don't. That is, that it's actually about the bra. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not chemical engineer, but I know some poisons from fabrics (from danish sources): formaldehyde, nickel, mercury, nicotine, barium naphthalen o-chlorphenol diethylhexylphthalat (DEHP) nonylphenolethoxylats (NPEO) C3-alkylbenzens, C4-alkylbenzens tetrachlorethylen p-chloranilin p-nitroanilin 2,6-dichlor-4-nitroanilin 2-chlor-4-nitroanilin 6-methyl-3-nitroanilin diphenylamin toluendiisocyanat acridin nitrobenzen cadmium cobalt chrom lead arsen tin zinc. Note: Many of these chemical reinforce each other. And many chemicals been released from the fabrics by sweat and wear.Haabet 13:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, your clalim that this study disproves the link between bras and breast cancer is completely false. You say, "they seriously considered wearing bras as a risk factor, but were unable to demonstrate that it had any effect other than as a proxy for breast size." It is equally possible that breast size (and obesity) are considered "known risk factors" because their status as proxies for bra use has been ignored. The importance of the Singer-Grismaijer study is that it at least makes an effort to separate the factors by taking hours per day of bra-wearing into account. The study may not be bulletproof, but is certainly suggestive enough to warrant a follow-up.--Jonathan108 (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the study or just the abstract? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You didn't provide a link to the full study. Either provide a link, or, better yet, tell me how the full study addresses my objections. --Jonathan108 (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point, it's fair to say that the link between bras and cancer is inconclusive. I'm concerned about giving too much emphasis to what is now a very minority view on bras. I think Jonathan108 and Haabet have a lot of passion for this point. How about you two collaborate on a separate article that expands on your views about the cancer risk of bras, and possibly all clothing in general (per Habeet's comments on fabrics above). Once it's fleshed out, then we can link to it? Let me know what you think. Mattnad (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea to exile this subject to a separate article. It belongs in the breast cancer article, where people concerned about preventing the disease can find it. "Prophylactic mastectomies" are a crime. --Jonathan108 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense there. OK. Go for it. Mattnad (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a regular editor there, but I suspect that breast cancer doesn't want it. They've spun off a separate article, Epidemiology and etiology of breast cancer for cause-related stuff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)