Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Talk:Breast -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Breast article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This topic may attract censorship. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure a quality article, and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content.

Discussion of images for this article can be found at Talk:Breast/sandbox. We want to have images that add quality to the article, and not have a collection of random images. Please do not add or remove images from this article without discussion with the other contributing editors of the article.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance assessment scale WikiProject Sexology and sexuality       (Rated B-Class) Sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. Assessment comments This 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. WikiProject Anatomy (Rated B-Class) Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a WikiProject related to the study of anatomy. B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale High rated as high-importance on the assessment scale WikiProject Nudity      (Rated B-Class) Nudity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, which collaborates on articles related to nudity and naturism topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Breast received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 Continued image discussion 2 Male breast 3 New image for consideration 4 Drop

Continued image discussion

Recent discussions archived here

Weiblich-brust

95C

I have to say the Image:Weibliche-brust.jpg image seems of lesser quality, and is darker. Do you see what I mean? I don't think it would be a good lede. Atom (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

95C

289

I think this is a good example of why most editors prefer a real image over a graphic illustration, and this is an excellent illustration. Atom (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

95c has a touch of Contrapposto about it; whereas 289 does not, being straightforward thereby complimenting the formal tone of the nature of an encyclopaedia. Redblueball (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, a little tiny bit of contrapposto doesn't ruin it. Its still better than an illustration. Asarelah (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Contrapposto is a style that appeals to our emotions and sense of beauty. We don't use emotional appeals in text so why illustrations? Redblueball (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So, you are saying the image is too artistic because she is leaning a bit to the left? The image still beats the drawing. The drawing is sterile, and the image is alive, it shows slight variation in breast size and nipple/aereola shape. Realistic, not artifice. Atom (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

95c alludes to the use of a style (contrapposto) that 289 does not possess. The lack of "aliveness" in 289 is because of the artist's use of generality to suggest that a description of breasts cannot be specific and include all the realistic variations of women's bodies. The purpose of encyclopaedia articles is to summarise knowledge, not present individual cases, and within the scope of various meanings attributed to breasts - it is of curious importance to attach an inevitable incidence from this scope as an illustration to the introduction... thereby creating an oxymoron of a specific image illustrating a general passage of text in a general article. More curious while there being a more innocent alternative - 289. Redblueball (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see it as an artistic image. (I asked if that was your perception) Contrapposto" just means that the pose is one where the subject is relaxed with weight on one foot. I don't see how the particular pose of that picture distracts from the topic in any way -- nor does it seem (to me) to add "emotional appeal". I hear your opinion. In my opinion one can learn the most from seeing a real example, and not a sterile drawing. Your point that we should avoid special cases is well taken, hence my working description of a good image to include "subject should be average, rather than unusually small or unusually large, should have neither tattoos or piercings, the image should not indicate disease." That should not be extended to mean that we should work to remove any and all unique characteristics from an image for it to be a good lede for this article. In fact the "average" person is not symmetrical, and each breast is different, so having such an image shows the normal case. The more images and examples of the topic we have, the better idea that an interested reader gets of the topic. Also, the more that people see images of normal human anatomy in normal context, the less they will be biased to perceive the topic as erotic or pornographic. As you point out there is great variation, and space for but one lede, we want something that is a fair representation, and not a perfect one. Its purpose (a lede) is primarily to offer, at a glance, an idea of the topic of the article, and an image such as 95C succeeds at that well. I admit that 289 succeeds at that, but it still begs the question (for me) of why someone would use a rendition of a real topic when there is a real image available. Atom (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For once, I am in agreement with Atomaton. The contrapposto is really not a major issue. Even if this image is slightly flawed, it certainly beats the blurry, weirdly angled one we have now. We simply don't have a perfect image, and we have struggled like hell to get people to even consider to changing it to a better photograph, let alone getting anyone to concede to an illustration. The contrapposto is barely even noticable, I didn't even realize it was there until you pointed it out. Its a tiny flaw in an otherwise excellent picture. Asarelah (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify :- images, sketches, photographs, contain elements of style; style being a concept realised by (for example) posing a model in a particular way. This realisation (by way of contrapposto) is used as a method for connecting (asking, appealing?) to a viewer's sense of beauty and their emotional faculties. In the case of drawing a comparison between a stylistic property (the pose) from all stylistic properties present in images 95c and 289 - the latter image cannot be confused with a product of an artist concerned (either intentionally or unintentionally) with implementing a style (contrapposto) that makes an appeal to our emotions. Becuase 289 does not contain this type of stylistic endeavour within its complete set of stylistic properties, and for the sake of rejecting emotional appeals in the text of articles, and for the sake of images following the style of the text, then image 289 gains one mark (imo) from the critical pool of all possible marks shared between 95c and 289. Now, Asarelah, if we are to reach a consensus then we need to be critical of all images (for the benefit of the article), not just those we don't prefer, right? Redblueball (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, obviously, but that still doesn't mean that we should reject the photo for the illustration. We should simply replace the blurry picture we have now with 95c, contraposto or no contraposto, and put out a request on commons for a superior photo. I still believe that we should at the very least switch to 95c for now, as it is obviously superior to the current picture, and then return to the talk page to debate its relative merits against the illustration. Sound reasonable? Asarelah (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no apparent consensus for this change, Asarelah. See Talk:Breast/Archive 5#Survey on lead image. Make certain there is consensus before changing the image again. Dreadstar † 01:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. We should leave the current image, and see if we can find a better image than 95c. After some period of time, we can start a consensus discussion on either a new image, or 95C if there is interest. There is no hurry to do anything quickly. Atom (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I'm afraid I won't be able to contribute as much to this discussion as I did previously. I'm recovering from laproscopic gall bladder surgery, so my Wiki use will be more erratic. Just wanted to give everyone a heads-up. Asarelah (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Male breast

I tried to revive the discussion about the lack of a single fairly normal male breast in the article, but was only met with vague criticism and diffuse dislike of the images suggested. And then it was all archived today; hence I'm reviving the issue again. Some of these images can be used without modificiation, and some after cropping of genitals. We have only a single male breast pic, and that of severely abnormal breast. If we can have pictures of pasties, body painting and Maxi Mounds we can have at least one normal male breast. So which one shall it be? If anyone has better candidates, please suggest them.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Diffuse dislike -- Well, that as close as anything to what my feelings are about these images. Applying the same criteria we were discussing about the female image, I would say that Image:My Chest.jpg comes closest, if we could crop the bottom (underwear) out. I don't care for the ones with faces, or the ones that are not average examples, (Image:Male Chest by David Shankbone.jpg, Image:Jockstrap101.JPG and Image:Deon-Burton-SWFC.jpg) I don;t care for the quality of the image with either Image:Belly!.jpg or Image:Example of a Man.jpg . And the three photos that include the penis, if they were cropped would be too small. (Image:A nude Torso of a Man.JPG, Image:Average man.jpg and Image:Male torso undressed.jpg None look like appealing choices, IMO. Atom (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

They're all too musclebound imo--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the arguments you've provided here don't seem to be applied to the female breast pics. We have plenty of non-average pictures of questionable quality of females, especially in the gallery. And why is it considered more appropriate to have a photo of a comparatively rare condition like gynecomastia but not a muscular male chest? The latter would be considered far more representative of a male breast than the former. I see no problem illustrating a topic with idealized images, like that of the football player or body builder, as well as pictures like My Chest.jpg.

--Peter ^Isotalo 10:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that medical conditions have a place in the article over athletic pictures. We don't have images of womens breasts merely because a woman has a 44-D size, for instance, or because she is a body builder or athelete. All of the breast images show different special cases, mostly medically related, some related to body modification -- except for the lede image. The lede is intended to be average, normal, and ordinary. The Image:My Chest.jpg seems to be the most ordinary of the bunch. The athletic images seem completely out of place in the article. The full body shots (three) look okay fom a breast perspective, but we would want to crop out the lower part of the body to keep the focus on the breast. This might make the images unusable with the resolution -- maybe not. The first image Image:Belly!.jpg cuts off the portion we are interested in, and focuses on abdominal muscles -- not the topic. Atom (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Presenting the problem as "athletic" vs medical is not the issue. It's rather cultural vs anatomical, and this isn't a pure anatomy article. But we'll deal with that later. So I understand that we have four images that we can consider reasonably good illustrations, albeit that three of them require some modifications. Should we present one of them together with the female picture in the lead, or do we place them elsewhere in the article? And which one would be the most appropriate?

Peter ^Isotalo 11:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I don't care for any of the images, or feel that we need to represent the male breast just because we have the female breast. Someone will need to crop and then present the choices you suggest as none of those four at the moment seem appropriate as is. Atom (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the gallery pics should be removed if went on what individual editors cared for or not. That includes applying many of the arguments made against the suggested pics. I mean, a torture device and five pictures of breast implants? Is this an honest request for image editing or merely a shrubbery demand to keep more male breast pics out of the article?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, put some of the male images in the Gallery of you like. (after cropped for breast, rather than full body) I stated that I did not care for the images, but that is just one opinion. I am fine with participating in a consensus that is different from my personal preference. I don't have any problem with having images of male breasts in the article, I just really don't much care for the ones presented much. And, I did think that the one image could work well if it were cropped just a bit to cut the underwear out of the picture. My bias against is only because for the most part the male breast is non-functional, and far less prone to disease than the female breast. Also, there is no cultural focus on the male breast, and so, little cultural reason to mention them. (that is, the four main sections of the topic, Anatomy, Function, Cultural and Disease, there is little to say about the male breast) If we were to create a new section called "Male Breast" and discuss notable elements of the male breast, including how that applies to other species, it would be perfect for at least one, and perhaps a number of male breast images. For instance, did you know that there are fathers who artifically induce lactation so that they can feed their babies? Did you know that in the Dayak Fruit Bat male lactation is normal? Male breast cancer does occur, roughly 1% of the number compared to women who develop breast cancer each year. Atom (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Males may develop breast tissue, but unless this occurs; they (males) do not have breasts. When we say "male breast" we are really referring to the surface appearance of the chest... unless of course the male has developed breast tissue, in which case we say that the male "has breasts", or "breast tissue". None of the images (above) appear to show males with breasts or breast tissue therefore I can't think of a reason for them being in an article about breasts and breast tissue rather than the article about the chest. Redblueball (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. One image of an actual male breast should be all we need. Asher196 (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The image leading Gynecomastia should suffice. Redblueball (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The definition of breast is not decided by how globular they are, which is rather clearly stated in the lead. The chest is a much wider area of, even if this is the most common term for the topmost part of the front of the male torso. It's rather obvious that male have breast, even if a common semantic meaning of the term would make it seem otherwise. If we would define breast by how protruding they, then we would come to the absurd conclusion that extremely flat-chested women are breastless.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Each of the above images is describing a different state of the male breast?... or simply the degrees to which some men have more prominent pectoral muscles than others? Redblueball (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just read again your initial statement at the beginning of this article, and believe that you're asking for support to include an image of the male chest that is not apparently effected by breast tissue. If this is true, then I can't really disagree with including a compliment image of the like above for the purpose of drawing a contrast, however it seems a bit patronising to think that anybody would gain much from seeing a normative male chest? Redblueball (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New image for consideration

Here is an image I produced. It should meet the criteria. It is clinical, and not erotic, no face, shows both breasts, from the front, no contrapposto, no piercings or tattoos the subject is middle aged, and not "too young" or "too old", or "too thin" or "too large", normal with no disease indicated. Frankly I like the current lede better. I'm open to criticism, and can produce another image with necessary changes. My personal criticism is it should have improved lighting. Atom (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The model is fine (for the reasons you've already mentioned). I think the execution of the photograph needs tweaking though. I guess the most obvious change would be the elimination of the blur by steadying the camera and using the self-timer (if the camera has one). Also, if the model moved forward from the wall/backdrop by about three to four feet then this could eliminate some of the close-ness and the cast of the shadow on the wall. There may also be a bit of an issue with focal length because of the proximity between you... perhaps moving further apart may make it easier to move to a length of about 50mm rather than a shallower length that may make the subject follow the curve of the lens. And adopting a slightly lower viewpoint might be useful (if we're looking for perfection). As it is... for me - the image is cropped too tightly, but I guess can be corrected easily if it's a post production decision.

In regards to your preference, I think a front-on approach creates a sense of flatness which the current lead does not possess, so perhaps then - there's something in the current leads favour. If you have a patient model it may be worth trying a few different shots with the model rotating 10 or 20 degrees to her right - and with natural light illuminating the front of her body. The light available at about 90 minutes after dawn or 90 minutes before sunset is particularly complimentary. Redblueball (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, perhaps I'll try some alternative shots incorporating some of the suggestions. This image was intentionally blurred by post processing, and the lighting improved from what was even worse than what is shown. My thought was not to use this image for the article, but to stimulate conversation on what would be ideal. This particular model was used for the reasons indicated above. I'm not sure that I can obtain the presice lightning of your preference, however. Atom (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're using Flash, turn it off, the lighting seems off, Also, if you can, try pulling away a bit from the subject, so we have some boarder around the chest; it looks a little too tight.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 21:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Drop

Good point Peter. Drop does make it sound as if they are dropping off...LOL. However, ligament elongation has nothing got do with aging although this can happen with time . Ligament elongation can happen in even young women, so saying this is a result of aging is not accurate. I'd like to find like to find another word for sag,too... which is just too,too not technical...and aging should be removed as a inacurracy. LOL ...still laughing about "drop".(olive (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 5 September 2008, at 06:01.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Talk:Breast".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Talk:Breast

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.