This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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, would 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))
Why are there mostly female pictures and pictures of humans? That's not all a breast can be. YVNP ( talk) 03:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
No matter what I revert to, its broken . JasonHockeyGuy ( talk) 00:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Width=300px
. Not sure what caused the problem originally; the problem seems to be in the image itself, not the infobox, as other images work fine in that position (and the infobox works fine everywhere else it's transcluded); furthermore, the image works fine outside of infoboxes. I don't see anything recent in the file history over at Commons, so I have no idea what would have caused it to suddenly stop working. I don't think the problem is really solved, this was just a quick fix; people at
WP:VP/T or maybe
WP:GL.
rʨanaɢ
talk/
contribs 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)The blood supply to the breast is not the posterior intercostal arteries. I would be the anterior intercostal arteries.
Reference: CURRENT Diagnosis & Treatment Obstetrics & Gynecology, 10th Edition by Alan H. DeCherney and Lauren Nathan
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trishpenner ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, Great article(I love boobs, like most male's.) All the pictures are very tasteful except for the one on breast binding. I would not care if my young son saw all the other pictures. It does not add anything to the article and may be better placed under the bondage section. Would anyone like to discuss this further? I would recommend deleting the picture. -- Yendor72 ( talk) 05:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The whole breast fetish issue could be addressed with a short description and a link. Having the weird photograph with the gagged woman serves to bring up strange undertones, not to help the reader understand what a breast is. I recommend that the photo be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.158.79 ( talk) 03:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I think you're just being prudish. The article isn't just about helping the reader 'understand what a breast is' but about their role in society, sex, status, culture, et cetera. BodvarBjarki ( talk) 09:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article has not fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct template(s) on this talk page. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, and keep editing Wikipedia! Renaissancee (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
there is an image caption that reads "In Western culture, it is acceptable for breasts to be partially uncovered." Acceptable? What workplaces, community programs or schools find that acceptable? I am going to re-write the caption. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Why does the article for Oppai redirect here? I can't find any information on whatever Oppai is or why it should be related to breasts. Padillah ( talk) 13:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I wasn't aware that wikipedia allowed such 'expliicit' content. Also, maybe it's just my imagination but, there seems to be a large amount of images on this page when you compare it with most pages. I mean, I'm not complaining!, but it does seem quite, well, juvenile? -- Jefuab ( talk) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest tagging to the Antipsychotic page under the section titled "Breastfeeding". It seems like it would be appropriate, since it's talking about a possible side effect of the medication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketpop ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
i dislike it as a man i find it blurry and kinda blurry and also the shadows take away from the actual picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nave123 ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, someone seriously needs to fix the last paragraph of the sexual role section of the function section. It includes a sentence fragment and then a sentence that makes no sense. I don't see why this page is protected or I'd fix it myself (I'm sure there's some silly 8th-grade reason), but as it is I hope some editor will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.182.113 ( talk) 08:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The breast in the image with the caption "The breast of a pregnant woman" has been surgically altered. You can see the surgical scar along the bottom crease and halfway up the exterior side of the breast. This type of scar is typical of augmentation scars. Can we please get a non-surgically altered breast (i.e. a natural breast) for this picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.55.206.25 ( talk) 20:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Recent discussions archived here
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)
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)
I am not quite sure why: rope breast bondage.jpg is on the page? None of the detailed pages e.g. Breast bondage or breast fetish have a similar picture on them, so why is it needed in the main article?
Why not but Clothed_breast_bondage.jpg on the main breast page and rope breast bondage.jpg on the page of the Breast bondage page? Why does someone with breast bondage need some red thing in the mouth? Is this always the case?
Why is a picture named rope breast bondage.jpg described as Fetish breast binding? Isn't breast bondage as in the photo name clearer? Why is the breast bondage photo included only in the english version?
--stvienna —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
212.186.126.215 (
talk) 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I love this entire debate just for its hypocrisy. People are complaining about images of breasts being too sexual, only to have each taken down in turn. These are all images of white women, some of them no more sexual than an example in a medical book. Meanwhile, the picture of the young, attractive African girl striking a demure pose that, to me, looks sexual, is pretty much ignored. No, it's their culture, it's perfectly acceptable they'll say, ignoring the fact that there are many parts of Europe where nudity is acceptable. And what of the image of the African girl? Would the context change if it we were to learn it was an African American dressed like this in a chaparral in California?
76.170.109.79 (
talk) 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This brings up a concern that I have. I do not mean to be a 'PC police' by any means, but I am concerned at the fact that almost every model on the page is light-skinned, save for one model who is included explicitly as a part of non-western views on breasts. It seems to me that the article would benefit from the greater inclusion of models who are not white, not only as examples of non-western views or as tokens. On a separate issue, and one of much less importance, I would note that this article is about breasts as a whole, and yet seems to focus almost exclusively on human breasts, showing the breasts of no other species. I'm not bringing this up out of any animal rights activism or allegations of speciesism, note, just a technicality. I understand that we are anthropocentric, being humans, and that female humans have some of the most noticeable breasts in all mammals, but shouldn't we include a picture or two of non-human breasts? -- 97.112.49.34 ( talk) 22:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If ever a citation were needed, it's the claim that some women are able to achieve "breast orgasms." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.239.94.164 ( talk) 19:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
My wife is my cite, and no, you can't watch. 69.171.166.231 ( talk) 05:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
haha good point. I'd (and the rest of us) would beintrested in a source that says its not possible. 24.192.42.231 ( talk) 01:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The following is recommended for inclusion in the category of Function, under the sub-category of Other suggested functions. This is the wording and coding used in the article Cleavage (Breasts) and appears to be more appropriate in this article instead.
Evolutionary psychologists theorize that humans' permanently enlarged breasts, in contrast to other primates' breasts, which only enlarge during ovulation, allowed females to "solicit male attention and investment even when they are not really fertile", [1] though Morris notes that in recent years there has been a trend toward reversing breast augmentations. [2] [3]
Thornbrier ( talk) 04:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
i want replace breast image with new image
so please give me power to change it
Aftersometime ( talk) 07:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The article reads " Bare female breasts can elicit heightened sexual desires from men " but it does not say the equal unbiased opposite " Bare male breasts can elicit heightened sexual desires from women " this should be added to correct the, likely accidental, sexist overtone of this article.
There is no difference in sexual nature from a male or female chest, especially between a male who has Gynecomastia and a female it is only a socially brainwashed opinion that a female breast is inappropriate.
There is no scientific nor logical reasoning behind this "cooties" opinion. sorry for the rant.. human ignorance and childishness is one of my pet peeves. 71.112.220.78 ( talk) 13:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It is good to adhere several basic rules to maintain your bust in shape.
To do:
1.To stand upright.
2.To wear comfortable bra that does not press close your chest. If the shoulder-straps mark on your back you must release them at all cost or get a new bra.
3.To massage your breasts with cold water. Thus the blood circulation is being stimulated and the skin tones and tightens.
4.To wear a special sport bra when you work out.
5.To avoid sleeping in free-faller position so not to be pressing down your breasts.
Not to do:
1.Not to be doing abrupt moves while you sport because thus you risk to damage the tissues maintaining the breasts.
2.Not to be staying on the beach for long without sun-protecting cream.
3.Not to be carrying heavy weights.
4.Not to press too hard when smearing your body with toilet milk. Making light circular moves is sufficient for the cream to be absorbed.
5.Not to be folding heavy bags so not to be pressing your breasts towards your body.
6.Not to stand for too long in a hot tub.
7.Not to make experiments with your weight.
8.Not to deprive of proteins in your diet.
9.Not to be sorry for your breasts are such as they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Sage ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that there is a minor inconsistency in the Breast Function section with the Wiki article on bonobos, the citations for which I have verified. Female bonobos, which are primates, have protuberant breasts (not to the same extent as humans, but markedly so, nevertheless). The selection bias for protuberant breasts therefore needs to be discussed in greater length, including mention of bonobos, and possibly cite recent sources on the evolution of breasts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sausagerooster ( talk • contribs) 06:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Breasts.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC) |
Shouldn't it be included that during the menstral cycle, breast tissue is briefly created and dies, increasing risk of cancer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless you take into account estrogen levels. Estrogen is a well known carcinogen. 75.142.234.137 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC).
It is good educational practice and common sense to proceed from the general to the special and more particular. So I think the first photo given, that of the breasts of a pregnant woman should become the 2nd picture, and the current No. 2 would better serve as the first. Is there anyone who feels the same? Myles325a ( talk) 09:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Breast.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
The caption to first image indicates that the breast of the pregnant woman is swollen because it is full of milk. The secretory tissue in the breast begins to grow some time during pregnancy, but significant milk production does not start until after delivery. A better caption would be something like "A full breast of a pregnant woman ready to begin milk production after delivery". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storslem ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Can I remove images of Nudity?-- 85.12.88.17 ( talk) 12:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Short answer: no, wikipedia=not censored, have a nice day.
Kornflakes89 (
talk) 08:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=5285 Bigshotnews 02:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews ( talk • contribs)
From the page, under development:
...notable breast asymmetry [...] is present in 25% of women.
and in the following paragraph:
For approximately 5–10% of women, the asymmetry of the breasts is notably different
Am I misinterpreting this or is this a contradiction? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
139.168.203.250 (
talk) 14:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This wikipedia user would like to move for the article to be re-written for accuracy. Specifically, usage of gendered terms throughout the article, starting in the second sentence:
This statement, and many others throughout the article are incorrect. These are gender terms, not sex terms. That sentence, specifically should be re-written as follows (the changes are from gender terms to sex terms.
Clearly, this article is in great need of correcting, and I would correct it myself, but I feel that it would be reverted due to personal views of other users on gender and sex. Once again, I state that this is article is incorrect from the standpoint of biology. Futhermore, there should be a section in this article on non-cissexed and/or non-dyadic individuals, or a link to the relevant article. LupusSapien ( talk) 16:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)LupusSapien: Tuesday, April 24th, 15:55 UTC.
That, and a lot of 'generally's and 'tends to's. There is not enough room in this article to discuss the full spectrum of human biological variation, but to act like it simply doesn't exist is totally unacceptable, and is yet the standard fair for Wikipedia. Because yeah, trans* and intersex people apparently don't exist. "Hello World?!!" Let's not mention anyone outside the norm, because that would be nitpicking. And if we do mention, well, let's pretend they magically appear in our painfully mainstream discourse (we need a section called "the Other", fill in the blank later), and then disappear the moment their existence does not appeal to our normative sensibilities (or would require an additional word or two not to completely preclude from existence). Anyazelie ( talk) 07:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Sexual slang term; it's usage is not academic and looks strange in an informative article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.100.167.228 ( talk) 08:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Since this article is allready quite long would it not be smart to move some of the information regarding anatomy to breast anatomy, an article allready created, and insterting a
at the reduced anatomy section in breast? Eventhough the anatomy section in breast is very well written it might be to long/complex for non-health professionals or readers who just want a quick overview? That way the stand-alone breast anatomy article could also be expanded to include even more information. -- JakobSteenberg ( talk) 21:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I have completed the merge. The article contained no content that was both reliably sourced and notable enough to be included in the encyclopaedic, and the information contained here is additionally of higher quality and more comprehensive. -- LT910001 ( talk) 00:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The image right above "Shape and Support" is not in Wikimedia. This creates the situation where if I take my classroom to this site, we are unable to block this image. I request it be moved to Wikimedia. 72.183.116.207 ( talk) 03:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sorry, I meant the image below the title "Shape and Support" is not in Wikimedia, so I cannot block it.
By the way, I am very appreciative that Wikipedia allows us to block the images. This allows us to allow the children free access to this wonderful site. 72.183.116.207 ( talk) 03:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Breast has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is NO correlation between "race" and breast size, considering that "race" is a social construct, not biological. Please, take out the sub about Size because it along with the terrible New York Times article that's being used as a source, it's nothing but lies and junk science. This article is at risk of actually appearing racist if you don't fix it or allow it to be opened to editors who can fix it. Please. AccurateEddits ( talk) 03:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
'In Asia, there was "Breast Mountain,"...' Asia is a very big place. 109.149.208.19 ( talk) 11:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I will be preparing this article for GA nomination over the next month and would accept any feedback. I invite other users to contribute and/or take the lead on this. Ping to Flyer22, what are your opinions about what needs to be done to get this to a satisfactory standard? Tasks: -- LT910001 ( talk) 04:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Btphelps, regarding this, this and this latest edit I made, and this and this latest edit you made, make sure that you are using WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Generally try to stay away from WP:Primary sources. Also see WP:MEDDATE. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Medgirl131 ( talk · contribs), regarding expansions such as this... Per what I stated above to Btphelps (who thanked me via WP:Echo for that post), make sure that you are not using too many WP:Primary sources. Keep WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE in mind. Also, take it easy on the excessive citing; see WP:Citation overkill. Flyer22 ( talk) 09:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
This whole article is heavily weighted toward females, giving almost no consideration to male breasts.
Even the opening sentence gives the reader the immediate impression that only females have breasts.
The breast is one of two mammary glands on the upper ventral region of a female primate's torso ...
Why is a breast being defined as a female only anatomy part?
Please clean up this article or allow it to be edited so that it can be factually correct.
93.95.76.135 ( talk) 02:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The breast is one of two mammary glands on the upper ventral region of a female primate's torso that can produce and secrete milk and feed infants.[2] Both males and females develop breasts from the same embryological tissues. At puberty, estrogens, in conjunction with growth hormone, causes breast development.
Waste of time really Sir ian guru ( talk) 22:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Is everyone okay with this splitting of content by Medgirl131 ( talk · contribs)? And, Medgirl131, why did you feel that the content needed splitting? I'm asking both questions because I don't see the need for the split. Medgirl131, I know you prefer not to communicate on talk pages, but maybe you wouldn't mind explaining why you split the content? As others have noted to you before, communication and collaboration are vital on Wikipedia. Did you split the content because you intend to keep adding more and more on that topic? Did you feel there was a WP:SIZE issue? Flyer22 ( talk) 04:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: Medgirl131 did get back to me about this via email, and I read the email late (like a month or so late), but didn't get back to Medgirl131 on that email (I meant to, though). I think I eventually will. Medgirl131 was clear that she prefers not to respond on talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This page is not about "breasts"... it is about female human breasts. All mammals have breasts; should we not link to the real "breasts" article? DouglasHeld ( talk) 05:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I have read the Mammary gland article and it is a very good general breast article. I do think renaming "Mammary gland" to "Breast" would be sensible, and renaming the Breast page to "Breast (human anatomy)" would be sensible. The content of the Breast page is human-centric to a ridiculous degree. DouglasHeld ( talk) 00:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Group 1:
Group 2:
Group 3:
I want to make certain that any child I bear would have a sufficiency in lactation at least for that time it requires for the child to be able to whine for the refrigerator door to be opened, which takes a while.
What are my breast size increments, if the child grows and continues suckling, the lactation incrementing accorded it´s needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.37.158.149 ( talk) 20:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Breast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This image given in article is offensive. As per [1] this pic should be removed, becoz the educational addition to article it brings is too less compared to its offensiveness. And yes, Wikipedia is not meant for children but this doesnt mean we should include any offensive content in the name of broad-mindedness or in the name of educating people. This picture appears without giving any graphic warning and can disturb even adult users. Topazemerald ( talk) 22:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, there is already an article on it- Mastectomy. I see no reason why this image showing removed breast is necessary to keep on a page on breasts. It's like showing a pic of a man whose penis has been cut on an article on penis. As far as C.Fred not finding it offensive enough, well I would like to disagree. How many times do you come across such images in real life? And if you do come across a woman with removed breasts, wouldn't you get disturbed by it? Let us hear the views of more people on this issue. By the way, let me disclose hear that this is the first time I have made a Wiki account, and I made it just for starting this topic. Topazemerald ( talk) 22:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyways, plz see this- Wikipedia:Offensive_material#.22Not_censored.22_does_not_give_special_favor_to_offensive_content Topazemerald ( talk) 22:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I hope in future Wiki admins would agree with my view and remove this image. Please don't delete this debate. Topazemerald ( talk) 08:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The reference used to illustrate the article which "showed that breasts are often the first thing men look at, and for a longer time than other body parts" directs to an article in the Daily Telegraph which neither give the names of the authors nor the name of the actual paper.
Acknowledging that such a exposition of what the article is about can be beneficial for the readers, I think a link to the original article, titled Eye-tracking of men's preferences for waist-to-hip ratio and breast size of women. should be added as well. It can be accessed for free on ResearchGate.
The recommanded citation is "Dixson, B.J., Grimshaw, G.M., Linklater, W.L. et al. Arch Sex Behav (2011) 40: 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9523-5".
-- Lboukoko ( talk) 14:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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, would 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))
Why are there mostly female pictures and pictures of humans? That's not all a breast can be. YVNP ( talk) 03:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
No matter what I revert to, its broken . JasonHockeyGuy ( talk) 00:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Width=300px
. Not sure what caused the problem originally; the problem seems to be in the image itself, not the infobox, as other images work fine in that position (and the infobox works fine everywhere else it's transcluded); furthermore, the image works fine outside of infoboxes. I don't see anything recent in the file history over at Commons, so I have no idea what would have caused it to suddenly stop working. I don't think the problem is really solved, this was just a quick fix; people at
WP:VP/T or maybe
WP:GL.
rʨanaɢ
talk/
contribs 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)The blood supply to the breast is not the posterior intercostal arteries. I would be the anterior intercostal arteries.
Reference: CURRENT Diagnosis & Treatment Obstetrics & Gynecology, 10th Edition by Alan H. DeCherney and Lauren Nathan
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trishpenner ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, Great article(I love boobs, like most male's.) All the pictures are very tasteful except for the one on breast binding. I would not care if my young son saw all the other pictures. It does not add anything to the article and may be better placed under the bondage section. Would anyone like to discuss this further? I would recommend deleting the picture. -- Yendor72 ( talk) 05:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The whole breast fetish issue could be addressed with a short description and a link. Having the weird photograph with the gagged woman serves to bring up strange undertones, not to help the reader understand what a breast is. I recommend that the photo be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.158.79 ( talk) 03:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I think you're just being prudish. The article isn't just about helping the reader 'understand what a breast is' but about their role in society, sex, status, culture, et cetera. BodvarBjarki ( talk) 09:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article has not fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct template(s) on this talk page. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, and keep editing Wikipedia! Renaissancee (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
there is an image caption that reads "In Western culture, it is acceptable for breasts to be partially uncovered." Acceptable? What workplaces, community programs or schools find that acceptable? I am going to re-write the caption. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Why does the article for Oppai redirect here? I can't find any information on whatever Oppai is or why it should be related to breasts. Padillah ( talk) 13:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I wasn't aware that wikipedia allowed such 'expliicit' content. Also, maybe it's just my imagination but, there seems to be a large amount of images on this page when you compare it with most pages. I mean, I'm not complaining!, but it does seem quite, well, juvenile? -- Jefuab ( talk) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest tagging to the Antipsychotic page under the section titled "Breastfeeding". It seems like it would be appropriate, since it's talking about a possible side effect of the medication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketpop ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
i dislike it as a man i find it blurry and kinda blurry and also the shadows take away from the actual picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nave123 ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, someone seriously needs to fix the last paragraph of the sexual role section of the function section. It includes a sentence fragment and then a sentence that makes no sense. I don't see why this page is protected or I'd fix it myself (I'm sure there's some silly 8th-grade reason), but as it is I hope some editor will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.182.113 ( talk) 08:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The breast in the image with the caption "The breast of a pregnant woman" has been surgically altered. You can see the surgical scar along the bottom crease and halfway up the exterior side of the breast. This type of scar is typical of augmentation scars. Can we please get a non-surgically altered breast (i.e. a natural breast) for this picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.55.206.25 ( talk) 20:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Recent discussions archived here
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)
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)
I am not quite sure why: rope breast bondage.jpg is on the page? None of the detailed pages e.g. Breast bondage or breast fetish have a similar picture on them, so why is it needed in the main article?
Why not but Clothed_breast_bondage.jpg on the main breast page and rope breast bondage.jpg on the page of the Breast bondage page? Why does someone with breast bondage need some red thing in the mouth? Is this always the case?
Why is a picture named rope breast bondage.jpg described as Fetish breast binding? Isn't breast bondage as in the photo name clearer? Why is the breast bondage photo included only in the english version?
--stvienna —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
212.186.126.215 (
talk) 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I love this entire debate just for its hypocrisy. People are complaining about images of breasts being too sexual, only to have each taken down in turn. These are all images of white women, some of them no more sexual than an example in a medical book. Meanwhile, the picture of the young, attractive African girl striking a demure pose that, to me, looks sexual, is pretty much ignored. No, it's their culture, it's perfectly acceptable they'll say, ignoring the fact that there are many parts of Europe where nudity is acceptable. And what of the image of the African girl? Would the context change if it we were to learn it was an African American dressed like this in a chaparral in California?
76.170.109.79 (
talk) 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This brings up a concern that I have. I do not mean to be a 'PC police' by any means, but I am concerned at the fact that almost every model on the page is light-skinned, save for one model who is included explicitly as a part of non-western views on breasts. It seems to me that the article would benefit from the greater inclusion of models who are not white, not only as examples of non-western views or as tokens. On a separate issue, and one of much less importance, I would note that this article is about breasts as a whole, and yet seems to focus almost exclusively on human breasts, showing the breasts of no other species. I'm not bringing this up out of any animal rights activism or allegations of speciesism, note, just a technicality. I understand that we are anthropocentric, being humans, and that female humans have some of the most noticeable breasts in all mammals, but shouldn't we include a picture or two of non-human breasts? -- 97.112.49.34 ( talk) 22:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If ever a citation were needed, it's the claim that some women are able to achieve "breast orgasms." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.239.94.164 ( talk) 19:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
My wife is my cite, and no, you can't watch. 69.171.166.231 ( talk) 05:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
haha good point. I'd (and the rest of us) would beintrested in a source that says its not possible. 24.192.42.231 ( talk) 01:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The following is recommended for inclusion in the category of Function, under the sub-category of Other suggested functions. This is the wording and coding used in the article Cleavage (Breasts) and appears to be more appropriate in this article instead.
Evolutionary psychologists theorize that humans' permanently enlarged breasts, in contrast to other primates' breasts, which only enlarge during ovulation, allowed females to "solicit male attention and investment even when they are not really fertile", [1] though Morris notes that in recent years there has been a trend toward reversing breast augmentations. [2] [3]
Thornbrier ( talk) 04:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
i want replace breast image with new image
so please give me power to change it
Aftersometime ( talk) 07:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The article reads " Bare female breasts can elicit heightened sexual desires from men " but it does not say the equal unbiased opposite " Bare male breasts can elicit heightened sexual desires from women " this should be added to correct the, likely accidental, sexist overtone of this article.
There is no difference in sexual nature from a male or female chest, especially between a male who has Gynecomastia and a female it is only a socially brainwashed opinion that a female breast is inappropriate.
There is no scientific nor logical reasoning behind this "cooties" opinion. sorry for the rant.. human ignorance and childishness is one of my pet peeves. 71.112.220.78 ( talk) 13:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It is good to adhere several basic rules to maintain your bust in shape.
To do:
1.To stand upright.
2.To wear comfortable bra that does not press close your chest. If the shoulder-straps mark on your back you must release them at all cost or get a new bra.
3.To massage your breasts with cold water. Thus the blood circulation is being stimulated and the skin tones and tightens.
4.To wear a special sport bra when you work out.
5.To avoid sleeping in free-faller position so not to be pressing down your breasts.
Not to do:
1.Not to be doing abrupt moves while you sport because thus you risk to damage the tissues maintaining the breasts.
2.Not to be staying on the beach for long without sun-protecting cream.
3.Not to be carrying heavy weights.
4.Not to press too hard when smearing your body with toilet milk. Making light circular moves is sufficient for the cream to be absorbed.
5.Not to be folding heavy bags so not to be pressing your breasts towards your body.
6.Not to stand for too long in a hot tub.
7.Not to make experiments with your weight.
8.Not to deprive of proteins in your diet.
9.Not to be sorry for your breasts are such as they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Sage ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that there is a minor inconsistency in the Breast Function section with the Wiki article on bonobos, the citations for which I have verified. Female bonobos, which are primates, have protuberant breasts (not to the same extent as humans, but markedly so, nevertheless). The selection bias for protuberant breasts therefore needs to be discussed in greater length, including mention of bonobos, and possibly cite recent sources on the evolution of breasts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sausagerooster ( talk • contribs) 06:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Breasts.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC) |
Shouldn't it be included that during the menstral cycle, breast tissue is briefly created and dies, increasing risk of cancer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless you take into account estrogen levels. Estrogen is a well known carcinogen. 75.142.234.137 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC).
It is good educational practice and common sense to proceed from the general to the special and more particular. So I think the first photo given, that of the breasts of a pregnant woman should become the 2nd picture, and the current No. 2 would better serve as the first. Is there anyone who feels the same? Myles325a ( talk) 09:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Breast.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
The caption to first image indicates that the breast of the pregnant woman is swollen because it is full of milk. The secretory tissue in the breast begins to grow some time during pregnancy, but significant milk production does not start until after delivery. A better caption would be something like "A full breast of a pregnant woman ready to begin milk production after delivery". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storslem ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Can I remove images of Nudity?-- 85.12.88.17 ( talk) 12:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Short answer: no, wikipedia=not censored, have a nice day.
Kornflakes89 (
talk) 08:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=5285 Bigshotnews 02:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews ( talk • contribs)
From the page, under development:
...notable breast asymmetry [...] is present in 25% of women.
and in the following paragraph:
For approximately 5–10% of women, the asymmetry of the breasts is notably different
Am I misinterpreting this or is this a contradiction? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
139.168.203.250 (
talk) 14:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This wikipedia user would like to move for the article to be re-written for accuracy. Specifically, usage of gendered terms throughout the article, starting in the second sentence:
This statement, and many others throughout the article are incorrect. These are gender terms, not sex terms. That sentence, specifically should be re-written as follows (the changes are from gender terms to sex terms.
Clearly, this article is in great need of correcting, and I would correct it myself, but I feel that it would be reverted due to personal views of other users on gender and sex. Once again, I state that this is article is incorrect from the standpoint of biology. Futhermore, there should be a section in this article on non-cissexed and/or non-dyadic individuals, or a link to the relevant article. LupusSapien ( talk) 16:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)LupusSapien: Tuesday, April 24th, 15:55 UTC.
That, and a lot of 'generally's and 'tends to's. There is not enough room in this article to discuss the full spectrum of human biological variation, but to act like it simply doesn't exist is totally unacceptable, and is yet the standard fair for Wikipedia. Because yeah, trans* and intersex people apparently don't exist. "Hello World?!!" Let's not mention anyone outside the norm, because that would be nitpicking. And if we do mention, well, let's pretend they magically appear in our painfully mainstream discourse (we need a section called "the Other", fill in the blank later), and then disappear the moment their existence does not appeal to our normative sensibilities (or would require an additional word or two not to completely preclude from existence). Anyazelie ( talk) 07:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Sexual slang term; it's usage is not academic and looks strange in an informative article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.100.167.228 ( talk) 08:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Since this article is allready quite long would it not be smart to move some of the information regarding anatomy to breast anatomy, an article allready created, and insterting a
at the reduced anatomy section in breast? Eventhough the anatomy section in breast is very well written it might be to long/complex for non-health professionals or readers who just want a quick overview? That way the stand-alone breast anatomy article could also be expanded to include even more information. -- JakobSteenberg ( talk) 21:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I have completed the merge. The article contained no content that was both reliably sourced and notable enough to be included in the encyclopaedic, and the information contained here is additionally of higher quality and more comprehensive. -- LT910001 ( talk) 00:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The image right above "Shape and Support" is not in Wikimedia. This creates the situation where if I take my classroom to this site, we are unable to block this image. I request it be moved to Wikimedia. 72.183.116.207 ( talk) 03:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sorry, I meant the image below the title "Shape and Support" is not in Wikimedia, so I cannot block it.
By the way, I am very appreciative that Wikipedia allows us to block the images. This allows us to allow the children free access to this wonderful site. 72.183.116.207 ( talk) 03:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Breast has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is NO correlation between "race" and breast size, considering that "race" is a social construct, not biological. Please, take out the sub about Size because it along with the terrible New York Times article that's being used as a source, it's nothing but lies and junk science. This article is at risk of actually appearing racist if you don't fix it or allow it to be opened to editors who can fix it. Please. AccurateEddits ( talk) 03:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
'In Asia, there was "Breast Mountain,"...' Asia is a very big place. 109.149.208.19 ( talk) 11:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I will be preparing this article for GA nomination over the next month and would accept any feedback. I invite other users to contribute and/or take the lead on this. Ping to Flyer22, what are your opinions about what needs to be done to get this to a satisfactory standard? Tasks: -- LT910001 ( talk) 04:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Btphelps, regarding this, this and this latest edit I made, and this and this latest edit you made, make sure that you are using WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Generally try to stay away from WP:Primary sources. Also see WP:MEDDATE. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Medgirl131 ( talk · contribs), regarding expansions such as this... Per what I stated above to Btphelps (who thanked me via WP:Echo for that post), make sure that you are not using too many WP:Primary sources. Keep WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE in mind. Also, take it easy on the excessive citing; see WP:Citation overkill. Flyer22 ( talk) 09:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
This whole article is heavily weighted toward females, giving almost no consideration to male breasts.
Even the opening sentence gives the reader the immediate impression that only females have breasts.
The breast is one of two mammary glands on the upper ventral region of a female primate's torso ...
Why is a breast being defined as a female only anatomy part?
Please clean up this article or allow it to be edited so that it can be factually correct.
93.95.76.135 ( talk) 02:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The breast is one of two mammary glands on the upper ventral region of a female primate's torso that can produce and secrete milk and feed infants.[2] Both males and females develop breasts from the same embryological tissues. At puberty, estrogens, in conjunction with growth hormone, causes breast development.
Waste of time really Sir ian guru ( talk) 22:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Is everyone okay with this splitting of content by Medgirl131 ( talk · contribs)? And, Medgirl131, why did you feel that the content needed splitting? I'm asking both questions because I don't see the need for the split. Medgirl131, I know you prefer not to communicate on talk pages, but maybe you wouldn't mind explaining why you split the content? As others have noted to you before, communication and collaboration are vital on Wikipedia. Did you split the content because you intend to keep adding more and more on that topic? Did you feel there was a WP:SIZE issue? Flyer22 ( talk) 04:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: Medgirl131 did get back to me about this via email, and I read the email late (like a month or so late), but didn't get back to Medgirl131 on that email (I meant to, though). I think I eventually will. Medgirl131 was clear that she prefers not to respond on talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This page is not about "breasts"... it is about female human breasts. All mammals have breasts; should we not link to the real "breasts" article? DouglasHeld ( talk) 05:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I have read the Mammary gland article and it is a very good general breast article. I do think renaming "Mammary gland" to "Breast" would be sensible, and renaming the Breast page to "Breast (human anatomy)" would be sensible. The content of the Breast page is human-centric to a ridiculous degree. DouglasHeld ( talk) 00:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Group 1:
Group 2:
Group 3:
I want to make certain that any child I bear would have a sufficiency in lactation at least for that time it requires for the child to be able to whine for the refrigerator door to be opened, which takes a while.
What are my breast size increments, if the child grows and continues suckling, the lactation incrementing accorded it´s needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.37.158.149 ( talk) 20:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Breast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This image given in article is offensive. As per [1] this pic should be removed, becoz the educational addition to article it brings is too less compared to its offensiveness. And yes, Wikipedia is not meant for children but this doesnt mean we should include any offensive content in the name of broad-mindedness or in the name of educating people. This picture appears without giving any graphic warning and can disturb even adult users. Topazemerald ( talk) 22:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, there is already an article on it- Mastectomy. I see no reason why this image showing removed breast is necessary to keep on a page on breasts. It's like showing a pic of a man whose penis has been cut on an article on penis. As far as C.Fred not finding it offensive enough, well I would like to disagree. How many times do you come across such images in real life? And if you do come across a woman with removed breasts, wouldn't you get disturbed by it? Let us hear the views of more people on this issue. By the way, let me disclose hear that this is the first time I have made a Wiki account, and I made it just for starting this topic. Topazemerald ( talk) 22:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyways, plz see this- Wikipedia:Offensive_material#.22Not_censored.22_does_not_give_special_favor_to_offensive_content Topazemerald ( talk) 22:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I hope in future Wiki admins would agree with my view and remove this image. Please don't delete this debate. Topazemerald ( talk) 08:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The reference used to illustrate the article which "showed that breasts are often the first thing men look at, and for a longer time than other body parts" directs to an article in the Daily Telegraph which neither give the names of the authors nor the name of the actual paper.
Acknowledging that such a exposition of what the article is about can be beneficial for the readers, I think a link to the original article, titled Eye-tracking of men's preferences for waist-to-hip ratio and breast size of women. should be added as well. It can be accessed for free on ResearchGate.
The recommanded citation is "Dixson, B.J., Grimshaw, G.M., Linklater, W.L. et al. Arch Sex Behav (2011) 40: 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9523-5".
-- Lboukoko ( talk) 14:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)