Hi there, I made some formating changes, because there was very little under some of the headings, and replaced the original picture, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0, which, I think is freer than the coverpage. I left the SI picture in though, since I don't think there is a compelling reason not to include it, simply that the old one should not be replaced, since I think it is preferable. Hope that's ok, Trollderella 16:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the US. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible.
You also changed all of the formatting changes back, I'm not sure whether that is deliberate. Frankly, I preffer the original picture, but the point is that it is more free in terms of licensing. I did not remove the magazine cover, and would appreciate having both the pictures on the page. I gives downstream users an option in terms of a free image which they can use that the magazine cover does not. For that reason I think it should stay. Trollderella 17:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
No problem - philosophically, even if the magazine covers are fair use, I feel we should not use them in preference to genuinely free pictures. Trollderella 17:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The heart wants what it wants, I suppose. I really like the original, it is somewhat artistic, showing cleavage 'in the wild'! Trollderella 17:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, it seems clear to me, the image seems to draw attention to the feature in question, as opposed to the magazine cover, which draws attention to the face and is muddled. We're also trying to provide a free information resource, but yes, it looks ok now. Trollderella 18:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I am unable to find the terms used in this article to distinguish the various ways of exposing parts of the breasts ("cleavage décolleté," "cleavage centros," "cleavage côté," "cleavage underside," "cleavage cleavy") anywhere else on the Web except Wikipedia mirrors and Bikini Science. Are they truly "recognized in the fashion industry," or simply neoboobisms? I hope someone can cite authentic sources for these terms, or at least provide numerous photographs illustrating them from all angles. ➥the Epopt 21:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose merger. -- Arcadian 13:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose merger. The two terms are very different. Intermammary cleft, like inframammary cleft, is an anaatomical term used to describe the dimensions around the breasts. Cleavage is about the area of breast that shows outside the clothes. Cleavage can be reshaped by clothes, body position or gravity. Ghosts&empties 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
To my mind intermammary sulcus is the purely scientific term and, although arguably synonymous with cleavage, I think cleavage is a more social / fashionable term as denoted by the history of it (as lightly touched upon in the article, but could be expanded). That said, the intermammary sulcus article is rather short and if there really is nothing in it to be expanded on then probs worth deleting. Mmm, where does this leave me? 'Weak don't merge' Iancaddy 17:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems Ghosts&empties took it upon himself/herself to remove the merge templates without doing anything about it. It seems to me there are only two possibilities: Either they are the same thing, and should be merged, or they are different things, and someone should explain how they're different. Intermammary sulcus still says "commonly referred to as cleavage", and yet they are not merged. This is not a satisfactory situation. — Keenan Pepper 21:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I rolled back the image change; we prefer to use free images over copyright violations. ➥the Epopt 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. If someone doesn't explain how these are different within a couple of days, I'm merging them. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and should not have multiple entries for synonyms. — Keenan Pepper 23:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me attempt to clarify why I will continue to revert all attempts to add copyrighted images to this page: because they are copyrighted, and your fair use defense of your copyright violation is invalid unless you are discussing the image itself. For a magazine cover, you have to discuss that particular magazine's use of that particular image. You cannot use it to illustrate an article that has nothing to do with the image except that the woman in the image has an intermammary sulcus.
Yes, this means that the overwhelmingly vast majority of images that claim to be fair use are in fact indefensible copyright violations and should be summarily deleted. ➥the Epopt 16:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you folks think? The model is my wife, the picture is legal and public domain so no worries there. I took the picture for the downblouse article but they would look nice here too, and take care of any fair use worries. HighInBC 05:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, it was made for the downblouse article so it is clearly not suited for this one. HighInBC 16:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Crude comment removed [1]. HighInBC 19:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
would make sense to me to crop out the paper in the image... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.212.62 ( talk) 19:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Failed article, for the following reasons:
- Isopropyl 15:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Cleavage as defined is a partial revealing of the breast. How is it that cleavage came back with sweaters? This should be clarified. -- Lelek 06:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
As noted in the comment above, the section on the history of cleavage is unclear and very vague. Cleavage was popular long before "the late fifteenth century". Doing a brief history of cleavage (even a recent history) would be roughly akin to a brief history of women's fashion. The history section appears to have been an attempt to make the article appear encyclopedic. However the number of articles linking here demonstrate its significance.
I also deleted the image "1200cc Breast Implants.jpg" as an illustration of Australian cleavage because it's a better image of scary/scarry implants. The link to the album cover is fair use of a copyright image and more illustrative. Ghosts&empties 23:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Mark my words: neither this article nor Intermammary sulcus will ever become a featured article or even a good article without including information that belongs at the other. Go ahead, try to make Intermammary sulcus a featured article without talking about cleavage. Prove me wrong; I'd be delighted. — Keenan Pepper 20:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
As an Australian, I have never heard of the displaying of the underside of breasts being referred to as Australian cleavage. This term looks remarkably like an invention of a wikipedia author.
I have not tagged it {{fact}} yet but will do so unless someone can provide compelling evidence that the term exists outside a few wiki articles and copycat sites. If the term is unique to one country (eg the USA), it would be appropriate to say so in the article. -- AliceJMarkham 04:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not surprising that Australian Cleavage is an unknown term in Australia. It would be confusing (all cleavage in Australia is Australian) and the term "Down under", the basis for the joke is seldom used there. I know that Australian cleavage has been used in shock radio shows. H Bruthzoo 18:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
what is the purpose of the removeable pads in push up bras? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.212.149.192 ( talk) 07:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
During the 16th century some fashion had women's dresses with necklines that went down to the navel. Also in 18th century France cleavage was very popular, even as the expose the nipples. During the late Renaissance some dress even exposed the both breast of the women. All this applied to women of all classes. This page would look great with a historical section, and more images. -- Margrave1206 21:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing this for the moment, as it doesn't seem like an especially notable theory. It's just published on a blog, and it seems at odds with other attraction data pointing strongly to indicators of fertility and non-pregnancy, such as youthfulness and an hour glass figure.-- Ty580 16:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I humbly suggest
- it's an equally free image, and simply displays more cleavage than
. --
AnonEMouse
(squeak)
14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the substitution of Image:Densie Milani in pink.jpg for the lead image. Certainly enormous breasts nearly falling out of a skimpy top are eye-catching, but I don't think that's a better illustration of the subject of the article. Other thoughts? -- Infrogmation 20:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
In the best faith, I rather boldly changed the lead image to this:
for the following reasons: (a) It is a specific close-up, illustrative of the topic, (b) it portrays a "standard" display of cleavage (i.e. not involving unusually revealing clothing or abnormally large breasts; note the comment above by
Ty580), and (c) it is in the public domain. I think the first two of the above criteria make it more suitable for an encyclopaedic entry, the third particularly suitable for Wikipedia. I think it is a vast improvement on the previous images suggested. If you do revert, I won't hold anything against you, provided that you have and appropriate reasons, and explain them clearly on this discussion page. --
Dune911 (
talk)
18:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought the one from Dune911 ( talk) was very good. And if not that, then I think http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:And_shes_very_Intelligent,_too_(5505844).jpg is better than the Louise Glover pic, on purely OBbjective, aesthetic grounds: the Louise Glover pic has some jewellery right at the inflection point, which blocks one's view. -- 130.13.18.143 ( talk) 01:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
So the word cleave is one of those self-antonyms -- it can mean either "cling to" or "split from". And it seems that either of the two meanings could be relevant here. So which is it? Is it where the breasts cling together, or where they're split apart? -- 67.116.236.81 ( talk) 09:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
These terms are not notable on their own and should be merged with this article. This article should then be moved (or in this case, redirected) to Cleavage (anatomy) to better clarify the topic. I would appreciate input from other editors and if there's no opposition to the merger, it will be done in 48 hours. Otherwise, please leave your comments here. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 20:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The only halfway sensible section of this article is the second paragraph and even that has a silly title. 78.86.18.55 ( talk) 18:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The author seems to be preoccupied with breasts. My dictionary, Websters, says it has considerably less to do with boobs and much more to do with the style of the dress. An example of the correct usage is, ". . . her sister sat opposite him in a dress . . . with a particularly low, square-cut decolletage showing her white bosom." Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy. It's the dress, not the anatomy, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.135.99 ( talk) 19:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we please keep the Porn Stars and Pin-ups du jours off this page? You people are so obviously porn smeg-heads. You shoot yourself in the foot. If you keep associating cleavage with porn, most people will eschew it. Leave it as a people's natural thing and stop pornographing it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by True wiki guru ( talk • contribs)
Furthermore, I removed the bit about: "Theories of cleavage." This business has no place in an Encyclopedia; it isn't even correct. It is opinion and opinion only, being touted as fact. Frankly, none of this article has a place in an encyclopedia but it seems that we cannot keep the 10,000 monkeys away from the keyboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by True wiki guru ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I mean this from a encyclopedic standpoint, of course, when I say that the photos in this article are lacking. Does anyone know where better ones could be found? Fedordostoy ( talk) 20:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't cleavage the cleft between the bossoms? The article's first sentence makes it seem like it has to do with neckline of the shirt. But with without a shirt, there is still cleavage is there not? Do we need to consult an expert? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't find a way to determine the real date the audio file was created but it's clearly not 2010-06-07 as stated on the wiki article. Better remove the date and state something like "older version of the article and doesn't..." than having a future date standing there? --Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.85.183 ( talk) 11:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm attempting to reboot the discussion so we get focused on content.
The article is now locked down for a week. So we have over two dozen edits reverted. [3] Among them are fairly uncontroversial edits like these. [4] [5] [6] We need cogent discussion about why edits like these need to be reverted. Can those who reverted please explain themselves in more detail?
Peter Isotalo 12:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Any idea why Decolletage (note no accent) redirects to this article instead of Décolletage (with accent)?-- Theodore Kloba ( talk) 22:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The two articles are describing two aspects of the same thing: the Décolletage, which is the neckline, and the cleavage created by that neckline.
Fully a third of the body of the article on Décolletage is largely unsourced original research and ought to be removed. Both articles have a section on history. The well-sourced section of Décolletage has a decent section on the history of low necklines and cleavage. This article on cleavage covers that same subject: "Décolletage, which is the form of the neckline, is an aspect of woman's fashion. As such, popular necklines change over time and for different occasions."
Both articles refer to the bare-breasted Décolleté styles of the 17th and 18th century, to the fashions of Greece, how "In aristocratic and upper-class circles the display of breasts was at times regarded as a status symbol," the Renaissance, and the change when the Victorian era changed fashions. The only paragraph in the history section of cleavage that's not discussed in Décolletage is the paragraph beginning, "During the French Enlightenment, there was a debate as..."
So the history sections overlap considerably. Both will be enhanced when they are merged. — btphelps ( talk) ( contribs) 20:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
How could such a merger have worked? Lucy346 ( talk) 00:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The Sargent MadameX image is relevant "only" if the caption checks out. So far no citation has been provided to support the claim that - "This portrait by John Singer Sargent of Virginie Amélie Avegno Gautreau depicting her cleavage caused considerable controversy when it was displayed at the 1884 Salon in Paris". I have no clue why the "citation needed" tag was removed without providing a citation.
Even if it checks out, the image looks more appropriate for the "controversies" section than the "history" section, as it is about a controversy, and not historical evolution of the subject. Aditya( talk • contribs) 09:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The two articles are about the same thing, no matter how carefully crafted the intros are in a vein attempt to make them look like two separate subjects. No need to keep to separate articles. Aditya( talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I did notice the discussion. And the only significant argument there is - "Cleavage is body, décollete is clothing." But, that isn't really the only perspective. Both cleavage and décollete are fashion. Oxford Dictionary defines décolletage as "a woman’s cleavage as revealed by a low neckline on a dress or top" [7] and cleavage as "the hollow between a woman’s breasts when supported, especially as exposed by a low-cut garment" [8]. Essentially décolletage is cleavage revealing and the cleavage is the part revealed by décolletage. They are different subjects only in technicalities (what's next? two separate articles on left foot and right foot, because they are not the same? - joking). Sub-sections within the same article should be sufficient to cover the difference here. Notice that even in the earlier discussion the opposing views has explicitly mentioned that the two subjects are clearly overlapping and closely related.
I believe the discussion was closed without ample argument. While technically a rough consensus was reached, I'd like to invoke WP:CCC here and reopen the discussion (with probably more participation, if possible). Aditya( talk • contribs) 04:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
While the lead image shows ample cleavage, it has two clear flaws - (1) it is a top angle shot and therefore fails to capture a cleavage from vantage point of a regular decollete; and (2) it strongly depicts a downblouse, a voyeuristic aspect of a woman's cleavage as against a more social depiction of the subject.
Can it be replaced by any of the images on the right, or a similarly appropriate image? There are so many cleavage images in the commons that this should not be difficult at all. And, finally, I believe, a celebrity image from a public event or a mainstream published work has less personality right implications. Aditya( talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cleavage (breasts)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Goo":
Reference named "post":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
This book has lots of stuff on augmentation. This site has stuff on Dutch cleavage paintings. Aditya( talk • contribs) 13:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that you have removed the entire pathology section ( here) with an edit summary that says - "section on pathology is not a cleavage issue, but a general breast issue". There is a little problem with that removal and the rationale provided. I am sure that you have noticed it was a section on ailments that affect the cleavage, some were unique to the cleavage (cleavage wrinkle), some were not unique to the cleavage of breasts (Prurigo pigmentosa) and some were not limited to the cleavage area only (Poikiloderma of Civatte). How do you propose that they are not cleavage issues? Please notice, being comprehensive is a serious requirement.
I am reverting your edit. Please, discuss and try to build toward a consensus. If two involved editors can't solve an issue by mutual discussion then it is always possible to get other editors involved. Aditya( talk • contribs) 04:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
the formatting is terrible, using that as one of the justifications for removal. It isn't: just fix the dodgy formatting. - Sitush ( talk) 21:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I have removed some sections, specifically the tables, that suffered from WP:COATRACKing. The topics were either tangential or too specific for the article. The bra info belongs in the cleavage enhancement article, if anywhere. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 05:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
As requested by Cptnono, here's explanations of my edits
To be most honest, it seems you reverted just because you saw a lot of edits, but didn't actually investigate the edits in depth. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 20:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@ EvergreenFir: I think it should be discussed first is all, has a consensus formed yet on the issue? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge - you appear to have reverted for reverting's sake. There are multiple editors discussing this and other issues with the article and none seem to have a problem with the edits. The editor who did has not commented since the ANI was filed. Please consider reverting your edit. As Drmies and FormerIP said at the ANI, the bold edit is the restoration of that material, not its removal. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 04:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I would just prefer not to see the efforts of multiple editors reversed in one swoop with no explanation beyond, hey, let's go back to "stable". The point here is to improve the article. --
BoboMeowCat (
talk)
06:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Copied from a thread above:
The tables for bras etc are out of place in this article, ie: undue. It would be appropriate to have a section of text, with maybe just one image, that explained how the physiology can be impacted by the garments. It might also be appropriate to have a sentence or two about the opposite, which I think is called binding? In any event, a link to a more focussed article would be at the core of what we would say. FWIW, there are also numerous errors in the text of the table, mostly of the WP:OVERLINK, grammatical and repetitive variety. - Sitush ( talk) 00:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Can we please have a discussion in this section just about the table and, preferably, just about whether it should exist at all in this article rather than about any alleged inaccuracies etc within it. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 07:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The recent blanket reverts contained a whole range of edits that haven't been discussed at all. I have only been able to identify one post that actually relates to content. Images and various WP:COATRACK-related concerns are already being above. However, there are a whole bunch of edits that don't have anything to do with this. Here's a list sorted by concern:
And I should stress that all of these are clearly explained in the edit summaries. Anyone who feels the current version should stand needs to explain why they see these particular edits as problematic.
Peter Isotalo 21:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"In Europe during the Middle Ages WRONG PERIOD FOR SOURCE, when women wore shapeless clothing NO, art frequently portrayed women with one or more of their breasts exposed [NO, NOT either "around 341", or in the Middle Ages] to signify fertility rather than sexuality.[????]<re> Dr. Ava Cadell, " Why Men Are Fascinated with Big Breasts", Loveology University<ef> It was "easily fixed" by removing it. Quite a bit of the remaining "history of fashion" material is very poor, about 1/4 right. Johnbod ( talk) 00:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the discussion here about whether this page is sexist or a boon for pervs, I do not find the use of photos inappropriate when they are explanatory and an abundance of free photography is available. However, the "Cleavage enhancement" section sticks out to me.
First, this has a main article, but is not in short Summary Style and is only tangentially related to cleavage. Second, throughout the section it seems to make the assumption that bigger is better. It uses words like "enhancement" rather than "modification", whereas many women do in fact get breast reductions, which would also affect their cleavage. I wonder if there are even any reliable sources that discuss surgery in the context of cleavage that would verify the relevance. Is it common to get surgery specifically for the purpose of improving cleavage? CorporateM ( Talk) 15:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Ewawer and Tutelary: I removed the "bottom cleavage" section as it fails all verification. That term is not used by any RS to refer to breasts. I removed the downblouse section as it's WP:COATRACK and WP:OR. It's not about cleavage, it's about a sexual fetish. Also fails WP:V ( no mention of cleavage, no mention of cleavage, no mention of cleavage related to downblouse). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 04:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The section "Terminology" is formatted as a table, which is a very odd choice. The normal approach is always to render information like this in normal prose. The choice of layout in itself seems to be a way to fit as many cleavage shots as possible, including the questionable "bottom" cleavage pic. Except for being referred to (at times) with a term containing the word cleavage, it doesn't seem very relevant to cleavage at all. As far as I know, this is mostly known by the colloquial term "underboob".
Peter Isotalo 12:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Downblouse noun - a type of voyeurism devoted specifically to seeing a woman’s breasts looking down her blouse US, 1994
- • “Upskirt” and “downblouse” tapes often end up on the Internet, where anyone over 18 can legally view and buy them. — Charleston (West Virginia) Daily Mail 10th August 1998
I re-instated the relevant, sourced and cited material on the medical anatomical discussion of the subject. Which you reverted with an edit summary that said - the anatomical term is separate from cleavage. Can you, please, explain yourself? How is it different? Aditya( talk • contribs) 07:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there not an alternate image available that is somewhat less voyeuristic than File:Cleavage of a woman.jpg? Or is it just me who thinks it is thus? - Sitush ( talk) 22:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that the lead image is actually just fine. It's presenting cleavage, which is what this article is about. And what do you mean 'voyeuristic'? I don't want to present the everloving crap out of WP:NOTCENSORED, but I'm really not seeing a case for changing it other than subjective 'voyeurism'. It's a good presenting image of cleavage, and that's that. Tutelary ( talk) 22:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Do any of these images work for y'all?
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
All of those above suggested alternative images work better than the current image, but I think my favorite is the forth image (the close up of Bette Midler).-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 23:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I think all of the suggested images are inferior to the current one. The purpose of the image is to illustrate cleavage, not faces, figures, or celebrities.— Kww( talk) 00:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
And I thought it might be good to have someone who isn't white. It was just a suggestion.And the fact that that is even a factor in this discussion is a problem. Tutelary ( talk) 18:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Posted some more candidate pics above. And before anyone complains, yes, #8 is of Lisa Ann a porn star.
Peter Isotalo 18:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
ignoring the concerns of otherswhen in reality, we just see absolutely no good reason to change the lead image. Tutelary ( talk) 14:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
it certainly isn't the only acceptable image. I don't get the objection to using a pic taken from a more natural, less voyeuristic angle.I've said this before, 'voyeuristic' is subjective. Just because -you- find it voyeuristic does not mean that others see the same thing. This is similar to people trying to remove the images from the Fisting article because it's 'pornography'. No, it's not pornography, and the image is not voyeuristic. It's an encyclopedic image which accurately represents cleavage. In fact, if you even read the definition, a large amount of the photos that you guys propose would not even be considered cleavage as there is little space/no space between their breasts. Where cleavage ends and breasts begin is not exactly clear in the first place. This attempted replacement of the image is a solution in search of a problem. Tutelary ( talk) 16:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
it harms the credibility of the encyclopedia by presenting an image reminiscent of the male gaze and of downblouse images, is not a mere JDLI argument.. And really, my only possible rebuttal to that is that does not do those things and that it's just an encyclopedic stable image that has been here for quite some time. While actually a fallacy if used by itself-- 'tradition' fallacy, here I'm using it to say that the article has been stable with this for quite some time with this image and would need more better reasoning to remove/replace it. That also means that the current consensus is that the image is fine. It's up to you guys to convince the editors of this article otherwise, not mine attempting to keep the status quo. The edit warring relating to the sections was also unfortunate and will probably resume when the article gets unprotected; as well as the image fights. I do however adore that you finally mention a Wikipedia policy: WP:DUE. I can very much argue policy and guidelines and regularly do. According to the 'culture' section, there are at least 4 types of cleavage and downblouse is certainly one of them. Iff we do that because of those types of concerns, then #1 would be the winner. And is it really so much undue weight or is that image--while downblouse, show the clearest amount of cleavage. It is the space between the breasts and that shows a large amount of cleavage if that's the case, the image currently in the article is the winner. Tutelary ( talk) 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Cleavage (breasts). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cleavage (breasts). 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.wonderbra.co.za/nationalcleavageday.aspxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 06:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I made some formating changes, because there was very little under some of the headings, and replaced the original picture, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0, which, I think is freer than the coverpage. I left the SI picture in though, since I don't think there is a compelling reason not to include it, simply that the old one should not be replaced, since I think it is preferable. Hope that's ok, Trollderella 16:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the US. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible.
You also changed all of the formatting changes back, I'm not sure whether that is deliberate. Frankly, I preffer the original picture, but the point is that it is more free in terms of licensing. I did not remove the magazine cover, and would appreciate having both the pictures on the page. I gives downstream users an option in terms of a free image which they can use that the magazine cover does not. For that reason I think it should stay. Trollderella 17:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
No problem - philosophically, even if the magazine covers are fair use, I feel we should not use them in preference to genuinely free pictures. Trollderella 17:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The heart wants what it wants, I suppose. I really like the original, it is somewhat artistic, showing cleavage 'in the wild'! Trollderella 17:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, it seems clear to me, the image seems to draw attention to the feature in question, as opposed to the magazine cover, which draws attention to the face and is muddled. We're also trying to provide a free information resource, but yes, it looks ok now. Trollderella 18:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I am unable to find the terms used in this article to distinguish the various ways of exposing parts of the breasts ("cleavage décolleté," "cleavage centros," "cleavage côté," "cleavage underside," "cleavage cleavy") anywhere else on the Web except Wikipedia mirrors and Bikini Science. Are they truly "recognized in the fashion industry," or simply neoboobisms? I hope someone can cite authentic sources for these terms, or at least provide numerous photographs illustrating them from all angles. ➥the Epopt 21:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose merger. -- Arcadian 13:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose merger. The two terms are very different. Intermammary cleft, like inframammary cleft, is an anaatomical term used to describe the dimensions around the breasts. Cleavage is about the area of breast that shows outside the clothes. Cleavage can be reshaped by clothes, body position or gravity. Ghosts&empties 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
To my mind intermammary sulcus is the purely scientific term and, although arguably synonymous with cleavage, I think cleavage is a more social / fashionable term as denoted by the history of it (as lightly touched upon in the article, but could be expanded). That said, the intermammary sulcus article is rather short and if there really is nothing in it to be expanded on then probs worth deleting. Mmm, where does this leave me? 'Weak don't merge' Iancaddy 17:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems Ghosts&empties took it upon himself/herself to remove the merge templates without doing anything about it. It seems to me there are only two possibilities: Either they are the same thing, and should be merged, or they are different things, and someone should explain how they're different. Intermammary sulcus still says "commonly referred to as cleavage", and yet they are not merged. This is not a satisfactory situation. — Keenan Pepper 21:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I rolled back the image change; we prefer to use free images over copyright violations. ➥the Epopt 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. If someone doesn't explain how these are different within a couple of days, I'm merging them. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and should not have multiple entries for synonyms. — Keenan Pepper 23:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me attempt to clarify why I will continue to revert all attempts to add copyrighted images to this page: because they are copyrighted, and your fair use defense of your copyright violation is invalid unless you are discussing the image itself. For a magazine cover, you have to discuss that particular magazine's use of that particular image. You cannot use it to illustrate an article that has nothing to do with the image except that the woman in the image has an intermammary sulcus.
Yes, this means that the overwhelmingly vast majority of images that claim to be fair use are in fact indefensible copyright violations and should be summarily deleted. ➥the Epopt 16:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you folks think? The model is my wife, the picture is legal and public domain so no worries there. I took the picture for the downblouse article but they would look nice here too, and take care of any fair use worries. HighInBC 05:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, it was made for the downblouse article so it is clearly not suited for this one. HighInBC 16:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Crude comment removed [1]. HighInBC 19:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
would make sense to me to crop out the paper in the image... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.212.62 ( talk) 19:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Failed article, for the following reasons:
- Isopropyl 15:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Cleavage as defined is a partial revealing of the breast. How is it that cleavage came back with sweaters? This should be clarified. -- Lelek 06:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
As noted in the comment above, the section on the history of cleavage is unclear and very vague. Cleavage was popular long before "the late fifteenth century". Doing a brief history of cleavage (even a recent history) would be roughly akin to a brief history of women's fashion. The history section appears to have been an attempt to make the article appear encyclopedic. However the number of articles linking here demonstrate its significance.
I also deleted the image "1200cc Breast Implants.jpg" as an illustration of Australian cleavage because it's a better image of scary/scarry implants. The link to the album cover is fair use of a copyright image and more illustrative. Ghosts&empties 23:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Mark my words: neither this article nor Intermammary sulcus will ever become a featured article or even a good article without including information that belongs at the other. Go ahead, try to make Intermammary sulcus a featured article without talking about cleavage. Prove me wrong; I'd be delighted. — Keenan Pepper 20:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
As an Australian, I have never heard of the displaying of the underside of breasts being referred to as Australian cleavage. This term looks remarkably like an invention of a wikipedia author.
I have not tagged it {{fact}} yet but will do so unless someone can provide compelling evidence that the term exists outside a few wiki articles and copycat sites. If the term is unique to one country (eg the USA), it would be appropriate to say so in the article. -- AliceJMarkham 04:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not surprising that Australian Cleavage is an unknown term in Australia. It would be confusing (all cleavage in Australia is Australian) and the term "Down under", the basis for the joke is seldom used there. I know that Australian cleavage has been used in shock radio shows. H Bruthzoo 18:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
what is the purpose of the removeable pads in push up bras? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.212.149.192 ( talk) 07:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
During the 16th century some fashion had women's dresses with necklines that went down to the navel. Also in 18th century France cleavage was very popular, even as the expose the nipples. During the late Renaissance some dress even exposed the both breast of the women. All this applied to women of all classes. This page would look great with a historical section, and more images. -- Margrave1206 21:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing this for the moment, as it doesn't seem like an especially notable theory. It's just published on a blog, and it seems at odds with other attraction data pointing strongly to indicators of fertility and non-pregnancy, such as youthfulness and an hour glass figure.-- Ty580 16:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I humbly suggest
- it's an equally free image, and simply displays more cleavage than
. --
AnonEMouse
(squeak)
14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the substitution of Image:Densie Milani in pink.jpg for the lead image. Certainly enormous breasts nearly falling out of a skimpy top are eye-catching, but I don't think that's a better illustration of the subject of the article. Other thoughts? -- Infrogmation 20:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
In the best faith, I rather boldly changed the lead image to this:
for the following reasons: (a) It is a specific close-up, illustrative of the topic, (b) it portrays a "standard" display of cleavage (i.e. not involving unusually revealing clothing or abnormally large breasts; note the comment above by
Ty580), and (c) it is in the public domain. I think the first two of the above criteria make it more suitable for an encyclopaedic entry, the third particularly suitable for Wikipedia. I think it is a vast improvement on the previous images suggested. If you do revert, I won't hold anything against you, provided that you have and appropriate reasons, and explain them clearly on this discussion page. --
Dune911 (
talk)
18:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought the one from Dune911 ( talk) was very good. And if not that, then I think http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:And_shes_very_Intelligent,_too_(5505844).jpg is better than the Louise Glover pic, on purely OBbjective, aesthetic grounds: the Louise Glover pic has some jewellery right at the inflection point, which blocks one's view. -- 130.13.18.143 ( talk) 01:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
So the word cleave is one of those self-antonyms -- it can mean either "cling to" or "split from". And it seems that either of the two meanings could be relevant here. So which is it? Is it where the breasts cling together, or where they're split apart? -- 67.116.236.81 ( talk) 09:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
These terms are not notable on their own and should be merged with this article. This article should then be moved (or in this case, redirected) to Cleavage (anatomy) to better clarify the topic. I would appreciate input from other editors and if there's no opposition to the merger, it will be done in 48 hours. Otherwise, please leave your comments here. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 20:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The only halfway sensible section of this article is the second paragraph and even that has a silly title. 78.86.18.55 ( talk) 18:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The author seems to be preoccupied with breasts. My dictionary, Websters, says it has considerably less to do with boobs and much more to do with the style of the dress. An example of the correct usage is, ". . . her sister sat opposite him in a dress . . . with a particularly low, square-cut decolletage showing her white bosom." Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy. It's the dress, not the anatomy, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.135.99 ( talk) 19:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we please keep the Porn Stars and Pin-ups du jours off this page? You people are so obviously porn smeg-heads. You shoot yourself in the foot. If you keep associating cleavage with porn, most people will eschew it. Leave it as a people's natural thing and stop pornographing it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by True wiki guru ( talk • contribs)
Furthermore, I removed the bit about: "Theories of cleavage." This business has no place in an Encyclopedia; it isn't even correct. It is opinion and opinion only, being touted as fact. Frankly, none of this article has a place in an encyclopedia but it seems that we cannot keep the 10,000 monkeys away from the keyboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by True wiki guru ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I mean this from a encyclopedic standpoint, of course, when I say that the photos in this article are lacking. Does anyone know where better ones could be found? Fedordostoy ( talk) 20:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't cleavage the cleft between the bossoms? The article's first sentence makes it seem like it has to do with neckline of the shirt. But with without a shirt, there is still cleavage is there not? Do we need to consult an expert? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't find a way to determine the real date the audio file was created but it's clearly not 2010-06-07 as stated on the wiki article. Better remove the date and state something like "older version of the article and doesn't..." than having a future date standing there? --Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.85.183 ( talk) 11:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm attempting to reboot the discussion so we get focused on content.
The article is now locked down for a week. So we have over two dozen edits reverted. [3] Among them are fairly uncontroversial edits like these. [4] [5] [6] We need cogent discussion about why edits like these need to be reverted. Can those who reverted please explain themselves in more detail?
Peter Isotalo 12:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Any idea why Decolletage (note no accent) redirects to this article instead of Décolletage (with accent)?-- Theodore Kloba ( talk) 22:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The two articles are describing two aspects of the same thing: the Décolletage, which is the neckline, and the cleavage created by that neckline.
Fully a third of the body of the article on Décolletage is largely unsourced original research and ought to be removed. Both articles have a section on history. The well-sourced section of Décolletage has a decent section on the history of low necklines and cleavage. This article on cleavage covers that same subject: "Décolletage, which is the form of the neckline, is an aspect of woman's fashion. As such, popular necklines change over time and for different occasions."
Both articles refer to the bare-breasted Décolleté styles of the 17th and 18th century, to the fashions of Greece, how "In aristocratic and upper-class circles the display of breasts was at times regarded as a status symbol," the Renaissance, and the change when the Victorian era changed fashions. The only paragraph in the history section of cleavage that's not discussed in Décolletage is the paragraph beginning, "During the French Enlightenment, there was a debate as..."
So the history sections overlap considerably. Both will be enhanced when they are merged. — btphelps ( talk) ( contribs) 20:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
How could such a merger have worked? Lucy346 ( talk) 00:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The Sargent MadameX image is relevant "only" if the caption checks out. So far no citation has been provided to support the claim that - "This portrait by John Singer Sargent of Virginie Amélie Avegno Gautreau depicting her cleavage caused considerable controversy when it was displayed at the 1884 Salon in Paris". I have no clue why the "citation needed" tag was removed without providing a citation.
Even if it checks out, the image looks more appropriate for the "controversies" section than the "history" section, as it is about a controversy, and not historical evolution of the subject. Aditya( talk • contribs) 09:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The two articles are about the same thing, no matter how carefully crafted the intros are in a vein attempt to make them look like two separate subjects. No need to keep to separate articles. Aditya( talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I did notice the discussion. And the only significant argument there is - "Cleavage is body, décollete is clothing." But, that isn't really the only perspective. Both cleavage and décollete are fashion. Oxford Dictionary defines décolletage as "a woman’s cleavage as revealed by a low neckline on a dress or top" [7] and cleavage as "the hollow between a woman’s breasts when supported, especially as exposed by a low-cut garment" [8]. Essentially décolletage is cleavage revealing and the cleavage is the part revealed by décolletage. They are different subjects only in technicalities (what's next? two separate articles on left foot and right foot, because they are not the same? - joking). Sub-sections within the same article should be sufficient to cover the difference here. Notice that even in the earlier discussion the opposing views has explicitly mentioned that the two subjects are clearly overlapping and closely related.
I believe the discussion was closed without ample argument. While technically a rough consensus was reached, I'd like to invoke WP:CCC here and reopen the discussion (with probably more participation, if possible). Aditya( talk • contribs) 04:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
While the lead image shows ample cleavage, it has two clear flaws - (1) it is a top angle shot and therefore fails to capture a cleavage from vantage point of a regular decollete; and (2) it strongly depicts a downblouse, a voyeuristic aspect of a woman's cleavage as against a more social depiction of the subject.
Can it be replaced by any of the images on the right, or a similarly appropriate image? There are so many cleavage images in the commons that this should not be difficult at all. And, finally, I believe, a celebrity image from a public event or a mainstream published work has less personality right implications. Aditya( talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cleavage (breasts)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Goo":
Reference named "post":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
This book has lots of stuff on augmentation. This site has stuff on Dutch cleavage paintings. Aditya( talk • contribs) 13:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that you have removed the entire pathology section ( here) with an edit summary that says - "section on pathology is not a cleavage issue, but a general breast issue". There is a little problem with that removal and the rationale provided. I am sure that you have noticed it was a section on ailments that affect the cleavage, some were unique to the cleavage (cleavage wrinkle), some were not unique to the cleavage of breasts (Prurigo pigmentosa) and some were not limited to the cleavage area only (Poikiloderma of Civatte). How do you propose that they are not cleavage issues? Please notice, being comprehensive is a serious requirement.
I am reverting your edit. Please, discuss and try to build toward a consensus. If two involved editors can't solve an issue by mutual discussion then it is always possible to get other editors involved. Aditya( talk • contribs) 04:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
the formatting is terrible, using that as one of the justifications for removal. It isn't: just fix the dodgy formatting. - Sitush ( talk) 21:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I have removed some sections, specifically the tables, that suffered from WP:COATRACKing. The topics were either tangential or too specific for the article. The bra info belongs in the cleavage enhancement article, if anywhere. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 05:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
As requested by Cptnono, here's explanations of my edits
To be most honest, it seems you reverted just because you saw a lot of edits, but didn't actually investigate the edits in depth. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 20:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@ EvergreenFir: I think it should be discussed first is all, has a consensus formed yet on the issue? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge - you appear to have reverted for reverting's sake. There are multiple editors discussing this and other issues with the article and none seem to have a problem with the edits. The editor who did has not commented since the ANI was filed. Please consider reverting your edit. As Drmies and FormerIP said at the ANI, the bold edit is the restoration of that material, not its removal. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 04:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I would just prefer not to see the efforts of multiple editors reversed in one swoop with no explanation beyond, hey, let's go back to "stable". The point here is to improve the article. --
BoboMeowCat (
talk)
06:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Copied from a thread above:
The tables for bras etc are out of place in this article, ie: undue. It would be appropriate to have a section of text, with maybe just one image, that explained how the physiology can be impacted by the garments. It might also be appropriate to have a sentence or two about the opposite, which I think is called binding? In any event, a link to a more focussed article would be at the core of what we would say. FWIW, there are also numerous errors in the text of the table, mostly of the WP:OVERLINK, grammatical and repetitive variety. - Sitush ( talk) 00:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Can we please have a discussion in this section just about the table and, preferably, just about whether it should exist at all in this article rather than about any alleged inaccuracies etc within it. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 07:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The recent blanket reverts contained a whole range of edits that haven't been discussed at all. I have only been able to identify one post that actually relates to content. Images and various WP:COATRACK-related concerns are already being above. However, there are a whole bunch of edits that don't have anything to do with this. Here's a list sorted by concern:
And I should stress that all of these are clearly explained in the edit summaries. Anyone who feels the current version should stand needs to explain why they see these particular edits as problematic.
Peter Isotalo 21:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"In Europe during the Middle Ages WRONG PERIOD FOR SOURCE, when women wore shapeless clothing NO, art frequently portrayed women with one or more of their breasts exposed [NO, NOT either "around 341", or in the Middle Ages] to signify fertility rather than sexuality.[????]<re> Dr. Ava Cadell, " Why Men Are Fascinated with Big Breasts", Loveology University<ef> It was "easily fixed" by removing it. Quite a bit of the remaining "history of fashion" material is very poor, about 1/4 right. Johnbod ( talk) 00:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the discussion here about whether this page is sexist or a boon for pervs, I do not find the use of photos inappropriate when they are explanatory and an abundance of free photography is available. However, the "Cleavage enhancement" section sticks out to me.
First, this has a main article, but is not in short Summary Style and is only tangentially related to cleavage. Second, throughout the section it seems to make the assumption that bigger is better. It uses words like "enhancement" rather than "modification", whereas many women do in fact get breast reductions, which would also affect their cleavage. I wonder if there are even any reliable sources that discuss surgery in the context of cleavage that would verify the relevance. Is it common to get surgery specifically for the purpose of improving cleavage? CorporateM ( Talk) 15:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Ewawer and Tutelary: I removed the "bottom cleavage" section as it fails all verification. That term is not used by any RS to refer to breasts. I removed the downblouse section as it's WP:COATRACK and WP:OR. It's not about cleavage, it's about a sexual fetish. Also fails WP:V ( no mention of cleavage, no mention of cleavage, no mention of cleavage related to downblouse). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 04:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The section "Terminology" is formatted as a table, which is a very odd choice. The normal approach is always to render information like this in normal prose. The choice of layout in itself seems to be a way to fit as many cleavage shots as possible, including the questionable "bottom" cleavage pic. Except for being referred to (at times) with a term containing the word cleavage, it doesn't seem very relevant to cleavage at all. As far as I know, this is mostly known by the colloquial term "underboob".
Peter Isotalo 12:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Downblouse noun - a type of voyeurism devoted specifically to seeing a woman’s breasts looking down her blouse US, 1994
- • “Upskirt” and “downblouse” tapes often end up on the Internet, where anyone over 18 can legally view and buy them. — Charleston (West Virginia) Daily Mail 10th August 1998
I re-instated the relevant, sourced and cited material on the medical anatomical discussion of the subject. Which you reverted with an edit summary that said - the anatomical term is separate from cleavage. Can you, please, explain yourself? How is it different? Aditya( talk • contribs) 07:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there not an alternate image available that is somewhat less voyeuristic than File:Cleavage of a woman.jpg? Or is it just me who thinks it is thus? - Sitush ( talk) 22:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that the lead image is actually just fine. It's presenting cleavage, which is what this article is about. And what do you mean 'voyeuristic'? I don't want to present the everloving crap out of WP:NOTCENSORED, but I'm really not seeing a case for changing it other than subjective 'voyeurism'. It's a good presenting image of cleavage, and that's that. Tutelary ( talk) 22:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Do any of these images work for y'all?
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
All of those above suggested alternative images work better than the current image, but I think my favorite is the forth image (the close up of Bette Midler).-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 23:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I think all of the suggested images are inferior to the current one. The purpose of the image is to illustrate cleavage, not faces, figures, or celebrities.— Kww( talk) 00:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
And I thought it might be good to have someone who isn't white. It was just a suggestion.And the fact that that is even a factor in this discussion is a problem. Tutelary ( talk) 18:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Posted some more candidate pics above. And before anyone complains, yes, #8 is of Lisa Ann a porn star.
Peter Isotalo 18:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
ignoring the concerns of otherswhen in reality, we just see absolutely no good reason to change the lead image. Tutelary ( talk) 14:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
it certainly isn't the only acceptable image. I don't get the objection to using a pic taken from a more natural, less voyeuristic angle.I've said this before, 'voyeuristic' is subjective. Just because -you- find it voyeuristic does not mean that others see the same thing. This is similar to people trying to remove the images from the Fisting article because it's 'pornography'. No, it's not pornography, and the image is not voyeuristic. It's an encyclopedic image which accurately represents cleavage. In fact, if you even read the definition, a large amount of the photos that you guys propose would not even be considered cleavage as there is little space/no space between their breasts. Where cleavage ends and breasts begin is not exactly clear in the first place. This attempted replacement of the image is a solution in search of a problem. Tutelary ( talk) 16:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
it harms the credibility of the encyclopedia by presenting an image reminiscent of the male gaze and of downblouse images, is not a mere JDLI argument.. And really, my only possible rebuttal to that is that does not do those things and that it's just an encyclopedic stable image that has been here for quite some time. While actually a fallacy if used by itself-- 'tradition' fallacy, here I'm using it to say that the article has been stable with this for quite some time with this image and would need more better reasoning to remove/replace it. That also means that the current consensus is that the image is fine. It's up to you guys to convince the editors of this article otherwise, not mine attempting to keep the status quo. The edit warring relating to the sections was also unfortunate and will probably resume when the article gets unprotected; as well as the image fights. I do however adore that you finally mention a Wikipedia policy: WP:DUE. I can very much argue policy and guidelines and regularly do. According to the 'culture' section, there are at least 4 types of cleavage and downblouse is certainly one of them. Iff we do that because of those types of concerns, then #1 would be the winner. And is it really so much undue weight or is that image--while downblouse, show the clearest amount of cleavage. It is the space between the breasts and that shows a large amount of cleavage if that's the case, the image currently in the article is the winner. Tutelary ( talk) 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Cleavage (breasts). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cleavage (breasts). 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.wonderbra.co.za/nationalcleavageday.aspxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 06:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)