Talk:Breast/Archive 3

photos and questions about this article
The first photo looks like regular normal breasts. The woman might be pregnant -- I believe whoever says she is -- but it doesn't look particularly like a pregnant woman's breasts. The caption seems like an excuse for having the photo there. Maybe readers don't know what breasts look like, and that's why this article has so many photos, and needs one right at the beginning.

As the director of a research center on women's and kids health, we actually get emails from girls and women of all ages worried because their breasts don't look perfect. So, let's not have a wikipedia article contributing to that.

If the purpose of the photos is to educate, how about using some photos from this website, showing a diversity rather than mostly idealized versions: http://www.007b.com/breast_gallery.php

I found the comments about "some people think that older women's breasts look unattractive" offensive. And, I don't think it adds anything to the article.

If we're going to have a section on plastic surgery, then I would like to add some sociological analyses from books about the American culture's obsession with "perfect breasts" as well as psychological studies showing that women who undergo breast augmentation tend to feel worse about themselves and their lives than women who don't. There are 5 studies showing that women who undergo breast augmentation are twice as likely to kill themselves as other plastic surgery patients and other women of the same age and social class. But frankly, it was easier to just delete the 3 sentences about breast augmentation rather than add a few paragraphs. I didn't revise the content on breast reconstruction.

By the way, I was at a meeting with pediatricians today, who told me that 13-year old boys are using illegal drugs so that they can develop a 6-pack. If this continues, boys will be just as depressed about how they look as girls are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drzuckerman (talk • contribs).
 * I would disagree that the pictures represent overly idealized breasts other then the one labled which appear natural. The first picture is certainly plausible to be lactating, although the angle makes it hard to assess as you mention.
 * The specific issue of mental illness/suicide among the implant group is more appropriately disscussed in the body dysmorphic and depression arenas as that's more of a correlative relationship with both augmentation and other cosmetic surgery procedures. This entry is ripe for more discussion of cross-cultural attitudses towards breasts which would dovetail with your suggestion on American pop-culture attitudes on ideal breast aesthetics (from Twiggy to Baywatch) and the resultant psychologyDroliver 04:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Drzuckerman, that site has been mentioned before, and as I said then, I see no problem with including images from it. However, the site's watermarks are not particularly helpful - are there versions without the watermarks?  Additionally, the site's description of breasts as "immature" when pregnancy has not yet occurred, regardless of age, seems to fly in the face of commonly-accepted notions of what maturation is, so we would probably want to avoid bringing the site's POV in along with the images.  It would definitely be appropriate and informative to have at least one image of a woman with a distinct disparity in size between her breasts; as the site points out, it is quite common.  The watermarks seem to indicate to me that the site does not want their images re-used (as that is why most sites watermark); it might be best to contact an administrator of that site to ask permission before we use any of their images.  Who knows, maybe the administrator will let us have un-watermarked copies.  Kasreyn 08:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Kasreyn, I've got some photos from my patients which are can demonstrate some signifigant varience issues effectively. I'll add that when I get around to it.Droliver 19:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be certain that these patients understand & release their images to be used on Wikipedia, otherwise it is likely that an editor will remove them. A good way to avoid a row would be to make sure the photos are not personally identifiable (bluntly put, photoshop them and crop out the heads and other identifying portions).  But still, it would ease my mind to know that your patients were OK with the images being used.  Thanks for the offer!  Kasreyn 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean?
inframammary line? Theirs no article about it...And its mentioned.--64.121.1.55 02:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * please look in the section on anatomy. The inframammory fold (IMF) is the crease formed on the chest wall between elements in the skin and deeper connective tissue on the chest wall. It is boundry inferiorly of breast tissue & a landmark in cosmetic & reconstructive surgeryDroliver 14:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reverting - do not start another edit war, Oliver
A number of other editors have left the version on plastic surgery which you keep changing. THe version as it is now is accurate. Because you or some other plastic surgeons will operate on a teenager, does not make it consensus, or appropriate.Jance 16:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but looking at the edit in question, I see a highly informative and neutral version (Oliver's), and a less-informative version that seems to stray into anti-plastic-surgery advocacy (yours). Please describe on the talk page what problem you have with Droliver's version rather than blind-reverting and namecalling.  Cheers, Kasreyn 23:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. It seems to me entirely appropriate to include a section on plastic surgery of the breast, as it is a widespread procedure and of legitimate interest to someone studying the overall subject.  It's also certainly worthwhile to note what medical and governmental authorities have had to say on the advisability of said procedure.  However, if we are to have such a section, it makes no sense for the section to say nothing of what the procedure is, how it is done, and why women (and men) elect to have it done to them.  Motivation, availability, frequency, success rate - all these are factors which are not being covered by the section as it stands.  Kasreyn 00:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You think all these points should be made in this article? An article on breast implants already exists.  It is true that the US FDA only recently approved silicone implants for women 22 years old and older.  However,  change it back if you prefer.   After all, doctorsare above rules, and are not required to defer to regulatory approvals and conditions, at least not in the US.   I didn't always have any 'advocacy' regarding plastic surgery one way or the other.  However, it is true that after reading the studies and seeing the short duration and the limitations, and having had so many problems from ruptured silicone implants (after reconstruction), I am sceptical of those who promote them.  I wish women knew what they are getting into, but I fear they never will as long as plastic surgons continue to boast of how wonderful implants are while downplaying (or omitting) the risks.  And, I have to say also, that after seeing some plastic surgeons in action, it would be a cold day in hell before I trusted one for any reason.  But that is a personal bias.  By the way, I only wrote the sentence on the FDA - somebody else wrote (and cited) the rest of it.  And I find it interesting why you do not think a plastic surgeon who makes his living putting in breast implants, has no plastic-surgery advocacy (sic)..  Jance 07:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize if it seemed I was putting words in your mouth; but nevertheless, the version Droliver was favoring seemed to me more NPOV than yours, not to mention having more information about what the procedure was and the reasons why it is performed.
 * My standard test of encyclopedic notability is something I call the "alien test". If aliens came to Earth, hacked into the internet, and studied Wikipedia, what things would they be confused about?  What would a complete outsider want to know about the topic?  The first thing that occurs to me is, they would want to know why a woman would do this to herself.  It's a very drastic and seemingly useless thing to have done (in my opinion), so there must be a compelling motivation behind it.  Furthermore, they'd probably want to know what exactly is involved in the procedure, rather than just who approves and disapproves of it.  Remember not to assume too much knowledge on the part of the reader; this is an encyclopedia after all, and it's probably better to err on the side of reader ignorance.  Under-completeness is worse than over-completeness, in my opinion.
 * And I do agree with you that we don't need to duplicate the entire article on breast implants here. A few sentences should suffice; one to explain the general concept, one to describe what the procedure is, one to explain motivation, and a couple more to illustrate the public controversy over the acceptability/advisability of the procedure, should do it.  I just feel that, both here and in the main article, the ongoing war over technicalities of failure modes, and over quotations of various organizations' statements pro and con, are being over-focussed on, with too little attention being paid to other aspects, including what is motivating people to have the procedure in the first place.  Kasreyn 07:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very reasonable comment, Kasreyn. Agreed, although I do not think Dr. Oliver's edits are NPOV.  That said, they are mostly accurate here - especially since plastic surgeons can bypass FDA approval conditions as "off label" use.  Motivation on this issue, of course, it a subject unto itself!  I now agree with you that breast implantation is a useless thing to done, but I didn't always feel that way.  I should have listened to my mother back then, who understood why I wanted to have the surgery but commented that she didn't think it was a good idea to put a foreign object in your body, unless it was absolutely necessary.  Sigh; it is the proverbial "You should listen to your mother".  She now has a heart stent, and a pacemaker, both of which are lifesaving devices.  And at 86, she will not likely live long enough to worry about long-term "results".  Breast implants are so very different.  And the reasons women have them are diverse... but ultimately it comes down to appearance.  This is true regardless of the individual circumstances.  When I was a teenager, a doctor called my breasts 'deformed'.  I was humiliated.  His comment was accurate, but not very sensitive.  Teenage girls - and boys - are impressionable, and concerned about how they look.  That is normal.  What should not be normal is a societal overemphasis on "perfect" or large breasts.  Now, not only are absent or significantly assymetrical/tubular breasts portrayed as 'abnormal', but minor assymetry and small breasts are as well.  I have perused some of the 'pro-implant' websites (for lack of a better term), and am stunned at the interest in D, DD, or even larger breasts.  Are these women insecure?  Mentally disturbed?  Maybe, maybe not.  However, many plastic surgeons do not question a woman's mental stability when it comes to inserting breast implants.  They do, however, dismiss these same women as unstable when they later complain or want to have the implants removed (and not replaced).  Indeed, some plastic surgeons have inserted larger implants than the women requested.  And, others  have encouraged larger sizes.  Why?  As I said, motivation is a hard thing to define.  Jance 22:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've updated this reflecting the clin-med discussion. Several of the refs subsequently added re. breast feeding were attached adjacent to mention of that in the broad sentence describing what we tend to emphasize during a discussion with patients preoperatively. I'm not sure that the brevity of this segment requires disecting these risks further into the different procedures (reduction vs. biopsy/lumoectomy vs. implants) or by what kind of incisions are used even though both have a great deal of influence on lactation. The take home message is that those are common to any surgeryDroliver 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Anatomy needs updating
New research of the anatomy of the human breast has overturned some of the data in this article. See breast anatomy for details.
 * Wow. breast anatomy is a great article, and without a "booby gallery".  So now, why is it necessary to have two different articles on breasts?  Jance 23:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jance. Breast anatomy certainly needs more edits; it's just a start at updating information that most people still have totally wrong! (Pworms 10:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Maybe you have too many pictures up
I was thinking maybe you have too many pictures of the same body part, turning the article into more of a "boobie gallery" than a legit article. (this unsigned statement was made by Harmsc12 at 20:28, 4 December 2006)
 * Agreed. Also, "normal" breasts vary widely in size and shape.   Do readers not know what "normal" breasts look like, and is it necessary to define it for them?
 * (this unsigned statement was made by Jance at 23:00, 4 December 2006)


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

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


 * See Talk:Breast above. Also, even if there is a consensus to use a different photo, there should be something in the lead. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  23:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you - I didn't see that. It appears that someone else also objected to that "lead" photo, and there was quite a bit of objection to the same things..

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


 * I think it's an appropriate lead photo, as it is one of the highest-quality photos in the article. Given the wide variety of breast shapes and sizes, I don't think the amount of photos is excessive (though I don't think we really need any more, either). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


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

I'll take your word for it that you think that photo is inappropriate, Jance, but I honestly don't see how. It's a high quality non-pornographic photograph. I don't understand...what would be appropriate? (BTW, if you want to see really inappropriate photos, you should see some of the stuff people have added that I've reverted.) -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  23:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you about the really inappropriate stuff. I don't know that I said "inappropriate" - I believe I said another (the anatomy diagram) might be "more appropriate".  There is a difference.    I guess my question about the lead photo would be "what is the purpose"?  What is the purpose of the photo entitled "normal breasts"?  What is a "normal breast" and who defines it?  Jance 01:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that "normal" as used here, unless we can cite a verifiable and reliable medical source (and maybe not even then), is a subjective opinion and should be removed. The offending caption, that is - not the picture!  Kasreyn 03:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose is to illustrate the subject of the article. There should be a lead picture here for the same reason there's a lead picture in Hand, Foot, Hair, Automobile, Fixed-wing aircraft...anything you can point to. Turning the question around, why should there not be a lead picture in this article? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  01:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me, or I did not express my self well. I did not ask what the purpose was of a lead photo.  I asked what the purpose is of that photo.  What is the purpose of having multiple photos?  What I gave you was an alternative as a lead photo, that you did not address (either time I mentioned it).  Jance 02:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, see my comment in the section "Pics" above. I was the editor who originally added the image, if I remember correctly.  I did so because it seemed to be a good compromise between the extremely clinical presentation favored by some, and the overly eroticized presentation preferred by others.  Over the following months the image has proved to be an effective compromise, if I'm not mistaken.  While it's true that WP is not a porn site, it's also true that WP also has no obligation to deliberately avoid anything that might be titillating or aesthetic to someone.  I felt the image's greatest value was in its tastefulness when compared to other images, which either overly-objectified the woman as sex object or overly-objectified her as a research subject, neither of which treats the subject as a human being.  Human beings are more than just a collection of body parts, each of which can be clinically separated from the others and studied.  Perhaps that would be justifiable in a medical text, but WP is not a medical text - it is a general purpose universal encyclopedia.  I think the image should remain.  Kasreyn 04:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments (below). Compare this article to the article on "penis".  A better choice would be Image:Illu breast anatomy.jpg.  It is not an issue of "titilating" but one of encyclopedic style;  the lead picture is indeed good quality, but does not look like most non-altered breasts, in my opinion.  Out of curiosity, I did search for "penis" in Wiki, and I note that it has no lead photo.  The very few photos that are there are far more realistic than what is here for breasts.  There is also no discussion of penile implant, although that is done, albeit not as frequently as breast implants.  It  is not that big of a deal though, and I don't think it is worth arguing about.  Jance 02:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, no, as a matter of fact. The current lead image does look more like most breasts, because it's very rare to see a breast with a cross-section cut out of it when you're out walking around.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but a photograph is always more illustrative of the real world than an illustration.  Illustrations are useful for providing detail and explanation of otherwise hidden parts of an object or system, and for that reason, photographs and illustrations ought to go hand in hand.  But photographs represent things in the form the reader is likely to encounter them in, which makes them more valuable as identifiers and representatives.
 * You continue to drag the Penis article into this, which puzzles me. We here are not concerned with what is done with that article, and whether the editors of that article chose to do this or that thing.  Consensus for this article is established by the editors here, and the opinions of editors there mean nothing unless they are brought into it by one of us.  I happen to edit both articles, but I'm sure I'm in a minority in that regard.
 * I also begin to wonder what you consider a "realistic" photo of a breast, since apparently none of the ones in this article qualify for you. Kasreyn 08:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Kasreyn, keep the photo. It's not that big of a deal. And, I didn't say that the other photos are objectionable, did I?  Where?  You know, this is silliness, and I don't care to participate.  If you want to keep it, keep it.  Jim below was willing to consider another pic, why aren't you?  Is that a problem?  And no, I dont think Oliver is any  more able to determine what is realistic than anyone else.   I asked for consensus (see below).  Is that a problem?  If you want to minimize conflict (which is a good thing) then perhaps bringing up the one person whom you know was arguing with me on that page was not a good idea.  Just a thought.  But you do whatever you want.  I'm bowing out.Jance 05:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I could be convinced that Image:Illu breast anatomy.jpg would work as the lead image. My major objection was that you just removed the lead image, leaving nothing there. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, my desire is not to censor, and I do not think the showing of breasts, or any body part for that matter, "hurts children" as one editor suggested. I do wonder about this choice, for different reasons.Jance 02:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, possibly I'm being obtuse, but your original edit didn't substitute a picture, it just removed the lead picture. And I don't see the phrase "normal breasts" anywhere in the article. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  02:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you are correct and I was mistaken. The photo does not say "normal" but instead "human breasts". My original edit did not suggest a substitute, but I did after you made your first comment. I suggested the diagram of the breast anatomy, or even perhaps a more realistic photo of breasts (the lead picture is indeed good quality, but does not look like most non-altered breasts, in my opinion.) If you or others are wedded to that photo, leave it. Out of curiosity, I did search for "penis" in Wiki, and I note that it has no lead photo. The very few photos that are there are far more realistic than what is here for breasts. There is also no discussion of penile implant, although that is done, albeit not as frequently as breast implants. It is not that big of a deal though, and I don't think it is worth arguing about. Jance 02:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I could be convinced that Image:Illu breast anatomy.jpg would work as the lead image. My major objection was that you just removed the lead image, leaving nothing there. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a fair objection, and I had not thought it through. My apology.  I think  Image:Illu breast anatomy.jpg  is probably a better lead pic. It certainly looks more encyclopedic and less like a "boobie gallery" (as one user mentioned).   Jance 02:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I should mention I tried to move the breast anatomy pic at the top, but in preview my attempt didn't work. I was unsure how to do it.  Take a look at the article "penis" -- there is a box there that has the latin term and a few things.  I don't know how to do that, either, but to insert a comparable box for breasts would be consistent, and informative.  I just looked at the "edit" there and saw that it was not a box template but was created manually.  Something like that would be useful here. Jance 02:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I made one minor edit, to which I hope nobody objects. I deleted the words "it should be noted that" as they are not needed in the sentence.  It is minor change, but the unnecessary addition of that phrase bugs me.  It is bad writing.Jance 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're quite right. "It should be noted that", and other phrases of its ilk, are a form of "leading", or subtle editorializing, which isn't appropriate in WP articles.  See also WP:AWW.  You did right to remove it.  Kasreyn 04:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In this case, I didn't see it as editorializing, but simply bad writing style. It reminds me of "the fact that".  Yich.Jance 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's also bad writing, which is true. But I call it editorializing because it has an imperative tone:  "It should be noted", which is an implied command:  "You should note".  This is editorializing in that it instructs the reader in how to direct their attention, which is definitely not compatible with a neutral point of view.  Cheers, Kasreyn 08:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read the entire debate above, but I read some of it. I have some expertise in recognizing breast implants, though such expertise is fairly common. The common traits of breast implants are:


 * the breasts are generally dome-shaped
 * the top of the breast curves inward convexly and sharply terminates on the chest
 * the nipples are located in the dead-center of the breast

Now that you mention it, the breasts in the lead image do look slightly fake, but they are certainly not conclusively fake. I do not object to the lead image, but I do object to it being called 'pregnant', because a pregnant belly can not be seen in the picture.

Embryoglio 10:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lede photo
Jim, do you think that the diagram is acceptable for a lead pic? As I said, "penis" does not even have a lead photo. I am not entirely sure that a large photo of either a penis or a breast is necessary to identify the object about what we are talking. It seems that Kasryn thinks we should also have a larg photo of a penis as a lead pic, but nobody else there seemed to think so. So I would like to get a consensus here, as well.Jance 22:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Fat and connective tissue
The Anatomy section contains this sentence: "The rest of the breast is composed of connective tissue, i.e., adipose tissue (fat) and Cooper's ligaments."

This says that fat is a type of connective tissue. Is that medically correct? My understanding is that fat doesn't anchor anything to anything — it just sits there. Cognita 23:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Of course it's false. Connective tissue primarily consists of the proteins collagen and elastin. I corrected it even before I saw that you pointed it out. Embryoglio 09:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How many photos?
I shuffled the photos around to include a subtle lead image and removed the redundant pregnant photos as the article looks more like a photo gallery and not an encyclopedic article on breast. --I already forgot 08:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A comparison of different sizes and shapes is very informative and is very encyclopedic. Any attempt to differ is censorship. --MotherAmy 01:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh please. Censorship my arse. Soon as anyone makes encyclopedic type of changes to an article that contains erotic images or nude photos, the users watching the article cry censorship. I follow no religion or political party and I have no children so I consider myself without bias. What I do follow is the desire to make all the articles on wikipedia more encyclopedic. When the article may be controversial or offensive, I try and use tact to present a more neutral tone. Moving the painting to the top as a subtle intro and removing multiple photos of supposed pregnant women makes for a better article. The photos removed were no different from each other (except for the changes caused by gravity) and gave no signs of pregnancy. Now if the breast were of the same person during different stages of pregnancy, that would definitely be encyclopedic and interesting to see. Crying censorship is an excuse to protect the article to how you see fit. Sorry for the uncivil tone but I do not like being accused of censorship when I have fought against it for many years.--I already forgot 03:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have to emulate traditional encyclopedias. I don't see the problem with an article about breasts including a tasteful, good-quality photo of breasts in the intro. OhNo itsJamie Talk 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I want to make it clear that I'm not emulating anything. I want to help to improve the article to cut down on the types of discussion above (dec 5th) as its obvious some readers and editors think the lead image should be change. Whatever, I did what I could. I'll leave this article to the regulars.--I already forgot 05:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's see.
 * I follow no religion or political party and I have no children so I consider myself without bias.
 * No one is without bias, even if it's only the run-of-the-mill self-serving bias.
 * Your other point, about the two images being too similar and serving no purpose, seems worth discussing to me. If only you had discussed it first.
 * I would also tend to agree with you that MotherAmy's reply was overly harsh. For what it's worth, I don't accuse you of attempted censorship, IAF; just that your edits touch on something that's rather contentious at this article and would be better served by discussion and consensus-building rather than unilateral action.  There is indeed such a thing as difference of editorial opinion, and it doesn't always equate to censorship.  Cheers, Kasreyn 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "No one is without bias, even if it's only the run-of-the-mill self-serving bias."
 * Bias like prejudice is a conscious though that we decide to act on. Stating no one is without bias sounds more like a philosophical statement meant to conjure up a level of superior intellect but in fact leads the examined to look at the examiner as one who limits the ability to extend thought process for pseudo-intellectual cliches. Conscious decision is an algorithm that is influenced by many factors of which the aforementioned factor in none. If you are refereeing to conscious decisions that are made for self gratification, please provide the gratifying medium, as I know of no such vehicle relating to this article.--I already forgot 00:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, look it up. The self-serving bias is typically acted upon unconsciously (ie. without self-awareness that bias even exists), which is what makes it so pervasive.  I was not accusing you of such a thing, merely noting that everyone's beliefs are filtered by their own perceptions.  In that, you're right that it's a very minor and pedantic point, and certainly superficial to my argument.  Kasreyn 05:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a firm believer that some of us are able to attain a level of consciousness that the majority of others consider unconsciousness. The separation seems to be bridge by knowledge and analytical thought. With that said, I'm sure I've violated a guideline relating to off topic discussion so thanks for the conversation and happy editing. --I already forgot 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:I already forgot seems to have forgot that he/she said above "I'll leave this article to the regulars." and has returned to play the censorship game again. His/her last revert (image removal) had the odd explanation that breasts are unrelated to breastfeeding. Wow, that's a revelation. I'm not a regular nor an expert on the subject, but the image he seems intent on removing is valid and appropriate and shouldn't offend anyone (well maybe some fundamentalist religeous types who are offended by life). Cheers, Vsmith 01:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, since I'm being accused of censorship I'll speak freely and lower myself a couple of levels for this discussion as to not be accused of censoring myself.


 * Please stop with the fucking idiotic censorship accusations bullshit. I looked up the 100 most viewed articles a couple weeks ago and found this one on the list. The god damned fucking article sucks ass but is in the top 100 wikipedia articles so I thought maybe I could help improve it by addressing some of the concerns discussed on the talk page and that's it. Your talk of fundamentalist religious types and being offending is horse shit. None of that bullshit has anything to do with a shitty article or a low quality top 100 viewed wikipedia article. As for your comment on "unrelated to breastfeeding", what the fuck is the point of adding another pair of breast to a sub section on breast feeding if it doesn’t show any kind of relationship to breast feeding in itself. I like to read, if the image relates directly to what I'm reading in the sub section, show it to me. In this case, the sub section is about breast feeding and has an image of a baby breast feeding. Holy shit, what a concept, a sub section about breast feeding and a photo of a baby breast feeding...heavy. Now I read on in the breast feeding section and there is another image of breast. Why am I seeing an image of breast again? Are they related to breast feeding? Huh, I don’t know. Oh, you say it’s an image of breast in a breast article. No shit, I got that after the first image? Oh, you say that it’s a photo of breast and that breast are used for breast feeding. Again, no shit, I got that after looking at the image of a baby sucking on a tit. So now I question what kind of crazy nonsense is going on here? Also, how about some civility instead of the personal attacks and how about improving a top 100 article instead of the same old censorship cackle?


 * (*Disclaimer: I respect all religions, beliefs, races, genders, sexual preference, etc and respect/admire these beliefs though I may not agree or understand them. I apologize if I have offended anyone as I usually try to show respect in public places to anyone and everyone.)--I already forgot 10:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A spew of profanities and gutter talk such as the above tirade will gain you no respect. Such language is most uncivil (and in case you wonder, I spent a few years in the USMC so that kind of language doesn't really bother me personally. However it does reflect poorly on the poster). Vsmith 01:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "A spew of profanities and gutter talk such as the above tirade will gain you no respect. Such language is most uncivil"


 * I agree. That was the point (please read first sentence about speaking on a lower level) and I could not have asked for a better response to illustrate the issue. --I already forgot 18:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the article a few days ago and I did not understand how the picture in question added value to the article. It was not unique, demonstrating some aspect of the subject as other photos already did. I considered editing it to make the article more concise, but did not. Now someone else has tried to remove it, apparently for similar reasoning. I don't think it is offensive, nor is it a bad photo, but it just doesn't seem to add any additional information to the article that is not already there in the other photos. We have no need to make a collection of breast photos, do we? I do note that there do not seem to be any male breast photos. Atom 02:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

More censorship talk. Any attempt to remove any image should be met with a vandalism warning. The picture in question adds value because different pictures shows different types of shapes and sizes. If you do not like the picture in question then go ahead and take your top off and yeah -- show us what you got. --MotherAmy 02:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to suspect you as a Troll. --I already forgot 10:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Even more censorship talk. Get a life, please. The pictures will stay and you will go. --MotherAmy 19:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, they won't stay unless you can gain consensus for its inclusion. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with JPGordon. Get consensus please, rather than trying to force your view.  This is editorial discretion, and not censorship.  Please see  WIP Image Guidelines where we discuss using redundant images.  You are likely to gain consensus if you can just explain how the image you are fighting over is valuable to the article, rather than screaming censorship.  When someone tries to remove all of the images of breasts, then we can all start claiming censorship.  Atom 20:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You also need consensus to exclude the image. I agree with MotherAmy. Also, I can not see how the image in question is _not_ related to breastfeeding; please explane. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honeymane (talk • contribs).


 * Well, I'll concede that it depicts the organ used in breastfeeding, as does every other picture in the article; in other words, it's redundant in that regard. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The image is of a breast, but has nothing to do with breastfeeding. The article does have other images of the breast.  I am just asking what is unique that is not demonstrated by the other pictures?  As I said previously, additional images should add to the article in some recognizable way.  Consensus is not needed to edit the article, or to apply policies or guidelines.  Instead of repreatedly adding the image back, why not explain how the image increases the value of the article?  I for one would agree for more images with no problem if they added information or illustrated something discussed that the other images do not already illustrate well.  Atom 03:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the reasoning behind the images is that the female breast comes in made shapes and sizes, only including the the larger, well definded breasts is as bad as having only the smaller less well defined breasts, as well as various stages of 'saging'. I'm going out on a limb and staying this is censorship. While the removal of the image can be discused and a consensus reached, removing the image on one's own should not be done, mostly due to the censorship issues with this article, such as Bobsmith (or whatever his name is) in the above paragraphs.


 * Something one must understand about getting a 'concsenus' is that this is not democracy, while voting does happen, the majority of people must agree with the concept or idea, or proposed change, and one can not get that in the space of hoursm and not on christmas day/boxing day.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 05:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And seeing as it's already in the article, we must discuss the change, not whether or not we we're right in the first place. So, given the history of the article, as well as people's reactions to breasts, I do believe that this is, in fact, censorship.


 * Nope. It's editing. It's the Wikipedia process, in a nutshell. Removing things from article because you or someone else find it offensive: perhaps censorship. Removing things from article because you find doing so improves the article: editing. It's what we do here. And my editorial choice -- which, like any editor here, I'm trying to win support for -- is that the non-breastfeeding-related picture doesn't fit, and is unnecessary, in the section on breastfeeding. If you want more illustration there, find something relevant to the section! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well said and thanks for using a level head. Aside from User:MotherAmy, I think what we may be seeing here are the regular editors who have exhaustively protected the article from real censorship and blatant mass removal of images to a point that it has become a routine instead of a judgment. Anyway, I agree that article should focus on using images as illustrations to the subject (breast feeding, anatomy, etc.) as you suggest without removing bare breasted photos or becoming an image gallery. Just trying to find the middle ground here, not to appease both sides but to make for a better article.--I already forgot 18:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But you didn't remove that image, you removed the image of the baby breast feeding (or so I thought, I must have must read the popup.) However, I do think it adds to the article, informative captions are always nice and informative. (because images tend to draw the eye. sorry for the miss understanding (but I still say the image should stay)--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 07:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. But wouldn't Image:Breast and nipple changes during late pregnancy.jpg, which we have down in "Changes in size and shape", be more suitable for the pregnancy/breastfeeding section? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The image seems appropriate to the changes in size and shape section instead of breast feeding as not all breast change in that manner when lactating, however, the image asserts a medical fact but gives no source to where or how the image was attained. As such, without a before and after image, how is the reader to know that the breast has changed? I think the photo would be better used as a comparison for areola sizes than asserting medical fact as there is no way of knowing if this is a breast of a person born with a large areola or has changed from its original state due to pregnancy. --I already forgot 19:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you feel this is an issue you should go look for a medical site that supports the fact; and it is a fact that breasts change during pregnancy.--<span style="color:red; font-family:Old English Text MT, Papyrus;">Honeymane <span style="font-family:KlingonTNG, QuigleyWiggly;">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 06:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I don’t completely understand the response. Are you suggesting that I'm disputing the fact that breast change during pregnancy? Also, what does a medical site have to do with the photo in question? Are you suggesting I pull photos from a medical site for wikipedia (which would be a copyvio)? If you are suggesting that I use a medical site instead of improving this article by listing sources and better illustrating with images, well, I highly doubt you would make such a suggestion so it must be a misunderstanding. If you could explain in better detail I would appreciate it.--I already forgot 15:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Plastic surgery - propriety of edits
I have put back the references to studies highlighting the difficulty post-operative women have in breastfeeding removed by Droliver. The link between breastfeeding and subsequent child development is sufficiently important for this issue to be highlighted. As medical practitoners, responsible plastic surgeons will welcome the info being referenced. They would agree that any woman planning to have children someday should think long and hard before opting for elective breast surgery. (Pworms 17:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC))


 * I agree that the effect of breast surgery on breastfeeding capability is relevant and should be included. Embryoglio 09:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice that Droliver has reverted the edits regarding breast surgery and lactation have again been deleted. When you do so, would you care to explain what motivates you? Your silence implies that you are merely doing this to ensure more young women opt for elective surgery, thus boosting the market in which you operate. Surely, you would agree that such crass commercialism has no place here and must thus have higher motives. I'd be grateful if you would share them.


 * Sorry for the delay. I'm confused by your insinuation. Breast feeding is surely an issue, most notably in the context of talking about breast reduction/lift procedures. However, the presentation as it stood was actually not an accurate picture about what we do in fact know about the effect of those procedures on breast feeding. I've added a quartet of refs specific to this. In summary the % of those able to breast feed after reduction closely mimics the nonoperated controls. There are some techniques that may or may not be less likely to affect this, but that's beyond the scope of a one sentence mention of this. The % who'd be expected to have issues after procedures like biopsy or augmentation would be most closely related to how much the subareolar ducts are disrupted. The risk in most instances is negligible even though I would include it in informed consent in the laundry list of things that can result.Droliver 05:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Archive
I've created an archive, if I've accidentlly removed a still active discussion, please restore it. (I did this under an IP address because I wasn't logged in) --<span style="color:red; font-family:Old English Text MT, Papyrus;">Honeymane <span style="font-family:KlingonTNG, New Times Roman;">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This is just a excuse to get porn past internet filters
We do not need these pictures on Wikipedia they should all be taken off. Anyone can access these because Wikipedia is not blocked by internet filters because it was not made to be a porn site. We seriously should take these pictures down. It is in no way necessary to have these for anyone but the perverts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Douglas Bradford Oliver (talk • contribs).
 * It's not "porn", and I've reinstated the legitimate external link that you just removed. -- Jim Douglas <sup style="color:green;">(talk) <sub style="color:gray;">(contribs)  17:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Define porn. Images of the topic might help people not familiar with the topic. -- Ec5618 17:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is nothing in comparison with this one (from this article) ;-). 193.219.28.146 18:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. This article does not have images of sexual intercourse, anal sex, oral sex, or ejaculations. It does not have putrid pictures of sagging granny breasts or naked obese women. It does not even have pictures of vaginas. Visual depiction is necessary in order to be thoroughly informative. Sometimes the value of informativeness and the value of decency must be weighed against eachother, but in this article there is only little compromise in decency (such as the ptosis picture). If you are not mature enough to handle that, then you may choose to discontinue reading wikipedia articles, rather than calling us perverts. Embryoglio 12:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Turbo Ronin 20:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Oh come on. Kids are learning about this stuff in school by 7th grade. Only someone with a perverted mind such as yourself would be offended by anatomical pictures.

Addition of unwanted image
The addition of another image by user:Nemeton is disruptive. Three other editors have clearly said that the image is not desired in the article. I am taking the opportunity to explain why to you at this time.


 * First, the lede image is important in any article, and the addition of the other image conflicts with this lede image. The two images together, IMO are distracting, and reduce the quality of the article.  Perhaps a different lede image could be chosen, if these two images for sme reasons needed to be in the article together.
 * Second, according the the guidelines underway, adding additional images that do not add additional information is not desirable.
 * Third, if you wish to make a comparison of the same breasts, during and after pregnancy, that would be interesting, but the lede is the wrong place for that. Are the pictures (prgnant/not pregnant) of the same woman?  Even if so, because the orientation of the pictures is different, it isn't really very useful.  If they are of a different woman, well, we already have many other pictures in the article of non-pregnant women's breasts, another does not seem to information to the article.

Your manner of adding an image into the article without discussing it first, especially as a lede image, and then reverting three other editors seems more trollish and disruptive than complementary to the editing process. Please desist. Atom 05:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Persistent blanking vandalism by User:I already forgot
Said user has twice blanked the image



which contrasts with the previous image in the shapes that it demonstrates.

He/she even posted the following message to my talk page, which makes incivil accusations of making false accusations of vandalism:


 * Breast Please do not make accusations of vandalism when requesting that you gain consensus to add images to the article. There has been much debate over images added to the article so discussing the inclusion of new images with other fellow wikipdians before inclusion should be performed to avoid edit wars.--I already forgot 23:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

-Yet the person that initiated an edit war was him/herself, such that the above statement is incoherent.

Consensus does not apply to persistent blanking vandalism either. Furthermore, discussion is used to remove additions, not to make additions. So, if there are no objections to including informative images in this article by anyone other than User:I already forgot or other users that have a clear pro-censorship bias, then I will continue to revert User:I already forgot's blanking vandalism.

Embryoglio 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what dispute you have with I already forgot or any other user, but the image you have here needs to be discussed before we add it to the article. If you read the history, as you probably are aware, that there are a number of editors who participate in this article, and are sensitive to any changes of images for any reason. Your addition of this image, which looks very interesting, should be discussed before it is added so that the editors can gain consensus as to how this interesting image could increase the quality of the article. If images of breasts were just added continuously we would have an article that was a collection of images of womens breasts. That is not our goal. If you could explain how you perceive that this image will add to the quality of the article by supporting a currently existing section that has no image, or by adding additional information to the article, that would be nice.

My opinion is that although the image is visually interesting, it doesn't seem to add any intrinsic information not already in the article. If we allow addition of an image based purely on it's uniqueness, we will become a collection of images, as nearly every womens breats are unique. As interesting as it may seem to have an article that was a collection of every woman's breasts, I am not sure that in practice it would be as intereting or valuable as it sounds. I am open to the possibility that my opinion is wrong, and there is something about the image (other than it being unique and different than the other images) that I am missing. Atom 23:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Atomaton, my post clearly states "if there are no objections to including informative images in this article by anyone other than User:I already forgot or other users that have a clear pro-censorship bias "

I was referring primarily to you, and possibly also Jance.

Furthermore, your statements make no sense at all. You imply that this is just a random image, yet it clearly demonstrates a general breast type, as described in the caption. You state that the image gives no information, yet it gives no less information than any other image in the article. You state that the image is merely unique and interesting, yet it demonstrates a prime example of a general breast type, which simultaneously demonstrates three different traits in one picture (which conveniently contrast with the 3 opposite traits in the ptosis picture) so as to demonstrate a wide diversity of breast types with minimal photos. In conclusion, you make multiple arguments that are completely inapplicable to the image in question, as if you were arguing against a very different image.

Also, you and User:I already forgot know full well that you are the only 2 'regulars' that edit this article, so acheiving consensus is not possible, because not enough people will even read this. Therefore a request for consensus is ridiculous and is clearly intended to delay the inclusion of this image indefinately.

Embryoglio 00:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for you input. The guideline that I am applying is one we have been working on at the WikiProject Sexology and sexuality called WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines.

Additional images should add additional information:

Some articles have an abundance of images, more than really is needed to make the point. Public nudity might be one of these, where Naturism seems about right. Anytime a new image is proposed to be added, or is added without discussion, we can put it on the talk page, and begin a discussion about adding it. The main focus should be whether the new proposed image adds quality to the article, and is a better choice than alternatives to illustrate the given point.

The best way to gain consensus on this article would be to present the topic on the talk pages, discuss how the image will be used and the merits of the image, and see what kind of response you get from others. You approach has been somewhat different, in that you threw the image in there without prior discussion, and then attacked the first person who dared to revert your change.

As I said previously, we are not attempting to collect womens breast images that represent every characteristic. The fact that the image that you bring forward has three interesting characteristics is not a sufficient reason for inclusion in the article. I asked before if you could explain how this image is significant, what additional information of value it would bring to the article, or what image you think it would replace. Your response was combatative, rather than assuming good faith of the other editors.

I've tried to patiently explain that you need to get a consensus, as many people edit this article.

Thanks, Atom 02:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You are making nearly the exact same statements that I already responded to; and are again attempting to falsely portray the image by acting as if you are arguing against a completely different image.

Now you falsely portray 3 traits of breast diversity in a single image, appropriately in the section 'shape in support' (it doesn't get any more relevant than that) as not being a informative.

I am quite familiar with the policy AGF, and I know that it no longer applies when an edittor has shown clear bad faith, as you have. It is also a violation of the AGF policy to make false accusations of violating AGF, which you have now done.

As you can clearly see, I have already shifted from reverting to discussion before you have made your last response. My response that you have responded to is itself proof of that. Anyway, consensus has already formed in favor of including the images, particularly the new one that I added. It is also rather uncivil of you to accuse me of being arbitrarily combattive, and of being a person that tries peoples' patience, not to mention your other false accusations against me on this talk page and on the admin's noticeboard. I have been rather patient with your deceptive behaviors, interacting with you with great civility and soft wording. So, I request that you cease such behavior.

Thanks, Embryoglio 05:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Censorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=next&oldid=94188978 The user who I already forgot has shown a clear pattern of ongoing removal of breast images. Go through the history section and check for your self. The edit warrring has removed pictures without consensus which is a HUGE VIOLATION of policy. Before removing images consensus must be reached. In order to maintain Wikipedian policy we must put back the images that were LOST due to EDIT WAR! --MotherAmy 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I’ve made it clear that my intention was to improve a top 100 viewed article and removing the redundant images was one step in that direction. Like I said before, I smell trolls and sock puppets as there has been no clear rational or discussion from some of the editors here with low edit counts and the ones with high edit counts and clear discussion are being accused of censorship and other nonsense. I've made my intentions clear, and short of taking a picture of my penis and adding the images of myself hanging out with gg allen and El Duce, I have tried to prove that I'm anti censorship but the accusations continue. This is a clear case of trolling of an article that has been successful in duping other editors who have protected the article from real censors. --I already forgot 01:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You have never ever gained consensus to REMOVE so many images. Gain consensus first before you continue your EDIT WAR. Please explain why you think you are God and can decide what images can be removed. You removed so many images without discussion. Please stop. --MotherAmy 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I must confess, I can not see how a fairly poor drawing of breasts is better then the real thing.--<span style="color:red; font-family:Old English Text MT, Papyrus;">Honeymane <span style="font-family:KlingonTNG, QuigleyWiggly;">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing images (personal attack removed) 75.69.207.170 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree that User:I already forgot, as well as User:Atomaton have shown a clear pattern of persistent blanking vandalism on this article. Forgot has even made a gross personal attack by calling MotherAmy a troll, and by generally calling one's enemies trolls and sockpupprts. Forgot has even made uncivil false accusations on my talk page.

This is one of the top 100 most-viewed articles? For the record, I have made a successful request for semi-protection on this article. That will protect it from the IP vandals, but unfortunately it does not protect from vandalism by User:I already forgot or User:Atomaton, who are classified as established users. Well, at least I solved part of the problem. Forgot- MotherAmy's inclusions are sometimes unnecessary or in the wrong section, but calling her, and your enemies in general, 'trolls' and/or 'sockpuppets' is an entirely inappropriate and baseless personal attack, which is clearly intended to compensate for your own and Atomaton's lack of intrinsic logical support for your position. Forgot has also deleted the comment by 75.69.207.170, which I restored.

There is a clear consensus between MotherAmy, Embryoglio (myself), Honeymane, and 75.69.207.170 for the inclusion of the images that you have deleted. I am actually rather surprised that so many people even noticed this section of the talk page, and so quickly too. So, Forgot, if you and/or Automaton continue to delete images, particularly "Image:Breast_shape_type-_lengthwise_growth_and_angled_end.jpg|thumb|right|Breasts with a high length-to-base ratio, angled ends, and a straight upper part", then you will be in violation of consensus and WP:OWN.

Embryoglio 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Beg pardon, but "consensus between five people", one of whom started editing less than a week ago, two of whom have edited no other article than this; and one of whom (User:75.69.207.170) has made nothing but vandalistic edits such as "Selfish cunts do not deserve respect" and "Chumba Wumba" is hardly anything matching what's laid out in Consensus. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the anon's input carries somewhat less weight, but there is clearly a consensus. If you do not like the result, then you may choose to simply voice your opposition to it, rather than trying to skirt consensus by invalidating your opponent's input. Embryoglio 05:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Somewhat less weight"? We give vandals zero weight around here. Get some established users to support your position and perhaps you'll have a leg to stand on. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, then you do not give any weight to the input of Forgot or Atomaton either, though I think that persistent vandals should be given less weight than random vandals. As for your second sentence, I have already replied to it in my last reply, as you are basically repeating yourself, though all of us except for the anon ARE established. Embryoglio 06:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? You made your first edit five days ago. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If we can not discuss this like rastional people, there is no point to do so. Generally, it is perfered that people discuss reasons why and such. I am established, having been editting from sept.


 * I support Embryoglio's postion because I feel that there was no consensus to begin with, and, because of the subject matter, I feel such should be met before making major changes to this article, such as moving images around, or deleteing them. There are claims of attempting to improve the article, but so far I have not seen such. Removing the lead image, was IMO, a stupid move. If you really wanted to convence me that such removals of images was needed, you would not have replaced it with such a stupid and poorly drawn image.--<span style="color:red; font-family:Old English Text MT, Papyrus;">Honeymane <span style="font-family:KlingonTNG, QuigleyWiggly;">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 23:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We have begun a process to gain consensus, whether we had it or not is no longer relevant. No one has removed the lede image, at any time, to my knowledge. It's the same one that has been there for several months, at least. Please join the discussion, see below. The "poorly drawn" image you refer to is the one that Embryoglio added, I believe. Atom 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Atomaton, do not attempt to fool Honeymane into thinking that the image that I added was the breast painting that appears later in the article. That lie is grossly disruptive. Do not think that you can save yourself from accountability for your lies by feigning civility. Eventually people will realize, as I have, that you put on a facade of civility so as to make you lies more convincing. Embryoglio 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your persisting incivility, on the other hand, makes your arguments less convincing (not to mention your constant accusations). —xyzzyn 06:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Your persisting incivility, on the other hand, makes your arguments less convincing (not to mention your constant accusations). "

-Xyzzy, that false accusation of me is a violation of the policy against lies, which are classified as a serious breach of civility. Also, any attempt to characterize a user badly in order to discredit their arguments regardless of their content is a personal attack. Furthermore, do not think that a lie will gain more weight if it is repeated by multiple people that are attempting to own this article, in violation of WP:OWN. Ultimately, doing so will only reveal your own deceptiveness. Embryoglio 07:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear. Now you’ve gone and foiled my nefarious plan to…
 * No, wait. The only reason I’m watching this is for reverting vandalism. My bad. These conspiracy things are entertaining, though, aren’t they? So, my own deceptiveness… do go on, please. —xyzzyn 07:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

-If that highly derogatory and deceptive reply is not uncivil, then nothing is. Embryoglio 07:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring, disruption and 3RR
I'm asking various editors, particularly User:Embryoglio to stop edit warring and discuss the issues on the talk page. I find the type of language and method being used to be non productive and disruptive.

Also, I added a warning on User:Embryoglio for violation of the three revert rule. Please stop reverting other editors work. Please see Civility and Etiquette.

Regards, Atom 02:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is my right to delete false accusations. However, I have left your above convincingly-worded false accusations alone because they reflect badly on you, not me. By the way 'edittors work' means additions, not deletions. Embryoglio 05:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Currently, there are eight images in this article. Here's the thing about images - they take a long time for a person with an old or feeble computer to load. That means that this article might not get read at all by a lot of people. That's just one of the issues about having 8 images in an article. I like all the images, but something's got to give here. Nina Odell 03:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Several images have recently been added to the article, without discussion or comment. We try to keep the article down to useful and illustrative images, but several redundant images have been added. We are in the middle of trying to get a few editors to explain why their images are needed in the article also. The guideline at WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines are intended to try and avoid too many images, redundant images, and the like. But, one cannot enforce the guidelines, and the current editors adding images have chosen to not regard the guidelines. Atom 03:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The images were restored with comment here. I explained to Atom my reasons too. The images were in the article for a long time. They were removed without consensus which is a violation of policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breast&diff=prev&oldid=99217385 --MotherAmy 03:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nina, all except the worst browsers have the option to not automatically load images. Also, the text of a page typically loads before images do, such that non-loading of images does not effect the transfer of the page itself. I also have a slow connection, and even I do not notice a problem, so perhaps your connection is exceptionally slow. I hope that this information has been helpful to you.

By the way, I support the guidelines against redundant images, but unfortunately, the user Atomaton who has just recently replied to you, does not, but is only using said policy as a cover to delete some of the most informative images. I'm sorry that he/she would try to use you like that, and I hope that that does not happen to you again on wikipedia.

Embryoglio 03:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Atomaton and User:I already forgot resort to making false accusations of their opponents
In the above talk section 'Edit warring, disruption and 3RR', the user Atomaton has resorted to making false accusations of me, most obvious of which is a 3RR violation. Making a 3RR violation requires 4 reverts, and I have only made one (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast&action=history). False accusations don't get much more blatant than that. He/she has even put the false accusation on my talk page, so as to make it more convincing to third parties (yes, I am aware of that trick). He/she and User:I already forgot have even made a gang attack against me at Personal attack intervention noticeboard, in which they made false accusations against me.

I suspected that this would happen, because I am a very civil, unbiased, and convincing (in talk page discussions) opponent of theirs. Atomaton and Forgot therefore perceive me as the greatest threat of all of their opponents on this issue, and have therefore targetted me for destruction. Such behavior is utterly unacceptable on wikipedia, and if MotherAmy or some other user will support me, I will create user RfCs on those 2 users.

Embryoglio 04:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI - I was in the middle of posting almost precsiely the same message to you about 3RR and WP:CIVIL - he just managed to get his posted a minute ahead of me. -- Armadillo From Hell GateBridge 05:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Armadillo, thank you for admitting that you also would have made such false accusations. Embryoglio 05:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm warning you not to keep up this style of dialogue, it's disruptive and violates WP:CIVIL. And I note you arrived here a few days ago, and have targeted this article only, with obvious prior experience in editing here. -- Armadillo From Hell GateBridge 06:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Armadillo, I'm warning you to cease your behavior of threatening people and projecting your own policy violations onto them, just because they point out facts that you don't want to be exposed. Such revenge threats are a gross violation of WP:CIVIL, and you know it. Embryoglio 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to previous state
I discussed the issues that Motheramy has been concerned about in some detail in my talk page, and I see that it is a seperate issue from the issues that Embryoglio states. I have attempted discourse withEmbryoglio, but he does not seem interested in compromise, or working with others at this point.

MotherAmy's complaint is that a number of images were removed since late December with no discussion. Images that had been in the article for some time, apparently with consensus. In review of her complaint, I see that there is a good basis and foundation for that. As a method of working through the problems, I would like to deal with MotherAmy's issue first, and return the images to a state in late December. This is a compromise, and may, or may not resolve the issue with her, but it is a starting point for discussion about that from a point in time when everyone more or less had consensus. We can at that point discuss whether additional images need to be in the article, or if images in the article should be replaced, removed, or whatever. I would like to discuss and come to consensus before we make changes however. If we could leave the images and article alone until we come to that consensus, I would appreciate it. I am not adding or removing any images, but going back to this point in time here from December 26th.

The issue with Embryoglio is much different, one of him trying to add an additional image, against consensus, and then incivility with anyone who disagrees with him. After we work through the issue with Motheramy, to her satisfaction hopefully, we can attempt civil discourse with Embryoglio to determine the value of his image relating to the quality of the article. Atom 13:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The images as I just changed should be the same as mentioned above, on December 26th. Please do not add or remove images until after we work through any issues with MotherAmy. Atom 13:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally think the third image should be included. It illustrates the "opposite" of the second image, so it has very good context. .V. (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point, there is one other image that user:MotherAmy says previously existed. We want to work this out before discussing any new images.  Is the image you are talking about a new image?  Or a previous one?  Atom 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The image that MotherAmy and I are discussing is the Image:Breast 6 months pregnant.jpg which I find in the on November 3rd, November 11th, November 18th, November 25th, December 1st, December 8th, December 16th, and being removed on December 19th by user:RexImperium with the edit summary "we only need one photo of pregnancy-stage breasts." There appears to be no dicussion of the removal in the talk pages regarding that.

Based on that, I'm going to return the image to the article, so that we can move onward with discussing the existing content and images, so that we don't keep Embryoglio waiting too long.

Atom 22:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"I have attempted discourse withEmbryoglio, but he does not seem interested in compromise, or working with others at this point." "incivility with anyone who disagrees with him."

-Those are lies, which can be clearly disproven by viewing my statements. Lies are a serious violation of the civility policy. Atomaton, just because you oppose the inclusion of the new image is no excuse to uncivilly make up lies about your opponent.

As for the 6 months pregnant image, I am in full agreement with RexImperium that that image is redundant and comparatively uninformative, and should therefore be deleted.

By the way, MotherAmy once restored the new image that I added after it was deleted, but you neglected to mention that.

Embryoglio 05:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC for additional input/ inclusion or exclusion of informative images
Should this article include an informative image of a contrasting breast shape type (which is displayed below, complete with caption), or should it be forbidden from the article? It is the second image below that has been deleted by the opponents; the first image (which is already included in the article) is shown below for the sake of demonstrating the contrast in shape type. The images are from the top of the section 'shape and support'.

Currently, there is already consensus in favor of inclusion (shown in the section 'censorship' on this talk page), but the opponents have resorted to making underhanded false accusations of policy violation of the inclusion proponents. Thus I will see if an RfC will lead to an even more overwhelming consensus, or not. Embryoglio



Of course this should be included. To not include it would be an unnecessary censoring of Wikipedia. .V. 06:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

For RfC respondents, please see above for discussion of a compromise under way. There are two issues. The first are images that have been part of the page for some time, but were removed without consensus recently. As a compromise we have returned those images, and are now discussing the issue of how many images the article may need, and how many is too many.

The second issue is the addition of an image by Embryoglio. Generally we have followed the guidelines at WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines, and want any additional images to add quality to the article. There has been no issue of censorship, but only of editorial oversight of the quality of the article. The image might possibly be a valuable addition to the article, but several editors have been unable to have civil discourse with Embryoglio. This is indicated in the talk pages above, you can come to your own conclusions about that.

In this most recent action Motheramy and I have had substantive discussions on my talk page, and have agreed to work the issue out with other editors, and find consensus. A recent re-addition of images that she has indicated is the start of that discussion. We have agreed to not add or remove images to the article until a general consensus among all editors can be discussed and reached. After that time, we can attempt to discuss the merits of the image that Embryoglio has provided. Atom 13:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we have all of the images that MotherAmy wanted. We can discuss the status of the images now, whether to add or remove any, etc. See below. Atom 03:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"several editors have been unable to have civil discourse with Embryoglio. This is indicated in the talk pages above, you can come to your own conclusions about that."

-Yet another uncivil lie from User:Atomaton. I encourage all third parties to read my statements, and to pay attention closely, rather than be biased by Atomaton's display of overconfidence as he/she intends. It has been Atomaton's tactic to use a facade of civility and constructiveness to make his/her highly uncivil deceptions more convincing. Don't take my word for it; just read his statements and mine. I have already described the relevance and informativeness of the image (which is obvious, though). Rather than accept it, Atomaton has merely repeated his/her same oppositional statements about the image that are clearly not true of the image. I pointed that out, and now Atomaton is on an attack campaign against me because he doesn't like the fact that I exposed such deceptions. Apparently he/she is doing this out of spite because I had originally restored the image without consulting him first, such that he/she is making a gross violation of WP:POINT. Atomaton has even vandalized the entry of this dispute on the RfC page, and made lies on the talk page thereof, so as to direct people away from the dispute about the image that I added to people that don't already know of said dispute.

As for resolving the dispute of whether or not to include the image that I added, a supermajority has already been reached in favor of inclusion, a fact which Atomaton is now attempting to distract from. A 100 percent consensus in this case is impossible because I have already presented my response to Atomaton's opposition, and Atomaton did not change his/her mind, but just repeated the same statements. The supermajority consists of Embryoglio (myself), MotherAmy (who restored the image before it was deleted again), Honeymane, and .V..

Embryoglio 07:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To RFC participants: We have a page for discussion of changes to the breast article that lists all of the available images we could find that might be related. Included in that list is the image that the user above has mentioned. So far no one has recommended it for inclusion, although it is in the list of images that are under consideration, not on the list of images that are not under consideration. So, as for a "supermajority" for the image. Well, as you can see on these pages, it hasn't even been discussed for inclusion, and certainly the three users mentioned haven't ever voted on any of the images. So, it would be hard to imagine how a consensus could have been reached when it hasn't even been discussed yet. And even so, three users out of the many that edit these pages would hardly be a majority, much less a consensus. The discussion that is currently underway is at Talk:Breast/sandbox Atom 14:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Image discussion
Please join a discussion of the images to be used for this article. (Click here to participate)

Atom 02:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed Image:EroticBreastsCake.jpg from consideration, I don't think it would be good for the article. Also, I think we should remove Image:Bildhuggarkonst, Fången moder, af Sinding, Nordisk familjebok.png as well, as I don't see how it would be useful.

This image Image:Cassatt Mary Maternite 1890.jpg could be a good addition though.

Has anyone else look at these yet?

Are there images in the current article that are redundant, or don't offer vsalue to the article?

Atom 03:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this image Image:Cassatt Mary Maternite 1890.jpg is a good addition. Go ahead and add it in as a test run now to see if it works for this article. Problably somewhere towards the bottom right half area would be a nice placement for this image. --MotherAmy 03:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at all of the other images too. We can't add them all. See the link above to look at the list. We want to get input from a variety of other people as well. Atom 04:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand your logic. What I mean though is that there are alot of other editors who need to come to consensus with adding any images, this or any other. Also, some of them may say that there are already too many images, or that this new image should replace one of the others, etc. See the guidelines that are part of that discussion. We will need to wait some time to get a broad range of people who participate and come to consensus. Atom 04:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I already looked at the other images. We don't need to wait for this one. It is not a naked picture. It is just a drawing. So, please, I recommend to go ahead and add it in now. Its a high quality image. Thanks. --MotherAmy 04:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please understand that it’s not whether the image is a nude photo or not but whether the image is appropriate for illustration purposes (and no, not appropriate in the sense of whether small children should see the image). Obviously the article already has an image of a child breast feeding so we end up back to the original argument of redundancy. Again, nude images are not a problem. The problem is created when the article becomes a mishmash of images without a direct relation to the article section, contains images to show changes without an appropriate comparison (before and after images) to illustrate changes, has multiple images that are basically duplicates but are added because everyone wants their picture up, or asserts to medical fact(s) without providing sources. Now if you are relating my one single famous edit of changing the top picture to the painting as being done because it’s a nude photo, that is not the case. When I came across the image for the first time, it looked like a big snapshot of a person leaning back pulling her shirt up in the typical mardi gras fashion. To a person who spends most of their wiki and other admin time fighting vandals, this raises a flag of suspicion so I gave a quick look at the talk page and noticed discussion about the images and then gave it a shot at a neutral layout that still contained nude photos. That’s it. So if we can put the nude photo issue and censorship talk behind us, I'm willing to work with you to help improve the editing but you must assume good faith before calling editors pro-censorship.--I already forgot 04:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this discussion. We all agree that we are not going to censor images. Images in the article should primarily be about the breast. I consider breast feeding to be a different, but connected and related topic that can be here. Pictures of other parts of the anatomy do not belong here. Second, our goal is a high quality article. We have a number of sections with text that explains or informs about the breast. Having a strong lede image, and an image for many, or maybe even ALL of the sections would be great. The images should support the section it is with to add to the section, give it depth, help the reader identify quickly what is said. Diagrams can help do that also. In general, we do not need more than one image per section. In the rare case (one that most of us editors would agree with) more than one may be appropriate if it brings something unique and special. What we have all agreed is that we don't want to be just a collection of images. The process of us discussing the images, and what goes where, and which images are best for the quality of the article and then coming to consensus is what we are working on now. This type of selection of images is not censorship, but editorial consideration, and the core of what editors do. We all need to assume good faith at this point and move forward. Atom 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Same Goes For You
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atomaton&diff=prev&oldid=99503176 I noticed your rant talk on another user's talk page. Seems like you are not assuming good faith with me. I recommend you practice what you preach. Now, let us talk about the new non-nude image. --MotherAmy 04:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What was wrong with that message to Atomation and what does it have to do with you? It was a valid question as I thought I may have come across wrong but was unsure where it was done. Some users are unaware of what trolling refers to and often assume the user is calling someone a green short person with strange growths when they are actually referencing a type of editor. Anyway, I made a good faith attempt and you return it with accusations. You have made no real contribution and are intent on making something out of nothing so I'm going to keep on assuming you are trolling. XOXO and a goodbye.--I already forgot 05:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh if you are referring to the "don’t feed the trolls" image, that was for the other editor who was baiting Atomation on other pages... But so it goes. --I already forgot 05:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to move on. I think we are on track with working together to work out images together. A consensus that may be a compromise, but that we can all agree on. That's what we will work toward, anyway. Everything is water under the bridge, let's discuss the different sections and the images that work to make the article high quality. Atom 14:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Message
Note to everyone. Do not remove or rearrange any image without gaining consensus or it is vandalism. --MotherAmy 04:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Voting Area For New Image
Please vote below. Voting will last for at least seven days. We must have at least a total of ten votes. Image:Cassatt Mary Maternite 1890.jpg


 * Add I vote to add new image. A high quality tasteful picture. --MotherAmy 04:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's better suited for an article on breasts and health.--<span style="color:red; font-family:Old English Text MT, Papyrus;">Honeymane <span style="font-family:KlingonTNG, QuigleyWiggly;">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 06:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don’t add. We have one of those already. —xyzzyn 09:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen, we are discussing all of the images in the article, what ones could be improved, what ones are redundant, which ones could be added, etc. Go to the area at the bottom of the galleries at Talk:Breast/sandbox and there is a layout of the individual sections and discussion of images in the context of each section. See my comments(opinion) about this, and other images at that link, towards the bottom.

Our goal is to reach a consensus. Voting does not reach consensus, it is only a method for taking a straw poll of whether consensus exists or not. After we talk about the many aspects of the images and debate various aspects we will all come to an agreement on what we are okay with. Please contribute at Talk:Breast/sandbox. Atom 13:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why only human breasts?
Why does this article only focus on human breasts? (89.240.74.127 09:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC))


 * Because nobody has written about the other kinds. If you have ideas, be bold and add something. If you have a lot to write on the matter, consider putting it in a separate article and linking from here. (You may need an account to create articles, or you can try the drawing board.) —xyzzyn 09:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see broader coverage, including discussing the male breast, and other animals than humans. Atom 15:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox
I have moved the sandbox, originally located at Breast/sandbox, to Talk:Breast/sandbox. Under all circumstances, sandboxes like this should be kept out of the article namespace because it isn't an article; most are located in a subpage of the article's talk, as this one now is. I've tagged the redirect currently at Breast/sandbox for deletion, and I'm leaving this message to make sure there is minimal confusion, and no mistaken recreation - the new location is in the deletion summary, as I requested, anyways. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the assistance. I hadn't realized I had done that. Of course, you are correct. I appreciate it. Atom 14:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
I was considering asking for a peer review in order to get comments to help improve the article. I see that we have a peer review from some time back archived. Those comments still seem to apply, and so we should fix those issues first, and then ask for a peer review.

Here are the comments:

"I think this article needs to be thoroughly reviewed and vetted to ensure the quality of the information presented there. --evrik 02:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)"

"Convert the list in 'Disorders of the breasts' to prose. CG 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)"

I'll start looking at the citations, and the places missing them. If anyone wants to work on the disorders of the breast, that would be great. Atom 15:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of breasts
How are you suppose to pronounce "breasts", is the s silent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siodine (talk • contribs) 15:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Neither s is silent. The plural form can be difficult for people with speech impediments or to whom English was not a first language.  Cheers, Kasreyn 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Busting Out documentary
I added a link in the "External links" section to a documentary about breasts called Busting Out. This was reverted by ArmadilloFromHell, but I think it's a perfectly valid resource (although naturally you would have to track down the documentary in order to see it). It's the winner of numerous rewards (see the web site for details), and airs occasionally on Showtime (must be in the US to see this page. Any thoughts? Ciotog 20:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)